This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
well then it it happend before the riots then its old news and can go into the article directly
.-- Whywhywhy 10:43, 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
cause i dont want to lose it
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)
what you mentioned above is a political response.-- Whywhywhy 10:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
my point is that it IS all policial see Political-- Whywhywhy 10:37, 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)
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
.-- 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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).
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]
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)
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)
-- 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 vote for just the timeline back or even better just some of it.-- Whywhywhy 06:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
if they have a online version it going to be a link to this article :)-- Whywhywhy 07:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
RE Yeah
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
For these youth living in ghettos, religion is usually the only thing that's left that they respect and can identify to.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a comment on there about the French intifafa, is this a typo? Paskari ( talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
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'
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?
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)
User:Emile123 is repeatedly deleting two things from the article (he has been quetily doing this for over a week:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 also recommend adding something showing the week ends. It can help to understand peeks. panache
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)
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)
Some genius made a flurry of "2005 X urban violence" articles,
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)
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
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)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
"According to the Interior violence, arson,..."
Mike McGregor (Can) 20:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Zeq 07:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Zeq, you are being very unreasonable now.
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.
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)
Zeq 12:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
why did you get rid of the references to the movies ? it's another mean of expression to better understand the general context whywhywhy
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Quote from beginning of the article : thousands of youths (predominantly of French Muslim background)
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)
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.
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)
Quote from beginning of the article : thousands of youths (predominantly of French Muslim background)
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)
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)
Here. Happy Thanksgiving. Sdedeo 18:35, 23 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://wb11tv.trb.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-slab28dec28,0,407234.story?coll=kplr-news-3
"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.
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)
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)
Or are you expecting republican Le Monde diplomatique to speak for them? MBJ 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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
[1]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
could the titles be a bit shorter and less POV encumbered? dab (ᛏ) 19:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
``````
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:
Any feelings on this?
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.
Statements in this article that merit that tag:
KazakhPol 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
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
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:
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)
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)
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:
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)
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?
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)
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)
"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."
"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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)