Talk:2005 French riots/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Switzerland "rioting"

I'm a bit surprised to see that there is mention of an SINGLE car burnt in the small swiss town of Martigny as an example of "suburban riot" in Switzerland - police investigation showed that this incidident had nothing to do whith the things that happend in France or other country with "classic" riot activity like the USA. So i suggest to delete this part of the article. DarioPersiano 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Human Activity? Civil Unrest? Urban/Suburban Violence? Or Rioting?

I'm going on the record as objecting to the use of the terms "urban violence", "suburban violence" and "civil unrest" because those terms are too general. "Urban (or suburban) violence" includes muggings, home invasions, gang related killings and drug deals gone bad in addition to rioting. "Civil Unrest" is not correct because it is even MORE general. Sure, it might include rioting, but it includes sit-ins, peaceful demonstrations and letter-writing campaigns too! We want to be more SPECIFIC and PRECISE, not more general. I mean, if you want to be REALLY general, how about calling the article "Human Activity in Europe - 21st Century"?? LOL!

Rioting is a subset of urban violence which is characterized by things like the number of people involved in a given incident, public confrontations with authorities, etc. This is what makes "rioting" the correct term. capitalist 04:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

i think rioting best describes each individual circumstances(alot of them their are)and so would urban violence. But i believe not all the activity going on in france would end up in riots(as demonstrated in the timeline). So civil unrest would probably best describe the sitiation as a whole. I do believe peacefull protests have been going on, But by people opposing the riots. thus widening the scope of the articles title.--Whywhywhy 05:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

CALL IT IMMIGRATION

Indeed... let em all fuck themselves and their own countries up, dying there if necessary, unless they're strong enough to march into ours under a military banner. The majority of modern immigration is an insidious encroachment.

I just thought I'd add that I love the fact that these two broad-minded, fair individuals somehow forgot to add their names to their posts... Odd bloke 03:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What difference does a name make? I don't have an account here... and if you really want to profile me look at my IP address/addresses. Throwaway comment from yourself to be honest, you're no better than us. (preceding unsigned comment by 81.178.135.207 (talk · contribs))

I didn't read correctly--My mistake--David.

Normally I will not act as a sysop on this article since I have edited it and discussed the topic. However one of the few police duties into which I am willing to engage is enforcement of the No Personal Attacks policy. I therefore strongly suggest that the above edits be the last ones of the sort, else me or another admin will have to take measures to make it stop. Thank you. Rama 06:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk links Rama. I'll have my final say on Davids IPs talk page where it may go unread or unanswered, but at least it'll be in the right place.

Please take good care to kindly do so in a polite and civil manner. Also keep in mind that IPs can be dynamically attributed; thus your message might not even not reach the person for whom it is intended, but also reach someone else. Rama 07:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The dynamic IP point and the use of civil tone were both anticipated, but thanks again for your input here. 81.178.135.207 07:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

POV caption to the first picture

Domestic Muslim terrorists attack a military police vehicle on 9 November 2005. This caption is inexcusably POV. Does anyone else think "Youths participating in in the civil unrest attack a military police vehicle on 9 November 2005." is better? Rhesusman 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

yes or riots yes i agree either way--Whywhywhy 05:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That was more like vandalism than POV. Thanks for fixing it. --Kizor 08:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism

In the last few hours, User:Swollib, a known vandal -- see this for example -- has made edits to this page with the innocuous summary "fix minor typo": the same summary that he uses elsewhere for the alteration of facts. He has already been reported on WP:VIP and I hope will very soon be given a forced Wikibreak. I'm hunting up his other changes. Could somebody who knows more than I do about 2005 civil unrest in France take a close look at his every edit? Thanks. -- Hoary 06:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Among the edits coming from this user account is vandalism of a very insidious and difficult to solve sort. I have blocked this user account for 48 hours.

I am also puzzled to see such edits coming from this user account, which looks like the one of a legitimate contributor. Should these edits be the deeds of a third party (by guessing a password for instance), I would invite the real Swollib to contact me by mail, or to explain the problem on the IRC where he will find assistance. Rama 07:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Kärcher

"Sarkozy went there and declared he wanted to "clean out the city with a Kärcher" (nettoyer la cité au Kärcher)." This quote is meaningless to those of us who don't know what a "Kärcher" is; we can find out by clicking on the link, but I believe articles should be understandable without resorting to that. I've changed it once, but as it's been reverted I'm starting this discussion to see what the consensus is.—Jwanders 07:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Put in "pressure washer" in parenthesis into the quote. And leave in the link to Karcher, which needs some expansion. Klonimus 07:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jwanders, I understand your point, which makes lots of sense. On the other hand, it imght not be apparent to you that the word "karcher" will never have the same connotation again in French since the infamous words of Sarkozy and their repercussions; this "karcher" has now become the slogan of the rioters. Do you find Klonimus's idea a possible solution ? Rama 08:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, "Cité" doesn't translate as City, more a sort of district or in this case "Ghetto". ;) Dan Carkner 13:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

'Cité' translates directly to UK English as 'housing estate'. I guess that would make it 'project' in US english. District is incorrect. Ghetto won't do - I've lived in a cité in Paris which could not be classed as a ghetto. Jigsawpuzzleman 18:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Kärcher is the well-known brand name of a system of cleaning surfaces by super-high-pressure sand-blasting or water-blasting that very violently peels away the outer skin of encrusted dirt. I think that is what Sarkozy was talking about. ironinmohscale 20:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

1968 student riots

I've just changed the line "It's unexpected character has led many commentators to compare it to the events of May 1968" back to to "It is the most dramatic unrest experienced in France since the 1968 student revolt" because frankly the former sounded like gobbedlygook that should be in the "see also" section. If the unrest is the most dramatic one, why not say it? --Kizor

The unrest is not the most dramatic one since 1968. That's precisely the point. See my exageration comment above. The 1986 and 1995 massive strikes in France have led to more unrest and damage than the 2005 present urban riots. Now it is a question wether strikes and protests, even when they lead to confrontation with police and deaths, can qualify as urban unrest. But if they don't then 1968 does not qualify as urban unrest.

I've suppressed the reference to 1968. The 1968 events are something that foreigners know about France. This is great. However it is no reason to mention them here since the two events have very few common points. I've pointed to a comparion to LA riots. The riots in the USA in the 1960's might also qualify but I doubt it those ones had some political background. I do not know about Soweto, I think that given the apartheid context, they do not qualify. This reference has been deleted several times with no discussion so far here. Let's hope we can start it.

-- Panache (I thought my name appeared automatically)

Not the first case of National Rioting in France

The passage-"It is the first case of national scale urban riots in France" is innaccurate, I'm not sure if any of you guys remember the 1790's but there was a little thing called the French Revolution. I think that may have qualified as nation scale urban riots. I am going to delete the assertion- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 09:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My thanks. I left it in since I couldn't refute it myself, not knowing if the French Revolution was nationwide. --Kizor 09:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so that sounds a lot stupider in writing. --Kizor 09:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone has written it is the most dramatic since the los angeles riots. Considering that These riots are occuring throughout France and the LA riots were only one city I think this one is much more intense and even more dramatic considering it reflects a more global issue.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember watching the LA riots on television and remember them having a much more international response than these riots. Sure there's a bunch of us watching this on the internet, but where is the television coverage? Where are the sound bytes from world leaders? Perhaps I'm cut off from the world, but this certainly isn't getting much attention outside of the "OMG, when are the French going to surrender? *teehee*" responses from the more fanatic right-wing media types. Even more worldwide media sources (bbc, cnn, msnbc, al jazeera, kyodo, asahi)list this as a sidebar, secondary story. It is being treated with a yawn globally. Kyaa the Catlord 09:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Fox News didn't, but that isn't much of an argument. --Kizor 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The riots had to be going for six days or something before it even got much of a mention online in news. The Age (broadsheet newspaper) here in Australia email updates my girlfriend has been getting have (while these riots are happening) started to run a travel series of articles on France and why you should go there. I can't help but think the media either a) think we are much too stupid to care or b) they are too stupid to realise wtf they are doing Bihal 14:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it shows how american bias the networks are (bbc, cnn, msnbc, al jazeera, kyodo, asahi)like if it happens in america it has to be news. --Whywhywhy 09:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is the headline of BBC on their website for a few days now. ~~=~

Its given a headline, but if you go to www.bbc.co.uk, you get a Blair story on the main page, NOT France. Its treated better on their news page, it still isn't given top billing, imho. Kyaa the Catlord 10:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have written something that got altered in the way you mention. A revolution is something completely different from a urban riot aimed at police violence. If the comparison with Los ANgeles is valid because the root is the same : police perceived excesses on illegal activities prone discriminated minorities. The damage so far in all France is far less than in the sole city of LA, if you don't believe be check wikipedia. The number of dead is 1 to 50 and the damage in value are also 1 to 50. Also in France most of those rioting are teen agers under 18. See my exageration comment above. --panache

there is no need to invoke the French Revolution. The 1968 riots were more dramatic, and it is open to discussion whether the assorted strikes of the 1980s were, even if they were not actual riots. dab (ᛏ) 11:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

To whoever said that political unrest during a revolution is inherantly different than a riot: This is a silly statment when you look back at history it is easy to say but it is idiotic to say it is always somhow different since probably the mojority of revolutions begin with a riot started by a trivial matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Political does not belong in context / historical(moved to the bottem so people might read it)

and who evers messing with the layout everyone just got it looking sane.--Whywhywhy 00:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

historical is for things that happened before the riot.

Political is for Political commentaryis for thing that happend after the start of the riots including Political commentary on the history.

--Whywhywhy 00:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Also this context buisness is being framed like the whole event has finished and looks very untidy.

If anyone can do a one paragraph blurb for the social context it would be great so people can know what its about.... not five paragraph links with own subsection --Whywhywhy 01:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not? There are several things to be covered. --Kizor 10:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

cover them here

Main article: Social situation in the French suburbs

or

Main article: Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France

o yer and the political or else people will just try to fill it up again. or do we think a nothing at all rule should be inforced to get people edit the branch articles?--Whywhywhy 01:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Political belongs in Political: reason for revert war and if no one is going to discuss--Whywhywhy 10:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The "political" section is a "political response" section - and as the context happened before the riot it hardly belongs there. --Kizor 10:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

well then it it happend before the riots then its old news and can go into the article directly

Main article: Social situation in the French suburbs

.--Whywhywhy 10:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The NY Times report part is a proper blurb, and the Sarkozy comment doesn't belong in social situation since it's neither historical nor social, and it doesn't belong to the response section since it isn't one. --Kizor 10:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

its all political commentary not context....... commentary is a response just like i am resoponding to all this. Trust me my first language is english thus i understand the stupidity of the eng language it my only language--Whywhywhy 10:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

even if i dont type like it is if you dont know what political is then political--Whywhywhy 11:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok the reverted stuff is into the

Main article: Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France

cause i dont want to lose it

revert war context i mean political commentray

That article on civil unrest in France is astoundingly biased, and tosses about loaded terms such as "right wing" blithely. Nowhere does it acknowledge the problem of radical Islamic people, many of them living on welfare courtesy of the French people, but hating French culture itself.

Good morning. I meant to drop you a note after the first time, but, well, I guess I got distracted. You've apparently twice now removed the content of the "recent political context" section of the article. How come? It doesn't appear elsewhere and it's important - for instance, according to the talk page the "Kärcher" comment is widely used by the rioters. Additionally, it's the only place where we could fit the the very important note that the rioters are predominantly Muslim but "the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones". --Kizor 10:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

trying to politicians "context" is just plain wrong, i keep moving it to the political section but people keep moving it and i am sick of moving back up 2 and people keep leaving it in that section 2 so ima deleting it and it can go in the article. Ima happy with it being in the polictical section iv disucssed it in the discussion which nobody has bothered to read. although i admit the headings have changed slietly since the start of this.--Whywhywhy 10:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

(That was from my talk, I've gotten into the habit of pasting in what I'm replying to so people won't have to flip back and worth between two pages).

I admit that I couldn't make complete sense of that. But if you mean this, plenty of people must've read it, myself included, whether or not they had anything useful to say is another matter.

what you mentioned above is a political response.--Whywhywhy 10:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As the headers stand now, it can't be in the "response" section since the described events happened before the riots. Your complaint about the "recent political context" section, at the moment the "recent context" section, seems to be that it's too long. Well, there's several important points to be made, isn't there? --Kizor 10:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

my point is that it IS all policial see Political--Whywhywhy 10:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. It's also an important part of the riots' background. There's no section that all politics about this should go. --Kizor 10:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

look i want a blurb or something but not a heap of political commentray--Whywhywhy 10:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand your point a little better. But why? It's not political commentary if it's relevant - Rama mentioned in the talk page that "Kärcher" has become a slogan for the rioters, and the part about ethnicity and the like is surely important. Also, it doesn't seem like commentary to me, just reporting. --Kizor 10:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

as for the above ill read it again response soon.

well then it it happend before the riots then its old news and can go into the article directly

Main article: Social situation in the French suburbs

.--Whywhywhy 10:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

its all political commentary....... commentray is a response just like i am resoponding to all this. Trust me my first language is english thus i understand the stupidity of the language--Whywhywhy 10:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Mine, admittedly, is not. So okay then. But the social situation article is NOT about the situation in regards to the riots, but in general. The Kärcher comment would not belong there, and the NY times reference - made directly regarding the riots - does so even less. I have no idea what you mean about politics. There is no section where all politics should go, and something can be political and still quality as context, can't it?

And now I'm off to class. --Kizor 11:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

look by that reasoning everything would be context. create a realted insidents section at the bottem as for the page as for the NY article one min--Whywhywhy 11:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

the NY time is making a political commentary put it their--Whywhywhy 11:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

i hope you dont mind kizor--Whywhywhy 11:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

ok i have back down on the NY article i think my placement for this was wrong and so where my thoughts sorry --Whywhywhy 11:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh good; think nothing of it. I'm glad we came to an agreement... eventually. I'll likely submit the Kärcher comment to a larger audience, asking for more opinions on where it should belong. --Kizor 10:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No overtones?

The article says "the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones" but this appears to be but one POV. Among the buildings burned was a synagogue in Pierrefitte, NW of Paris. The Muslims in these areas are certainly unhappy about their employment opportunities and treatment by police etc., but they are also unhappy about the government's secular policies regarding head scarves, beards, and the building of mosques. These possible additional motivations are at least plausible enough for local Muslim leaders to strongly deny any religious motivations. Perhaps the article should instead say it is unclear whether there are any ideological or religious motivations? Wesley 18:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring forward conclusive evidence that it is the case. I have yet to hear about "unhappy about the government's secular policies regarding head scarves, beards, and the building of mosques". "Perhaps", "certainly", "possible" and "plausible" are not facts. Rama 20:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, listen to the soundtracks (when not censored well enough by the medias), you'll hear clearly "Allah akbar!" and "Sarko sale juif!" (Sarkozy is partly Jew). Is it a fact? But, no, sorry, I have no recording.

JTA Article

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=16010

Has some good context and background that could be useful for a couple of different parts of this article. Including a discussion of possible anti-semitism or lack thereoff. Klonimus 10:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

further development

It is too early to be sure, of course, but by all appearances, the 11th night was the peak of the riots, and while they will probably simmer on for a few days, we can begin to give a summarized overview of the events. I agree with the split of the article in its hot phase of development, but once things calm down, we can re-assess its organization. The good thing about WP not being a news source is that our articles don't stop to develop once the event is over, but they begin to solidify and mould into a valuable resource to learn about past events. There will be an "Aftermath" section, of course, that we cannot yet begin to write, but we can try to organize the material we have so far. For example, I am removing the "deaths" column from the table: It seems completely over the top to have an entire column to list one single fatality, it iplies the almost a cynical expectations that more and more people are going to die. If a dozen people are killed tonight, we can still add it again, but at the moment I think it has no justification. Also somebody appears to have filled the empty table cell with zeros. I do not think this is correct. These are numbers that we have not yet established, we do not know they are zero (or else cite a source) dab (ᛏ) 11:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this on my run today but never got around to doing anything. i was tied up with other matters. Theres going to be a a cornucopia POV's on the longer term effects 2 economic and all that gargon. I can see the POV pushers tending their fingures as i type :) and maybe how clean the air will be with no cars around :) . o that was just me tending my fingures sorry:).--Whywhywhy 12:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

list of riots

Still on the same subject (2005 are somewhere between 1968 France and 1992 LA) I think the list of riots here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots is misleading. THere are genuine revolutions next to minor riots, and race based riots next to sport based or social upheaval etc.

• yer well take it up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_riots :) --Whywhywhy 11:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the wikipedia needs to be clearer. I'm only pointing this out here because it impacts the description of the present phenomenon. I don't think this will be correct until we have something stating that it's not a politically organised riot or upheaval. But it's not either a looting mass disorder event with people using the situaiton to make some profit. It's something in between. It is noteworthy that close to 100% of the buidings burned are public buildings and close to 100% of the attacks are on public officials (it s not completely true of course as the one dead case so far proves, same for the handicapped person burned alive).

Comparison to 1968 and/or to Los Angeles Riots

The Associated Press reported on 9 November that "Historians say the rioting is more widespread and more destructive in material terms than the riots of May 1968. That unrest, started by students, led to a general strike by 10 million workers. President Gen. Charles De Gaulle dissolved parliament and fired Premier Georges Pompidou." [1] 4.250.132.1 12:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know to whom the AP has been talking. This simply is a crazy statement How can you have events during several weeks, a general strike by 10 millions workers during several days less widespread and less destructive than 12 nights (nothing during the day) of rebellion by a few thousands teenagers ? How can a few thousands be more widespread than a few millions ? Back in 1968 the streets of Paris were full of barricades. The cost in lost production of a general strike amount to billions ... And there were countless deaths and injured during the confrontation. In 1968 it is probable that less buildings and cars ( there were less cars any way) were burned. But again 1968 was not about burning buildings. It was not suicidal acts by a despaired minority, but acts of hope by the "enlightened" minority. So, 1 why compare to 1968. 2 Why say that it's more widespread and more destructive in material terms when it clearly is not. Unless you think lost production is not material terms, and material terms refers only to physical buildings and cars. So ultimately, back to 1 the sentence means : the 2005 riots are different that 1968, but let's compare them to those events as it's the only thing we can remember of. -- Panache.

I've suggested several times to compare the events to the LA riots which bear much more likeliness to the present events : racial issues, police harassment issues, unemployment issues, underpriviledged rioting after police violence etc.

So far this suggestion has been deleted several times but I've seen no discussion of the subject. It can be rewritten in a better form than the last one which is obviously not the best i've proposed. But I don't understand why no debate 1 the situation is presented as worse than 1968 when it clearly is not (the government was never threatened and the situation never created any danger for the country) 2 there's no comparison with the LA riots. And the longer the debate is postponed, the more I'm tempted to feel that there must be some hidden unspoken cause for this. [[User:Panache|Panache]

I agree that comparison with 1968 is flawed and unhappy. It probably boils down that more cars were burned now than then. That's a stupid comparison, as you say already in view of the enormous economic damage caused by the 1968 events, not to mention its political impact. These riots are just a nuisance, a notable nuisance perhaps, but nothing that makes the Republic shake in its foundations. The AP's "French historians" would be thrown out on Wikipedia, because they don't say who is their French historian. dab (ᛏ) 18:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Affected areas"

nobody seems to be updating this, it is unsourced and outdated. I think the table has superseded this list, so I am cutting it out. We could aspire to giving the full list of 274 communes affected on 8 Nov, but somebody will have to come up with a source. dab (ᛏ) 12:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is the map you were going to make? -- Zeno of Elea 12:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

its on ITN on the Main Page. These are the cities we had references for of sustained rioting on 8 Nov. dab (ᛏ) 12:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

But what about the animation? What did you use to make the map? -- Zeno of Elea 12:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I never said I was going to make an animation. I loathe animated gifs. If anything, I'll do several maps to be presented next to each other in the timeline. So far I did one for Nov 6th, and one for Nov 8th. see commons:Paris suburb riots. dab (ᛏ) 12:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I was updating it every day. The problem is that the French media is not providing complete lists. By combining what we read in the various wire services, we are performing a service that no other website is providing. This list is perhaps the most impressive use of Wikipedia in this situation. Not one place has ever been removed because of an accuracy claim as well. And it was much more updated than the table as well. It also performs an unparallel service because readers can learn about the places affected through the Wikipedia links. Tfine80 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

well, I am sorry, it would be nice to have such a list, but if you don't provide references, this is just a random collection of French towns, and frankly, rather useless. Wikipedia is also no place for first-hand journalism, where people can add their own town if they happen to spot a burning car, that would not be reconcileable with WP:CITE. dab (ᛏ) 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has the same list. The sources are the wire services. I can track every one down at some point, but not one has been found to be mistaken. And there is no evidence that it is occuring in the manner you describe (people listing because of something they see in their neighborhood). People are filtering the news services everyday and listing them here. Because of this, Wikipedia has the best and most comprehensive list on the Internet that exists. Also, it is NOT random. As best I can tell, these are the major areas of action. The places not included are probably the ones that are not as serious. Plus I don't see the danger of excluding a few -- are you worried that people will underestimate the severity? Tfine80 22:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

(Tfine and I were posting at the same time) See equivalent French WP article section and reference for this list. Since the place names are French in both the English and French wikipedias it shouldn't matter that the reference is not in English. It is still easily verifiable. Donama 22:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Article has been destroyed

This article has been destroyed. There was no justification for splitting it into 5 different articles. AT MOST it could have been two articles. A lot of times on wikipedia when people want to delete something by are unable to, they try to split up an article into multiple articles, putting the things they dont like somewhere else (one of the things that makes wikipedia suck). -- Zeno of Elea 12:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is doing fine. You weren't here when it was split, but it became almost unmanageable with the incidence of edits. If you read my 'further development' statement above, I suggested we can re-assess how to present the material as we are getting a better overview of the events. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the thought that the article has been "destroyed". It is much easier to read now and if you want further information, links are provided for such. Even if you don't want to surf away from the main page, you can always right click - open in new window from those links. Gigantic articles also make wikipedia suck, imho. Kyaa the Catlord 12:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

word, linking is the veins of wikipedia and keeps it alive more then alive it helps it grow.(not that i did any spliting ;) and have to defend myself "sarcasm")

--Whywhywhy 12:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a bit unhappy with the "Response" section, though. It's okay to export it to a main article, but this should be done evenly, leaving a summary of the most important statements here. I don't understand why we exported all politicians' statements, including those of ministers, but kept the statement of an "ultra-minority" police organization here. Could somebody balance this out, please? dab (ᛏ) 15:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. It's open to improvements, of course, just try to keep it short. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Without offense, what has happended here is a lesson in how one can weaken a Wikipedia article even without pov editing itself. And it becomes very difficult to fix. We had the most comprehensive page on the Internet that had a complete timeline and a list of almost every place where riots had occured. With all of the spliting and deleting, the page has become incoherent and no one is editing the sections removed anymore. Tfine80 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

in hindsight would have to agree with that. The timeline should have stayed because it wasnt so susceptible to POV even though it left. Maybe we can bring the timeline back?. But i stand by the political response and context being in their own article. Its obvious that people posting in these section just want a particular POV seen. But when you remove them it has stoped the people who post just to be political and be herd and the major majority of editors who added to the article seem to be(removing the wording editors) ). I think in future articles structured like this would be a good idea. Maybe policy. (with out the timeline removel)

I vote for just the timeline back or even better just some of it.--Whywhywhy 06:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but it is awefully large. Perhaps the list of areas affected should be on another page. Its relatively minor information when compared to the timeline, which is very well constructed.Jasongetsdown 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Suite of articles on this subject is alive and doing fine

These encyclopedia articles are about an ongoing event. The articles are well sourced and not sensationalist and not especially biased. They aren't perfect. Just try to go read up on the French 2005 riots in some OTHER encyclopedia ! 4.250.132.27 13:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, I'd love to see the Britannica's work on the topic, or even Encarta's :o) dab (ᛏ) 15:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

if they have a online version it going to be a link to this article :)--Whywhywhy 07:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

References to 2005 Birmingham riots

I have added a reference to the 2005 Birmingham riots in the "See Also" section. However, I referenced this before in the "Triggering Events" section of the article and it was deleted. I don't know if the two sets of riots are linked, but I added it because I thought it was interesting to note that the two riots were within a week of each other. Any thoughts? Andrew 21:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this incident is in any way relevant. Completely unconnected and no parallels. Jooler 02:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Showing the spread of the riots

Hi,

Just a thought, but an animated gif might be an effective way of communicating the spread of the riots, if anyone has all the necessary infomration.

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

we used to have an animation but we were unable to locate the sources used to create the map. we are trying to construct a sourced and chronological table of the the french provinces / cities where rioting took place. this table can be seen in section 4.2 of the article. please try to improve on the table. in particular it would be useful (for cartographic purposes) to have a the geographical coordinates of the locations of rioting. the problem right now is a lack of sourced information about time, extent, duration and location of rioting. there is a media black out going on, especially in france, in order to prevent further muslim rioting in europe and elsewhere. -- Zeno of Elea 07:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting statistic

The number of arrests made during the riots has a 93% correlation with the number of vehicles burned. (NOTE: Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy)). Then again, these numbers are cooked by the French Interior Ministry. -- Zeno of Elea 08:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

maybe the correlation is that people are arrested for burning vehicles? Just a thought :) got to love how the numbers turn out a near-perfect bell curve, though. dab (ᛏ) 09:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Last numbers seem to disprove your comment. More and more get arrested relative to the numbers of car burned

yes, as of 11/11, the bell curve is out of the window. Seems to be an ADSR envelope :) dab (ᛏ) 21:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

'Context' + Can we call them Muslims?

I've just restored the 'Context' section that was deleted after, apparently, being edited to uselessness. My apologies if I'm tense, I had an edit war about the same just yesterday.

The rioters are mainly Muslim (or of Muslim background, or whatever). I believe that's a fact. However, there are constant disputes over the extent we can display this fact, and the seesawing as the text is changed back and forth is damaging the article. While we could continue this into perpetuity, discussing this and trying to come to a solution would be considerably smarter.

The argument seems to be that we should take care not to give the impression that the riots are religiously motivated. That's a fair point, although sometimes overblown. At the moment there's only one mention of Muslimhood, at the start of 'Context', and [2005_civil_unrest_in_France#Context it] points out the demographics and the resentment while taking care not to make accusations, which I believe is fair. At times there's been no mention at all, which is ridiculous - not only is it a significant fact, but it's all over all the other media. What are the factors here? What would be the best course of action?

Emile123, I'd ask you to make a small concession and not change the phrasing of this bit to the one most pleasing to you. It's detrimental to the article as a whole. --Kizor 10:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, be cautious: it is all over the media of countries where "race", "ethnicity" and religion are axes on which people tend to project everything. It is not so (or not as much, or not in the same way) in France. Remember that it is not only the media which has this point of view in France (one could dismiss this by arguing that the French media is universally bigotted or prejudiced), but also the rioters themselves, who are French (and in most cases have hardly seen anyting else than their suburb in their whole life).

I am not against a mention of the fact that most of the rioter will have a Muslim, Northern African culture (and in most cases be Muslim believers, even if not practising), but it is important to weight very carefully what we say and how we say it. Rama 11:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the media. Can I ask your opinion on the current state of things? --Kizor 11:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion on the current state of the article ? I would say rather impressive, really. France has lots of particularisms which make her society difficult to accurately grasp if you are not a native (or even if you are, sometimes...); if you add this to the particularisms of the USA, from which a large number of people contribute (and to a lesser extend to the whole anglo-saxon world) and the sort of editorials that were published there, I have a sentiment that there is a true effort to grasp a fair understanding of the situation as a whole. I also appreciate that nuances suggested by French contributors have been taken into consideration (though some of them were from anonymous non-contributors who just moaned and complained in a rude manner). Rama 14:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

with Kizor, I am of the opinion that it is self-evident that the article must mention that the rioters are predominantly French Muslim (with a link to that article, not to Islam as a religion: The Islam in France is about demographics at least as much as about religion. It says, among other things, that of these "French Muslims", about a third is religious, another third at least culturally identifies with Islam, and another third has no strong ties with Islamic culture. Seeing the fatwa against the riots, I would assume that most rioters would belong to the last group, "alienated Muslims" if you like). If we link to Muslim, we will also point out that a minority is from a Christian background, to be fair, since the riots have just as much to do with Christianity as they have with Islam, as religiouns, namely nil. If we add that the riots show no signs of religious ideological motivations, we will imho be on the safe side, npov-wise. It is inappropriate to talk about "poor youths" without mentioning Islam at all, and it is inappropriate to talk of a "Muslim uprising" or "Intifada", neither approach will be stable, and the parties can save everybody time and nerves by agreeing on an intermediate wording. dab (ᛏ) 13:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point. I had no idea that French Muslim existed :p Rama 14:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Your web-fu is outstanding. --Kizor 17:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: "The rioters are mainly Muslim..." and "At times there's been no mention at all (of the fact that the rioters are mainly Muslim), which is ridiculous - not only is it a significant fact, but it's all over all the other media." I have a couple of points and one question. (1) The rioters are also "mainly" unemployed teenagers of African descent. (2) In the French press -and I would consider the French press to be authoritative when compared against non-native, English language press sources- the fact that the rioters are (in addition to being largely unemployed descendants of African descent) Muslim has been given little note. My question as a newbie on wikipedia is: how do contributors -generally- handle the fact that the event in question occured in a foreign land where there are plenty of authoritative sources, yet the sources (s)he chooses to reference are non-native? It amazes me to see how different this page is from the one on French wikipedia.

It doesn't strike me as that different. The main difference seems to be that they decided not to split the article, which imho makes it a difficult to read pile of details. Also, background knowledge of terms like banlieue and the general situation may be taken for granted more on French WP. In any case, the French article is not automatically 'better' just because it is French, and you'll have to argue your points individually. But it certainly makes sense to keep an eye on it, and let ourselves be guided by it to some extent. dab (ᛏ) 10:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, mind that

1) This being the English Wikipedia it is natural to try and link to English sites as much as possible, be it only as a courtesy to people who do not read French

2) A fair number of the contributors to this article actually do speak French, and even have a knowledge of French society. Newspapers like 'Le Monde are largely used as information sources.

There is a genuine effort to avoid both misconceptions that foreigners might have regarding France (for instance, obsession with the so-called "scarf law") and typically French particularism. If in spite of this you spot things which you think are not appropriate or could be improved, you have naturally welcome to make precise suggestions. Rama 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

RE Yeah

North african descent

From what I read here http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-707269@51-704172,0.html

1 Zyed Benna is french, arab of origin (don't know from where) and muslim 2 Bouna Traoré is french, black (not north african, coming from unknown (from me) african origin, religion unknown, 3 Muttin Altun the burned still alive, is kurd and Turk, muslim and not french

THey say that there are 3 main "communities" arabs, turcs (both muslims) and blacks (religion must depend from country)

I read here http://www.cyberpresse.ca/monde/article/article_complet.php?path=/monde/article/03/1,151,1064,112005,1210686.php

That Bouna is from Mali http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali Mali is not classified as being part of north africa. It is a muslim country. But it is not an arab speaking country. Most people speak Bambara or French.

Zyed is said to be coming from Tunisia.

So I think North african descent is wrong.

I made some changes, however, north african is used in other places. Its use seems to imply unity in a diverse population (africans differ from arabs, arabs from turcs, turcs from kurds, arabs from Kabyles ... And muslims from christians (little chiite immigration as far as I know so this division we're spared :-) ) [panache]

they were from Tunisia and Mauritania. We've had that in the article for days, I don't know why it was removed. Both countries are considered part of the Maghreb, so saying "Maghreb origin" is correct. dab (ᛏ) 14:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

English version of the article saying third guy was Kurdish. 4.250.177.104 16:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Kurdish is exactly what I wrote. Except that since kurdistan does not exist, kurds are either from Turkey, Iran or Iraq. Muttin Altun is coming from a kurd family who lived in Turquey. However I once read that he was not french and may be had no legal right to be in France. I have no confirmation of this. This might be of importance because if he is an illegal immigrant then he had very good reasons to flee the police, fear of harassment and expulsion. Besides Sarkozy having made immigration laws much stricter its fear could be related to given policies... Anyway. I think it's worth knowing.

Great! Two weeks ago they were only "Youths". After the whole world already realized that, they became "of arab and west african descent". There is "no religious overtone" but they can be heard every night yelling "Allah akbar!". How long before we can read what every Frenchman with opened eyes and common sense knows, that these are racist anti-white riots. Read the "lyrics" of their rap "music": it boils down to "F.. the chalk faces, gang rape the blondes, burn f... France. The CDs are available in all good record stores and are not banned... It requires decoding their slang, though.

"Racist anti-white" ? Where did I hear this sort of talking before... Rama 19:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Editorials

readded interesting arguments about this section, 217.236.222.189 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC) : - STARTING HERE -

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.) - READDED TEXT ENDING HERE -

People keep removing two links in that section. I was wondering if you could explain why? Amargo Scribe 04:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

for various reasons I suppose. If you have a particular removal in mind, please post the diff. Mostly I think links are removed because they are judged to be fringy and/or extremist. dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems a little suspicious that the only two editorials currently listed (ZMag and the Guardian) are both left-wing publications. --NeuronExMachina 09:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That political correctness thing

Some have said the riot and the conflict has an Islamic aspect to it but besides the fact that rioters were shouting the Islamic war cry "Allah Akbar" [2], burning down non muslim businesses , churches [3] and synaguoges[4] but sparing Mosques and Muslim businesses[5] .And besides the fact that the rioters say " Each night we are making this place baghdad [6], using slogans such a the Ramadan Intifada [7] and displaying Islamic beheading videos on their cell phones [8] and that the Muslim brotherhood is involved in negotiations [9] I do not see any connection , do you?--CltFn 13:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That's probably why De Villepin didn't meet with Muslim religious leaders and encourage them to issue a fatwa. Sarkozy would have probably wanted to deport the rioters if they truly were Islamic foreigners. Tfine80 13:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I am quite certain that there have been similar meetings with sporting organisations. This does not make these events a major footballistic revolution, nor a prove that there is a footballistic civilisation clashing with Occident. Rama 14:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You think this was about football!? I have seen nothing at all indicating that. Tfine80 15:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

there is nothing "PC" about ignoring partisan websites in favour of reputable news sources. the only links you give that can be taken seriously are [10] and [11], so in npov terms it really boils down to that "Many of the youths hurling petrol bombs on Parisian estates look up to a slightly older group of mosque stalwarts.", and, probably as a consequence, the Muslim brotherhood is engaged in negotiations in an attempt to end the riots. Which is why I definitely support mentioning the French Muslim background of the rioters, but that's really as far as it goes. dab (ᛏ) 17:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If you carefully look at the sources you might find that more than those you list are credible sources. In some cases the sources of the article is not the site that the article is linked on.--CltFn 12:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, the mere premices of this are untrue. According the Le Monde (13 November 2005), "A dud Molotov cocktail was thrown at the great Mosque of the town (Lyon") ("Un cocktail Molotov a par ailleurs été lancé, sans exploser, contre la grande mosquée de la ville.") [12]. Rama 14:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

And besides it was demonstrated that the riots were less violent in neighborhoods where Islamists had more influence, so there really is no connection.

Oh, if "it was demonstrated"... Islamists... who wouldn't be convinced by such concrete-hard proofs ! Rama 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

For these youth living in ghettos, religion is usually the only thing that's left that they respect and can identify to.

new map

paintbrush: hotspots at the peak of the riots

I made a new map. This is using the most up to date information. It is an aggregate map showing the total amount of rioting by French administrative region. Unfortunately I could not make the map at the city level because my map making program doesnt seem to have this support for France. -- Zeno of Elea 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but this map is ridiculous. What about a map with "French metropole affected by 2005 civil unrest in France, as of November 11, 2005.", while we are at it ? Rama 15:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Please rephrase it. -- Zeno of Elea 15:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand Rama's objection either, but my impression is that the map aims at dramatizing the situation. The non-urban departments coloured red will be so due to a small number of cars torched. It would be nice to have the shade of red colour-coded by the number of incidents. Otherwise, this looks like half of France was rioting. I also object to the diachronous nature of the map: it does not show the departements "affected as of November 11", but those "affected up to November 11", including those who saw brief rioting on Nov 8, and have been quiet since. The riots have gone down to a couple of cities now, so if you want to portray the actual situation, it would really just be Strasbourg, Toulouse, Marseille and Lille. dab (ᛏ) 17:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This map features very large area of the French territory, and paints them red if they have been "affected by 2005 civil unrest", without any more precision. This map is so uninformative, and the result is so much dramatising the situation, that you could as well make a map of "the France that has been "affected by 2005 civil unrest" and paint the whole territory red. Rama 19:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I find it hard to believe that some of these departements (not regions, by the way: the regions are the next level up in the French local administrative system) are particularly affected. Communes might be a better measure, or one of those maps that show different sized circles depending on the rate of incidence in a given place... Palmiro | Talk 20:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

this is precisely the reason for Image:France riots spread 8 Nov.png which shows the main cities affected at the height of the riots. It is much fewer now. Any departement painted red on the present map that does not contain a dot in this map will be a case of isolated cases of vandalism in small towns. Painting all of them red is, as Rama says, about as intelligent as showing a map of Europe with France painted red in order to show the extent of the riots. dab (ᛏ) 21:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

the communists are invading france now? get rid of it i say--Whywhywhy 06:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It is very simple. The highest resolution that we have sourced data from is at the "department" level or at the "region" level (a region being comprised of many departments). Our table might say that on x day y region saw unrest. We cannot put exact dots on the map, all we can do is indicate the region reported. We clearly do not have information at the city level - the reports say that over 200 cities were seeing rioting at one point, but we do not have any such lists of cities. The bottom line is that the map by department reflects the most accurate information that we have. If you think that this is "dramatizing" the situation then this is such some sort of strange POV. The table lists regions and departments, yet when we start mapping that data people like dab start running around yelling about "dramatizing." Get a grip. This is just visualization of the information in the table. We simply do not have city-level data. And as for dab's little "hot spots" map - it's completely out of date, unsourced, and we have no idea what criterion dab used to "identify" "hot spots." And by the way, these departments are very logical. The area of each department is inversely proportional to its population. So it makes sense for rioting to cause a wider area to light up in a lower population density area. Whether or not you agree with this, there is no way of getting around the fact that we only have data at the department (or, in many cases, at the region) level, not at the town and village level. -- Zeno of Elea 06:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

this is simply not true. the "areas affected" table is on the commune level. the list of departments is summarized from the commune information. If we had the full list of 274 communes, more departements might be 'affected'. The "hotspots" map is directly based on the map of the BBC, so you can hardly say it is "unsourced". You should at least try to get a notion of the difference of region, department, and commune before you start drawing, let alone make weird rhetorical attacks. As for "the area of each department is inversely proportional to its population" what sort of bullshit statement is that now? Are you drunk? I'm sorry Zeno, but it is painfully clear you have not the slightest clue of what you're talking about. *lol* it appears your animated gif faithfully reproduces the places mentioned in the table! This is just silly. The places mentioned in the table are a summary of the worst hotspots mentioned in the timeline article, and in the newsreports linked. They are not in any way comprehensive. The only attempt at geographical comprehensiveness we have is the "areas affected" table, but I cannot vouch for that, because whoever compiled it made sure to leave it unsourced and undated. dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It is true that we DO have SOME information on SOME days at the commune level. Unfortunateny for some days all we have are entire regions, especially as the riots approaches its historical peak. If you can provide comprehensive geographical location data on the hunddreds of communes in France then we can begin making a more detailed map. We are limited by the cartographic tools at our disposal - I do not have a mapping capabalities at the commune level. You dont appear to either - I have yet to see a commune map of France. This will still not solve the problem of what do when the riot is peaking and we only have region-level data. Do we just throw the data away? As for your "hot spot" map, it is absurdly outdated and only captures November 4 for some reason, despite over 2 weeks of rioting. Instead of trying to DESTROY the map you could try to IMPROVE the map by providing more information and/or cartographic tools. -- Zeno of Elea 10:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally i like the animated one because its easyier to see whats happening when the area are highlighted. But the static one is silly and should be more precise to shed more light on the subject. --Whywhywhy 08:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The animated Gif has the Dates in the backwards American Way, either change the dates to the normal, non-American way (Day/Month/year) or else word it (November 1st 2005), otherwise it is American-centric, not world centric, and certainly not Franco-centric.--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone insists / wants, I can post the R programming language code, Perl script, and data files used to create the map animation. I havent figured out how to get the date in words instead of American abbreviation. -- Zeno of Elea 10:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Irishpumkin: the date format really must be changed from the non-sensical US method. Use international format, if you must. Besides, aren't animated gifs frowned upon?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There are some perfectly legitimate information visualization uses of animation. The fact that it is a GIF animation is irrelevant as the legal issues surrounding this were resolved and all browsers have full support for GIF. -- Zeno of Elea 10:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"French Intifada"

On Intifada, somebody has put in an assertion that these events are also called the "French Intifada", as well as (bizzarely) the Hebrew version of that phrase. I've taken the liberty of removing the Hebrew, but does anyone here know whether this term is in fact in use to any significant degree? Palmiro | Talk 21:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

last time I checked, it was used with gusto on extreme right-wing ultra-Zionist and/or Islamophobe blogs (who for some (rather evident) reason are trying to convince people that France is foundering in a storm of Islamic hordes). The term can be safely ignored until it hits mainstream news sites. dab (ᛏ) 21:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The rioters called it the "Ramadan intifada". -- Zeno of Elea 06:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Source?--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a french video of a riot. Intifada or not? --Elias2 16:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This file cannot be read easily. Please link to a standard format, or explain what in the file makes you ask this question. Thank you. Rama 16:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You can'it read it? It's a video of the muslim rioters, they are shouting "allah akbar! Sarkozy fascist! Sarkozy sale juif (f**cking jew)!" --Elias2 17:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you implying that this is a reason to call it an "intifada"? Palmiro | Talk 19:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a comment on there about the French intifafa, is this a typo? Paskari (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

joke for editors

just a joke for the editors :) from these guys The Chaser Website http://chaser.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2859&Itemid=26

--Whywhywhy 06:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

'intifada means simply 'uprising'

Photos from incidents

I've been searching in the web for a long time, but I could not find a suitable website/blog/photo site that contain photos from the incidents. Do you know any? I think French government are censoring the web sites. They've told before that riots use weblog to send themselves secret messages. That's really funny. One year ago, when there was a protest in my university, I could find a lot of images on the web, easily, and now I can not find anything. Just some nonesense images on Flickr.com. Any idea?

Yes I noticed that too, isn't odd that we only get pictures of the fires and burned cars but relatively little of the rioters, who are described by the main stream media with the utmost politically correctness.

There are some images though that get through the media blockade as in this video.In the end you will have to freely make up your own as to what you see because main stream media source sure is not reporting on it --CltFn 21:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I took some screenshots of the video CltFn references. They are here, put them in if you like: I was bold and put two of them in. Sdedeo 05:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Sdedeo 05:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The French government does not "censor" web sites. There's an enormous difference between photographs of protests (you can get many of them easily in France) and photographs of criminal action. Perhaps the rioters don't want stuff that could be used as evidence for criminal prosecution. David.Monniaux 06:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

How would you know there's no censure?

Because the french government does not have the means to effectivly censor a lot of content on the internet. That's simply a matter of capabilities. Plus, censoring websites or massive amounts of content has never been in use in France since Internet exists.

Request for explanation by Emile123

User:Emile123 is repeatedly deleting two things from the article (he has been quetily doing this for over a week:

• He seems to think that any mention of the demographics of the rioters other than their age (e.g. their origins and religion) is "irrelevant" and "POV." It is clearly neither. These are neutral statements of factual information. If Emile123 would like to portray these riots from some sort of far-left POV with a politically correct, idealized portrait of these riots as being no different than the 1968 student riots or the French Revolution, then he should start he own blog for such an agenda.
• He is deleting the mention of the BBC's excellent description of the religious tensions related to these riots. The actual quote from the Wikipedia article is:

The BBC reports that French society's negative perceptions of Islam and of immigrants have alienated some French Muslims and may have been a factor in the causes of the riots; "Islam is seen as the biggest challenge to the country's secular model in the past 100 years". At the same time, the editorial questioned whether or not such alarm is justified, citing that France's Muslim ghettos are not hotbeds of separatism and that "the suburbs are full of people desperate to integrate into the wider society." [13] The BBC also reported that there was a "huge well of fury and resentment among the children of North African and African immigrants in the suburbs of French cities." [14]

Emile123 is not deleting all of this. He is only deleting the sentence: The BBC reports that French society's negative perceptions of Islam and of immigrants have alienated some French Muslims and may have been a factor in the causes of the riots; "Islam is seen as the biggest challenge to the country's secular model in the past 100 years". Emile did not delete the following sentence which says "At the same time, the editorial questioned whether or not such alarm is justified ..." This is plainly POV pushing on the part of Emile. The BBC did a good job of describing all aspects of the issue, and we did a good job of summarizing the BBC's reports. Now Emile is here to insert his POV by deleting one side of the issues while leaving the other side intact.

User:Emile123 has not discussed his POV revert war on the talk pages; I invite him to do so now. --- Zeno of Elea 08:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Zeno. I have discussed this before. Please read the discussions. There have been plenty of people pointing out that references to race and religion are not relevant, and putting them in a prominent part of the article expresses a POV. A quick check on your background reveals you are very biased on these matters. Emile123 09:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Second point: picking sentences in an article that fit your POV and using them out of context is dishonest. Emile123 09:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You have NOT discussed your POV revert war, as other users have pointed out to you in the edit summaries. Furthermore, your current response is a pathetic excuse for an argument. Youre just asserting your baseless POV war slogans. -- Zeno of Elea 11:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest a general ban on the expression "POV".

• Firstly it will have the advantage of having pages which will look less like the phonetic transcript of an assault riffle battle (POV POV POV POV POV POV...)
• Secondly, it will force people to refer precisely to which paragraphs exactly they talk about
• Eventually, it will force people to come up with sentences like "tendentious propaganda" or "inaccuratedly informed"; this has the advantage of being parsable English, and also to make it evident whether people are reporting an incomplete information of their interlocutor, or denouncing foul play.

Rama 13:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This article has been repeatedly targeted by right-wing anti-islamic extremists (remember, for example, all the links to notorious extremist web sites). However, things seems to be calming down. This is a very common phenomenon on many french political web sites. Often, single users take several different names to repeatedly troll or push their agenda. Their world-view is often obsessively focused on an imaginary confrontation between islam and "civilization". I hope wikipedia editors are aware of this. Emile123 18:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo of flash-ball shooting

Rama, why do you want to delete the photo of the flash-ball shooting? I concur with your removal of the sentence, which I had nothing to do with. Sdedeo 09:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to revert very tendentious anonymous edits which had already been reverted by Karl Meier, and not knowing that you had further edited the article. I have no problem with the photograph being in the article with this caption (on the other hand, I am afraid that the claimed licencing of this photo is over-optimistic, but this is a completely different matter). Rama 09:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably optimistic; on the other hand, the video is being circulated around, whoever shot it is not complaining (and presumably knows it's being circulated around) and also I Am Not A Lawyer. :) Sdedeo 09:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

we'll have to change the licencing information. I do think we can still claim fair use, at least at somebody comes along and claims ownership. dab (ᛏ) 12:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Figures - should we substract the 100 "normal" vehicles burned each night

ok im getting tired of updating the maps and images and I dont know if I can keep up. The map and charts are made in all open source software. If someone else wants to keep these images updated I can provide the scripts needed. Whether you are running macosx, windows or linux, all you have to do download some software, edit a text file where the data is kept, and then run a script that takes care of the rest, and then upload the correct image files to wikipedia. The software needed is R programming language (with the maps library) and Perl (with the Imagemagick library). So who wants to do it? -- Zeno of Elea 09:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, I really like your "ADSR" "vehicles / arrests" graph (I thought I should also say something positive about your work for a change. I do think you are having a positive effect here, in spite of our differences). Regarding the maps, since this is out of the headlines at the moment, I think it would be exaggerated to do a brand new map every day. I suggest we wait until things calm down a little bit more, before we do an overview map. Also the charts, you can easily do a final version in a week or so, we have the table in the meantime. Unless there is an unexpected surge in vandalism, I suppose things will pretty much peter out now (rioters get tired too). dab (ᛏ) 12:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should substract 100 from all numbers or not ? Each night in France 100 cars are burnt ? Or may be we should add the 100 to the first numbers. I think in the beginning the media only counted cars burned in Aulnay sous bois. THen it has counted all cars burned in France. The problem is that we don't know when the move was made. Still I think we need to do something about it or we won't be able to put an end to the unrest.

I don't think the numbers should be edited, but rather it should be noted that only Aulnay sous bois numbers where initially counted and not national ones. It's also an interesting question whether the "normal" number of 100 cars a night can be seen as a form of continuous civil unrest in France. By all means, to me that's not normal. Robert John Kaper 12:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I also recommend adding something showing the week ends. It can help to understand peeks. panache

Links to political sites

I really amn't sure that we need a whole list of Indymedia-style links, let alone lunatic rant links. There is already an eyewitness blogs section and links to a couple of articles in different fields of the media. I really think these should do. At most, one appropriately placed link to one of the alternative news sites. After all, there isn't a "mainstream news" links section (and Z-mag is pretty radical). Palmiro | Talk 17:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently the article lists only two media articles, one from a slightly left-of-centre publication [www.guardian.co.uk UK Guardian] and one from the left wing Z-mag. Some more right-wing material than this might be useful (but not stuff like the Bat ye'or article that simply bears no relationship with reality, as would be clear to any informed person reading it). Palmiro | Talk 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

respectable, "moderately conservative" right ("European" right, à la NZZ) -- yes. Completely bat-shit conspiracist extreme Islamophobe right just for the sake of it? no. dab (ᛏ) 20:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"bat-shit conspiracist extreme Islamophobe right" sums it up pretty well. How can anyone read that sort of thing and take it seriously? It's scary that there are people who do. Palmiro | Talk 20:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone above (I think dab) warned against turning the "external links" into a "freak show". Something to be remembered. Rama 20:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Palmiro stop denigrating Bat Yeor. Your remarks are extremely POV, shemeful for a supposedly impartial wiki editor and uncalled for. And furthermore you have now motivated me to greatly enhance her presence on Wikipedia.--CltFn 13:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What sort of good should we expect from someone who cannot refrain from using words like "Eurabia" in what was supposed to be a political analysis ? Rama 14:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Bears no relationship with reality" is a pretty understated, NPOV description of the thesis of the article linked to. "Complete batshit conspiracist extreme Islamophobe right" is accurate but POV in its terminology (and was DBachmann's phrase), but no requirement to maintain POV pertains on talk pages.

If you want to "enhance Bat Yeor's presence on Wikipedia", be careful not to make yourself into a laughing stock, given how ludicrous her ideas are. Do you really think the material in the link I deleted is in any way capable of being taken seriously as an argument? Palmiro | Talk 17:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Funny but they aren't laughing so loud in Europe these days are they? Bat Yeor's writings hit right in the bulls' eye . --CltFn 04:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"laughing so loud in Europe" ? Why should they, this is not the 1st of April. Urban violence have been localised within France except for a few anectotical incidents, and in France, the situation is now normal.

For the record, the incriminated article is [15], so why not discuss it critically ?

• "Beyond Munich - The Spirit of Eurabia". This is the title. 6 words. Already we have the word "Eurabia", which is quite connotated, and a nice shiny Godwin point.
• "the present situation should be seen not in the context of the Second World War, but in the present jihadist context". Which is this situation which is liked to jihad ? Is that merely astronomically bad taste in analogies, or downright lunacy ?
• "for the past 30 years France and Europe are living in a situation of passive self-defense against terrorism.". Riiiiiight. Who had the first anti-terrorist units ? Whose GIGN teaches other nation's anti-terrorist units on the request of the international authority of civilian aviation ? If this is "passive", I have to assume that this is saying "Europe, particularly France, Germany and the UK, are among nations which have the most experience and know-how about modern terrorism".
• "In his book (...) Daily Life in Medieval Europe under the Arab Domination (...) Today, Europe itself is living with this Great Fear". Thank you. The point is really well made, fair argument ! Let us bring back completely irrelevant events of 800 years ago just because they bring the mental image of brown-skinned people, and carry on with an emotional talk. What a brilliant display of intellectual honesty. And we proceed to...
• "Today the war is everywhere. And yet the European Union and the states which comprise it, have denied that war's reality, right up to the terrorist attack in Madrid of March 11, 2004". Typical neo-conservative rant about "terrorism is war". In the logic of assimilating crimes of ever-decreasing gravity to "war", it is predictable to find this is an article which tries to make car arson an act of war. Watch out for the War Against Crossing Outside Of The Tracks !
• "The only danger comes, allegedly, from the United States and Israel. We conduct a propaganda campaign in the media against these two countries, before entering into a yet more aggressive phase; it's so much easier, so much less dangerous…And we conduct this campaign with the weapons of cowardice: defamation, misinformation, the corruption of venal politicians.". Yes, of course. It is the Euro-sissies who invented the "Weaponsofmassdestruction", War is Peace, etc.
• "This strategy, the goal of which was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean Euro-Arab entity"... OK, just for the record, "Arab" has a precise meaning, which is not "brown-skinned". Notably, Magreb is not Arabia.
• "The Arabs set the conditions for this association: 1) a European policy that would be independent from, and opposed to that of the United States; 2) the recognition by Europe of a "Palestinian people," and the creation of a "Palestinian" state;". Riiiiiiiight. Opposed, I assume, to the natural, legitimate course of history where 1) European policy is not independant from the USA (like people should be free to determine their own policy according to historical realities...) 2) the "Palestinian people" is not recognised. What, the USA did ? Hush, hush !
• "On the political front, Europe has tied its destiny to the Arab countries, and thus become involved in the logic of jihad against Israel and the United States. " Well last time I was in Paris, I was under the impression that the country was quite distinguishable from Iran, but if it is so, why the bloody hell does she still waste her time talking about what is definitely, irremediably, an ennemy country ? Furthermore, is it not sort of bizarre that The following presentation by Bat Ye'or was delivered at a seminar in the French Senate in Paris three weeks ago - The Editors. ? In a "logic of jihad" country, she would have been beheaded on the spot. (I would be interested to know whether the French senators managed to keep a straight face, but this is beside the point)
• "On the cultural front, there has been a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to "The Contribution of the Islamic civilization to European culture."". Now if negating, or merely hushing, the contribution of Islamic culture to Europe and the world., is not re-writing history, I don't know what is. (and I spare you the whole conspiracy talk which follows)
• "The dhimmitude of Europe began ..." The what ?
• "Eurabia adopted the Islamic conception of history, in which Islam is defined as a liberating force, a force for peace, and the jihad is regarded a 'just war'.". I don't know where she has seen a European country where "Jihad" has a positive connotation.

etc. etc. This article might be appropriate to illustrate the article about this "Bat Ye'or" person, and possibly for her indictment for incitation to hatred, but I fail to see what sort of perspective it brings about the matter at hand. Rama 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: Beside the sickening examination of this "article", am I the only one stuck by the fact that the talk was given in early June 2004 ? How can that have anything to do with the riots of late 2005 ? Rama 05:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "seminar in the French senate" was a talk in a meeting room arranged by one far-right senator. Palmiro | Talk 17:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"spread" articles

Some genius made a flurry of "2005 X urban violence" articles,

1. 2005 Belgian urban violence
2. 2005 Danish urban violence
3. 2005 German urban violence
4. 2005 Greek urban violence
5. 2005 Dutch urban violence
6. 2005 Portuguese urban violence
7. 2005 Spanish urban violence

this is ridiculous. The Belgian one is justified, maybe, but I'd say we just collapse them in a single spread of the 2005 French riots abroad or something, the Portugese article is about two single acts of vandalism. Wikipedia isn't a "Miscellaneous" report of local events all over the globe, where would this end? Merge it! Also, what happened to the "Timeline" summary? It is important to have a brief summary of events on top of the detailed list. Can we have this back, please? dab (ᛏ) 20:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:2005 Belgian urban violence#merge -- Zondor 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Some comments were made on the Belgian page to. The only other one that might merit an article is Spain. 12.220.47.145 00:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I got rid of all the ridiculous ones, they now point back into the French article. The Belgian one needs cleaning up by someone who has been following it closer than I have, but I still don't believe it really needs its own article. These riots were French. Jdcooper 10:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Speculation: Riots set up and mounted by governments to spread fear and agression against muslim people, within the french and european people.

Isn't it a very strange coincident, that suddenly everywhere in France and Europe too, people stand up and burn cars, without demanding anything... I want to point out, that you can't hear anything in the news about that what the rioters want, you just hear speculations, but you don't hear anyone or any organisation which speakes for them. So I want to set up a nother speculation, isn't it possible, that the french, american or european government, or in cooperation with each other, set this whole riot up, to fill europe with fear, to make the european easier to control and to convince them, that the muslims are a big threat, and that they are the bad guys and we have to protect us from them... (But did the rioters declar that they started a religious riot, or do they riot because of racism in france, or because their poor surcumstances they live in, and because of the french politicians, who say that they are just lacy immigrants.)

Nsae Comp 14.11.05 02:00 GMT +1

This article certainly isn't the place for wild speculation.Trilemma!

Are you sure? Quite a lot of versions have looked damn close to just that. Palmiro | Talk 17:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

nonsense, the article is doing fine, and wacko conspiracy theories are immediately revertet. dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but they keep coming, don't they? I agree that the article is a credit to the persistence of those who've kept it in a respectable state. Palmiro | Talk 00:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit I don't have any facts to strengthen my theory, but if someone has any facts, shouldn't we than consider this topic. Well as long as there are no facts, I am myself against publishing this speculation. But I thank you for giving attention to it Nsae Comp 15 November 2005 21:47 (UTC)

This Article is hard to find!

I typed in the EXACT name for the article in the search box and it still doesn't come up. It doesn't come up under "French riots" "french civil unrest" or anything similar. If anyone knows offhand how to point these search terms to the article then it might be a good idea, since the link may not be on the main page of Wikipedia for long. I've put redirection pages in before for another article, but I need to look up how to do it, so if someone more knowledgeable beats me to it that's ok! capitalist 03:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I just added a redirect from "French riots", and the article's title works only if you remember to capitalize "France". yeesh. capitalist 03:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never had any problem finding it since it is linked off the main page. :P 165.212.23.125 08:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The above was by me. Sorry, was somehow logged out. Weird. Kyaa the Catlord 08:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL, Well I KNOW it's linked from the main page; I mentioned that the link from the main page may not be there for very long, especially once the riots drop off the headlines. THAT'S when the article will descend into the foggy pit of obscurity. (ok, that might be a LITTLE dramatic.  :-P) Anywyay, I've added a couple of redirects already, and I'm sure others can think of a lot more. I think all the revisions of the article's title may have had something to do with obscuring the location. capitalist 04:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Two Romanians shot by an Arab gang in Aubervilliers suburb

According to Evenimentul Zilei (in Romanian), they were shot on Sunday at 4 AM near a disco in Aubervilliers, near Paris by a gang of people that looked of Middle-Eastern origin. One of the two died in hospital. Is this relevant to this article ? BTW, it seems that so far, no French media has picked up the story. bogdan | ^Talk 11:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Heard on the radio in France that they thought they had been shot by people from eastern europe, not from the middle east. So unrelated if we chose to believe french authorities so far. Panache

Describing demographics of rioters

it appears that 98% of all non-white rioters were arabs of algerian,tunisian and moroccan descent,there are about 5 million arabs in france and they face daily discrimination, france has a very small black community of about 30,000-40,000 or about as big a black community as ireland's,this is very small amount for a population of over 60 million french people,so the black issue was almost non-existent in these riots.most of the blacks in france are students from african nations. (bullshit Guadeloupe and Martinique as well as Guyane are France mostly populated with black people and with these three island you have at leat 1 million black people that are french ! Plus you can add those who come from black africa. So sorry but there is a black community in France coming from these areas. Also you're reference about non white people being arabs is a joke, i'm from armenia and my algerian friend is wither than me ...)

I do not want to get involved in the edit war occuring at the beginning of the article, but I noticed that the NYT article I included a few days ago had been distorted. In particular, references to the fact that a majority of the rioters were Muslim, and African had been deleted, while the fact that some of them were Portugese or "native French", had been retained.

This is unacceptable. Either do not use the NYT article at all when discussing the rioter demographics, or refrain from selectively removing info. Either way is fine with me. "Cherrypicking" from sources is not acceptable. Sdedeo 15:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sdedeo here. There is nothing wrong with mentioning their Muslim background, as long as the article doesn't take it for an excuse to engage in gratuitous Islam bashing innuendo. Just the facts, please. dab (ᛏ) 16:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Further than agreeing with my fellow editors, I would like to point two things:

• Search for references are fine, but "predominantly Muslims of North-African background [2][3][4][5][6]" is just ridiculous. Just make it one footnote with all the references, or just one or two references or... anything but this bingo grid !
• It would be a good idea to decide once and for all whether we want to refer to this "ethnic and religious" background in the introduction, and exactly how. Reverting back and fro is getting tedious; perhaps it is time for everybody to come out with this matter, examine everybody's views, and find something which suits everybody (not a vote). Rama 03:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This observation may or may not move the discussion forward, but I think this edit war points out an interesting weakness in the NPOV rules. People from all sides of the arguments agree that statements in the article have to be sourced, non-POV, not original research and so on and so forth. So the debate then transforms from a disagreement about the FACTS into a disagreement about which facts are IMPORTANT. I don't know that the NPOV rules really address the WEIGHT that we assign to facts. So the debates continue to rage, not about what's TRUE, but about whether or not to place a certain fact in the article, where to place it, and how much emphasis to give it. Just a bit of rambling from me... capitalist 05:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with capitalist : the problem is essentially on the exaggerated weight given to the religious and ethnic references. This has been pointed out by many people in this discussion and by several sources (including a NY times reference in the article). Unfortunately, some of those repeatedly re-posting these references are not neutral: (I copied this from above) This article has been repeatedly targeted by right-wing anti-islamic extremists (remember, for example, all the links to notorious extremist web sites). This is a very common phenomenon on many french political web sites. Often, single users take several different names to repeatedly troll or push their agenda. Their world-view is often obsessively focused on an imaginary confrontation between islam and "civilization". I hope other wikipedia editors are aware of this.Emile123 07:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

this is just normal procedure on Wikipedia -- it would be nice if everybody could enjoy their editing in spite of such differences, but sometimes tempers flare. We have the whole Wikipedia:Dispute resolution industry to address that, but there is really no easy way. The important thing is to remember, this is just the Internet, and there are a lot of crappy articles on Wikipedia anyway, so one should really do a effort-benefit analysis of the sweat and tears invested in edit wars. But compared to articles like George W. Bush, this article is a paragon of unanimity, of course. I agree, of course, with Rama's "Bingo grid" point. This should be an uncontroversial change. I also largely agree with Emile's take of the situation. Extremist pov will be edited out immediately, of course, but one has to be careful not to let the pendulum swing to the other side. Mere mention of the ethnic/cultural background of the rioters should really be fair game. Innuendos of "clash of civilizations" are FN-cruft and have no place here. dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Emile123, I find your accusation of sock-puppeting a bit gratuitous. However repugnant you (and, I daresay, most of us) might find the views of some people, good faith should be assumed.

I do understand your point and your appreciation of the matter. However, one has to recognise that the French view of the world can be sometimes related to French particularisms; is particular, the "integration rather than coexistance" view of the society can be, from the point of view of an American, "this typically French thing" (though Germany, for instance, has a very similar view). Just think of the reactions to the so-called "scarf law", which shocked American non-muslims much more than it did Muslims on French soil.

It is quote understandable that a reader from America seeking for some perspective on the subject, for instance, should be surprised at not seeing these "racial infos" that his own media will provide. I do not say that the solution is to put proeminent and tendentious information in the introduction of the article, but you have to understand that for them, things like "Arab and Muslim race" is not connotated in the same way that it is in France (for the best and for the worst, but that's a matter for a chat over a beer, not for an encyclopedia :p)

In the interest of the article, I think that drafting a common position about this particular information should be worked upon. Rama 08:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I back the mentionning of color, ethnicity and religion in the first introductory paragraph. ALl the unrest is about discrimination and inequalities. And discrimination is not based on wealth only, it is mainly the protestors say a question of color, ethnicity, religion and I would add localisation. If you are black or yellow or brown colored you are presumed by the police forces to be more likely to be 1 an illegal immigrant 2 a criminal. It's called statistical discrimination, we all realise part of the Police behaviour is based on sound statistics. If you come from from a "cité", it's the same. And if you are muslim, it's the same. That's 70% of the story we have. On top of this of course we have huge unemployment in France in general, huge unemployment for young people in particular, the possibility for french police to check the papers of all citizen at any time (sth unheard in most countries) and a lot of illegal immigration. Add to this the recent agressive policies of Sarkozy targeted at illegal immigration and crime, and translate these policies in police behaviour : anti minorities acts. If we supress all reference to ethnicity then we repeat the policy that led to the unrest, we do as if there were no discrimination. panache

I think that panache makes an excellent point in underlying the uncomfortable situation in which anti-racist often are, and here in particular: fighting racism suggests that you yourself have words to address the issue (which people are victim of racism ?), while negating the idea of a difference yourself; this corners you into "speaking the unspeakable". Modulo, of course, the fact that the poverty, grim suburbs etc. are a factor here.

Incidentally, it is not exactly correct that the police can "check the papers of all citizen at any time". They can ask you to produce your identification papers, and you are free to decline their invitation. Obviously, by doing so, you make yourself suspicious, and the police can then bring you to the police office for further checks if they deem it necessary. I would say that this is the point where things go bad: do so one of these grim suburbs, wearing sport shoes and a baseball cap, and you will find youself at the office before you can say "sarko". Try this trick in central Paris, providing you are a confident law student who is well-dressed, not suspect of any wrong-doing (and possibly not "beur", to make things easier) and you will get a heinous glance and a "OK, move along". Rama 09:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks,Rama For the anti racist here who speak french, I recommend reading the website, les indigenes de la république. For those with some philosophic background, there's some related points in the discussion between kantian - hegelians who believe in the human universal concept, and the nietscheans-marxians, who want to look at their concrete positions. Those who fight racism and colonialism (see the link mentionned for those who can) often put forward that objectively the human universal concept has been put forward by white people and has served as a disguise for concrete forms of oppression (colonisation, discriminaton). The path between a return to the concept of races, closed culture, barbary, and a return to angelic universalism hiding concrete domination by the whites is tenuous. But it is the path wikiperdia must take if it is to be true to it's goal. Besides this is the patch chosen by most political leaders in France and especially the last intervention by Chirac. panache (how do you get the time and d... Think I found out by myself ... :-) --195.221.193.15 12:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

well, panache, "the real arsonists are those in power" is a bit strong now, never mind all your hegelian-nietschean unterbau, isn't it? I like to imagine that I can be "anti racist" without being forced to subscribe to crackpot left-extremist views. You see, panache, these kids are actually proving Sarkozy/the police correct by behaving like racaille, and by proving that coloured people are indeed more likely to torch people's cars. It is all a racist's dream come true, as it were one huge "we told you so". Blind rage is the most primitive, and the most unsuccessful reply to oppression. The Palestinians learned this the hard way. If the Beurs had a brilliant tactician like Gandhi, they could have exploited French society's weaknesses for their advancement. Sadly, they don't, and they are, out of naivete, or stupitidy, playing the racists' game. But I guess they can always try again in a decade or so. dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to mention that this "the real arsonists are those in power" echoes a relevant quotation by a parent of a schoolkid whose school was burned down, saying that "the one who really put on the fire [was] Sarkozy".

But appart from this detail, this indigenes.org thing is very similar to the "Eurabia Münich" "article", only at the other end of the spectrum. Rama 17:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I kind of want to start a revert war over the description of the rioters as "poor", but I guess that would violate WP:POINT. I mean, come on, that's rather prejudicial, don't you think? Doesn't it slyly attempt to insinuate that poor people are more likely to torch people's cars? Sigh. Sdedeo 20:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) I also want to add that accusing others of racism, and describing edits or decisions as "anti-racist" are definitely violations of assume good faith, there is no cabal and be civil. Please everyone do not describe edits or changes either here or in the edit summaries using terms like "racist" or "anti-racist" (or "politcally correct") to refer to changes you or others make. We can solve these problems faster and easier that that. Sdedeo 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not backing the website. I'm just saying that they have a point when they criticize those who in name of formal rights formal equality and universalism, endorse policies who in fact create inequalities between sexes, ethny, skin color etc. They spell this point loud and clear. But Chirac and even Sarkozy are not far from it when they say that "fermeté" (toughness on the part of the government) must go along with "justice". . The fact that there is no mention of color religion and ethnic issues in the first paragraph is I believe a very strong insult to the feelings of all those who torched cars feeling that they were suffering from unfair discrimination. It's plain denial of their motivation. It's very similar to Sarkozy's behaviour refusing to admit that "nettoyer au karcher" is not a proper expression in the "home country of human rights".panache--82.232.235.239 21:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

lol, I hardly think our most sacred concern on Wikipedia is not to "insult the feelings of all those who torched cars" :o) 23:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you could be proved wrong. Our sacred mission is to accurately depict the situation, including the profile and motivations of the rioters. It is not because some people affect indignation at the burning of a few cars ("Private Property", with very capital Ps, in American parlance) that they only will be given the right to be represented and heard, and will be allowed to divagate about a situation that they do not even try to understand, for the shake of their own foreign and totally unrelated agendas. Rama 09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

here is a quote to go with the "Muslim" bit: "The Front National's strategy is to wait for the media to repeat every day that these are ethnic riots, that most of the rioters are Muslim, and that the problem is with integration, not a social problem," says political scientist Jean-Yves Camus. (BBC) -- we can say they are descendants of Muslim immigrants, and we can then quote this guy to make clear why the statement is politically charged. 83.79.177.65 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is different to speak only about muslims (and then abide to the US-Le Pen anti alqaeda rethoric, completely unreal here) and to they that they come from ethnic and/or religious discriminated minorities and/or from discriminated Ghettos. (unsigned, please sign your posts using 4 tildes)

I think we should answer 2 questions: 1) Are race and religion so important factors that they should figure in the opening paragraph? 2) Are rioters actually accurately described as "Muslims"?

On point 1), I have seen no serious (non extremist) sources stating this. So, I believe, including prominent references to race and religion are unwarranted and un-sourced.

On point 2). My personal experience (I teach in one of those areas) and everything I have read, indicate that only a tiny proportion of the youth actually practice Islam. Therefore, labeling them as "muslim" seems quite biased.Emile123 08:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, your "original research" is different from what sources say. It is clear that there is an interst to hide who the rioters are and that you take part in this efforrt. The facts are relevant. If you have proof that they are budhist from Tibet please provide it. Every supported fact will stay. Wikipedia will present both sides when there is a dispute. Bring sources to your "assertions". Zeq 09:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I think you misunderstand Emile123's point.

Emile123, you say that "a tiny proportion of the youth actually practice Islam", and I have no reason to doubt your word. I remember reading somewhere that most of the youth actually believe in God, but very few ever set a foot in a mosque (I'll have to find the reference for this). However, I think that you are touching the problem here with the nuance between "Muslim people" or "people from Muslim culture/background/whatever", and what you very accurately discribe as "practice Islam".

One of the differences between the French and Anglo-Saxon mentalities, clearly underlined by reading the press about the matter at hand, is the appreciation of the notion of "religion". It is well illustrated, I think, by citing our own France article:

The government does not maintain statistics as to the religion of its inhabitants. Statistics from an unspecified source and date given in the CIA World Factbook gives the following number: Roman Catholic 83 to 88%, Muslim 5 to 10%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%. However, in a 2003 poll 41% said that the existence of God was "excluded" or "unlikely". 33% declared that "atheist" described them rather or very well, and 51% said they were "Christian".

So, Emile123, France is 88% Roman Catholic ! Interesting, is it not ? I will not insult your intelligence by asking you whether you see how the rioters have been described as "mainly Muslim"; as you see, in this mentality, "mainly Muslim" is probably a fairly nuanced wording :p

So I suppose that if you could make up a wording which would be able to convoy the "mainly Muslim" but also include Emile123's point, which is valid, accurate and very relevant (there were sources for this also), we might get closer to an agreement. What about something like "... mainly youth of Muslim background -- though very few of them actually practise their religion -- blablabla" ? Rama 09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

the source of this is not "unspecified"; Demographics_of_France#Religion gives 64% Catholic, 27% atheist, and some 7% Islam. Islam_in_France#Statistics says that of these 7% or 4-5 million "Muslims", roughly a third, or some 2-3% of French citizens, are "observant believers", both article citing their sources. I can't believe that we are still discussing these numbers after all this time, they have been in plain view all along. They may not be accurate to four digits, but what difference does this make? They are clear about the general presence of religions in French society. I think it is perfectly evident that the bulk of rioters is from the 4-6% segment of non-"observant believer" "Muslims". All of this is not even disputed, the whole discussion revolves just around the question of how to present all this. dab (ᛏ) 13:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I case I was not clear enough, my point is that "muslim" can have lots of different nuances, and that by merely saying "muslim", one uses a technically justifiable word to convoy a picture which is not accurate at all. Non-practicising, very moderately religious believers should not be discribed only by a word which can also fit enraged Talibans (a confusion on which some a trying to capitalise).

"unspecified" is in a citation of France, which I just copied and never edited. Rama 13:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this important distinction between practicing believers and people who just have a cultural background associated to a religion. The other, more important, point is whether or not, it is relevant to speak about religion and ethnic background in the opening paragraphs. By doing so, you are making a strong political statement: "religion and race are important factors in this event". This statement is not supported by any credible sources.Emile123 17:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, are race and religion so important factors that they should figure in the opening sentence? Do you have any serious sources that support this? Emile123 16:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, while checking the background of people insisting on religious references on the first sentence, I stumbled on this page : Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG. Apparently, many of these posters have an issue with Islam and have created a wikipedia group. I find this helps understanding what's been going on. Emile123 19:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The article keeps being reverted, with Emile123 removing the sentence "predominantly Muslims of North-African background" from the introduction, and Zeq and Karl Meier keeping at restoring it.

Frankly, I find this edit war ridiculous and boring. Beside thinking and working about this very sentence myself, I have repeatedly called for people to discuss they differences here, yet we still get reverts with comments like "repeated repost" (thank you...), or "Restored what some may want us to ignore" (ridiculous, this point is treated at length later and in details later in the article).

I solemnly call for everyone interested to state on the talk page why they think it is important to mention this information in the introduction, why they think we should not, and whether there is a possible wording which could satisfy everybody. Rama 20:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rama, well I will restate my question for Zeq and Karl Meier of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG: Are race and religion so important factors that they should figure in the opening sentence? Do you have any serious sources that support this? Keep in mind that the "race and religion" factors are allready extensively dealt with in the "Context" section. Note that the New York Times reported the riots had not taken strong ideological or religious overtones... this does not seem to support putting these references in the opening paragraphs.Emile123 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is a consensus against Emile123. -- Zeno of Elea 05:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not think so, and I believe that Emile123 raises a valid point; furthermore, I do not support unilateral changes in a way or another.

Also, I find it regrettable that some people are so eager that the word "muslim" be present in the introduction that they do not even take the time to make grammatically correct sentences -- not to speak of discussing their views here. Rama 07:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It was discussed many times. Is rama = emile123 ? Anyhow you can correct the grammer if you want but removal of the SOURCED info that they mulsim from NA is vandalism. If you have other facts (such as they are Budhist from Tibet) feel free to add but cite source Zeq 08:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

When young people have been interrogated about the reasons of their riots I ve heard this : police harassment and violence, unemployment, discriminations based on skin color, religion, and adress (if your resume specifies that you live in a cité then it has less chance of being approved...) leading to police harassment and unemployment.

So I can't understand how race and religion can not be the main cause of the riots. If those people had been white christian descendants from native french people, they would not be discriminated against, they would not have more problems in school ... etc. I think sdedeo has a point somehow. If the riots had been caused by unionised workers protesting against the company anti union harrassment policy would any contest that unionisation is a factor in causing the riots ? There has to be a union if there are anti union policies. Stating this is not denying that workers have a basic right to union and that blacks, arabs, Kabyls, turcs, Chinese, portuguese and other non french looking minorities have a right to live in peace in France without suffering from discrimination and police harassment, and that muslims have a right to pray in peace without being tear gased or insulted by clumsy (at least) police officers. Panache--82.232.235.239 08:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

you are avoiding my question : Are race and religion so important factors that they should figure in the opening sentence? Do you have any serious sources that support this? (see above) Emile123 18:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not avoiding your question at all !!! I answered it. These riots are about police violence aimed especially at minorities and about discrimination in the employement. Do you deny this ? All sources say it. For instance there's a link to Le Monde saying there are 3 "ethnic" groups in Clichy Sous bois, turcs, blacks and arabes-kabyles and that the 3 teenagers burned in the power station came from the 3 communities so that it united them all.

How can you find sth more related to race ? Then comes the episode of the mosque with gas in it. How can you find sth more related to religion ? It's not that they are "so important", it s that if you have not understood this then you have understood nothing about the rioting. Just what do you think are the alternate factors ? By the way I disagree with the present wording mentionning only the religion. Religion has not been the major factor. First police violence directed at ethnic minorities, then on top of it religion.

Panache----195.221.193.15 09:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

See also

Some one edited this item. I think the version with specific links to specific riots was more interesting. I'm not sure that battle of Paris is of direct interest. I don't know how to revert to the previous version. Panache

compleat this sentence

"According to the Interior violence, arson,..."

should it read "According to the Interior *minister* violence, arson..."

or perhaps "According to the Interior *ministry* violence, arson,..."

this is from the timeline section of the main article.

Mike McGregor (Can) 20:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Very probably "ministry". In any case, you can say "ministry", it will be true if the minister hismelf said so, while the converse is not true :) Rama 21:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Should 'triggering events' be split'?

Hi, everyone, it's me again. At the moment the section has both the initial spark and later, aggravating factors. Should it be split to subsections 'initial' and 'aggravating' while the context section deals (as it does now) with the underlying social situation? It was split once, but that failed to last. --Kizor 02:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Events in other countries -> South Eastern Turkey

Riots in Hakkari Turkey could sort of be seen as connected to the broader events...but this isnt really Muslims or Africans uprising against a lack of employment opportunities as much as it is just Kurds doing what they do best. freestylefrappe 04:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC) What kind of comment is this ? Kurds have no state and they have a right as a nation to ask for a state.

• They are Muslims, but so is 99% of that country.--220.238.198.217 23:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

aftermath

Since the French police has officially declared a "return to normalcy" in terms of violence (although it makes you stop to see that 98 burnt cars a night are considered "average" in France), it may be time to clean up our statistics, the graphics and timeline, and to begin an "aftermath" section. Some the state of emergency remains in effect, though, but we have to figure out how many communes continue to impose curfews on minors. dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A three-month prolongation of the state of emergency has been voted by the Assembly on the 15th, with 346 for and 148 against. The UMP (conservative, ruling party) and the UDF (centre-right) voted in favour, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the Greens voted against. Rama 10:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I know, this should be in political response and/or timeline. dab (ᛏ) 15:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

does it really make sense to be talking "aftermath" when it's still going on, just because some french officials have decided to declare it over?Amargo Scribe 02:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There are about 20 millions cars in france. 100 burned each night is about 0,5 per 10 000 I don't see why it's seen as big. There are also probably many burglaries, some murders, some rapes etc. I don't think these numbers are any higher than those of other countries, be they USA and it's tough police. The reason we are shocked at first is because we never look at the statistics on crime. For a comparison there are still some 7000 deaths each year on the road in France and many more accidents. 1 million cars stolen each year in the USA, 2500 stolen each 24 hours http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Panache --195.221.193.15 09:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested to know what makes Amargo Scribe say that "it's still going on". Rama 10:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

My misunderstanding--Panache makes a good case, he hit exactly what I was wondering about.Amargo Scribe 17:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

concerted, organized POV pushing

I have looked into the history of some people behind the repeated references to race and religion ( Zeq, Zeno of Elea, Karl Meier, Panache...) and noticed that some of them had a consistent history (in many other articles) of aggressively pushing their negative POV on Islam. Some are repeatedly engaging in edit wars, and are harshly criticized by other editors. Some of them are organized into a group Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG whose stated goals are to "Ensure Islam related articles ... are ...free from apologetics and sympathetic POV". Of course, this is a severe understatement.

Overall, this seems to be a concerted, organized effort, to push a POV on wikipedia.Emile123 18:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

False accusation. Can you cite anywhere where I had wrote about Islam in a negative way ?

You just vandalize wikipedia like those vandals who vandelize France.

When a group of muslims do something together you should be proud of it not try to hide their origin .

BinLaden doesn't feel bad about being a Muslim and nither should you. Zeq 20:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

emile123 you are violating the 3RR rule. I suggest you start restoring the info you reverted or you will be reported and suspended. Zeq 21:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Holy Mother and all her wacky nephews. While I'd like to ask Zeq to be a bit more polite, as far as I can see the accused have done little beyond re-adding the constantly deleted references to the rioters' background. And there are plenty of non-POV reasons for doing that - I, for one, sincerely think that it'd add to the article, and the biggest anti-Islamic bias I have is a tendency to skirt it when playing Civilization IV'. --Kizor 22:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizor please take time to read the discussion. If someone wants to place race and religion as principal factors in this article, then they should provide credible sources that say that these are principal factors. Stating their belief is not sufficient. Concerning, "the concerted, organized POV pushing" accusation, I was reffering to edits on many other articles (not this one). I will take some time tomorrow to reference these. If you are looking for examples, you can start by checking the user's talk pages. Emile123 22:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV tag from the article. Emile123 (who I presume added the tag) has not made any substantial, precise (or imprecise) claims of NPOV violation in the article. Instead, he seems to have a problem with various editors who he believes are "pushing POV"; the proper place to deal with that is on talk pages. I do not want to get involved in an edit war on this. Emile123 has the duty to discuss actual aspects of the article if he wants the NPOV tag up. Plenty of wikipedia editors have POV, but that doesn't mean the resultant articles are. Sdedeo 00:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sdedeo, somebody else added that tag. I was not aware that a normal user could add it.Emile123 08:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes he has. Don't be unfair. Emile has a very unpleasant time here, unfortunately his first experience on wikipedia is with our Anti Islamic Troll League. Zeq's comment above is completely unacceptable, both for calling Emile a vandal, and for saying things like "it's ok to be a Muslim like Bin Laden". What the hell? Go and read WP:CIVIL Zeq, I mean it. If you cross the line again like that, you will face short blocks. Emile has a clear pov, and clear proposals. They should be addressed. Emile will not get his way exactly, but a compromise should be beaten out, amicably. People who instead of constructively addressing the issue make venomous snide comments have no place on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 07:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

On topic, I agree that the Muslim background of the rioters will be mentioned. You don't need an anti-Islamic bias for that. But it will be mentioned in proper context, i.e. in a short explanations of what beurs are. I don't care about seeing "Muslim uprising" or "race riots" in the intro (or anywhere in the article), that's tabloid style. Give a fair description of the term beur. This will include the terms "Muslim" and "North African". thank you. dab (ᛏ) 07:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi dab, the Muslim background of certain rioters is extensively dealt with in the "context" section. Do you think it should be in the opening sentence? I think the controversy is about the importance given to this fact. I will try to find some way of linking to this section without giving this fact unwarranted importance.Emile123 07:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree about "race riots" - it should not be there. But there is an orgenized effort (outside wikipedia) to hide an important fact about the rioters (being muslim from North africa origin) and we should not take part in it.

On a different note, I am civil. You are attacking me (not civil) and thereeating me (not civil) while I wrote facts that are very simple and not about the editor:

• "BinLaden doesn't feel bad about being a Muslim and nither should you"
• "When a group of muslims do something together you should be proud of it not try to hide their origin ."

This is a comment and a suggestion about "no need to feel ashemed about one's religion". If you read into it more that your own projection mot mine.

I have no idea what Beur IS and why a simple fact about the rioters should be hiden. Please write an article titled beur and place there what ever you want, and act in civility toward your fellow editors (i.e. without making threats)

• It is also important to check if emile123 is a sockppuet of Rama. At one point there was a talk page explanation about a change that was made by emile123. Also emile 123 had clearly violated the 3RR for this page.

It is not civil to accuse zeq of being a memeber of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG which he is not and laso to claim that he edits against Islam ( a proof for that was requested but none provided) . Making fals accusations is not civil.

• additinaly (as if not enough) user emile123 has at some point made edits without edit summary or with misleading edit summary making it hard to find how important info was lost from the article.

Zeq 07:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, you are being very unreasonable now.

• If you don't know what a beur is, why the hell are you even editing this article? Let alone in an aggressive fashion? Emile knows what a beur is, and he will be happy to tell you if you'll just sit back and learn.

First of all I am intersted to learn. Please do not attack me or my ability to edit this article. This is not civil. I edit an important and sourced info that is critical about this subject. I know enough and I agree with your compromise. so please don't charterize my edits. It seems that we see it differently what is "aggresive" because we come from different backgrounds. I find your comments offensive but that maybe just my background so i don't blmae you just inform you about how you are being precived. Zeq

• Your accusations of "vandalism" are empty. This is about the content of the intro, not about "removing unsourced information". We are arguing over how to best summarize the character of the riots in one sentence, not about whether your sources are accurate. Removing content from a bloated or biased intro is not vandalism, so stop calling it so.

Agreed Zeq 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• My issue with your version is that it is ugly to have five links crammed in there ("[1][2][3][4][5]" -what the hell?), and that you are linking to gratuitous terms (young, poor - what the hell)

agreed Zeq 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• I will not dignify your comments about Islam and Bin Laden with further comment. What is this? Is Bin Laden a new sort of Godwin's Law? Just stop it, ok?

Good point. I agree with you as well. no more Bin Laden. Zeq 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be pleased if Emile 123 can bring any proof I have negative Point of view on Islam. I've spent my time here trying to defend their revolt as an anti discrimination one. I think EMile 123 has clearly some problem. I notice he includes me in the list and then adds "some of them", which is basically the same as saying "those people are an organised group ugly racists" because "I have proof that some of these individuals are ugly racists". Sure... Some is a proof for all. And unrelated individual acts are proof that there is an organised group. If Emile's research is as biased as his logic then I don't think it's worth anything.

Sorry Panache, I had missed some of your recent contributions to the talk. Even though I certainly do not agree with you, your ideas seem indeed to be quite different to those expressed by other contributors (such as Zeq and Zeno). I'm new to wikipedia am a bit overwhlelmed by the agressiveness Emile123 10:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe Emile 123 is the racist in here. He wants us to believe that there is no discrimination in France and that the people who burned cars are not doing so because they felt discriminated in any way. The only reason for his behaviour I can find is this one : "nations and ethnies must not be taken care of, there's only one reality the oppression of poors (labor class) by the wealthy (bourgeoisie), join with me in this fight. Nationalist and ethnic leaders and requests must be dealt with force. If these minorities do not join the working class, we'll deport them in Guyana or some other place, just like my old kamarad Stalin used to do when dealing with minorities." We should not be fooled by people like him. Panache--195.221.193.15 09:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on, Panache, your attack is not good faith. I certainly do beleive that discrimination is a major factor in these riots. There are many serious sources stating this. Therefore I would certainly support putting something about "discrimination" in the opening sentence. Note that only mentioning "race and religion" without mentioning "discrimination" is a very different matter. Emile123 10:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am beginning to find myself seriously offended by these insinuations that "emile123 is a sockppuet (sic) of Rama". I do not know whether there is an anti-defamation policy on Wikipedia, but Zeq should stay assured that this sort of behaviour does not make him look much more sympathetic that this his Bin Laden insults. Rama 10:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Selective quotes are as bas as lies. The complete sentnce was "It is also important to check if emile123 is a sockppuet of Rama." Please applogise for making my question look like an assertion. BTW, the question is still valid:

• It is also important to check if emile123 is a sockppuet of Rama.

Zeq 12:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You have repeatedly insinuated that emile123 was a sockpupet of mine. I do not use sockpuppets. If you think that you have grounded motifs of complaint, you are welcome to fill in a WP:RFC against me. However, I find such insinuations and stealthy tactics despicable. Rama 14:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

And Panache, please just stop it. I should block you just for your "kamarad Stalin" remark. Rama 10:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

you mean it's ok to accuse me of being part of an organised group who fight Islam ? Besides if Emile 123 suddenly discovers there are some discrimination issues at stake and if we all agree on this, I can't see why we can't have the word discrimination in the first sentence or paragraph. Indeed, I just added it. Panache --82.232.235.239 13:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not remember seeing you accused of such a thing. I merely warn you against the use of gratuitous and plainly insulting sentences which do nothing to solve the debate but merely upset people (I appreciate that Emile123 ignored it). Rama 14:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Panache is correct. I wrongly put him in the same reference along with people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG. My apologies. Emile123 15:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Rama, while the nature of the connection between you and emile123 is still not clear to me: If you say you don';t use sockpupet I'll take your word for it. I am still waiting for an apology on being accused of belonging to aorgenize anti-muslim group. (iamnot) Zeq 18:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort, so, as far as I am concerned, you can wait. Rama 13:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies accepted Emile123 but please beware. The way you once put me in an alleged anti islam group and the way you discard the idea that race and religion are important factors in the riots, rate you as non objective, "POV pushing" . I'm not sure this helps in making your accusation less credible. It is obvious that many here have anti islam and anti colored people prejudice. However it is much less obvious that there is any organised group action. And it is even less obvious that it is in any way related to how the first paragraph should be written. Panache --195.221.193.15 17:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Missing Map

There was a map in the article last time I looked at it that showed the affected areas in France each day at a time and then as a whole. It rotated through each day in sequence. I hope someone knows what I mean. Anyway, I didn't see it on there. Why was it removed? I thought it was a GREAT piece of the article in terms of showing how the riots in France spread. Davidpdx 04:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

the problem is, people enjoy maps, but they rarely care if the map is even remotely accurate. In the case of your map, you would have been better off without it, because it was extremely inaccurate. dab (ᛏ) 07:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK let's keep it this way

I agree with this change [16] I think it is a good compromise and I second keeping it this way Zeq 08:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's since been amended by a word or two, and personally I find that those only help. Looks good to me. --Kizor 14:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

GHoosdum's edit

the "rvv" reverts the edit by the anonymous IP, of course, not GHoosdum's. The line is not exactly the same as his because of a lost copy/paste, but I tried to convoy the same nuance. Edit ad lib, of course. Rama 17:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether my edit would stick very long anyway - I am not really sure how Wikipedia deals with edits that are written concurrently, meaning if two people start writing edits off the same base at the same time, and one user saves their (minor) changes, and then the other user saves more comprehensive changes (perhaps in a different part of the article), will the first user's change be lost, due to a later save from the same base from edit? At any rate, with how frequently this article is edited, I was guessing something like that might happen. GHoosdum 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this makes the revert of vandalism particularly difficult here. And since the subject is rather touchy, blunders can be mistaken for aggressive editing over debated points. Hence my precision here. Rama 18:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Guadeloupe

I corrected information on Guadeloupe's status in the French Republic. It is not a teritory, it's an overseas département (département d'outre-mer or DOM) with equal status to all départements in metropolitan (continental) France. It's comparable to the US state of Hawaii moreso than the US teritory of Puerto Rico. jd4508 22:40 18 November, 2005 (UTC)

cleanup

What happened to the "Firefighters" subsection? Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France is rather short now, after all. We could re-import it. Anyone into it? dab (ᛏ) 22:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

movies

why did you get rid of the references to the movies ? it's another mean of expression to better understand the general context whywhywhy

there were no movies about the "2005 civil unrest in France" which is the topic of this article, so I moved the links to the "context" article. dab (ᛏ) 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there any added value of Kassovitz's personal website in the external links ? of the POV of actors and movie directors having delt with the subject ? whywhywhy 15:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Belgian article

For two weeks, we've had a heated but fair discussion about keeping the Belgian article. The call for deletion was rejected, and a discussion about merging was still ongoing, when yesterday evening one user (SNIyer12) decided to redirect '2005 Belgian urban violence' to the French article. Thus, he has ignored the discussions, and just effectively deleted the article, as nothing from it was added to the French one. Is that the way we handle things here? 1652186 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

no, you can revert the edit if you like, but you'll have to be prepared for further discussions and changes. dab (ᛏ) 17:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Freerepublic article

I am removed [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1519631/posts this article] from Freerepublic.

The author is by no means notable in the context, apart fom being a foreign, right-wing editorialist. It is strangely focused on his apparent dislike of European institutions, which have nothing to do with the matter at hand; it show a remerkable lack of understanding of French society when talking about religion; and it is downright heinous when it comes to discussing Islam ("there are Muslims and there are Muslims: some blow up Tube trains (...) and millions of Muslims don't do any of the above but apparently don't feel strongly enough about them to say a word in protest".

As such, I think that this article is caracteristic of the "Freak show" sort of editorials, that it says much more about this Mark Steyn person than about the situation, and that it has nothing to do on this article. Rama 14:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I dsiagree with your assesment. This article, like others just above it has a POV. We need to put both sides in front of the reader. Zeq 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

As we said before a number of times, the aim in not to show a collection of increasingly hysterical editorials with less and less touch with reality, but to focus on the opinions of either people who actually give an analysis of the subject itself (like The Economist) rather than merely write about it through the shaping mirror of their a priori ideology (and this article is very symptomatic of this sort of problem, since it both begins and ends with remarks about the European Union, which has nothing to do with the subject), or from people who are directly linked to the subject (like Matthieu Kassovitz). Rama 17:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your charterization. It is not "random" it is an opinion that you don't like. calling it "hysterical" is just an attempt to make not valid but it is a valid view point for wikipedia. Zeq 18:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

with worldwide media coverage, we can allow ourselves to be picky and only link the most renowned publications or authors. The alternative would be a comprehensive list of links to editorials. This is not in question, Wikipedia is not a link farm. You have failed to explain why you think that an Israeli paper ( http://www.jpost.com/ ) and a British tabloid conservative magazine ( http://www.spectator.co.uk ) should be linked. Furthermore, you have not identified the links as going to these publications. This is particularly bad in the case of the spectator article, which for some reason you chose to link to as a ripped version on an US pro-Bush site, of all things [www.freerepublic.com/]. That's clearly nowhere near the standard of external links we should be aiming at. I suppose you could argue for inclusion of the Spectator editorial, but you'd have to make clear that this is an "editorial of conservative British political magazine The Spectator". Just "A UK perspective" is certainly not a sufficient description of the link (it is so misleading, in fact, that it borders on bad faith). Also, a pattern seems to emerge, if I may say so, if you insist of an editorial of an Israeli paper, and an editorial of a British magazine that is strongly pro-US, pro-Zionist and anti-European (and go ahead and label that as "a UK perspective". I daresay "a Zionist perspective" is nearer the truth :( dab (ᛏ) 19:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Not just an Israeli paper, but a very right-wing (in Israeli terms) one; and the Spectator article is AFAIK by a Canadian neo-conservative, so calling it a "UK perspective", while an understandable mistake, is just wrong. Palmiro | Talk 19:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The jpost link was here before. rama removed so I added it. in nay case links to articles that give a prepective different from the main stream media are valid. Please free to add links that describe other view points. The way I see it a link is a ref to a veryfilable source and as such has room on wikipedia. There is not even a need to argue about it: Everyone can click and make up their own mind.

"rama removed so I added it" ? Rama 08:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Here the question is nothing to do with verifiability, it's whether it's a worthwhile addition, and generally we should be as limited as possible in linking to editorials, I would say. I haven't read that one and probably can't, so I can't comment on its intrinsic value. But the Jerusalem Post, one of Conrad Black's rags until a year ago, giving a different perspective from the mainstream media? give me a break. Palmiro | Talk 20:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

my point is that the links were not properly identified. I may not have removed the jpost one had it been properly formatted, with a link to Jerusalem Post. If you want your links to survive, at least present them properly and honestly. dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll try my best shot at it but feel free to correct if I will not present it accuratly. Zeq 21:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not add an "international coverage" section in the article itself ? After all, the extend of foreign coverage is rather notable, and this will allow to digress on the nature and the trends of the comments.

But I would be very shocked indeed if a downright racist article was presented as representative of the opinion of a whole country. Rama 09:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq's attitude regarding editorials

I am extremely disapointed by Zeq's attitude. I have made numerous attempts to encourage people from all sensibilities to engage in discussion on this talk page, and I see that he has hardly ever taken the opportunity to do anything else than feeble attempts at questioning my probity.

Now, after keeping on forcing far-right wing editorials into this article, editorials which have been largely refused by the community here, he reverts any edit I could make about the mere description of the said editorials, including purely technical improvements [17], citing a WP:STYLE which he very clearly has not read (see [18] for how external links should be referred to).

I am not editing the description of this otherwise revolting editorial, just making a point that I find this behaviour disturbing, hostile and non-cooperative. Rama 12:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq and Emile123 should calm down. I don't know who can act, but I back you Rama on your remarks. Panache--195.221.193.15 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

predominantly of French Muslim background

Quote from beginning of the article : thousands of youths (predominantly of French Muslim background)

How do you know that? Is it a fact or a mere hypothesis?--Teofilo talk 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

From like a billion sources mentioned later in the article. See gigantic flamewar above as to whether we should say it in the opening paragraph or whether wikipedia should pretend, like the French, that race has nothing to do with it. Sdedeo 14:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The first source mentioned in the Wikipedia article is this article from Le Monde and nowhere does it say anything about the ethnicity of the authors of those events. --Teofilo talk 16:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Two reactions. Muslim religion is not a race. Technically in France it is mostly believe by arabs, but there are other muslim believers, very few native french, many west africans (blacks), some indians and pakistanis, a few persians (iranis) etc. The french never said it has nothing to do with race. Most analyses and almost all political leaders blame a reaction to race and religion based discrimination. There's agreement on this. So again, I'm asking for us to agree on a phrasing that would include : 1 ethnic minorities. As there is no scientific basis to the word race for humans (as there are dog and horses races but no human races) 2 muslim religion 3 discrimination against those ethnic minorities and this religion (for instance there are very few mosques in France, the organisation of the muslim community is only starting, there are prejudices towards Islam easily reinforced by the terrorist acts of some islam fundamentalists).

I believe mentionning only muslim religion is weird as 1 many of these young people do not follow the islamic religion in a strict manner, have few signs showing that they are muslims (beards etc.) 2 as far as demographics are concerned, I'm pretty sure that a study if possible, would show that more youth rebels come from ethnic minorities than from muslim background. There are many christians in the black population from west africa, in the french foreign departments in the antilles and at la Réunion, and in the "white" partakers from european descent (many portuguese are living in the "cités") So if we have to choose, we should be writing from ethnic minorities, and not from Islam religion. 3 however I do believe that among minorities, those with muslim religion background were more prone to act, and to act while mentionning their religion (allah ahkbar etc.) So again, we should be mentionning, ethnic background, religious background and discrimination against those. Panache --195.221.193.15 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am mainly agreed with Panache here; just two nuances:

* A French will never use the word "race" to speak about ethnicity -- the mere existence of "races" in this sense being largely controversial, contrary to scientific definition of "race", and largely a characteristic word of the far-right. It might be a good idea to craft a wording which reflects this nuance ("ethnicity" or "origins" could fit, for instance).

* There have been mentions that the mere fact of having your address in the 93 department will make your resume go right to the bin if you apply for a job, and that you'd find blond, blue-eyed "fanco-French" who also suffer of discrimination in this respect. That said, I have absolutely no doubt that statistically, the people who will suffer from discrimination are in the vase majority also victms of racism. Rama 21:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

why are you discussing "race"? We said "French Muslim", not "race". The term "French Muslim" accurately describes a certain socio-cultural-ethnical demographic segment in France. It is not equivalent to "race", but not independent of it. It is not equivalent to religion, but neither is it independent. Therefore we link to French Muslim and not to race riot or Intifada or Islamism, all of which would be incorrect descriptions. dab (ᛏ) 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I take it all back! Argh! Sorry! Sdedeo 22:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dab, the question here is, by mentionning only "french muslim" we exclude other possibly important segments of the rioters, mainly ethnic minorities of other religion : blacks from french foreign departments, from west and south africa, europeans, and on top of this potential indian indhouists .

Now may be what this shows is that there is no "french minorities" article in Wikipedia and may be so far the link proposed is the best one. But there is this feeling that french muslim is here mentionned in order to describe as you say : a socio cultural ethnical demographic segment in France, and not as a reference to the religion of islam. If islam is present only because islam believers are of a different colour, social status and culture, I think the term is still misleading. However, if there is no better alternative, and as long as I do not start to write "french minorities", may be I should shut up.

well you are welcome to give a try at writing French minorities, Ethnic minorities in France or something like this and see how it comes out. Rama 13:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Sorry I removed back "French muslim" and suggested 'immigration background'. "French muslim" is a choice of words obviously misleading FOR TOO MANY to be accepted here! There has been a lot about this, please follow my explanation:

This article is about the events that occurred. My understanding of the Wikipedia encyclopedia project is that anybody from anywhere can open the article and discover it without assumed prior knowledge. "French muslim" is not an idea that can be generally understood without prior knowledge: "French muslim" can be understood as something like "a French citizen who follows the religion of Islam". It would clearly refer to religion in France, and bring the idea of religion behind the riots... I hope you'll agree that this is very POV here!!

In this discussion, some of us here say the idea of "french muslim" refers to "a socio cultural ethnical demographic segment in France" without necessarily refering to islam. This is incredible to hear! To those who know nothing of France it IS referring 100% to Islam as a religion. This usage is too specific to some of us, and this discussion has proved it is not a generally accepted term. Linking it to an explanation in Wikipedia is not acceptable, particularly so early in the article.

As a solution, I believe "Immigration background" is most appropriate : it is universaly understandable and does not need specific knowledge, it does not bring up clearly religion though does not reject it, and above all it brings up an idea that is, I think, universaly understood: sufferings, frustration and social difficulties of immigration communities. It also serves a later possible development on immigration in France, suburbs, etc.

2.Also, I removed "thousands of youths" which is also misleading as it can be understood as a single group of thousands facing the police, which is definitely not the case.

3. gangs! I just can't believe the word "gang" never came up in the article! I did not go through the entire history of the article, but it suits the situation so perfectly that somebody has to explain me why the word never appears! Note the word "gang" has been used in many BBC NEWS related articles since the beginning of the events! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4405620.stm and others.

4. This article is full of POVs, but the facts are simple, and I feel early in the article should be said what the events actually were: burning cars and buildings, and fighting with police.

Marco21 22:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

well now we have "predominantly immigrant North African backgrounds". I believe this can be understood a VERY negative way by the French of north African backgrounds! Isn't it an almost racist remark towards them, as if they all supported the clashes, the burnings, and as if, as a community, they were responsible for crime and violence?? Isn't it a bit too direct?

Also it is clearly pointing to racial issues, a bit too early in the article as it is very much debated!

At the same time, this opening part does not talk about the fact that areas where riots occurred are well known as crime areas where delinquents roam around?

Toh-mah 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Quote from beginning of the article : thousands of youths (predominantly of French Muslim background)

How do you know that? Is it a fact or a mere hypothesis?--Teofilo talk 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

From like a billion sources mentioned later in the article. See gigantic flamewar above as to whether we should say it in the opening paragraph or whether wikipedia should pretend, like the French, that race has nothing to do with it. Sdedeo 14:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The first source mentioned in the Wikipedia article is this article from Le Monde and nowhere does it tell about the ethnicity of these events' authors. Before discussing whether to write that statement in the opening paragraph or elsewhere, one should verify if this is a proven fact, or an unproven hypothesis. --Teofilo talk 16:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You might want to examine the other sources in the article, including those from the BBC and the New York Times. You are welcome to put footnotes to these sources in the opening paragraph, but consider yourself warned that half a dozen people will occasionally all jump in to an edit or revert war both on and against whatever you chose to say. Sdedeo 21:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Neither the BBC article[19] nor the New York Times article[20] tell that the car burning and bus vandalizing youth are "predominantly of French Muslim background".--Teofilo talk 22:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

While you did succeed in reading articles by the BBC and the New York Times, you did not succeed in reading the onces cited as sources for the ethnic composition of the riots. I note you live in France. Are you seriously unaware that a large number of your fellow-countrymen are rioting in part because of the discrimination they have suffered on account of their race? Try again, or, better, stop trolling. Now. Sdedeo 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Up to now you have consistently failed to provide sources for the claim. I don't know what you mean by "the onces cited as sources for the ethnic composition of the riots". If such articles exist, then tell precisely what they are, providing the name of the newspaper, the title of the article and the date, or the URL if they are on the internet. And give a quote from one of thoses articles that, according to you, give substance to the claim. --Teofilo talk 08:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Here. Happy Thanksgiving. Sdedeo 18:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Teofilo, just because there are no statistics (which would be debatable anyway) does not make a common knowledge fact disputable. No one in France doubts that people in the banlieues, and these rioters, statistically have a darker skin than a typical promotion of Saint-Cyr, and I don't want to consider the possibility that yourself do. Please do not split hairs about a subject that has been debated hotly enough for now. Rama 19:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Then write in the Wikipedia article the things which are supported by statistics and abstain from making unsubstanciated claims. I have nothing against saying that the areas where the events took place have a somewhat higher proportion of immigrants from muslim countries than other areas. But that doesn't allow to present the religion of the car burning youth as muslim. The Wikipedia reader should be told that until now the French police didn't release statistics on the culpables' religions. The fact that a crime has been commited in Salt Lake city does not make the culpable automatically a Mormon. --Teofilo talk 17:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The police did not release any statistics on the proportion of Humans among the rioter either. For what we know, a significant proportion of the rioters could be fluffy little creatures from Alpha Centauri under a disguise.

The issue with Islam is not whether most of the rioters have a Muslim background, but what exactly we mean by "Muslim". The article links to Islam in France, which develops the fact that most muslims in France do not practice their religion, and which explicitely quotes the chief of the RG saying that Islamism was not the motor of these riots.

If you think that the nuance is not stressed enough, you can elaborate on this and make suggestions, but please let's not be pedantic here. Rama 18:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, happy thanksgiving to you, to Sdedeo and to everybody ! --Teofilo talk 22:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the comment on the so-called civil riots in Grenoble during the wine festival. Living in Grenoble, i can assure you pretty well there is no real connection between both events. Just a "drunken-guy party vs angry policemen" misunderstandment. --Kubrick 908 17:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Anarchists led unrest in France

The article presently states that early on the rioters used anarchist tactics, and that later on people "not trained by anarchists" used guns and so forth. The implication is that anarchists led the early stages of the riots, and "trained" the rioters to use anti-WTO tactics. I find this staggeringly unlikely, and note that the anarchist sentences don't offer any sources. They should be sourced or removed. Babajobu 11:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wine festival

Can someone explain to (and show the section in wikiedia policy) why the wine festival riots are in this article ?

Is it because they are part of the 2005 civil unrest ?

Is it to show that other segments of french youth also disobey the law ?

I don't get the reason why it is here. What ever the reason it need to be spelled out.

Zeq 11:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

At first, someone mentionned incidents happening at Grenoble, and quoted some misinformed english newspaper explaining why that could be understood as a new kind of "riot". I've just underlined the coincidence between both events, explaining why that correlation doesn't mean causal effect. --Kubrick 908 21:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I was in grenoble this day of november and all those students were so drunk that they were doing anything. They sent things on cops just for fun. They were not angry but drunk.

Fredddo3 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 

The reason I was asking is that I tried to mention the Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands to give some context in the article Palestinian exodus and was told that just if it occured in the same time is not a strong enough argument for inclusions that they have to be linked. (they are but I can not fight with this aand other POV over there) Zeq 13:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That exodus seems to be mentionned in the "See also" section. Perhaps this is the kind of very polemical article in which such disgression should be highly moderated. Anyway, dealing with exodus would allow both events to be mentionned. --Kubrick 908 14:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean?

"As the riots wore on, personal elements untrained by the Anarchists then used guns against French Police. As reports that protestors were calling for the burning down of French police stations, intifida loomed through the news reports. French police took 2 seriously wounded, as French police reporting refused to have any "no go" areas, and were invading homes to arrest protestors in France."

I don't understand that. --Kubrick 908 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Another example of failed multiculturalism?

Shouldn't there be a revision that documents how this is yet another example of the failure of multiculturalism in the western world? You would think that after the Van Gogh murders, 9/11, the Madrid bombings, the riots in Birmingham, Denmark, and other nations their would be a mention of this? Or the spike in crimes and social disturbances all western countries that have massive immigration experience, might neccesitate a paragraph or two? Just an idea. Celtic1

The explanation that immigrants have been marganilized and experience high unemployment is better established. --Dr.Worm 01:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC) No, there should not. Wikipedia is not about original research or crackpot theories. If you want to start a racist blog, you can do that elsewhere. Thank you. Rama 15:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC) How is it racist to say the obvious ? The integration policy has failed. There is nothing more obvious than that.

Thanks to the above poster, who is clearly more rational than "Rama".

It is not a crackpot theory not original research to state that multiculturalism and intergration has failed all over the west. Just because "Rama" has an agenda, which is most like anti-European, doesn't mean that debate can be stifled by the use of tired ad hominem attacks such as using the term "racist" against someone.

These thoughts are realist, based on fact. Racism is ignorance, based on opinion. Realism is understanding how the reality of the situation, something "Rama" clearly doesn't want to identify with. Even the Dutch foreign minister has stated multiculturalism is a failure, and the Dutch are the most tolerant people in the world!

Sorry "Rama", everyone is finally waking up to the non-sense, and will not allow bullies like you to stifle debate because your type cries wolf every time people try to inject rational thoughts into this subject. No one cares about this over-used "racist" charge anymore, as people know who the real racists are.

Hopefully someone comments on the failed multiculturalism aspect of this rioting in this piece. Celtic1

I think you should proceed carefully in drawing such a definitive conclusion as the "failure of multiculturalism". There are more factors here than just race and religion. WHY did it fail? Celtic1, I would check the validity of your premises. Claiming that Multiculturalism has failed, assumes that race/religion/ethnicity/etc, are the only key issues here. That has not been proven. Rather, it is being taken for granted. Just because someone is of a certain race and/or religion and they immigrated somewhere, does not, in itself, lead to social unrest. For instance, history shows that many riots have happened when basic needs are not being met or are being threatened. Which in turn makes an economic analysis worthy in this case. It takes a lot to lead to things like this and implying it's just because they are Arabs or Muslim, is oversimplifying. And ultimately, biased. It does not help that most of the mainstream coverage focuses on the ethnicity of some of these rioters. And even when some sources are citing economic reasons/factors for all of this, Wikipedia editors have, so far, selectively ignored it. -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[8:24 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]

If such a theory is widespread after the rioting is finished, then it should encluded. Hovever, I feel that at this point, no explanation should be offered to why the riot is happening until all facts are in --Dr.Worm 01:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

i think it is short-sighted to say that multiculturalism is a "blanket failure". of course something as ambitious is going to have teething problems, but the fact remains that the vast majority of ethnic minorities co-habit countries like France and Britain completely peacefully. i contest that these riots are purely racial, as per AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, but even if they were, while not an isolated incident, the beliefs of these rioters remain marginal. particularly in france, assimilation is in many respects quite a success, with most of France's muslim population managing perfectly well to uphold Islam while upholding France's secular values. to deny this is to deny facts. either way, references to the failure of multiculturalism do not belong on the encyclopaedia article of an incident like this. Jdcooper 17:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not suggest that we spend as much time publicising every dozen-people group of Northern African origin whose integration has worked like a charm as small groups of occasionally violent teenagers are. Just that we keep the comments about these in a reasonable scope. Regarding "ad hominem attacks", calling someone who advocate discrimination on the basis of origins a "racist" is not an attack, it is a clinical statement. Lots of people are comfortable being called and identifying themelves as "racists". As for how one can both stage such an outcry at my "personal attacks" and accuse me of having " an agenda, which is most like anti-European", is beyond me. Rama 16:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

France is not a multiculturalist society, its organs brag as much. It is a secular society which demands assimilation, unless, apparently, you are not white. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC) My my Irishpunktom you seem to be on a mission ! I suggest next time you have something to say as blatantly absurd as saying that France "demands assimilation, unless, apparently, you are not white.", you think about it twice and go to the 93 for a while. Have you ever been to Seine Saint Denis ? Have you ever seen the "white" people who live in conditions as terrible as those of there Arab, Berber or West African neighbors ? Of course they are huge problems in France, problems of integration, of poverty, of unemployment. But as Jdcooper rightly points out, in many instances immigrants from every ethnic background have successfully taken part in French society. Nicolas Sarkozy himself seems to forget in his comments that he descends from Hungarian immigrants. And although this may be a slightly clichéd example, the French national football team possesses players of African and Arabic origins, and I am not aware of the existence of any French person who denies them as French. The existence of the problems is certain suburbs must not lead people, particularly the international public to deduce that all French Muslims want to riot for a week without interruption. While they have suffered problems adapting to France, the situation is not nearly as bad as that presented. As a final example, I'll say that the cafeteria of my French public high school, that may ban girls from wearing the hijab, allows to apply for a refund if they intend to do the Ramadan, as clearly they will not be eating their meals. So yes France does demand a certain amount of integration, and "secular" is hardly an insulting adjective, but it is deeply multicultural, and does not make much difference, that I know of, out of the fact that you are white, but more out of the fact, sadly, that you are a poor immigrant period.

I think we should note that this isn't the first time people running from cops (who later say they weren't chasing them) has happened. Remember Jean Charles De Menezes? Same thing, triggered by similar circumstances. I am floored by the many apologists for failed multiculturalism. There are currently riots in Denmark with the same groups committing the violence, and this has gone on for seven days in France. Islam repeatedly tried to invade Europe via the Ottoman Empire, and this is just the latest incursion.

It is amazing that the bigger picture, the fact that Islam is not compatible in Europe, is casually brushed aside by those in the multi-cult as a fallacy. When some of you decide to wake up and tune in to the reality of the situation, then we can have an honest dialogue. Until then, continue deluding yourselves. Sure there are problems in France, but these are compounded by a group of people that should be deported. This is not a racist statement, it is a realist statement. Racism is evil, and based on ignorance. This is based on fact. Celtic1

It's "casually brushed aside" as a fallacy because it is a fallacy. The technical term is correlation implies causation. --Cholling 21:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Islam is not incompatable in Europe any more than Catholicism or Protestantism is. Any religion can be, and has been, taken to extremes (witness the Crusades, the War of the Roses, ad nauseum. Cultures are going to collide, and sometimes that collision is going to cause an explosion. That is just the way the world has always worked. Sixty years ago, people were wondring if the Germans were ever going to be able to be integrated into Europe. Now it is Muslims, who knows who it will be in 60 years. Multiculturalism just is, and that produces good things and bad. --Ionesco First, it is not fallacy, it is fact since the same failure of multiculturalism has happened in all countries that have experienced it. When the Dutch start to question Multiculturalism, the famed super tolerant Dutch, then you know it is a major problem for the west! Go ahead and keep deluding yourself that it is somehow good, while the rest of us living in reality try to solve this mess.

Christianity has its place in Europe, so that was a silly statement, and the Crusades were wars fought primarily to keep Islam at bay.

Germans were integrated into Europe, so your history is wrong. World War I was not their fault, it was the failure of all of Europe, so the comparison is bizarre. Islam has been a threat to the west for over a thousand years. You wouldn't be writing on this Wikipedia if the Muslims had won in Vienna, remember that. Also, all the women would be in headscarves and the comparison to Christianity is bizarre and misguided. Seems to me that the cult of the far left needs to keep telling themselves that their erroneous policies are somehow Correct. Celtic1

Yes, it is a fallacy. Even assuming your statement that "the same failure of multiculturalism has happened in all countries that have experienced it" were true (which has not been shown), it would still be a fallacy, akin to "Warfare has broken out in every country inhabited by white people, thus white people are the cause of warfare." Furthermore, I don't see what you mean by "Christianity has its place in Europe," since Christianity certainly didn't originate there; nor was its rise to dominance on that continent (or any other) achieved entirely through peaceful means. --Cholling 23:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Thanks to everyone who's not a liberal politically correct fool and knows the facts! Multiculturalism is a failure - riots, deaths, honour killings, the proof is there. I don't get why people who use facts for their arguments are simply branded as "racists". It's disgusting. This article needs a cleanup already. - Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk Multiculturalism is neither a failure, nor a success, it is a work in progress, as much in france as in another countries. France having integrated Italians, Poles, Spaniards, Chinese and Vietnamese, and other various people, is now adding a north-african/african component to its population.Kcyclopedist 04:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Has anyone else noted how integration in very different societies (the USA, France, Holland, etc.), where there are very different problems ad questions, is suddenly supposed to be completely interchangeable for the purpose of proving that "integration" is per se a failure ? Rama 08:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Celtic1: Could you please stop stating that there are ongoing riots in Denmark. There are none and there has not been riots since the anarchists rioted against the EU voting. Could you also explain what the Seine-Saint_Denis riots, the murder of a far right dutch politician by a disolusional mental case and 9/11 have in common? Wouldn't the Seine-Saint_denis riots be more like the Rodney King riots?, the murder of Van Gogh like the one on JFK? Is that also multiculturalism problems? And what has 9/11 to do with mulitculturalism? You make no sense what so ever. Multiculturalism includes many things, of which many add to our life quality. People, like you, who will only recognise the problems and single out extremes and make unlogic conclusions on multiculturalism, for whatever reason, are often slapped with the term racist, and in my book that's not really wrong. Celtic1: While you are at it, you might want to give some thought to how incredibly long Christians and Muslims have lived side-by-side in the region. It doesn't go back decades, but centuries. Our words Algebra, Chemistry, and the concept of Zero (as well as all our other numbers) come from this failed multiculturism. The Protestant Reformation would not have happened had the Arabs not preserved ancient biblical texts in their libraries that contradicted later monastic translations. By the way, the World War that ended sixty years ago was II, not I, and the Germans (or at least a German) were most definately responsible for that one. My comment was to the questions Europeans had at the time, not to the outcome (Actually, the outcome proves my point. Bonus!). Ionesco http://www.jp.dk/aar/artikel:aid=3354408/

Link to riots in Denmark, so you are wrong. Worst rioting in Arhus in years, and this was over a cartoon! Ten Muslim countries called on Denmark to stifle free speech due to this CARTOON. This is how incompatible Islam is with Europe.

Are you lying, or do you just not know what you are writing about? I also like how you cowardly didn't sign off on the comment. My comments are based on reality, not the false reality that you live in. People like you, who will only recognize the good in people of non-European descent over those of European descent, are often slapped with the term racist, and in anyone's book that is not really a bad thing.

Riots in Birmingham http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1280247.cms

Great stuff this multiculturalism that you preach? It has failed in every nation, and now former moderates like myself have finally awakened due to the insane policies of the far left. Normal people are turning out in droves to vote for far-right parties, something they never would have thought of doing years ago. Why is this? Because the average person is tired of the lies and has seen enough of this failed experiment that no one in the west even voted for!

A corrupt elite with far left leanings decided to change the nations over night, without thinking of the consequences. Even worse, when this doomed policy has proven to be a disaster, irrational and loud voices like the ones above come out to shout down any dissenters, labelling them supremacist and racist. Years ago, cowards like that would have shut people up, but no more, as the far left cried wolf too many times.

People are fed up, and hopefully the traitorous far left will be silenced once and for all. Celtic1

So you are a danish speaking Celt, thats some multiculturalism. I would hardly call it a riot, nor does Berlingske or Politiken but then of course they are in on the worldwide conspiracy aren't they. Searching for riot and Aarhus gives you some dispicable pages and then some references to rock concerts in Aarhus and of course the page you are refering to. But isn't it funny that your reference is actually the paper that published these cartoons of Mohammed with swords and women to provoke a discusion on free press? and that they might have an interest in making a story out of this "riot". "hopefully, the traitorous far left will be silenced once and for all." Well. At least now we know exactly where you are coming from. --Ionesco

I already explained where I am coming from. A former moderate that has had enough of the far left's lies and destructive policies. Celtic1

"former moderate" ! Now that's quite a statement ! Rama 17:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Please explain the disconnect, I am having trouble making both of these statements true under the same thought process. "I think Supremacy is evil in any case, as no people should lord over the other." and "People are fed up, and hopefully the traitorous far left will be silenced once and for all." If the traitorous far left is silenced once and for all, how are they (or, I guess from your earlier assertions, we.) not being ruled over? -- Ionesco

Out of all my statements, this is the one that you have chosen to take some kind of stance on?

If you had read what I was replying to, you would see that I was called a European supremacist. This is taken to mean that I wish to lord over other groups, which is not true, and that is why I corrected this erroneous statement. I am against supremacy over other ethnic groups.

As for supremacy over the far left, this is a political statement. Currently, the far left has supremacy, so it would be nice to have political supremacy over this group.

There is a disconnect, but it is sadly yours. Celtic1

1: The far left does not have supremacy, in that your thoughts are currently being allowed to be aired without censure or threat, unless you happen to be in China. I am currently living in a country ruled by an avowed conservative, but even he has not called for me to be silenced once an for all. The idea of any polical thought being silenced once and for all is, in itself, blatently undemocratic.

2: I also find it interesting that you chose to remove your earlier post. (sorry, it was in a different section. This statement is withdrawn.)

3: By the way, exactly who are you? You have commented a couple of times about people being cowardly for not tagging their responses, but you have no user site here, and the history shows no edits by Celtic1 on this page.

4: Islam, like liberalism is a philosophy, not a race. If you are advocating the removal of Muslims, you are advocating deportation based on a system of beliefs. There are many blonde haired blue eyed muslims in this world.

5:Actually, I have taken a stance on a few of your issues (the long history of multiculturalism and positive Arab contribution to European history are two examples.) you simply chose not to respond to them. Those two statements were chosen because there is a contradiction underlying them, which your explanation did not resolve. If you believe all supremacy is evil, then reigning supreme over any group of people, be they be joined by common race or belief, should be evil. --Ionesco

Celtic1, you scare me. As a descendant of Polish and Moroccan Jewish immigrants that feels righteously and entirely French, I feel rather insulted by your comments. Multiculturalism is an extremely common phenomenon, as minorities around the world prove, however it is a very complex one and obviously it has created many tensions. But one must not forget that it has also created situations of incomparable situation cultural richness: Al-Andalus, the Roman Empire, Canada and the United States are only some of the most obvious historical and actual examples of states where multiculturalism helped incomparably.

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513137/posts

Yes, how wrong of me, diversity is the best, blah blah blah. It is you people that are scary.

I will not reply to all of Ionescu's numbered points as it is silly, but there is a user named Celtic1. I am logged in, and it is not my fault if that doesn't show up.

By the way, where did I say that Poles, who are European, and Moroccan Jews were not supposed to be in Europe? Clearly I've no problem with you being in Europe. Stop trying to lump yourself in with groups you are not a part of.

As for the popular view that Muslims contributed a great deal to Europe, that's a fallacy. If Islam were allowed to flourish in Europe a thousand years ago, and the brave European patriots had not fought them back, then this message board would not exist, the west impoverished, and our women in veils. Celtic1

Are you then saying that algebra, the arabic number system, algebra, chemistry, the Protestant Reformation, are all nothing? Worthless? Please address these issues, because they are currently not being disputed as being positive effects of the meeting of cultures, and I want this to be fair and balanced. Also, maybe you could help me to understand your point of view on Arabs versus Muslims. You use both in your statements, so let us be clear on what you you are advocating. Would you want to deport all Muslims, or just those who are from other countries? If so, are we just talking about the Middle East here, or would Chinese muslims be deported as well? What about the Kurds or the Chaldeans, who are largely Christian? They are not Arabs, but are often mistaken as such. Same thing for Sephardic Jews? What about Salman Rushdie, who is an atheist? What about Celtic French Muslims, can they stay? Where would you deport them to? Ireland? Does having one French Christian parent mean you get to stay or you have to go? If any of these people get to stay, and they are liberals, do they get to vote, or shall they be silenced as well? --Ionesco "A corrupt elite with far left leanings decided to change the nations over night" - Celtic Wow. 1.) The "left" has historically opposed the preservation of wealth and power. 2.) Left-wing politics is concerned with the conditions and rights of large numbers of workers in factories and of lower classes in general. Any corrupt elite is actually diametrically OPPOSED to points #1 and #2. To put it simply, those with the kind of money and power needed to do the things you're talking about, want to preserve it even at the cost of rendering others poor. It's a little like Monopoly (the board game). You've played Monopoly, haven't you? Allowing for more money to be spread out amongst the middle and lower classes would take away from your bottom line, and resultingly, your money. So perhaps the phrase you're looking for, is "far right". AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [11:53 am (Pacific Time), Nov 4nd] Multiculturalism is a joke. A sick failed joke aimed at wiping out and diluting culture and promoting differences. I'd rather a french France than a 20% Moroccan, 10% Tunisian and a 70% French France. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

We have had similar riots in Australia, on a much smaller scale. Here, it is a class problem; poor people who see no hope of anything better, ever. They don't normally get any respect. They have no real control over their own lives, let alone the rest of the world. When they riot they feel that at least for one night they aren't powerless, they are in control, they own the streets, what they do matters and nobody is going to ignore them. They might be punished, but they might not, and they don't see that they have anything much to lose anyway. The police generally treat them as criminals whatever they do (and often with good reason). I don't blame the cops. But if we don't want people to behave as outlaws, we have to offer them some hope of getting into the system. And at the moment, that isn't happening. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC) I think it is interesting you mention the Australian riots, as an Australian reading about the situation in France, I was also reminded a lot of our own (much much smaller) riots a few months back. There are a lot of similarities between the two, though clearly not in severity. (See Wikipedia: Redfern Riots) I wonder if the underlying social/poverty tensions behind the riots here were very simliar to those in France... goodsmonth 10:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC) I think this article gives a good background. I would like to link it to this article, but am not sure where. http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html Whyerd 11:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added it right at the bottom. I'm not sure I agree with everything it says, I worry that different people will see only the bits they agree with or disagree with, as seems to be happening here, but it says a lot about the situation. If only the world was as simple as some people seem to think it should be.

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this ? Was this section not much above ? And why is the formatting completely trashed now ? It is impossible to know who is saying what to whom, like this. Rama 20:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Was it cut and pasted at the end of the discussion or something? Most of the signatures don't show up as links...very odd. capitalist 05:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A good example of POV writing

I just deleted the phrase "without proof or trial" which was just added by another editor. The sentence was "On 9 November 2005, Nicolas Sarkozy issued an order, without proof or trial, to deport foreigners convicted of involvement, provoking concerns from the left-wing, including for example SOS Racisme.

First of all, the sentence makes no sense that way, because how could they be "foreigners convicted of involvement" if there were no proof or trial? That's not the POV issue though.

When a factual sentence of the form "X did Y" is further embellished with some paranthetical phrase about the fact, that paranthetical phrase probably adds a point of view. Especially be on the lookout for weasle words like phrases that begin with the words "without" or "instead of" etc. These phrases add a POV to the sentence.

For example, the sentence "John walked into Mary's room." is a simple factual NPOV sentence. But if I say, "John walked into Mary's room without knocking first.", I have added the POV that he should have knocked. John walked into her room without doing a LOT of things though. If I say, "John walked into Mary's room without doing 100 pushups first.", that adds the POV that I think he should exercise before entering for some reason. Now some POV are true and some are not (maybe he should have knocked, I don't know their relationship) but they are still POV.

In the case of the sentence I edited, it originally just stated a fact; Nick issued an order to deport foreigners. The addition of the phrase "without proof or trial" adds the POV that proof and trial are necessary before issuing this order, and that not having proof or trial are BAD. Now is that POV true? Maybe. I have no clue, since I don't happen to be a French lawyer. But it's POV whether it's true or false. capitalist 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Influence of Islamist thought on riots, characterization as an "intifada"

I agree with Rama that you cannot add some random blog thread as an example of people who believe that Islamist antipathy to France's secularism contributed to the rioting. However, many fairly mainstream (if generally right wing and non-French) commentators made the same observation). Try citing one of them. Daniel Pipes or Bat Yeor or Victor Davis Hanson or someone like that. Google them and "riots" and "France" and see what comes up, then cite one of them. Babajobu 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously describing Bat Ye'or? Bat Ye'or? as mainstream?? Palmiro | Talk 14:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream sources

Wow. What a lot of mainstream sources. It's not a very good idea to rely on mainstream sources, and I consider them to be inherently POV, treacherous and unreliable. My strong recommendation is to see how anarchist sources fit in here. See Propaganda model, Mass media and public opinion.71.141.132.138 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what the above is leaning to, but in this form, it is not quite helpful. Rama 10:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about the opening paragraph

So I thought I would have a look at this article now that things are a bit cooled off and I was struck by how much space is devoted to a discussion of three-month state of emergency in the opening paragraph. Is the state of emergency and the ensuing debate about it really the most significant aspect related to these events? My impression from reading the opening paragraph is that this is the case. It is perhaps the most significant ON GOING aspect of the article but in terms of an encyclopedia article I think simply mentioning it and that it is contentious and then giving it its own section in a more appropriate part of the article would improve quality here. I would try and do it myself but I am not especially good at actually coming up with good wording and structure. On a related note is there any group of people on wikipedia that periodically go back over articles that were primarily built while in the news spotlight? I suspect that most of these articles need significant restructuring once they have passed out of being ongoing events. Dalf | Talk 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

--

I agree with both the "state of emergency" part being too big for the opening paragraph, and the needed restructuring. The 2005 civil unrest in France should be clearly about the events: gangs clashing with police, torching cars and public or private buildings in several location in France for about 2 weeks.

Everything else can be said and expressed, but properly explained in proper and organized paragraphs. I have the same problem here, I don't think my wording would be good enough. Toh-mah 14:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

All the Makings for a Riot

http://wb11tv.trb.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-slab28dec28,0,407234.story?coll=kplr-news-3

Tendentious translations quoted at face value

"racaille" doesn't translate as "scum." The Anglophone press (probably deliberately) mistranslated the word to "scum" when even Google's translation tool knows better (it means "rabble"). I think this mistranslation should not be presented at face value. Its only legitimate purpose is to highlight the bias of the Anglophone media.

I'd also like the record to reflect this error, even after it is corrected, to show Wikipedia's bias as well.

The political view of the suburbs

I'd like to know why some people want to suppress the very point of view of the suburbs. Why are "Les indigènes de la République" disqualified as a political voice of the French suburbs? Aren't they actually the most qualified to talk about the revolt? Please justfy why the article in The Agonist The Message of French "Natives" to Iraqis is being systematically deleted! MBJ 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This editorial is not notable, and close to a blog. Wikipedia is not a collection of web links. Besides, we especially need to be extremely cautious on this article because extremist editorials will soon find their way into the article and put legitimate editorials in minority. Hence, I deem it undesirable to see such links here. Rama 17:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to stress one thing: the anti-republican point of view of the suburbs IS NOT AN EXTREMIST ONE since it's neither right nor left-wing -- you can easily compare with the environementalists. As to the links, they are actually directing to the very people we are talking about. So why not give them a say? MBJ 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One can be extremist without fitting well on the traditional "right/left" spectrum. But this is beside the point. Whether or not your link is extremist (an "anti-republican point of view" in France would probably fit as "extremist", but whatever), including unnotable editorials opens the door to all sorts of loonies who will submerge the article under plain, traditionally extremist talk. This "agonist.org" does not seem to me as something widly recognised, like The Economist, for instance, is. Rama 18:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Or are you expecting republican Le Monde diplomatique to speak for them? MBJ 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Article missing relating to other europeans taking part in riots

I had posted one of two articles which spoke of Italian and Spaniard ethnicity also taking part in the riots but it is now missing or has been censured.It is mentioned that a small number of Portuguese people took part but for some strange reason someone had edited the Italians and Spaniards.

neutrality/accuracy banner

I feel I had to add this banner. I am shocked of what I am reading!

This "context" is definitely not a neutral point of view and, if edited, should be understood as such.

This entire article is a problem, but particularly the "context" part. I feel there is a lot of differences between what is obviously French view and non-French.

I know many non-French newspaper highlighted a "racial" aspect, or even "muslim" aspect. I think they forgot to clearly explain many things that readers who don't know much about what is what in France:

- WHERE the riots occurred: mostly in housing projects (city is definitely not precise enough) already famous for being violent, and where clashes with police are common. Non-French won't know that, though you won't even have to explain it to most French as it is already understood. Sadly, most cities/banlieues/"cités" where clashes occured had already their reputation in their respective region. And I want to explain also that "banlieue" indeed means suburb, any kind of suburb, but should be also understood as "cité", not in the meaning of "city", but in the meaning of housing project.

- WHAT are those housing projects: an OLD debate in France. New to non-French only. This is probably not understood by non-French. First of all, statistics about unemployement there being higher are STUPID: those housing projects were build in the 1960s to house the poorest... I believe unemployed people ARE the poorest. Statistics would probably show that 99% of people in a methodist church are methodist! Just change "methodist church" (non American don't know about methodist) to simply "regional church", and the understanding changes.

Such housing projects were created at a time of high employement and high economic growth before the 1980s. The idea was to offer subsidized housing to families with low incomes, in newly created "cités". But as growth disappeared, and crisis and unemployment took over since the 1980s. At the same time, immigration continued to flow in. Result: more people needing house, but fewer and fewer jobs for them. Those areas turned into modern ghettos. Those riots were not a new problem, but new level of an old problem.

- WHO are the rioters: NO article has made it clear, and there is a big confusion about it. Non-French readers won't know about it, but for all French, rioters are the same delinquents that you might come accross in the South Bronx in New York! According the minister of "Interieur", most young people arrested were ALREADY known by the police.

It looks and sounds in the article that there is a HUUUGE confusion between the RIOTERS, and normal people living in those places. Rioters are delinquents. Go and explain why a rejected, unemployed poor French is frustrated should be dealt with carefully!!!! Go to the South Bronx (if you dare), ask people if they feel rejected because of their race, because of anything else. Then go and report it, forgetting to say it is the South Bronx, and without explaining too much of the environment where you interviewed. Just say it is an American Surburb.

- HOW about high level of unemployment ANYWHERE in France? Housing issues, particularly in Paris? Education? There is more here to say than simplifying to racism and antisemitism. WHich, by the way, exists everywhere, by the way.

Sorry, I wrote the above in 10 mins. "prooves" and sources in English will be difficult as I think it has not been covered properly, I guess I would have to check.

There is a lot to say here, but this article is wrong, and definitely not factual!

Toh-mah 13:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Here I found an old BBC article dating back to 19 July, 2001. French suburbs under siege This should clarify a few things:
1. understanding what suburbs means:
"In France the suburbs, or banlieue, are the equivalent of America and Britain's inner cities - home to the poorest members of society, with high concentrations of immigrant groups - and plagued by crime and violence, much of it committed by young people." Close enough to my comparison to South Bronx? However, this explains "banlieues" in its darkest meaning.
2. understanding why such suburbs exist:
"the decline of the nearby industrial zone that brought immigrant workers to Trappes in the 1960s and 1970s has left an area of severe deprivation and one which now has the worst record of violence in the western Paris region.". Trappes is one of the places where riots occured.
3. understanding torching cars is not new: "Almost every night, cars are set alight in the streets between the crumbling apartment blocks in which most people live."
4. Who are the rioters? "crime" and "violence" are words coming again and again in this article. Instead of quoting, reading it will give a general understanding. Crime and violence should be enough to talk about delinquence!

The article also mentions racial issues. It is definitely not my point to deny racism has disappeared in the world, but to remind some key issues in the context of the events, that many probably ignore and should be aware of.

--Toh-mah 22:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving the banner just for the sake of warning. If what Toh-mah says is correct about what are French suburbs - he forget to speak about the ville nouvelles, but that doesn't really matters -, he is wrong - or I don't understand what he wrote - about the racism issue. Of course, suburbs are targets of social discrimination, which can take the form of racism, as pointed out for example by SOS Racisme. Actually, I think Toh-Mah quickly wrote this to warn people foreign to the French context, which is good. But his text, mainly claiming that there is more to racism in these riots, is wrong - Rather, it depends on the definition of racism. Tohmah doesn't point out that racism is a form of social discrimination. So, it depends on whether you first put racism or first put social discrimination: but they are identical! Lapaz

Hi again Lapaz, here is my problem: "if what Toh-mah says is correct about what are French suburbs". Those are your words, they prove to me there is a misunderstanding. If you don't live in France, you won't have any idea of what is a "cité" (not only a suburb or a banlieue), though it is essential in those events. There has been more effort on talking about racial discrimination than telling about the "cité" problem itself! Lapaz, the word Racism comes back 7 times in your few lines, so I guess your message is clear! I wish "cité" and "unemployment" came more! I am fighting the idea that those events are about racism, it is nonsense. Do you know that the police includes French from immigration origin by the way? Anyway, this banner should stay has long as it is not CLEARLY stated that explanations like racism or anything are POVs. Toh-mah 10:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[Pardon the lateness of my remarks but I felt compelled to point out the following: ]

Comments by Lapaz, "But his text, mainly claiming that there is more to racism in these riots, is wrong".

Perhaps you were skimming his comments? How did you miss his main points?

• "There is more here to say than simplifying to racism and antisemitism."

&

• "It is definitely not my point to deny racism has disappeared in the world, but to remind some key issues in the context of the events, that many probably ignore and should be aware of"

Toh-mah is saying there is more to *the riots* than racism. He is challenging the assumption that racism is the only or the main thing behind the riots. Your response addressed a slightly different subject: whether or not there is more behind the racism.

Toh-mah appeared to be trying to show that racism is only one of several factors or aspects of the unrest. You responded by trying to show that there are not more factors behind *racism*, or that if there are, they are not relevant here.

Discussion the reasons/factors/causes of racism is not the same as discussion of the reasons/factors/causes of the unrest.

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 2:26 Pacific Time, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AngryAfghan Just a thought, has anyone checked the neutrality of this article in other languages, i was reading the French version not long ago and there might be some conflict on that version.

Aftermath?

Having just read this section of the article I have to say it seems to make little sense. It describes only a single event that took place after the riots, which may or may not be connected. It also reads oddly. In line with wiki's ideas on vandalism ('if you're not sure, it probably isn't') I am not going to delete this outright, nor do I have the relevant info to replace it with something better, but I think somebody should do something... Thick as a Planck 08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, having re-read this section and following the links (where they are even given) it seems obvious this was an essentially unconnected event which is merely hinted at being connected in this article . The section is also badly written, probably because the poster's first language is French, not English. I appreciate the effort (it's certainly better than anything I could have written in French!) but the section itself is still largely useless. I am deleting it. Thick as a Planck 08:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Erratum

The events of november that occurred in France were not as huge as it seemed to be. Medias of every country in the world emphasized french riots showing pictures and images of a war ambiance touching every city of France. Actually, if medias had not related the events, nobody in France would be aware of these. Plus, I don't think the riots are proving (as anyone says) a failure of intergation politics: the first riot appeared just after the death of two boys in the city of Clichy-sous-Bois. The event was reported by the press because they didn't have anything else to relate. Then in another city, a little group of young people found it "fun" and decided to burn cars as well in order to "play". Then as the medias related it, more and more cities were touched by the wave. In France, everyone became to question himself as the riots were over, some were pointing unemployement, I myself point the scandalous lack of education these people receive because of the lack of interest their parents sometimes have in educating their child (riotous were 12 to 18 years old and mostly 12 to 16). (I apologize for the immeasurable grammatical errors I may have done!)

---

Hi there, I agree foreign media might have brought a distorted view of the event. I believe, as I wrote earlier here, that medias failed in explaining a few essential facts about the events: the fact that events more or less occurred in areas well known by locals as unsafe, the fact rioters ARE delinquents (and not just any poor muslim citizen as it is understood obviously by many), and more general issues like high level of unemployment in France, history of immigration, and I think most important, history of those "cités" that have caused problems: places build for the poorest in the 60s, when high growth rates could integrate them.

I feel there is a high level of misunderstanding because it has been easier for uninformed foreign readers to jump on "out of line" conclusions: racial issues, islam, etc., to be behind the riots... I believe such issues are real, but are not the main problem in the frame of the "riots". It is a fact, though, that some lobbyist from both sides have taken this opportunity to make a political point: many have taken the opportunity to denounce antisemitism or racism, and at the same time others have taken the opportunity to express that tighter security and police control was necessary.

I agree when you say the events occurred in some specific area, and that foreigner should also understand that most French would not know about it if not from TV...

However, I disagree with you when you reject the idea of "failure to integrate": though not the only issue here, I believe it is clearly related to the events... Combined with urban mistakes (the "cités" as dangerous concentration of poverty), with high unemployment (that the poorest will suffer most, like in any country), combined with the fact that immigrant population increased when growth decreased and unemployment rose.

But I agree with the idea that foreign media focused on the events without caution, and helped non informed readers to jump on wrong conclusion. This, I guess, could be considered as a media bia. And I hereby suggest to include foreign coverage of those events in the media bias article.

Toh-mah 14:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Afterthoughts, removing the banner! This second message from Tohmah is his personal POV. To claim that social & racial discrimination had nothing to do with those events is silly; to claim that all riots are "delinquents" is a lie, since the huge majority of them was previously unknown by the police, and besides bypass the fact that the riots were passively supported by a lot of people tired of not being able to found work because they don't have French-sounding names - even though this, of course, doesn't mean they support the violent tactics used by the youth ; the only correct thing is that it was widely exagerated ("images of war" etc.), not only by the French & foreign media, but by the government itself that tried to manipulate those events, which was clearly demonstrated by the Renseignements Généraux's declaration of the total absence of any organized plot or Islam factor in those riots. Lapaz

hi Lapaz and readers;Lapaz, reading your comments, I am surprised you say I am the one in POV! Anyway, you changed my words and distorted (or highly misunderstood) my message.
-You say "riots were passively supported by a lot of people"? So was 9-11. It is also a fact that many people supported 9-11. Sorry for the provocation, but it is the same. It is YOUR choice to link the events to the frustration of a community.
-You say rioters were not delinquents? First of all I wish to say to potential readers the police DID say most people arrested were already known (will you say we can't trust the police?).
It is not even my point. My point is that too many believe the rioters were carrying a political message. They had no banner, no message, they just destroyed, like they did before (read this BBC article dating back to before the riots).
In this section, I believe the subject is how it was reported in the press, particularly foreing press. I say foreign readers definitely could not put in the context what anybody living in France knows: high unployment (at a level an American would not understand), the "cités" problem, that is dramatically specific to France, and the history of immigration. Jumping to Islam, racism, etc. is unfortunately easier to do, and that's what I am trying to fight. Toh-mah 10:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

--- Lapaz, when you say rioters WERE NOT delinquents, the only fact they infriged the law makes them delinquents. For information, the level of unemployment in France is moreless the one of America during the economy crisis in the 90's...happily it is decreasing since a few months!

Lapaz, you're comments have as much POV as anybody elses. You said that Toh-mah is lying, and you present no source to the contrary. His arguments are not "silly" and he is not a liar. --Aquarelle 00:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here I go again..... Comments by Lapaz, "To claim that social & racial discrimination had nothing to do with those events is silly". How are you missing his main points? Once again a summary of his points.....

"There is more here to say than simplifying to racism and antisemitism."

&

"It is definitely not my point to deny racism has disappeared in the world, but to remind some key issues in the context of the events, that many probably ignore and should be aware of"

If I say that a basketball is not the only thing on the court during a basketball game, that is not the same as saying there is not basketball on the court during a basketball game.

If Toh-mah says that racism is not the only thing factor behind the riots, that is not the same as saying racism is not involved at all. He is NOT saying racism isn't involved.

You acknowledge one of his points, "a lot of people tired of not being able to found work". That portion of your statement acknowledges that economic factors played a part. Granted, you then jump to the conclusion that racism was the only or chief cause of the economic troubles.

TO BE CLEAR, I am NOT saying racism is or is not a cause. I don't think it is that simple. I think we can all agree that economic factors contributed to the situation. But it is not as simple as saying that economic factors are *the* reason either. The two are related. Racism is often used as a way of organizing people against perceived threats to security or economic well-being.

Take the Ku Klux Klan for instance. The founders of the "Klan" were intent on protecting their livelihood and way of life from the perceived threat that African Americans represented.

When there isn't enough to go around or someone wants more, establishing an "us against them" mentality can lead to people uniting under some cause. Hitler united Germany under the premise that Jews stood between them and healthy economic expansion & survival.

Racism can also be used to justify poverty and lack of education. In the US, African Americans were considered less than White Americans, which provided a excuse not to provide better educational opportunities or economic freedoms. Scientific "evidence" was even supplied to "support" this.

In summary:

• Economics and racism are related. That is, they affect one another.
• It presents an incomplete picture of reality to emphasize any one factor in this situation, to the exclusion of others.

To compare this complex event with a simpler one: If I said that the wind blew a tree down, without mentioning the fact that the tree was dead and rotten, that would present an incomplete picture. Sure the wind blew it over, but if the tree wasn't rotten, maybe it would have withstood the wind. And how powerful was the wind? How soft was the soil? The tree only fell when all the factors came together. So much needs to be taken into consideration before a complete picture comes into view.

I think that is why so many people can say things like, "racism is the cause" or "unemployment is the cause" or whatever. There's a grain of truth in many of these things and it is so easy to pick one particular aspect and say, "that's *the* reason".

Let us NOT get so wrapped up in making sure a particular aspect of this event gets coverage in this article, that we fail to present a complete picture.

Sorry for writing a book.  ;)

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 3:40 pm Pacific Time, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree Antelope. Economics & racism is related. Concerning the alleged "delinquent" nature of the rioters, a claim made by Sarkozy, the judges themselves, including the Syndicat de la magistrature, have refuted it [21]. They may have been "known by the police", which doesn't mean anything as I also know my butcher. The majority of them were not recidivists; they hadn't been condemned before, and thus were nothing like "professional criminals", which is the signification of délinquants (see Foucault's Discipline and Punish). Lapaz

Hi everyone, sorry Lapaz Foucault has been dead for years and I wonder how you dare to name him to make your point about our current issue. Also, you do know your butcher... as a buyer that is, and so does the police know their own "customers". Unfortunately, my sources are from a personal friend, not from any article writer that I will choose words from. That friend is not only in the police, but is also muslim, by the way. Lapaz, the word racism has taken its place here, I guess you won!Toh-mah 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Figures and Tables

I'm a bit confused about the number of vehicles burned in Figures and Tables. It states that on October 29, 29 vehicles were burned. On November 16, the day before the police declared a return to a normal situation, it says 163 vehicles were burned. The police stated there to be an averege of 98 vehicles torched on a normal night. The 29 vehicles on October 29 is noticeably lower than 98, which leads me to assume that only vehicles in the rioting areas were counted. But that would mean 163 would drop to zero the next day if you are still only counting the currently rioting areas. This dosen't seem right to me, so I belive that at some point in the table, the number changed from the number burned in the rioting areas to the number burned in all of France. Am I just wrong somehow, or does this need to be fixed?--67.188.80.67 23:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

just let me remind you that rioting areas ARE the areas were vehicles are burned in a "normal" situation. Again, foreign medias failed to remind its readers that suburbs where rioting occurred are known areas of crime and violence, and were no surprise for police forces. The surprise was the fact that all vehicles burnings were occurring at the same time in the entire country. Toh-mah 10:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right number 29 is for Clichy-sous-Bois alone, and above average. The number 163 is for the entirety of France, and apparetly not far above an average night. That's the way the police announced the numbers, it's not very systematic, but it gives you a rough idea of what happened. dab (ᛏ) 19:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt the entire chart be giving the same information throughout? There is no way of telling what the number given indicates.--67.188.80.67 02:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It would also be funny to remind that the number of cars burned in France in 2005 was inferior to the number of the UK... :) Rama 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have these data, you could add a "car arsons by country" table in the arson article.--Teofilo talk 21:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

new subsections

could the titles be a bit shorter and less POV encumbered? dab (ᛏ) 19:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove POV Tag

I think you guys have greatly improved the article since the riots were taking place. Everything cited seems to be factual and supported by good sources. What is keeping us from removing the POV tag? Please list any probles that you may still have below.--Dr.Worm 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC) ~

I disagree, POV tag should stay, as only a few sections are truely factual while most others use selected facts from selected sources.
First, the opening paragraph still includes the "muslim immigrants" part, which many have rejected here, while many other support it. I tried to correct it, but the "muslim" word came back. Personnaly I am not sure it is appropriate to mention it, as the value of this information is totally misunderstood by most readers (particularly readers not familiar with French social facts). Anyway, choosing to use the word "muslim" is already choosing to bring religion in the picture, which is, as I said before, a personal POV.
Also, the "context" section is a total mess, with facts, quotes and statistics selectively picked to make one's point. I believe it has been said before, but the statement saying "inhabitants of the French suburbs (banlieue) suffer from unemployment at a much higher level than that of the rest of France" is as true and factual... as it is stupid, or you should add another fact : people with jobs avoid those neighborhoods, inhabitants of those neighborhood who secure a job will leave it when they have a chance, and people without jobs have no choice but to go and live there eventually... In my opinion, a "context" section is essential to explain real FACTS, but this one should be rethought as it just brings a POV picture. Marco21 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Choice of words for the opening paragraph: how to be really factual?

I noticed the opening paragraph has been changed and summarized by some anonymous 69.210.253.228. Cleaning was needed, but this one has been quite selective in what is important and what is not...

- Why remove "gangs" and keep "of predominantly North African origin"?? stating they are "gangs" is probably more factual than stating they are "predominantly of north african origin"! But it is also a FACT that an important part of the population of those neighbourhoods is of North African origin... I believe this little information should influence one's understanding.

- Why keep "poor suburbs" without explaining they are crime areas? Anybody rejecting that places where the riots occured are suburbs suffering from higher crime rates, including juvenile deliquency, and under police watch for a long time would be ignorant, naive, or lying! I have already pointed to older articles mentioning the crime problem of the suburbs, and this IS also some important and factual information for a better understanding!

This choice of words, legitimated by so-called facts, opens the door to the later development on the racial causes behind the riots. So it is POV!

I changed as follows as a provocation, just in case it will open a few eyes on the AFrican or muslim issue: "The 2005 civil unrest in France was a series of riots where young people, mostly with African genes, burned down cars and public buildings, threw acid on civil servants, attacked the police with guns and set fire on an innocent woman of predominantly European genes."

Please note everything in this opening is factual... probably except the African part, but funnily enough this African part is the one many here want to keep! Hitler would have loved it!

My real change was simple, if anybody really cares to read i: "The 2005 civil unrest in France was a series of riots and other forms of violent clashes involving gangs of youths. Spreading to poor suburbs of large cities all across France, the riots mainly involved the burning of cars and public buildings." Reason: I believe the "north African" issue belongs to the context section, explaining things like wrong urban planning creating those neighborhoods as places of poverty, high unemployement in France, social issues including BUT not limited to integration of immigrants in economic slow down, etc.... Note I also don't indicate my own idea of "crime areas", as it would also belongs to the context section. Sorry for the above provocation, hopefully it ultimately help making the article better?Toh-mah 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Letting aside the provocation, I can only agree with the current formulation, for the only reason that it is so short it hasn't any time to spread half-truths or lies. However, I completely disagree with this unofficial policy of Wikipedia which is too simply jump the introduction as it is too big a deal to argue on. Henceforth, I encourage you Tho-mah if you wish to improve the intro, although we clearly don't agree on some things. Keeping the intro factual is a must, but IMO it should include:

- precise dates - declaration of state of emergency and end of state of emergency - maybe a total number of burnt cars (which would, of course, entail a necessary comparison with previous years) In brief, having an intro that spans the whole phenomenon in a few sentences. Could you do it without biasing it? Thks for your interest. Lapaz 16:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I was provocative to make a point, it did not work out, now I know it.

As for an intro, I feel it should be short and factual. No precise dates, no mentioning of state of emergency at this point.

The facts are and should remain: gangs of youth+violence/riots/clashes with police+cars and public buildings burnt.

Everything else does not belong in the intro. I feel even "poor suburbs" of large cities does not belong. Why? Because people writing here felt there is no need of explaining what kind of suburbs we are talking about, the fact they are higher crime areas, the explanation on "cités" and what they are and why they were built for, the urban planning and its consequences, the immigration policies and the economic slowdown, the large unemployement... Also, why mention "of African origin", where noone mentions what a "cité" is? Everybody in France understands that word a way no dictionnary will explain. It is not mentionned, though it is a key information to understand better the context!

And again, "poor suburbs" in France factually implies population of immigration origin, just like anywhere in the western World! This is why you have the "predominantly".

Anyway, regarding the introduction, I have nothing better so far, hope I will find something better, but no doubt racial wording will come back. "The 2005 civil unrest in France was a series of riots and other forms of violent clashes involving gangs of youths from poor suburbs. Spreading to several poor suburbs of large cities all across France, the riots mainly involved the burning of cars and public buildings and fights with the French police." Toh-mah 21:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates are factual. The state of emergency was also factual, and was the government's response to the riots. It should definitely be included. Lapaz 01:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, that's going too much into the details for an introduction, but can be ( and is) be much developped inside the article.
I just changed the opening again, I included the word riot that I reject but on which previous wikipedian have apparently insisted. Instead of "poor suburbs" I indicated "deprived housing projects" because it brings a clearer picture of where events took place to non French, and particularly because it brings a key word : cité HLM (French housing projects) that surprisingly was not mentionned much before. I believe however, that further development is needed about the cités.

I also mention the debate about integration and discrimination that followed, though I do not believe at all that rioters carried any political message or claim - as unfortunately burning cars in cités has become "normal" for several years without so much talking about it, but their action created the opportunity.
I wrote "immigration" instead of "African" because immigration problems are understandable to most readers around the world, whereas African is selective. It just happens that latest immigration in France is widely from Africa; peruvians would face integration problems too, but they are not France's immigrants! Also I believe you will find among rioters many youths from NON African origin, representing different origins in French immigration history, just another reason to mention immigration in the introduction! Again, African is directly about race, and mentioning it in the beginning makes the issue a purely racial problem, and there's so much more to that. For Lapaz I wrote october and november, but prior events, state of emergency, etc. would just in my opinion mess up the introduction and should be explained later in the article. Of course I feel this introduction is balanced and introduces the right ideas a right way to readers not familiar with social environment in France, and I feel and hope it should please everybody... just hope "immigration" and "cités" will stay and African won't come back in there Toh-mah 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with "disenfranchised": my Collins dictionnary writes "to disenfranchise someone means to take away their right to vote", and it is not the case here! Also, there is no mention of the "immigration descent" of the youths, then it does not explain why there has been a debate on discrimination! This version is unstable, I will think of something.Toh-mah 10:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

http://m-w.com/dictionary/disfranchised

It does not merely mean voting rights. It can also mean "deprived of some legal right or privilege. Beyond the dictionary meaning, the word is often used to describe groups that are frustrated, often because they don't think they have the power or ability to make their voices politically heard.

That said, there are race and economic issues here. If we went into all of it in the summary, it would bloat past the point of "summary". Besides which, stating "North African" descent would give the connotation that the youth are all black, but North African immigrants from the 60's were also of prior West European descent. We don't have room to explain all of this in the summary.

So this being the "summary", we have the luxury of being able to summarize and then the reader will read in-depth. As such, "disenfranchised" is a quick description that says: "These youths were politically frustrated". This is accurate, given the frustration regarding alleged police brutality in many of their neighborhoods. Discrimination also has the effect of disenfranchising people.

Crime rates are related to economics/employment rates. If someone can find honest work that allows them to support themselves and/or their family, it eliminates much of the incentive to turn to illegal means of income.

The simple test of this; crime rates in rich neighborhoods vs poor neighborhoods. It is safer to walk the streets of rich neighborhoods. Why? There is less threat of being being a victim of violent crime or being robbed.

Most importantly, "high unemployment" gives a brief explanation of why they had the time to riot for so long a time. Hence, "suburbs with high unemployment".

A lot of things are also important, but that's what the article is for. This is only the summary.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

"time to riot"! that's a nice one:) Anyway, i rm "gangs" in the intro. If you feel around like making "the perfect NPOV summary", Tohmah, start on by allowing other interpretations than your own, which focuses on claiming these youths were all "delinquents". I'm sure you'll understand that putting the word "gang" immediately brings to mind a whole load of totally unappropriate images for anybody not used to France. There is no such things as what Americans call "gangs" in France, which sounds like Crips or Bloods. Thankfully people have "time to riot" and even "peacefully demonstrate" when they must!... Claiming riots have no political value is in itself a political interpretation with a very clear goal: ignoring them. Lapaz

Hi Lapaz, sorry, I reverted back to the version with gang, here is why:
1: first things first, the source and "proof": BBC repeatedly used the word "gang" in its articles (check here), and note it has been mentioned before in this talk page. I guess BBC is one of the most reliable English news source!
2: check dictionary! Using back the dictionnary used by AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, here is the definition of gang: GROUP: as (1) : a group of persons working together (2) : a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends; especially : a band of antisocial adolescents.
You see there are several definitions, but I guess among all of the above, you will agree that (2) is the one applying... Don't you think that small groups of youths burning cars and attacking police is unlawful and antisocial? This here is more than enough to justify the use of the word "gang".
3: Lapaz, are you for real? you say "thankfully people ... have time to peacefully demonstrate" to justify your removal; how can violent clashes, burning of cars, burning of buildings, shooting of police be called "peacefull"?
4: and, simply, why are you talking about demonstrations here? These youths did not demonstrate nor claim anything... talks and claims by some parts of the population came after the events started.
5: If your point is to highlight social issues /integration issues /discrimination /French policies /unemployment or the "cités" problem to explain why those youths came into this, I fully agree with you, but as a related subject. But I don't agree with confusing readers and talk about it in here. The context section is a more proper section, or, even better, a separate article - that maybe already exists and shoud be pointed at. Also, I can't believe you reject that word when it has been around for so long! You are either confused or trying to push for your own version, I feel! And you even forget to be factual! Toh-mah 16:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that link to a BBC article from 2001 I mentioned in the past: similar incidents to a much smaller scale, with cars burned and violent clashes with police, similar issues about cités, banlieues, immigration, unemployment... and they already use the word "gang"!Toh-mah 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry but "disenfranchised" has to be removed: my own dictionary, internet results on google, and even your own reference here http://m-w.com/dictionary/disfranchised clearly indicates the idea of "deprived of a legal right", so it is clearly a misleading phrasing, those youths have the same legal rights as anybody! I think it is 'dangerous' to go "beyond the dictionary meaning" here! Also, you say "unemployment gives an explanation of why they had time to riot". It has been explained before that youths are very young, but mostly, I would like to remind that the "riots" were NIGHT clashes by gangs, not a permanent movement of several days! AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, I found this article http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org/Cesari/ , and I feel it might help non-French a bit, though most of it is difficult to picture without having spent enough time in France. She actually used the phrasing "immigrant youth from underprivileged neighborhoods", but usually refers to the youths as "second-generation immigrant". Given she is French and associate professor in Harvard, I guess the wording "second-generation immigrant youths from underprivileged neighborhoods" is acceptable!Toh-mah 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

how to relate the 2005 riots to 2006 youths employment law?

I removed the "2006 Wankathon" which is a clear disputed political point of view, but I invite to discussion here.

As BBC puts it here, the law can be seen as an answer to the 2005 claims. I believe it should be briefly mentionned as such, just showing the link to ther First Employment Contract article for further development on this issue. Any comment? Toh-mah 11:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec

Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec content should be merged into 2005 civil unrest in France IMHO. I am not denying the accident was tragic, however Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec is not notable for anything else than for being a victim of the 2005 civil unrest in France. --Edcolins 13:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

see Reginald Oliver Denny. Precedent against this merge if I ever saw one. Circeus 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Circeus and strongly oppose the merge. 1652186 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the relation with Oliver Denny, and I strongly support the merge. Indeed, the article on Le Chenaded may be deleted for not satisfying the notability Wikipedia criteria. Lapaz 00:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite agreed, the article cannot possibly be expanded in any way. Rama 14:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"gangs"

ok I reverted to the earlier "gang" word in intro as it has been discussed earlier here in discussion several times (look for earlier discussions: the word gang is used by BBC and others, and definition perfectly fits). The use of the word has been explained, references were given, and no explanation has been provided for not accepting it, but it keeps being removed so I open this discussion section. Also, it has been removed by anonymous editor!Toh-mah 08:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

well I reverted again as it was changed without discussion by Lapaz, though discussed before with him!!

Just for others to know, here's what I wrote weeks ago about same subject with same person:

QUOTE

sorry, I reverted back to the version with gang, here is why:

1: first things first, the source and "proof": BBC repeatedly used the word "gang" in its articles (check here), and note it has been mentioned before in this talk page. I guess BBC is one of the most reliable English news source!

2: check dictionary! Using back the dictionnary used by AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, here is the definition of gang:

GROUP: as (1) : a group of persons working together (2) : a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends; especially : a band of antisocial adolescents.
You see there are several definitions, but I guess among all of the above, you will agree that (2) is the one applying... Don't you think that small groups of youths burning cars and attacking police is unlawful and antisocial? This here is more than enough to justify the use of the word "gang".

3: Lapaz, are you for real? you say "thankfully people ... have time to peacefully demonstrate" to justify your removal; how can violent clashes, burning of cars, burning of buildings, shooting of police be called "peacefull"?

4: and, simply, why are you talking about demonstrations here? These youths did not demonstrate nor claim anything... talks and claims by some parts of the population came after the events started.

5: If your point is to highlight social issues /integration issues /discrimination /French policies /unemployment or the "cités" problem to explain why those youths came into this, I fully agree with you, but as a related subject. But I don't agree with confusing readers and talk about it in here. The context section is a more proper section, or, even better, a separate article - that maybe already exists and shoud be pointed at.

Also, I can't believe you reject that word when it has been around for so long! You are either confused or trying to push for your own version, I feel! And you even forget to be factual! Toh-mah 16:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that link to a BBC article from 2001 I mentioned in the past: similar incidents to a much smaller scale, with cars burned and violent clashes with police, similar issues about cités, banlieues, immigration, unemployment... and they already use the word "gang"!Toh-mah 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

UNQUOTE

I hope another change will be discussed properly? Toh-mah 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OUTRAGED AND DISAPPOINTED

I cannot believe that Wikipedia-The Free Encyclopedia- would allow such content on it's site. I came to this site for factual information not opinion. Moreover, how dare the author of this "definition" of civil unrest describe it as a "hip hop" thing and state that it does not relate to racial and social discrimination. The author could not be more blind and mistaken in this. The author's miseducation is unfortunate. I will never visit this site ever again because of blantant irresponsiblity.

``````

Well, you can take a look at the "author" right here. As you can see, dozens of people have worked on this, and it still has a giant "NEUTRALITY AND FACTUAL ACCURACY QUESTIONED" tag on top, meaning it shouldn't be interpreted as fact. You're free to contribute and join in on discussion to help reach consensus. The contributors here work very hard to try to reach a factual and neutral article- the only one being irresponsible here is you for being outraged rather than being bold and contributing. --Wafulz 20:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, on this particular article they has been very few attempts at conciliation, and mostly anonymous editors adding stuff. I removed the silly and potentially outrageous things in the intro, as our anonymous editor here is fully correct in his appreciations of this article badly in need of work (such events attracts lots of attention when they happen, and a global rewrite is in order). Lapaz 15:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Ok this is in need of some TLC. First, the grammar and punctuation is atrocious. If I can catch your English errors then you know they are bad!

Secondly, the sentences regarding the cause of the riots need to:

A) Have a relevant citation added

B) Go away

Any feelings on this?

I dug up a citation regarding makeup of the rioters. Max The Dog 16:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove any biased and unsourced info. Lapaz 15:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

young people involved in those events are not properly named "muslims"

The fact that a number of those young boys are without any doubt second generation from African or North African ascendance does not allow to call them "muslims" as a generic term : the specificity of the french urban riots being precisely the multi-ethnic/Multi-religious profile of nearly every gang in every "banlieue". Calling them by a religious identity -far from respecting their identity- denies any efficiency to the integrative process in the french society, notably into its "laïque". It might be a severe mistake to consider young people in the french suburbs under the same categories that prevail in the anglo-saxon countries, where nations, colour and religion are effective factors of identity.

Because they are not a terrorist group. The 2005 Cronulla riots were started by Austrailian whites. Can't we call them Christians? No? Well then lets start naming them by ethnic group. They weren't Jihadists for God's sake they felt the French government had let them down by ignoring ethnic issues, for example the African American community feel that White governments are ignoreing them and not taking their issues into consideration in the USA, do you want to call them Christians? No. So stop being nationalistic. What does being as Muslim have to do with it anyway? Most of the 1.5 Billion Muslims are peaceful... LOTRrules (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you responding to? Because your answer harshly to someone who agree with you ... Med (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed

Statements in this article that merit that tag:

1. "Such inconsistent statements by police and Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy have fueled public mistrust of the authorities since the riots began."
2. "The Union of Islamic Organisations of France (UOIF) issued a fatwa against the riots, without much result. Dalil Boubakeur, mufti of Paris' Great Mosque and leader of the French Council of Musulman Faith (CFCM), as well as Marseilles's mufti, criticized the UOIF for this irrelevant fatwa and opposed Nicolas Sarkozy's controversial use of Islamic organizations, declaring that their role was not to intercede for the youth. Henceforth, the leading authorities of French Islamic organizations refused any political deviation of Islam, which was to be maintained in the private sphere as a personal matter."
3. The entire section on "State of emergency and measures concerning immigration policy"
4. The entire section on "Related events in other countries"

KazakhPol 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1 & 2: I added the template citation needed.

4 & 3 ; I added the tempate section disputed. Please be more specific why you think this section are disputed? Pixeltoo 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

State of emergency and measures concerning immigration policy

In this section the first country mentioned is Belgium. Other than the second half of this paragraph, all of these supposedly connected acts of vandalism are guilt by association, as is the section on Denmark, this: "Two French businesses were attacked by some unidentified arsonists on Monday night, 14 November in Thessaloniki, northern Greece. A Renault car dealership was firebombed, destroying eight cars. A Carrefour supermarket was similarly attacked, suffering serious damage. [86]," "On the night of 18 November gas bottles were exploded at an Chevrolet auto dealership, in Peristeri, a suburb of Athens, destroying two cars. [89]," the section on Netherlands, the section on Switzerland, and most of the section of Spain.

Related events in other countries

Somewhat self-explanatory - We have a quote from a soccer player criticizing Sarkozy, pov use of "explained," unsourced criticism of Sarkozy from SOS Racisme, guilt-by-association placement of Le Pen agreeing with him, an incredibly pov-portrayal of criticism of Sarkozy from Syndicat de la Magistrature, unsourced mention of supposed demonstration against expelling of foreigners, and more unsourced criticism of Sarkozy in the Police section.

==

There is no point in having a huge section on "related events in other countries" when the article is all about civil unrest in FRANCE. Waste of space. 66.218.46.140 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)ninetigerr

Racism, again

To answer User:Walter Sobchak0: no, I am not very satisfied. Your edits ([22] etc) border dangerously with WP:OR. The way you source your essay-like paragraph after putting it in is a hint in itself.

Now, let us look at these sources:

• [23] is an editorial about Sevran and Dieudonné by a British journalist, apparently triggered by a phrase by Sevran
• [24] is an editorial about the Front national, not about the social situation in the suburbs, which are only mentioned in passing (among the usual stereotypes of "Our ancestors were Gauls", ha ha ha so funny) and where there is nothing that supports your assertions.
• [25] says nothing about the perception of racism in the suburbs
• [26] idem.

In short, you seem to have a given perception that you have attempted to back, a posteriori, by Googling "France+racism". This is not how it works. Rama (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism, always (in case you don't know what country you live in)

Indeed, it only took me googling France + hidden + racism to get those references. All in all, they probably don't epitomize my point in the best way possible if you list them linearly, as you just did (which makes your reply all the more disingenuous) but they do fit where I put them. And there is a whole battery of references waiting up there for me to find, that would fit this even better, even listed tendentiously as you just did. And no, the one-liners you dedicated to each one of them don't work.

I'm not saying France is the only country where there is racism, just in case you didn't realize. But asserting or defending the near-contrary, by hiding your head in the ground like an ostrich and denying what is obvious to anyone of average intelligence who has visited your country, is even beyond disingenuous: it borders dangerously this.

Unfortunately I don't have that much free time to look for the right references and going beyond that "googling" so obvious even to you, but if it becomes necessary you may be sure I'll do it. And I'll find plenty of them.

I don't know if the first people to realize where your country is heading for will be geniuses, but you may be sure as hell that the last ones will be idiots. Be sure to know where you fit in. To begin with, google "self-critique" or look it up at the Merriam-Webster.Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what is it that I am saying, exactly? I have said nothing, except that your point is not supported by sources. You are saying that the 2005 civil unrest was fuelled at least partly by a sentiment of being victim of racism. Fine, but where did you read that? You didn't invent it, did you? So please, bring in sources that back your point. Whether racism exists in France or not is an entirely different question then whether a perception of racism fueled the unrest. So:

1. Source what you say, not something else
2. Be wary of editorials, and British and US ones in particular. These are texts by people who want to see something. Better cite sociological studies, or quote specialists, for instance.
3. In general, do not come up with a theory and try to back it up after googling a few keywords without even reading what it brings you. Texts are not bags of words, they have a meaning. Rama (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What part of your ass did you read my text with?

1. "You are saying that the 2005 civil unrest was fuelled at least partly by a sentiment of being victim of racism."

I'm not saying that. This is the problem with trying to read someone else's text diagonally when you barely know how to read. This is my only contribution to this article so far:

There is a common perception, especially among foreigners and descendants of the recent waves of immigration[18][19][20], that French society has long made a practice of hiding, or at least whitewashing, its numerous signs and symptoms of racism[21][22][23], xenophobia and classism, by all accounts at least equal in intensity to those in other European countries[24]

Does it say that the social "unrest" in France was fueled by racism? Is this a demonstration of your text comprehension skills?

2. "Source what you say, not something else" That was precisely what I was doing. Obviously, it doesn't look like so if you list them linearly in a single list, without making it clear where they belonged in the paragraph, and especially if the headliner or the punchline has to be that I was "saying that the 2005 civil unrest was fuelled at least partly by a sentiment of being victim of racism." Then I agree with you, they don't work.

3. "Be wary of editorials, and British and US ones in particular. These are texts by people who want to see something. Better cite sociological studies, or quote specialists, for instance."

I'm wary of everything I read, thanks for the pedagogy. But alas, most of the serious and authoritative sociological studies come quite some time after the actual facts (same as happens with History books). And, as opposed to other disciplines such as Medicine or Experimental Sciences, everything counts here: from the "specialist" to what the lady in the market tells the journalist on TF1. That is, I don't need a 200p book by Levy or Glucksmann to analyze why Sarkozy said "racaille" or "Kärcher". And if you do, perhaps you should read less and think more.

4. "In general, do not come up with a theory and try to back it up after googling a few keywords without even reading what it brings you. Texts are not bags of words, they have a meaning. "

Now this is particularly stupid. You make it look like I'm trying to rationalize a prejudice of mine by clinging to haphazardly chosen references; the references could perhaps be chosen better (although I still contend that they were correctly inserted as they are) but it is anything but prejudice that made me see things this way. I've been in France for a year and a half (and that includes September-December 2005) and, surprisingly, most of what I say here has been told to me by "light-skinned" (sorry again) French people -- ostensibly far more intelligent than you, though. Unfortunately, now that you opportunely rediscovered the potentialities of the scientific method as applied to the analysis of non-peer-reviewed texts, I must admit that there are no references backing up these facts. That's why my paragraph was so short and concise.

Since we're in a mood to tell one another what he/she should do in order to step a bit further out of the dark, let me indulge a bit in petulant pedantery as well and extend you a word of advice: try to see beyond France Press for a while; there is a whole world waiting outside for you to see.

I imagined, from the moment I realized you were French, that we'd get in trouble here. But I think you should try harder because you're quite easy to dress down. Especially considering you history of dogmatic, simplistic and not-always-bright contributions in wikipedia (unluckily for you, everything you say is saved for everyone to see)... Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not a contest in rudeness. On a sidenote, you probably do not know whether I am French or not, and that most certainly does not matter.

1. & 2. Sorry if I understood the part about fueling the wrong way, I though that this was what you meant given the context. Even so, your sources say nothing of the sort. They say that there is a perception of French racism among some British editorialists.

3. There are serious publications and quotations, relevant to the subject, and published shortly after the incidents. An instance of this is the comments of Pascal Mailhos regarding the absence of influence of fundamentalist islamism.

4. Your obsession with skin colour is telling of the prejudice you harbour: a great many people from Nothern Africa do not have a darker skin than Europeans. You are unwittingly using a codephrase common among racists, precisely. This is where your lack of critical distance brings you. Rama (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If my answers seem abrasive to you, that's because I know where this discussion is heading for and I tend to lose my patience.

" On a sidenote, you probably do not know whether I am French or not, and that most certainly does not matter."

Frankly, I don't care. But if you're not a Francophone, then I rectify and recant that part.

"1. & 2. Sorry if I understood the part about fueling the wrong way, I though that this was what you meant given the context. Even so, your sources say nothing of the sort. They say that there is a perception of French racism among some British editorialists."

As I said, I didn't have time to look for other references. And considering the fact that I looked for them in English, and that whatever happens in France tends to be considered unimportant outside of the European media except for this particular outburst of collective violence, it is not at all surprising that the only major English-speaking media willing to care about the hidden racism harbored for years (not only in 2005) in France might come from UK.

"3. There are serious publications and quotations, relevant to the subject, and published shortly after the incidents. An instance of this is the comments of Pascal Mailhos regarding the absence of influence of fundamentalist islamism."

Well, more fodder to my argument. Except for limited and very specific instances, most of the text in this article, and that comprises paragraphs I haven't even contributed to, makes no reference whatsoever to Islamism. It is almost forsaken as a factor in this story. Nearly no-one is taking it into consideration here.

"4. Your obsession with skin colour is telling of the prejudice you harbour: a great many people from Nothern Africa do not have a darker skin than Europeans. You are unwittingly using a codephrase common among racists, precisely. This is where your lack of critical distance brings you."

Here's the cream of the crop. Since I wrote that "dark-skinned" that seems to disturb you so much and later on ironized on that disturbance of yours, that must mean I'm obsessed with skin colour? It is YOU that is obsessed with the subject. And by the way, "dark-skinned" means "dark-skinned", and is codephrase for next to nothing. I said dark-skinned because it is the dark skin, if that is the case, that will prevent Moustapha from getting a job, and if Moustapha is a light-skinned Kabyle and finally makes it to the application desk, he will get booted as soon as the clerk learns Moustapha's name. Comprende? This contradicts in no way, and can actually be inferred from, the paragraph as it originally was.

Why don't you try and be brave, and admit that the part that ticks you off is this one?

French society has long made a practice of hiding, or at least whitewashing, its numerous signs and symptoms of racism, xenophobia and classism, by all accounts at least equal in intensity to those in other European countries

and that nothing I present you with will change that perception? Until when are you going to try to maintain that sorry excuse for an argument? Who do you think you're talking to? A Homer Simpson clone from Duluth, Minnesota who has never traveled beyond the K-Mart next door? Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are not written by concatenation of preformed ideas backed with irrelevant sources a posteriori. You simply cannot do that.

I see, if a light-skinned Kabyle is victim of racism, it is because of the dark skin that he does not have. Interesting. Incidentally, do you have sources to back your "booted as soon as the clerk learns Moustapha's name"?

Yes, "French society has long made a practice of hiding..." bothers me because it is neither sourced not contextualised. As such, this paragraph has about as much value as the rants about "Eurabia". Such a paragraph would bother me in any article.

I think I am talking to one who goes about tossing "in case you don't know what country you live in", "What part of your ass did you read my text with?" and such; Is that your idea of a mild-mannered international relations professor of the University of Cambridge? Rama (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We do have a problem here.

"Articles on Wikipedia are not written by concatenation of preformed ideas backed with irrelevant sources a posteriori. You simply cannot do that."

The ideas were backed with more, much more, than those "irrelevant" sources you talk about. I just included thoses sources to begin with, to prove you and anyone reading how easy it is to find sources on the issue in the internet (because it IS an issue, understand?)

"I see, if a light-skinned Kabyle is victim of racism, it is because of the dark skin that he does not have. Interesting. Incidentally, do you have sources to back your "booted as soon as the clerk learns Moustapha's name"? "

I'm struggling real hard to take you for a smart guy. No, it's not for the dark skin he doesn't have; it's for the Western name he doesn't have (or for the North African name he DOES have). And it is RACISM, not xenophobia; it doesn't take a dramatically different phenotype from that of a mainstream population to be a victim of racism. Get your facts straight.

Is it so difficult to understand?

And by the way, the sources for the getting booted part are all over the web, and one of them is in the same paragraph we're dealing with: "According to the BBC, "Those who live there say that when they go for a job, as soon as they give their name as "Mamadou" and say they live in Clichy-sous-Bois, they are immediately told that the vacancy has been taken."" Why don't you erase that part of the paragraph as well, for the sake of coherence?

"Yes, "French society has long made a practice of hiding..." bothers me because it is neither sourced not contextualised. As such, this paragraph has about as much value as the rants about "Eurabia". Such a paragraph would bother me in any article."

Fortunately, before "French society" there was "There is a common perception..." and a couple of sources. Whether that source list may or may not be protracted is another issue, but it wasn't MY own personal valoration that was being written here.

"I think I am talking to one who goes about tossing "in case you don't know what country you live in", "What part of your ass did you read my text with?" and such; Is that your idea of a mild-mannered international relations professor of the University of Cambridge?"

And I think I'm talking to one who barely reads or understands what is being written -- maybe if it were a paragraph out of "Rien de grave" you'd be paying full attention, so I guess it's not your fault anyway. What puzzles me is that a self-dubbed scientist by "function" (?) is so prone to engaging in such exercises in suspension of logic; I happen to be a scientist as well (by "function" too, I guess) and it comes to me as scary that you might be in charge of 400-routine C++ programs designed for something, er, important, be it in artificial intelligence or in whatever else. No offense, it's just the way I see it.

And by the way, I was right about you being Francophone and you're wrong about me being an English speaker. I think you're just destined to hit a concrete wall with your forehead here. Once and again. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, guys (or gals)? I think you are simply being unreasonable. Both of you. Walter, because you are simply not being even remotely polite, and Rama because it is sheer bad faith to claim that the perception of racism from the rioters had no effect/influence. That it be technically xenophobia mixed with class struggle or whatnot is irrelevant.

I think the article makes abundantly clear that there is a sentiment amongst the rioters that they are part of an oppressed minority. Whether that is a fact or not, and what would or would not be the exact nature of that oppression, real or imagined, is not instrumental to the article.

Certainly such considerations would be more at their place in society of France... And backed with sociological/economical studies published in peer-reviewed journals rather than editorials.CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Walter Sobchak0, your ideas are obviously pre-formed and backed a posteriori. There are also sources that say Iraq had nuclear weapons in 2003, they just happen to be bollocks. All I ask is that you cite precise and reliable sources rather than editorials.

"Dark-skinned" is one single example of how awkard your formulation is (incidentally you proved yourself how this phrase has nothing to do here). Another example would be "French society has long made a practice...": what is specifically French in having difficulties to assess racism? The same could be said of virtually any society. "Difficulty in assessing the level of racism..." might be a way to say it, for instance -- if the rest was soured reliably, which does not appear to be the case. "There is a common perception..." is a typical example of WP:WEASEL: it is imprecise and unsourced.

Your initial assumption was that I was French (not French speaker), which could be false or true, but that is both unknown to you, and completely irrelevant. I never said that you were an English speaker (which you obviously are, given the language in which the present discussion is taking place). What I say is that you are forming opinions based on myths and anecdotical observation rather than serious sources; and that your paragraph is clumsy and lacks perspective and distance.

CyrilleDunant, I am not trying to argue that perception of racism from the rioters had no influence. My point is that

• things must be sourced properly, even this (as you say yourself very well)
• the formulation is clumsy ("dark-skinned", indeed...) and that very questionable insinuations are made without being sourced.

The proper place for this would be Social situation in the French suburbs, which has suffered its own contributions by Walter Sobchak0 ([27], littered by personal opinions) Rama (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Walter, because you are simply not being even remotely polite,"

My dear Cyrille, any rational discussion with Rama is doomed to roll downhill into impoliteness for the same reasons you assumed yourself, right in your first sentence, "sheer bad faith" from Rama or at least from Rama's attitude in this subject. I know where discussions like this begin, and I know where they end. And furthermore I did my homework and looked at the rest of Rama's contributions to this discussion page.

Let's see the answer: "CyrilleDunant, I am not trying to argue that perception of racism from the rioters had no influence. My point is that

- things must be sourced properly, even this (as you say yourself very well)

- the formulation is clumsy ("dark-skinned", indeed...) and that very questionable insinuations are made without being sourced."

• the first item is profoundly disingenuous and indicative of a will to swagger and hurry up one into looking for the sources, as quick as possible, under the threat of erasing my contribution. You just have to look at the end of the message:

The proper place for this would be Social situation in the French suburbs, which has suffered its own contributions by Walter Sobchak0 ([27], littered by personal opinions) Rama (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"littered" (talk about politeness)... this is more of a lament than an argument; I can see it, it bugs him that I've made that contribution as well, and that I didn't say anything unfounded or strident enough to justify an aggressive edition of my paragraph.

• the second item is once again the plasmation of Rama's personal fixations. Dark-skinned, I repeat, is dark-skinned. I know it isn't racial. But I also know it is considered as such by many people (the stereotypical job desk clerk usually among them).

I agree with the rest of your contribution and I promise I'll look for better references when I have more time. But I know that my paragraph is right, you know it and Rama sure as hell knows it (hence his rush to edit it down). And if you don't realize that, take a look at the rest of his contributions and you'll see a thinly veiled wish to hush down any foreigner who has opinion on France under the preposterous argument of French "particularisms"... which is like saying "this is a very complex subject that escapes your comprehension because you're not French and would take an eternity to understand the whole intringulis". Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Walter Sobchak0, you have summed up the problem with your contributions quite well: "foreigner who has opinion on France". Wikipedia is not a place to relay your opinions and your faith-based attitude towards this subject. "I know that my paragraph is right", indeed! The war in Iraq started because too many people starting thinking like you do.

See WP:OR and WP:SOAP and stop editorialising. Rama (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't summed that up in that sentence. Especially if you take it out of context -- to wit, a far longer sentence which incidentally had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. I don't recall having given you permission to take words of mine out of context and use them to your own profit. And for the record: Wikipedia is not your private playground. Drop the solipsism and the moral superiority, for good. I assume that you (as is my case) have lots of science to do and lots of activities to account for in order to keep that wiki-user page of yours full. So tend to your work and leave me the fuck alone, and leave this editing thing for the grownups.

"I know that my paragraph is right", indeed! The war in Iraq started because too many people starting thinking like you do.

Now that isn't an opinion nor a faith-based attitude, is it? Don't you realize just how narrow-minded your stance is?

Still on that wall. That forehead is worrying me. Learn some humbleness and manners for once and stop writing nonsense. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed not my private playground, which is why I strive to comply to its policies. I do this by sourcing my edits, refraining from writing personal opinions that I source later with articles that do not even confirm them, refraining from using profanities. How a scientist like you could pretend to source affirmations only after writing them, and with unautoritative documents that say in fact little on the subject on top of that, is beyond me.

You have written the equivalent of a number of pages, now, without suggesting a single improvement to your paragraph. All you have done is insult me and attempt to defend your text exactly as it is -- even the absurd "dark-skinned" which you have admitted is wrong. I do not find your attitude constructive. Rama (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Now listen...

What is wrong with the dark-skinned issue that mesmerizes you so much? And what exactly is it that I admitted was wrong with respect to this?

This conversation has stopped to go in a straight line and is now going around in circles. I think you'd better decide what it is that you want to do, since you seem to be drifting away into ambiguity and you'll end up precisely defending my stance inadvertently. Do you want to take this in front of an outer referee? Do you just want to go on and on with this indefinitely? Or is it just that you need to be given attention since you finally acknowledged the futility of it all and the meaninglessness of your existence in a cold, uncaring universe?

This is the last message I'm dedicating directly to you. You may take it in front of an outer referee if you want to (you know how that works, since you're an administrator), and please take into account that not even a negative verdict from his/her part will change my position by an inch: I don't need an external arbiter to tell me whether I'm right or wrong. But if your public image here at wiki is so important to you, then go ahead, raise the stakes and good luck. It's up to you to keep banging on that wall; but now you don't even have me as an audience. Sorry, but I have more important things to tend to. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let us restart from the beginning.

I am not opposed to the core of your paragraph. Your point about a perception of ostracism is correct to a certain extent. BUT:

• your paragraph is extremely badly worded. For instance:
  • With "French society has long made a practice of hiding, or at least whitewashing, its numerous signs and symptoms of racism", you insinuate (unwittingly or not) that France is/is perceived as more racist than other countries, or has more difficulties recognising racism on her territory than other countries. This could be true, but must be sourced. Else, the paragraph must be rewritten.
  • you use loaded terms like "dark-skinned", which are typical from the far-right-wing, and which are factually incorrect (which you admitted by saying "Moustapha is a light-skinned Kabyle" [28]).
  • you use WP:WEASEL words ("There is a common perception": how common? source?)

I have problems with the way you work

• you write from the top of your head without consideration for documentation; you do not source important statements; you pretend to source particular statements with sources that do not confirm them; you use editorials as reliable factual sources.
• you obviously refuse to even consider whether your edits could be improved ("I know that my paragraph is right" [29]) and even refuse compromise in advance ("not even a negative verdict from his/her part will change my position by an inch" [30])

As for your insults, profanities and other displays of vulgarity, they are too numerous to count. You even use them as section titles.

I realise that my outright removal of your initial paragraph might have come as dry; I acknowledge that you are probably not the sort of person of whom your initial edits made me think. But the person that your subsequent edits revealed that you are leaves me little choice than opening a WP:RfC if the deadlock persists. Rama (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV-section Tag

Between using words like "rants" and uncited claims of the rappers merely speaking up and "defending themselves", there's no way you can tell me this section isn't POV. My guess is the rappers were probably on the side of right, but this wording is horrible. I don't have time to rewrite a section, I'm tired. Somebody else do it. Cheers General Epitaph (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ethnic makeup of rioters

it is very obvious to everyone who has any knowledge about the french riots that almost all of the rioters were North African Arabs of Algerian,Tunisian and Moroccan heritage.but this article refuses to bring this up,this political correctness to call the rioters YOUTHS masks their islamic identity.furthermore you can also hear shouts of allah akbar in some of the footage of the riots.these riots clearly resemble an islamic french intifada than anything else. french rappers who are almost all of arab heritage also add fuel to the fire by using french rap as an islamic call to war.this tabou topic has to be addressed more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.239.207 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm french and believe me it had nothing to do with islam, also don't underestimate the anger of non muslim minorities. Any way you don't know what you are talking about. And about rappers I can think of 2 majors french rappeurs that are not muslim or from northern africa, Joey Star and Kool Sheen from NTM. There is also Seth Gueko very popular right now and he's not muslim ... Plus muslim rappers are not at all like you say here in France, Medine for example or Soprano are muslim but like they say in their songs, their islam is not the one of the terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.217.149 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)