|
#Redirect[[Template:Segunda Division B - Grupo 1]]
{{talkheader}}
{| width="85%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-bottom: 3px;"
|align=left|
{| width="100%" align="left" cellspacing="10" style="border: 0px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-bottom: 0px;"
|align=center valign=center|'''[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]: '''[[Talk:2005 French civil unrest/Archive 1|Archive 1]] • [[Talk:2005 French civil unrest/Archive 2|Archive 2]] • [[Talk:2005 French civil unrest/Archive 3|Archive 3]] • [[Talk:2005 French civil unrest/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
|}
|}
== Human Activity? Civil Unrest? Urban/Suburban Violence? Or Rioting? ==
I'm going on the record as objecting to the use of the terms "urban violence", "suburban violence" and "civil unrest" because those terms are too general. "Urban (or suburban) violence" includes muggings, home invasions, gang related killings and drug deals gone bad in addition to rioting. "Civil Unrest" is not correct because it is even MORE general. Sure, it might include rioting, but it includes sit-ins, peaceful demonstrations and letter-writing campaigns too! We want to be more SPECIFIC and PRECISE, not more general. I mean, if you want to be REALLY general, how about calling the article "Human Activity in Europe - 21st Century"?? LOL!
Rioting is a subset of urban violence which is characterized by things like the number of people involved in a given incident, public confrontations with authorities, etc. This is what makes "rioting" the correct term. [[User:Capitalist|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.--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 05:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
CALL IT IMMIGRATION
:Indeed... let em all fuck themselves and their own countries up, dying there if necessary, unless they're strong enough to march into ours under a military banner. The majority of modern immigration is an insidious encroachment.
::I just thought I'd add that I love the fact that these two broad-minded, fair individuals somehow forgot to add their names to their posts... [[User:Odd bloke|Odd bloke]] 03:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:::What difference does a name make? I don't have an account here... and if you really want to profile me look at my IP address/addresses. Throwaway comment from yourself to be honest, you're no better than us. <small>(''preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment by'' {{user|81.178.135.207}})</small>
::::I didn't read correctly--My mistake--David.
Normally I will not act as a sysop on this article since I have edited it and discussed the topic. However one of the few police duties into which I am willing to engage is enforcement of the [[WP:NPA|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. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 06:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for the talk links Rama. I'll have my final say on Davids IPs talk page where it may go unread or unanswered, but at least it'll be in the right place.
:: Please take good care to kindly do so in a polite and civil manner. Also keep in mind that IPs can be dynamically attributed; thus your message might not even not reach the person for whom it is intended, but also reach someone else. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 07:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::: The dynamic IP point and the use of civil tone were both anticipated, but thanks again for your input here. [[User:81.178.135.207|81.178.135.207]] 07:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
== POV caption to the first picture ==
''Domestic Muslim terrorists attack a military police vehicle on 9 November 2005.''
This caption is inexcusably POV. Does anyone else think "Youths participating in in the civil unrest attack a military police vehicle on 9 November 2005." is better? [[User:Rhesusman|Rhesusman]] 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
yes or riots yes i agree either way--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 05:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:That was more like vandalism than POV. Thanks for fixing it. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 08:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
==Suspected vandalism==
In the last few hours, [[User:Swollib]], a known vandal -- see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq&diff=27795499&oldid=27794926 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. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 06:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
: Among the edits coming from this user account is vandalism of a very insidious and difficult to solve sort. I have blocked this user account for 48 hours.
: I am also puzzled to see such edits coming from this user account, which looks like the one of a legitimate contributor. Should these edits be the deeds of a third party (by guessing a password for instance), I would invite the real Swollib to contact me by mail, or to explain the problem on the IRC where he will find assistance. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 07:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
== [[Kärcher]] ==
"Sarkozy went there and declared he wanted to "clean out the city with a Kärcher" (nettoyer la cité au [[Kärcher]])." This quote is meaningless to those of us who don't know what a "[[Kärcher]]" is; we can find out by clicking on the link, but I believe articles should be understandable without resorting to that. I've changed it once, but as it's been reverted I'm starting this discussion to see what the consensus is.—[[User:Jwanders|Jwanders]] 07:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:Put in "pressure washer" in parenthesis into the quote. And leave in the link to Karcher, which needs some expansion. [[User:Klonimus|Klonimus]] 07:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:: [[User:Jwanders|Jwanders]], I understand your point, which makes lots of sense. On the other hand, it imght not be apparent to you that the word "karcher" will never have the same connotation again in French since the infamous words of Sarkozy and their repercussions; this "karcher" has now become the slogan of the rioters. Do you find [[User:Klonimus|Klonimus]]'s idea a possible solution ? [[User:Rama|Rama]] 08:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Also, "Cité" doesn't translate as City, more a sort of district or in this case "Ghetto". ;) [[User:Dan Carkner|Dan Carkner]] 13:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::'Cité' translates directly to UK English as 'housing estate'. I guess that would make it 'project' in US english. District is incorrect. Ghetto won't do - I've lived in a cité in Paris which could not be classed as a ghetto. [[User:Jigsawpuzzleman|Jigsawpuzzleman]] 18:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
== 1968 student riots ==
I've just changed the line "It's unexpected character has led many commentators to compare it to the events of [[May 1968]]" back to to "It is the most dramatic unrest experienced in France since the [[May 1968|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? --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]]
The unrest is not the most dramatic one since 1968. That's precisely the point. See my exageration comment above.
The 1986 and 1995 massive strikes in France have led to more unrest and damage than the 2005 present urban riots.
Now it is a question wether strikes and protests, even when they lead to confrontation with police and deaths, can qualify as urban unrest.
But if they don't then 1968 does not qualify as urban unrest.
I've suppressed the reference to 1968. The 1968 events are something that foreigners know about France. This is great. However it is no reason to mention them here since the two events have very few common points.
I've pointed to a comparion to LA riots. The riots in the USA in the 1960's might also qualify but I doubt it those ones had some political background.
I do not know about Soweto, I think that given the apartheid context, they do not qualify.
This reference has been deleted several times with no discussion so far here. Let's hope we can start it.
-- Panache (I thought my name appeared automatically)
== Not the first case of National Rioting in France ==
The passage-"It is the first case of national scale urban riots in France" is innaccurate, I'm not sure if any of you guys remember the 1790's but there was a little thing called the French Revolution. I think that may have qualified as nation scale urban riots. I am going to delete the assertion- [[User:Julian Diamond|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] 09:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:My thanks. I left it in since I couldn't refute it myself, not knowing if the French Revolution was nationwide. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 09:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::Okay, so that sounds a lot stupider in writing. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 09:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone has written it is the most dramatic since the los angeles riots. Considering that These riots are occuring throughout France and the LA riots were only one city I think this one is much more intense and even more dramatic considering it reflects a more global issue.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] [[User_talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|(talk)]] 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:I remember watching the LA riots on television and remember them having a much more international response than these riots. Sure there's a bunch of us watching this on the internet, but where is the television coverage? Where are the sound bytes from world leaders? Perhaps I'm cut off from the world, but this certainly isn't getting much attention outside of the "OMG, when are the French going to surrender? *teehee*" responses from the more fanatic right-wing media types. Even more worldwide media sources (bbc, cnn, msnbc, al jazeera, kyodo, asahi)list this as a sidebar, secondary story. It is being treated with a yawn globally. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 09:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::Fox News didn't, but that isn't much of an argument. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:::The riots had to be going for six days or something before it even got much of a mention online in news. The Age (broadsheet newspaper) here in Australia email updates my girlfriend has been getting have (while these riots are happening) started to run a travel series of articles on France and why you should go there. I can't help but think the media either a) think we are much too stupid to care or b) they are too stupid to realise wtf they are doing [[User:Bihal|Bihal]] 14:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it shows how american bias the networks are (bbc, cnn, msnbc, al jazeera, kyodo, asahi)like if it happens in america it has to be news. --[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 09:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:It is the headline of BBC on their website for a few days now. ~~=~
::Its given a headline, but if you go to www.bbc.co.uk, you get a Blair story on the main page, NOT France. Its treated better on their news page, it still isn't given top billing, imho. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 10:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have written something that got altered in the way you mention. A revolution is something completely different from a urban riot aimed at police violence. If the comparison with Los ANgeles is valid because the root is the same : police perceived excesses on illegal activities prone discriminated minorities.
The damage so far in all France is far less than in the sole city of LA, if you don't believe be check wikipedia. The number of dead is 1 to 50 and the damage in value are also 1 to 50. Also in France most of those rioting are teen agers under 18.
See my exageration comment above.
--[[User:panache|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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 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.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] [[User_talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|(talk)]] 20:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
== Political does not belong in context / historical(moved to the bottem so people might read it) ==
and who evers messing with the layout everyone just got it looking sane.--[[User:Whywhywhy|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.
--[[User:Whywhywhy|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 --[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 01:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:Why not? There are several things to be covered. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
: cover them here {{main|Social situation in the French suburbs}} or {{main|Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France}}
o yer and the political
or else people will just try to fill it up again. or do we think a nothing at all rule should be inforced to get people edit the branch articles?--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 01:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Political belongs in Political: reason for revert war and if no one is going to discuss--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 10:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:The "political" section is a "political response" section - and as the context happened before the riot it hardly belongs there. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
well then it it happend before the riots then its old news and can go into the article directly {{main|Social situation in the French suburbs}}.--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 10:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::The NY Times report part is a proper blurb, and the Sarkozy comment doesn't belong in social situation since it's neither historical nor social, and it doesn't belong to the response section since it isn't one. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
its all political commentary not context....... commentary is a response just like i am resoponding to all this. Trust me my first language is english thus i understand the stupidity of the eng language it my only language--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 10:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
even if i dont type like it is
if you dont know what political is then [[political]]--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 11:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok the reverted stuff is into the {{main|Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France}} cause i dont want to lose it
==revert war context i mean political commentray==
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". --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:trying to politicians "context" is just plain wrong, i keep moving it to the political section but people keep moving it and i am sick of moving back up 2 and people keep leaving it in that section 2 so ima deleting it and it can go in the article. Ima happy with it being in the polictical section iv disucssed it in the discussion which nobody has bothered to read. although i admit the headings have changed slietly since the start of this.--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 10:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::(That was from my talk, I've gotten into the habit of pasting in what I'm replying to so people won't have to flip back and worth between two pages).
::I admit that I couldn't make complete sense of that. But if you mean [[Talk:2005_civil_unrest_in_France#Political does not belong in historical|this]], plenty of people must've read it, myself included, whether or not they had anything useful to say is another matter.
what you mentioned above is a political response.--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 10:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::As the headers stand now, it can't be in the "response" section since the described events happened before the riots. Your complaint about the "recent political context" section, at the moment the "recent context" section, seems to be that it's too long. Well, there's several important points to be made, isn't there? --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
my point is that it IS all policial see [[Political]]--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 10:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:Yes it is. It's also an important part of the riots' background. There's no section that all politics about this should go. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
look i want a blurb or something but not a heap of political commentray--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 10:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:I think I understand your point a little better. But why? It's not political commentary if it's relevant - Rama mentioned in the talk page that "Kärcher" has become a slogan for the rioters, and the part about ethnicity and the like is surely important. Also, it doesn't seem like commentary to me, just reporting. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
as for the above ill read it again response soon.
well then it it happend before the riots then its old news and can go into the article directly {{main|Social situation in the French suburbs}}.--[[User:Whywhywhy|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--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 10:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:Mine, admittedly, is not. So okay then. But the social situation article is NOT about the situation in regards to the riots, but in general. The Kärcher comment would not belong there, and the NY times reference - made directly regarding the riots - does so even less. I have no idea what you mean about politics. There is no section where all politics should go, and something can be political and still quality as context, can't it?
:And now I'm off to class. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 11:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
look by that reasoning everything would be context.
create a realted insidents section at the bottem as for the page as for the NY article one min--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 11:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
the NY time is making a political commentary put it their--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 11:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
i hope you dont mind kizor--[[User:Whywhywhy|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 --[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 11:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:Oh good; think nothing of it. I'm glad we came to an agreement... eventually. I'll likely submit the Kärcher comment to a larger audience, asking for more opinions on where it should belong. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
=== No overtones? ===
The article says "the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones" but this appears to be but one POV. Among the buildings burned was a synagogue in Pierrefitte, NW of Paris. The Muslims in these areas are certainly unhappy about their employment opportunities and treatment by police etc., but they are also unhappy about the government's secular policies regarding head scarves, beards, and the building of mosques. These possible additional motivations are at least plausible enough for local Muslim leaders to strongly deny any religious motivations. Perhaps the article should instead say it is unclear whether there are any ideological or religious motivations? [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 18:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
: You are welcome to bring forward conclusive evidence that it is the case. I have yet to hear about "unhappy about the government's secular policies regarding head scarves, beards, and the building of mosques". "Perhaps", "certainly", "possible" and "plausible" are not facts. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 20:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, listen to the soundtracks (when not censored well enough by the medias), you'll hear clearly "Allah akbar!" and "Sarko sale juif!" (Sarkozy is partly Jew). Is it a fact? But, no, sorry, I have no recording.
== JTA Article ==
[http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=16010 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. [[User:Klonimus|Klonimus]] 10:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
==further development==
It is too early to be sure, of course, but by all appearances, the 11th night was the peak of the riots, and while they will probably simmer on for a few days, we can begin to give a summarized overview of the events. I agree with the split of the article in its hot phase of development, but once things calm down, we can re-assess its organization. The good thing about WP not being a news source is that our articles don't stop to develop once the event is over, but they begin to solidify and mould into a valuable resource to learn about past events. There will be an "Aftermath" section, of course, that we cannot yet begin to write, but we can try to organize the material we have so far. For example, I am removing the "deaths" column from the table: It seems completely over the top to have an entire column to list one single fatality, it iplies the almost a cynical expectations that more and more people are going to die. If a dozen people are killed tonight, we can still add it again, but at the moment I think it has no justification. Also somebody appears to have filled the empty table cell with zeros. I do not think this is correct. These are numbers that we have not yet established, we do not know they are zero (or else cite a source) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 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:).--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 12:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
== list of riots ==
Still on the same subject (2005 are somewhere between 1968 France and 1992 LA) I think the list of riots here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots
is misleading.
THere are genuine revolutions next to minor riots, and race based riots next to sport based or social upheaval etc.
*yer well take it up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_riots :) --[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 11:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the wikipedia needs to be clearer. I'm only pointing this out here because it impacts the description of the present phenomenon. I don't think this will be correct until we have something stating that it's not a politically organised riot or upheaval. But it's not either a looting mass disorder event with people using the situaiton to make some profit.
It's something in between. It is noteworthy that close to 100% of the buidings burned are public buildings and close to 100% of the attacks are on public officials (it s not completely true of course as the one dead case so far proves, same for the handicapped person burned alive).
==Comparison to 1968 and/or to Los Angeles Riots ==
The [[Associated Press]] reported on [[9 November]] that "Historians say the rioting is more widespread and more destructive in material terms than the riots of May 1968. That unrest, started by students, led to a general strike by 10 million workers. President Gen. Charles De Gaulle dissolved parliament and fired Premier Georges Pompidou." [http://www.freep.com/news/nw/france-box19e_20051109.htm] [[User:4.250.132.1|4.250.132.1]] 12:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know to whom the AP has been talking. This simply is a crazy statement
How can you have events during several weeks, a general strike by 10 millions workers during several days less widespread and less destructive than 12 nights (nothing during the day) of rebellion by a few thousands teenagers ? How can a few thousands be more widespread than a few millions ?
Back in 1968 the streets of Paris were full of barricades. The cost in lost production of a general strike amount to billions ... And there were countless deaths and injured during the confrontation.
In 1968 it is probable that less buildings and cars ( there were less cars any way) were burned. But again 1968 was not about burning buildings. It was not suicidal acts by a despaired minority, but acts of hope by the "enlightened" minority.
So,
1 why compare to 1968.
2 Why say that it's more widespread and more destructive in material terms when it clearly is not. Unless you think lost production is not material terms, and material terms refers only to physical buildings and cars. So ultimately, back to 1 the sentence means : the 2005 riots are different that 1968, but let's compare them to those events as it's the only thing we can remember of.
-- Panache.
I've suggested several times to compare the events to the LA riots which bear much more likeliness to the present events : racial issues, police harassment issues, unemployment issues, underpriviledged rioting after police violence etc.
So far this suggestion has been deleted several times but I've seen no discussion of the subject. It can be rewritten in a better form than the last one which is obviously not the best i've proposed. But I don't understand why no debate 1 the situation is presented as worse than 1968 when it clearly is not (the government was never threatened and the situation never created any danger for the country) 2 there's no comparison with the LA riots.
And the longer the debate is postponed, the more I'm tempted to feel that there must be some hidden unspoken cause for this.
[[User:Panache|Panache]
:I agree that comparison with 1968 is flawed and unhappy. It probably boils down that more cars were burned now than then. That's a stupid comparison, as you say already in view of the enormous economic damage caused by the 1968 events, not to mention its political impact. These riots are just a nuisance, a notable nuisance perhaps, but nothing that makes the Republic shake in its foundations. The AP's "French historians" would be thrown out on Wikipedia, because they don't say ''who'' is their French historian. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 18:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
=="Affected areas"==
nobody seems to be updating this, it is unsourced and outdated. I think the table has superseded this list, so I am cutting it out. We could aspire to giving the full list of 274 communes affected on 8 Nov, but somebody will have to come up with a source. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 12:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
: Where is the map you were going to make? -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 12:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::its on ITN on the [[Main Page]]. These are the cities we had references for of sustained rioting on 8 Nov. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 12:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::: But what about the animation? What did you use to make the map? -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 12:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::::I never said I was going to make an animation. I loathe animated gifs. If anything, I'll do several maps to be presented next to each other in the timeline. So far I did one for Nov 6th, and one for Nov 8th. see [[:commons:Paris suburb riots]]. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 12:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
: I was updating it every day. The problem is that the French media is not providing complete lists. By combining what we read in the various wire services, we are performing a service that no other website is providing. This list is perhaps the most impressive use of Wikipedia in this situation. Not one place has ever been removed because of an accuracy claim as well. And it was much more updated than the table as well. It also performs an unparallel service because readers can learn about the places affected through the Wikipedia links. [[User:Tfine80|Tfine80]] 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:::well, I am sorry, it would be nice to have such a list, but if you don't provide references, this is just a random collection of French towns, and frankly, rather useless. Wikipedia is also no place for first-hand journalism, where people can add their own town if they happen to spot a burning car, that would not be reconcileable with [[WP:CITE]]. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: The French Wikipedia has the same list. The sources are the wire services. I can track every one down at some point, but not one has been found to be mistaken. And there is no evidence that it is occuring in the manner you describe (people listing because of something they see in their neighborhood). People are filtering the news services everyday and listing them here. Because of this, Wikipedia has the best and most comprehensive list on the Internet that exists. Also, it is NOT random. As best I can tell, these are the major areas of action. The places not included are probably the ones that are not as serious. Plus I don't see the danger of excluding a few -- are you worried that people will underestimate the severity? [[User:Tfine80|Tfine80]] 22:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::::: (Tfine and I were posting at the same time) See [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violences_urbaines_de_2005_en_banlieue_fran%C3%A7aise#Par_r.C3.A9gion_administrative_fran.C3.A7aise equivalent French WP article] section and reference for this list. Since the place names are French in both the English and French wikipedias it shouldn't matter that the reference is not in English. It is still easily verifiable. [[User:Donama|Donama]] 22:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
== Article has been destroyed ==
This article has been destroyed. There was no justification for splitting it into 5 different articles. AT MOST it could have been two articles. A lot of times on wikipedia when people want to delete something by are unable to, they try to split up an article into multiple articles, putting the things they dont like somewhere else (one of the things that makes wikipedia suck). -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 12:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:It is doing fine. You weren't here when it was split, but it became almost unmanageable with the incidence of edits. If you read my 'further development' statement above, I suggested we can re-assess how to present the material as we are getting a better overview of the events. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 12:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:I disagree with the thought that the article has been "destroyed". It is much easier to read now and if you want further information, links are provided for such. Even if you don't want to surf away from the main page, you can always right click - open in new window from those links. Gigantic articles also make wikipedia suck, imho. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 12:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
: word, linking is the veins of wikipedia and keeps it alive more then alive it helps it grow.(not that i did any spliting ;) and have to defend myself "sarcasm")
--[[User:Whywhywhy|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? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 15:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:I went ahead and did it. It's open to improvements, of course, just try to keep it short. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 16:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Without offense, what has happended here is a lesson in how one can weaken a Wikipedia article even without pov editing itself. And it becomes very difficult to fix. We had the most comprehensive page on the Internet that had a complete timeline and a list of almost every place where riots had occured. With all of the spliting and deleting, the page has become incoherent and no one is editing the sections removed anymore. [[User:Tfine80|Tfine80]] 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::in hindsight would have to agree with that. The timeline should have stayed because it wasnt so susceptible to POV even though it left. Maybe we can bring the timeline back?. But i stand by the political response and context being in their own article. Its obvious that people posting in these section just want a particular POV seen. But when you remove them it has stoped the people who post just to be political and be herd and the major majority of editors who added to the article seem to be(removing the wording editors) ). I think in future articles structured like this would be a good idea. Maybe policy. (with out the timeline removel)
I vote for just the timeline back or even better just some of it.--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 06:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, but it is awefully large. Perhaps the list of areas affected should be on another page. Its relatively minor information when compared to the timeline, which is very well constructed.[[User:Jasongetsdown|Jasongetsdown]] 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
==Suite of articles on this subject is alive and doing fine==
These encyclopedia articles are about an ongoing event. The articles are well sourced and not sensationalist and not especially biased. They aren't perfect. Just try to go read up on the French 2005 riots in some OTHER encyclopedia ! [[User:4.250.132.27|4.250.132.27]] 13:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:yes, I'd love to see the Britannica's work on the topic, or even Encarta's :o) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 15:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
if they have a online version it going to be a link to this article :)--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 07:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
== References to [[2005 Birmingham riots]] ==
I have added a reference to the [[2005 Birmingham riots]] in the "See Also" section. However, I referenced this before in the "Triggering Events" section of the article and it was deleted. I don't know if the two sets of riots are linked, but I added it because I thought it was interesting to note that the two riots were within a week of each other. Any thoughts? [[User:Andrewh|<FONT FACE="Comic Sans MS, Arial, Helvetica, Chicago, Sans Serif">Andrew</FONT>]] 21:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:I don't see how this incident is in any way relevant. Completely unconnected and no parallels. [[User:Jooler|Jooler]] 02:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
== Showing the spread of the riots ==
Hi,
Just a thought, but an animated gif might be an effective way of communicating the spread of the riots, if anyone has all the necessary infomration.
Regards, [[User:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 07:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
: we used to have an animation but we were unable to locate the sources used to create the map. we are trying to construct a sourced and chronological table of the the french provinces / cities where rioting took place. this table can be seen in section 4.2 of the article. please try to improve on the table. in particular it would be useful (for cartographic purposes) to have a the geographical coordinates of the locations of rioting. the problem right now is a lack of sourced information about time, extent, duration and ___location of rioting. there is a media black out going on, especially in france, in order to prevent further muslim rioting in europe and elsewhere. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 07:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
== Interesting statistic ==
The number of arrests made during the riots has a 93% correlation with the number of vehicles burned. (NOTE: [[Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy)]]). Then again, these numbers are cooked by the French Interior Ministry. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 08:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:maybe the correlation is that people are arrested ''for'' burning vehicles? Just a thought :) got to love how the numbers turn out a near-perfect bell curve, though. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 09:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Last numbers seem to disprove your comment. More and more get arrested relative to the numbers of car burned
[[Image:Adsr graph.png|thumb|]]
yes, as of 11/11, the bell curve is out of the window. Seems to be an [[ADSR envelope]] :) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 21:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
== 'Context' + Can we call them Muslims? ==
I've just restored the 'Context' section that was deleted after, apparently, being edited to uselessness. My apologies if I'm tense, I had an edit war about the same just yesterday.
The rioters are mainly Muslim (or of Muslim background, or whatever). I believe that's a fact. However, there are constant disputes over the extent we can display this fact, and the seesawing as the text is changed back and forth is damaging the article. While we could continue this into perpetuity, discussing this and trying to come to a solution would be considerably smarter.
The argument seems to be that we should take care not to give the impression that the riots are religiously motivated. That's a fair point, although sometimes overblown. At the moment there's only one mention of Muslimhood, at the start of 'Context', and [2005_civil_unrest_in_France#Context it] points out the demographics and the resentment while taking care not to make accusations, which I believe is fair. At times there's been no mention at all, which is ridiculous - not only is it a significant fact, but it's all over all the other media. What are the factors here? What would be the best course of action?
Emile123, I'd ask you to make a small concession and not change the phrasing of this bit to the one most pleasing to you. It's detrimental to the article as a whole. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
: Hmmm, be cautious: it is all over the media of countries where "race", "ethnicity" and religion are axes on which people tend to project everything. It is not so (or not as much, or not in the same way) in France. Remember that it is not only the media which has this point of view in France (one could dismiss this by arguing that the French media is universally bigotted or prejudiced), but also the rioters themselves, who ''are'' French (and in most cases have hardly seen anyting else than their suburb in their whole life).
: I am not against a mention of the fact that most of the rioter will have a Muslim, Northern African culture (and in most cases be Muslim believers, even if not practising), but it is important to weight very carefully what we say and how we say it. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 11:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::You're right about the media. Can I ask your opinion on the current state of things? --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 11:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::: My opinion on the current state of the article ? I would say rather impressive, really. France has lots of particularisms which make her society difficult to accurately grasp if you are not a native (or even if you are, sometimes...); if you add this to the particularisms of the USA, from which a large number of people contribute (and to a lesser extend to the whole anglo-saxon world) and the sort of editorials that were published there, I have a sentiment that there is a true effort to grasp a fair understanding of the situation as a whole. I also appreciate that nuances suggested by French contributors have been taken into consideration (though some of them were from anonymous non-contributors who just moaned and complained in a rude manner). [[User:Rama|Rama]] 14:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::with Kizor, I am of the opinion that it is self-evident that the article must mention that the rioters are predominantly [[French Muslim]] (with a link to that article, not to [[Islam]] as a religion: The [[Islam in France]] is about demographics at least as much as about religion. It says, among other things, that of these "French Muslims", about a third is religious, another third at least culturally identifies with Islam, and another third has no strong ties with Islamic culture. Seeing the fatwa against the riots, I would assume that most rioters would belong to the last group, "alienated Muslims" if you like). If we link to [[Muslim]], we will also point out that a minority is from a [[Christian]] background, to be fair, since the riots have just as much to do with Christianity as they have with Islam, as religiouns, namely ''nil''. If we add that the riots show no signs of religious ideological motivations, we will imho be on the safe side, npov-wise. It is inappropriate to talk about "poor youths" without mentioning Islam at all, and it is inappropriate to talk of a "Muslim uprising" or "Intifada", neither approach will be stable, and the parties can save everybody time and nerves by agreeing on an intermediate wording. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 13:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Excellent point. I had no idea that [[French Muslim]] existed :p [[User:Rama|Rama]] 14:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Your web-fu is outstanding. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 17:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:Re: "The rioters are mainly Muslim..." and "At times there's been no mention at all (of the fact that the rioters are mainly Muslim), which is ridiculous - not only is it a significant fact, but it's all over all the other media." I have a couple of points and one question. (1) The rioters are also "mainly" unemployed teenagers of African descent. (2) In the French press -and I would consider the French press to be authoritative when compared against non-native, English language press sources- the fact that the rioters are (in addition to being largely unemployed descendants of African descent) Muslim has been given little note. My question as a newbie on wikipedia is: how do contributors -generally- handle the fact that the event in question occured in a foreign land where there are plenty of authoritative sources, yet the sources (s)he chooses to reference are non-native? It amazes me to see how different this page is from the one on French wikipedia.
::It doesn't strike me as that different. The main difference seems to be that they decided not to split the article, which imho makes it a difficult to read pile of details. Also, background knowledge of terms like ''banlieue'' and the general situation may be taken for granted more on French WP. In any case, the French article is not automatically 'better' just because it is French, and you'll have to argue your points individually. But it certainly makes sense to keep an eye on it, and let ourselves be guided by it to some extent. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 10:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Also, mind that
::: 1) This being the English Wikipedia it is natural to try and link to English sites as much as possible, be it only as a courtesy to people who do not read French
::: 2) A fair number of the contributors to this article actually do speak French, and even have a knowledge of French society. Newspapers like 'Le Monde'' are largely used as information sources.
::: There is a genuine effort to avoid both misconceptions that foreigners might have regarding France (for instance, obsession with the so-called "scarf law") and typically French particularism. If in spite of this you spot things which you think are not appropriate or could be improved, you have naturally welcome to make precise suggestions. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
== North african descent ==
From what I read here
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-707269@51-704172,0.html
1 Zyed Benna is french, arab of origin (don't know from where) and muslim
2 Bouna Traoré is french, black (not north african, coming from unknown (from me) african origin, religion unknown,
3 Muttin Altun the burned still alive, is kurd and Turk, muslim and not french
THey say that there are 3 main "communities" arabs, turcs (both muslims) and blacks (religion must depend from country)
I read here
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/monde/article/article_complet.php?path=/monde/article/03/1,151,1064,112005,1210686.php
That Bouna is from Mali http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali
Mali is not classified as being part of north africa. It is a muslim country. But it is not an arab speaking country. Most people speak Bambara or French.
Zyed is said to be coming from Tunisia.
So I think North african descent is wrong.
I made some changes, however, north african is used in other places. Its use seems to imply unity in a diverse population (africans differ from arabs, arabs from turcs, turcs from kurds, arabs from Kabyles ... And muslims from christians (little chiite immigration as far as I know so this division we're spared :-) )
[panache]
they were from [[Tunisia]] and [[Mauritania]]. We've had that in the article for days, I don't know why it was removed. Both countries are considered part of the [[Maghreb]], so saying "Maghreb origin" is correct. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 14:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Fweb%2Farticle%2F0%2C1-0%402-3226%2C36-707269%4051-704172%2C0.html&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools English version of the article saying third guy was Kurdish.] [[User:4.250.177.104|4.250.177.104]] 16:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah Kurdish is exactly what I wrote. Except that since kurdistan does not exist, kurds are either from Turkey, Iran or Iraq. Muttin Altun is coming from a kurd family who lived in Turquey.
However I once read that he was not french and may be had no legal right to be in France. I have no confirmation of this. This might be of importance because if he is an illegal immigrant then he had very good reasons to flee the police, fear of harassment and expulsion. Besides Sarkozy having made immigration laws much stricter its fear could be related to given policies...
Anyway. I think it's worth knowing.
Great! Two weeks ago they were only "Youths". After the whole world already realized that, they became "of arab and west african descent".
There is "no religious overtone" but they can be heard every night yelling "Allah akbar!".
How long before we can read what every Frenchman with opened eyes and common sense knows, that these are racist anti-white riots. Read the "lyrics" of their rap "music": it boils down to "F.. the chalk faces, gang rape the blondes, burn f... France. The CDs are available in all good record stores and are not banned... It requires decoding their slang, though.
: "Racist anti-white" ? Where did I hear this sort of talking before... [[User:Rama|Rama]] 19:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
== Editorials ==
People keep removing two links in that section. I was wondering if you could explain why? [[User:Amargo Scribe|Amargo Scribe]] 04:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:for various reasons I suppose. If you have a particular removal in mind, please post the diff. Mostly I think links are removed because they are judged to be fringy and/or extremist. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 09:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems a little suspicious that the only two editorials currently listed (ZMag and the Guardian) are both left-wing publications. --[[User:NeuronExMachina|NeuronExMachina]] 09:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
== That political correctness thing==
:Some have said the riot and the conflict has an Islamic aspect to it but besides the fact that rioters were shouting the Islamic war cry "Allah Akbar" [http://media.putfile.com/French-riots], burning down non muslim businesses , churches [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051107/ap_on_re_eu/france_rioting_115;_ylt=ArTH2yYEPz7rhS69GII734bgelIB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl] and synaguoges[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3165579,00.html] but sparing Mosques and Muslim businesses[http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=5118&sid=5361376&con_type=1] .And besides the fact that the rioters say " Each night we are making this place baghdad [http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/article_1059950.php/France_rioters_Each_night_we_make_this_place_Baghdad], using slogans such a the Ramadan Intifada [http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1107] and displaying Islamic beheading videos on their cell phones [http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_13311.shtml] and that the Muslim brotherhood is involved in negotiations [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/20051104/cm_nypost/whyparisisburning;_ylt=A86.I12fP2tDpdMAixX9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--] I do not see any connection , do you?--[[User:CltFn|CltFn]] 13:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I agree. That's probably why De Villepin didn't meet with Muslim religious leaders and encourage them to issue a fatwa. Sarkozy would have probably wanted to deport the rioters if they truly were Islamic foreigners. [[User:Tfine80|Tfine80]] 13:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::: I am quite certain that there have been similar meetings with sporting organisations. This does not make these events a major footballistic revolution, nor a prove that there is a footballistic civilisation clashing with Occident. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 14:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: You think this was about football!? I have seen nothing at all indicating that. [[User:Tfine80|Tfine80]] 15:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
there is nothing "PC" about ignoring partisan websites in favour of reputable news sources. the only links you give that can be taken seriously are [http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=5118&sid=5361376&con_type=1] and [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/20051104/cm_nypost/whyparisisburning;_ylt=A86.I12fP2tDpdMAixX9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--], 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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 17:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:: If you carefully look at the sources you might find that more than those you list are credible sources. In some cases the sources of the article is not the site that the article is linked on.--[[User:CltFn|CltFn]] 12:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Anyway, the mere premices of this are untrue. According the ''Le Monde'' (13 November 2005), "A dud Molotov cocktail was thrown at the great Mosque of the town (Lyon") ("Un cocktail Molotov a par ailleurs été lancé, sans exploser, contre la grande mosquée de la ville.") [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175426,00.html]. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 14:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:And besides it was demonstrated that the riots were less violent in neighborhoods where Islamists had more influence, so there really is no connection.
:: Oh, if "it was demonstrated"... Islamists... who wouldn't be convinced by such concrete-hard proofs ! [[User:Rama|Rama]] 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
For these youth living in ghettos, religion is usually the only thing that's left that they respect and can identify to.
== new map ==
[[Image:2005france_riot_map.png|thumb|100px]]
[[Image:France riots spread 8 Nov.png|thumb|100px|paintbrush: hotspots at the peak of the riots]]
I made a new map. This is using the most up to date information. It is an aggregate map showing the total amount of rioting by French administrative region. Unfortunately I could not make the map at the city level because my map making program doesnt seem to have this support for France. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
: Sorry to be blunt, but this map is ridiculous. What about a map with "French metropole affected by 2005 civil unrest in France, as of November 11, 2005.", while we are at it ? [[User:Rama|Rama]] 15:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I don't understand your objection. Please rephrase it. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 15:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't understand Rama's objection either, but my impression is that the map aims at dramatizing the situation. The non-urban departments coloured red will be so due to a small number of cars torched. It would be nice to have the shade of red colour-coded by the number of incidents. Otherwise, this looks like half of France was rioting. I also object to the diachronous nature of the map: it does not show the departements "affected as of November 11", but those "affected up to November 11", including those who saw brief rioting on Nov 8, and have been quiet since. The riots have gone down to a couple of cities now, so if you want to portray the actual situation, it would really just be Strasbourg, Toulouse, Marseille and Lille. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 17:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: This map features very large area of the French territory, and paints them red if they have been "affected by 2005 civil unrest", without any more precision. This map is so uninformative, and the result is so much dramatising the situation, that you could as well make a map of "the France that has been "affected by 2005 civil unrest" and paint the whole territory red. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 19:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::I agree, I find it hard to believe that some of these departements (not regions, by the way: the regions are the next level up in the French local administrative system) are particularly affected. Communes might be a better measure, or one of those maps that show different sized circles depending on the rate of incidence in a given place... [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 20:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::this is precisely the reason for [[:Image:France riots spread 8 Nov.png]] which shows the main cities affected at the height of the riots. It is much fewer now. Any departement painted red on the present map that does not contain a dot in this map will be a case of isolated cases of vandalism in small towns. Painting all of them red is, as Rama says, about as intelligent as showing a map of Europe with France painted red in order to show the extent of the riots. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 21:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::::: the communists are invading france now? get rid of it i say--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 06:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It is very simple. The highest resolution that we have sourced data from is at the "department" level or at the "region" level (a region being comprised of many departments). Our table might say that on x day y region saw unrest. We cannot put exact dots on the map, all we can do is indicate the region reported. We clearly do not have information at the city level - the reports say that over 200 cities were seeing rioting at one point, but we do not have any such lists of cities. The bottom line is that the map by department reflects the most accurate information that we have. If you think that this is "dramatizing" the situation then this is such some sort of strange POV. The table lists regions and departments, yet when we start mapping that data people like dab start running around yelling about "dramatizing." Get a grip. This is just visualization of the information in the table. We simply do not have city-level data. And as for dab's little "hot spots" map - it's completely out of date, unsourced, and we have no idea what criterion dab used to "identify" "hot spots." And by the way, these departments are very logical. The area of each department is inversely proportional to its population. So it makes sense for rioting to cause a wider area to light up in a lower population density area. Whether or not you agree with this, there is no way of getting around the fact that we only have data at the department (or, in many cases, at the region) level, not at the town and village level. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 06:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
:this is simply not true. the "areas affected" table is on the commune level. the list of departments is summarized ''from'' the commune information. If we had the full list of 274 communes, more departements might be 'affected'. The "hotspots" map is directly based on the map of the BBC, so you can hardly say it is "unsourced". You should at least try to get a notion of the difference of region, department, and commune before you start drawing, let alone make weird rhetorical attacks. As for "the area of each department is inversely proportional to its population" what sort of bullshit statement is that now? Are you drunk? I'm sorry Zeno, but it is painfully clear you have not the slightest clue of what you're talking about. *lol* it appears your animated gif faithfully reproduces the places mentioned in the table! This is just silly. The places mentioned in the table are a summary of the worst hotspots mentioned in the timeline article, and in the newsreports linked. They are not in any way comprehensive. The only attempt at geographical comprehensiveness we have is the "areas affected" table, but I cannot vouch for that, because whoever compiled it made sure to leave it unsourced and undated. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 08:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
:: It is true that we DO have SOME information on SOME days at the commune level. Unfortunateny for some days all we have are entire regions, especially as the riots approaches its historical peak. If you can provide comprehensive geographical ___location data on the hunddreds of communes in France then we can begin making a more detailed map. We are limited by the cartographic tools at our disposal - I do not have a mapping capabalities at the commune level. You dont appear to either - I have yet to see a commune map of France. This will still not solve the problem of what do when the riot is peaking and we only have region-level data. Do we just throw the data away? As for your "hot spot" map, it is absurdly outdated and only captures November 4 for some reason, despite over 2 weeks of rioting. Instead of trying to DESTROY the map you could try to IMPROVE the map by providing more information and/or cartographic tools. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 10:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Personally i like the animated one because its easyier to see whats happening when the area are highlighted. But the static one is silly and should be more precise to shed more light on the subject. --[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 08:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
: The animated Gif has the Dates in the backwards American Way, either change the dates to the normal, non-American way (Day/Month/year) or else word it (November 1st 2005), otherwise it is American-centric, not world centric, and certainly not Franco-centric.--[[User:Irishpunktom|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom|talk]]</sup> 09:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
If anyone insists / wants, I can post the [[R programming language]] code, [[Perl]] script, and data files used to create the map animation. I havent figured out how to get the date in words instead of American abbreviation. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 10:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with Irishpumkin: the date format really must be changed from the non-sensical US method. Use international format, if you must. Besides, aren't animated gifs frowned upon?--[[User:Cyberjunkie|Cyberjunkie]] | [[User_talk:Cyberjunkie|Talk]] 10:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
:: There are some perfectly legitimate [[information visualization]] uses of animation. The fact that it is a ''GIF'' animation is irrelevant as the legal issues surrounding this were resolved and all browsers have full support for GIF. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 10:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
== "French Intifada" ==
On [[Intifada]], somebody has put in an assertion that these events are also called the "French Intifada", as well as (bizzarely) the Hebrew version of that phrase. I've taken the liberty of removing the Hebrew, but does anyone here know whether this term is in fact in use to any significant degree? [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 21:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:last time I checked, it was used with gusto on extreme right-wing ultra-Zionist and/or Islamophobe blogs (who for some (rather evident) reason are trying to convince people that France is foundering in a storm of Islamic hordes). The term can be safely ignored until it hits mainstream news sites. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 21:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:: The rioters called it the "Ramadan intifada". -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 06:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Source?--[[User:Irishpunktom|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom|talk]]</sup> 09:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
::[http://media.putfile.com/French-riots This is a french video of a riot]. Intifada or not? --[[User:Elias2|Elias2]] 16:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::: This file cannot be read easily. Please link to a standard format, or explain what in the file makes you ask this question. Thank you. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 16:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: You can'it read it? It's a video of the muslim rioters, they are shouting "''allah akbar! Sarkozy fascist! Sarkozy sale juif'' (f**cking jew)!" --[[User:Elias2|Elias2]] 17:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::::: Are you implying that this is a reason to call it an "intifada"? [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 19:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
== joke for editors ==
just a joke for the editors :) from these guys [http://www.chaser.com.au The Chaser Website]
http://chaser.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2859&Itemid=26
--[[User:Whywhywhy|Whywhywhy]] 06:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
== Photos from incidents ==
I've been searching in the web for a long time, but I could not find a suitable website/blog/photo site that contain photos from the incidents. Do you know any? I think French government are censoring the web sites. They've told before that riots use weblog to send themselves secret messages.
That's really funny. One year ago, when there was a protest in my university, I could find a lot of images on the web, easily, and now I can not find anything. Just some nonesense images on Flickr.com. Any idea?
: Yes I noticed that too, isn't odd that we only get pictures of the fires and burned cars but relatively little of the rioters, who are described by the main stream media with the utmost politically correctness.
:There are some images though that get through the media blockade as in this [http://media.putfile.com/French-riots video].In the end you will have to freely make up your own as to what you see because main stream media source sure is not reporting on it --[[User:CltFn|CltFn]] 21:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I took some screenshots of the video CltFn references. <s>They are here, put them in if you like:</s> I was '''bold''' and put two of them in.
<s>[[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 05:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)</s> [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 05:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:The French government does not "censor" web sites. There's an enormous difference between photographs of protests (you can get many of them easily in France) and photographs of criminal action. Perhaps the rioters don't want stuff that could be used as evidence for criminal prosecution. [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 06:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
== Request for explanation by Emile123 ==
[[User:Emile123]] is repeatedly deleting two things from the article (he has been quetily doing this for over a week:
* He seems to think that any mention of the demographics of the rioters other than their age (e.g. their origins and religion) is "irrelevant" and "POV." It is clearly neither. These are neutral statements of factual information. If Emile123 would like to portray these riots from some sort of far-left POV with a politically correct, idealized portrait of these riots as being no different than the 1968 student riots or the French Revolution, then he should start he own blog for such an agenda.
* He is deleting the mention of the BBC's excellent description of the religious tensions related to these riots. The actual quote from the Wikipedia article is:
:: ''The [[BBC]] reports that French society's negative perceptions of [[Islam]] and of immigrants have alienated some French Muslims and may have been a factor in the causes of the riots; "Islam is seen as the biggest challenge to the country's [[secularism|secular]] model in the past 100 years". At the same time, the editorial questioned whether or not such alarm is justified, citing that France's Muslim ghettos are not hotbeds of [[separatism]] and that "the suburbs are full of people desperate to integrate into the wider society." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4414442.stm] The BBC also reported that there was a "huge well of fury and resentment among the children of North African and African immigrants in the suburbs of French cities." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4375910.stm]''
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 [[secularism|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. --- [[User:Zeno of Elea|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. [[User:Emile123|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. [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 09:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
: You have NOT discussed your POV revert war, as other users have pointed out to you in the edit summaries. Furthermore, your current response is a pathetic excuse for an argument. Youre just asserting your baseless POV war slogans. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 11:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I suggest a general ban on the expression "POV".
::*Firstly it will have the advantage of having pages which will look less like the phonetic transcript of an assault riffle battle (POV POV POV POV POV POV...)
::* Secondly, it will force people to refer precisely to which paragraphs exactly they talk about
::* Eventually, it will force people to come up with sentences like "tendentious propaganda" or "inaccuratedly informed"; this has the advantage of being parsable English, and also to make it evident whether people are reporting an incomplete information of their interlocutor, or denouncing foul play.
:: [[User:Rama|Rama]] 13:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
This article has been repeatedly targeted by right-wing anti-islamic extremists (remember, for example, all the links to notorious extremist web sites). However, things seems to be calming down. This is a very common phenomenon on many french political web sites. Often, single users take several different names to repeatedly troll or push their agenda.
Their world-view is often obsessively focused on an imaginary confrontation between islam and "civilization". I hope wikipedia editors are aware of this.
[[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 18:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
==Photo of flash-ball shooting==
Rama, why do you want to delete the photo of the flash-ball shooting? I concur with your removal of the sentence, which I had nothing to do with. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 09:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
: Sorry, I meant to revert very tendentious anonymous edits which had already been reverted by Karl Meier, and not knowing that you had further edited the article. I have no problem with the photograph being in the article with this caption (on the other hand, I am afraid that the claimed licencing of this photo is over-optimistic, but this is a completely different matter). [[User:Rama|Rama]] 09:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, it is probably optimistic; on the other hand, the video is being circulated around, whoever shot it is not complaining (and presumably knows it's being circulated around) and also I Am Not A Lawyer. :) [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 09:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:::we'll have to change the licencing information. I do think we can still claim fair use, at least at somebody comes along and claims ownership. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 12:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
== Figures - should we substract the 100 "normal" vehicles burned each night ==
ok im getting tired of updating the maps and images and I dont know if I can keep up. The map and charts are made in all open source software. If someone else wants to keep these images updated I can provide the scripts needed. Whether you are running macosx, windows or linux, all you have to do download some software, edit a text file where the data is kept, and then run a script that takes care of the rest, and then upload the correct image files to wikipedia. The software needed is [[R programming language]] (with the maps library) and [[Perl]] (with the [[Imagemagick]] library). So who wants to do it? -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 09:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:Zeno, I really like your "[[ADSR]]" "vehicles / arrests" graph (I thought I should also say something positive about your work for a change. I do think you are having a positive effect here, in spite of our differences). Regarding the maps, since this is out of the headlines at the moment, I think it would be exaggerated to do a brand new map every day. I suggest we wait until things calm down a little bit more, before we do an overview map. Also the charts, you can easily do a final version in a week or so, we have the table in the meantime. Unless there is an unexpected surge in vandalism, I suppose things will pretty much peter out now (rioters get tired too). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 12:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if we should substract 100 from all numbers or not ? Each night in France 100 cars are burnt ?
Or may be we should add the 100 to the first numbers.
I think in the beginning the media only counted cars burned in Aulnay sous bois. THen it has counted all cars burned in France. The problem is that we don't know when the move was made.
Still I think we need to do something about it or we won't be able to put an end to the unrest.
I also recommend adding something showing the week ends. It can help to understand peeks.
[[User:panache|panache]]
== Links to political sites ==
I really amn't sure that we need a whole list of Indymedia-style links, let alone [[Bat Ye'or|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). [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 17:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:Currently the article lists only two media articles, one from a slightly left-of-centre publication [www.guardian.co.uk UK ''Guardian''] and one from the left wing Z-mag. Some more right-wing material than this might be useful (but not stuff like the Bat ye'or article that simply bears no relationship with reality, as would be clear to any informed person reading it). [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:respectable, "moderately conservative" right ("European" right, à la [[NZZ]]) -- yes. Completely bat-shit conspiracist extreme Islamophobe right just for the sake of it? no. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 20:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
::"bat-shit conspiracist extreme Islamophobe right" sums it up pretty well. How can anyone read that sort of thing and take it seriously? It's scary that there are people who do. [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 20:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Someone above (I think [[User:Dbachmann|dab]]) warned against turning the "external links" into a "freak show". Something to be remembered. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 20:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Palmiro stop denigrating [[Bat Yeor]]. Your remarks are extremely POV, shemeful for a supposedly impartial wiki editor and uncalled for. And furthermore you have now motivated me to greatly enhance her presence on Wikipedia.--[[User:CltFn|CltFn]] 13:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
: What sort of good should we expect from someone who cannot refrain from using words like "Eurabia" in what was supposed to be a political analysis ? [[User:Rama|Rama]] 14:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
::"Bears no relationship with reality" is a pretty understated, NPOV description of the thesis of the article linked to. "Complete batshit conspiracist extreme Islamophobe right" is accurate but POV in its terminology (and was DBachmann's phrase), but no requirement to maintain POV pertains on talk pages.
::If you want to "enhance [[Bat Yeor's]] presence on Wikipedia", be careful not to make yourself into a laughing stock, given how ludicrous her ideas are. Do you really think the material in the link I deleted is in any way capable of being taken seriously as an argument? [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 17:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Funny but they aren't laughing so loud in Europe these days are they? [[Bat Yeor]]'s writings hit right in the bulls' eye . --[[User:CltFn|CltFn]] 04:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: "laughing so loud in Europe" ? Why should they, this is not the 1st of April. Urban violence have been localised within France except for a few anectotical incidents, and in France, the situation is now normal.
:::: For the record, the incriminated article is [http://mideastoutpost.com/archives/000069.html], so why not discuss it critically ?
::::* "''Beyond Munich - The Spirit of Eurabia''". This is the title. 6 words. Already we have the word "Eurabia", which is ''quite'' connotated, and a nice shiny Godwin point.
::::* "''the present situation should be seen not in the context of the Second World War, but in the present jihadist context''". Which is this situation which is liked to jihad ? Is that merely astronomically bad taste in analogies, or downright lunacy ?
::::* "''for the past 30 years France and Europe are living in a situation of passive self-defense against terrorism.''". Riiiiiight. Who had the first anti-terrorist units ? Whose GIGN teaches other nation's anti-terrorist units on the request of the international authority of civilian aviation ? If this is "passive", I have to assume that this is saying "Europe, particularly France, Germany and the UK, are among nations which have the most experience and know-how about modern terrorism".
::::*"''In his book (...) Daily Life in Medieval Europe under the Arab Domination (...) Today, Europe itself is living with this Great Fear''". Thank you. The point is really well made, fair argument ! Let us bring back completely irrelevant events of 800 years ago just because they bring the mental image of brown-skinned people, and carry on with an emotional talk. What a brilliant display of intellectual honesty. And we proceed to...
::::*"''Today the war is everywhere. And yet the European Union and the states which comprise it, have denied that war's reality, right up to the terrorist attack in Madrid of March 11, 2004''". Typical neo-conservative rant about "terrorism is war". In the logic of assimilating crimes of ever-decreasing gravity to "war", it is predictable to find this is an article which tries to make car arson an act of war. Watch out for the War Against Crossing Outside Of The Tracks !
::::*"''The only danger comes, allegedly, from the United States and Israel. We conduct a propaganda campaign in the media against these two countries, before entering into a yet more aggressive phase; it's so much easier, so much less dangerous…And we conduct this campaign with the weapons of cowardice: defamation, misinformation, the corruption of venal politicians.''". Yes, of course. It is the Euro-sissies who invented the "Weaponsofmassdestruction", War is Peace, etc.
::::*"''This strategy, the goal of which was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean Euro-Arab entity''"... OK, just for the record, "Arab" has a precise meaning, which is not "brown-skinned". Notably, Magreb is not Arabia.
::::*"''The Arabs set the conditions for this association: 1) a European policy that would be independent from, and opposed to that of the United States; 2) the recognition by Europe of a "Palestinian people," and the creation of a "Palestinian" state;''". Riiiiiiiight. Opposed, I assume, to the natural, legitimate course of history where 1) European policy is ''not'' independant from the USA (like people should be free to determine their own policy according to historical realities...) 2) the "Palestinian people" is not recognised. What, the USA did ? Hush, hush !
::::*"''On the political front, Europe has tied its destiny to the Arab countries, and thus become involved in the logic of jihad against Israel and the United States. ''" Well last time I was in Paris, I was under the impression that the country was quite distinguishable from Iran, but if it is so, why the bloody hell does she still waste her time talking about what is definitely, irremediably, an ennemy country ? Furthermore, is it not sort of bizarre that ''The following presentation by Bat Ye'or was delivered at a seminar in the French Senate in Paris three weeks ago - The Editors.'' ? In a "logic of jihad" country, she would have been beheaded on the spot. (I would be interested to know whether the French senators managed to keep a straight face, but this is beside the point)
::::*"''On the cultural front, there has been a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to "The Contribution of the Islamic civilization to European culture."''". Now if negating, or merely hushing, the contribution of Islamic culture to Europe and the world., is not re-writing history, I don't know what is. (and I spare you the whole conspiracy talk which follows)
::::*"''The dhimmitude of Europe began ...''" The ''what'' ?
::::*"''Eurabia adopted the Islamic conception of history, in which Islam is defined as a liberating force, a force for peace, and the jihad is regarded a 'just war'.''". I don't know where she has seen a European country where "Jihad" has a positive connotation.
:::: etc. etc. This article might be appropriate to illustrate the article about this "Bat Ye'or" person, and possibly for her indictment for incitation to hatred, but I fail to see what sort of perspective it brings about the matter at hand. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: PS: Beside the sickening examination of this "article", am I the only one stuck by the fact that the talk was given in early June 2004 ? How can that have anything to do with the riots of late 2005 ? [[User:Rama|Rama]] 05:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::Also, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "seminar in the French senate" was a talk in a meeting room arranged by one far-right senator. [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 17:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
=="spread" articles==
Some genius made a flurry of "2005 X urban violence" articles,
# [[2005 Belgian urban violence]]
# [[2005 Danish urban violence]]
# [[2005 German urban violence]]
# [[2005 Greek urban violence]]
# [[2005 Dutch urban violence]]
# [[2005 Portuguese urban violence]]
# [[2005 Spanish urban violence]]
this is ridiculous. The Belgian one is justified, maybe, but I'd say we just collapse them in a single [[spread of the 2005 French riots abroad]] or something, the Portugese article is about two single acts of vandalism. Wikipedia isn't a "Miscellaneous" report of local events all over the globe, where would this end? Merge it! Also, what happened to the "Timeline" summary? It is important to have a brief summary of events on top of the detailed list. Can we have this back, please? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 20:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
: [[Talk:2005 Belgian urban violence#merge]] -- [[User:Zondor|Zondor]] 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
::Some comments were made on the Belgian page to. The only other one that might merit an article is Spain. [[User:12.220.47.145|12.220.47.145]] 00:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
** I got rid of all the ridiculous ones, they now point back into the French article. The Belgian one needs cleaning up by someone who has been following it closer than I have, but I still don't believe it really needs its own article. These riots were French. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 10:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
== Speculation: Riots set up and mounted by governments to spread fear and agression against muslim people, within the french and european people. ==
Isn't it a very strange coincident, that suddenly everywhere in France and Europe too, people stand up and burn cars, without demanding anything...
I want to point out, that you can't hear anything in the news about that what the rioters want, you just hear speculations, but you don't hear anyone or any organisation which speakes for them.
So I want to set up a nother speculation, isn't it possible, that the french, american or european government, or in cooperation with each other, set this whole riot up, to fill europe with fear, to make the european easier to control and to convince them, that the muslims are a big threat, and that they are the bad guys and we have to protect us from them...
(But did the rioters declar that they started a religious riot, or do they riot because of racism in france, or because their poor surcumstances they live in, and because of the french politicians, who say that they are just lacy immigrants.)
[[User:Nsae Comp|Nsae Comp]]
14.11.05
02:00 GMT +1
:This article certainly isn't the place for wild speculation.[[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]]!
::Are you sure? Quite a lot of versions have looked damn close to just that. [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 17:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:::nonsense, the article is doing fine, and wacko conspiracy theories are immediately revertet. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 17:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes, but they keep coming, don't they? I agree that the article is a credit to the persistence of those who've kept it in a respectable state. [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 00:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::Well, I have to admit I don't have any facts to strengthen my theory, but if someone has any facts, shouldn't we than consider this topic. Well as long as there are no facts, I am myself against publishing this speculation. But I thank you for giving attention to it [[User:Nsae Comp|Nsae Comp]] 15 November 2005 21:47 (UTC)
==This Article is hard to find!==
I typed in the EXACT name for the article in the search box and it still doesn't come up. It doesn't come up under "French riots" "french civil unrest" or anything similar. If anyone knows offhand how to point these search terms to the article then it might be a good idea, since the link may not be on the main page of Wikipedia for long. I've put redirection pages in before for another article, but I need to look up how to do it, so if someone more knowledgeable beats me to it that's ok! [[User:Capitalist|capitalist]] 03:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I just added a redirect from "French riots", and the article's title works only if you remember to capitalize "France". yeesh. [[User:Capitalist|capitalist]] 03:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I've never had any problem finding it since it is linked off the main page. :P [[User:165.212.23.125|165.212.23.125]] 08:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
::: The above was by me. Sorry, was somehow logged out. Weird. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 08:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
::::LOL, Well I KNOW it's linked from the main page; I mentioned that the link from the main page may not be there for very long, especially once the riots drop off the headlines. THAT'S when the article will descend into the foggy pit of obscurity. (ok, that might be a LITTLE dramatic. :-P) Anywyay, I've added a couple of redirects already, and I'm sure others can think of a lot more. I think all the revisions of the article's title may have had something to do with obscuring the ___location. [[User:Capitalist|capitalist]] 04:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
== Two Romanians shot by an Arab gang in [[Aubervilliers]] suburb ==
According to [http://www.evz.ro/eveniment/?news_id=203187 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. [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] | [[User talk:Bogdangiusca|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 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.
[[User:Panache|Panache]]
==Describing demographics of rioters==
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. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 15:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with Sdedeo here. There is nothing wrong with mentioning their Muslim background, as long as the article doesn't take it for an excuse to engage in gratuitous Islam bashing innuendo. Just the facts, please. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 16:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Further than agreeing with my fellow editors, I would like to point two things:
::* Search for references are fine, but "predominantly Muslims of North-African background [2][3][4][5][6]" is just ridiculous. Just make it one footnote with all the references, or just one or two references or... anything but this bingo grid !
::* It would be a good idea to decide once and for all whether we want to refer to this "ethnic and religious" background in the introduction, and exactly how. Reverting back and fro is getting tedious; perhaps it is time for everybody to come out with this matter, examine everybody's views, and find something which suits everybody (''not'' a vote). [[User:Rama|Rama]] 03:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::This observation may or may not move the discussion forward, but I think this edit war points out an interesting weakness in the NPOV rules. People from all sides of the arguments agree that statements in the article have to be sourced, non-POV, not original research and so on and so forth. So the debate then transforms from a disagreement about the FACTS into a disagreement about which facts are IMPORTANT. I don't know that the NPOV rules really address the WEIGHT that we assign to facts. So the debates continue to rage, not about what's TRUE, but about whether or not to place a certain fact in the article, where to place it, and how much emphasis to give it. Just a bit of rambling from me... [[User:Capitalist|capitalist]] 05:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: Hi, I agree with [[User:Capitalist|capitalist]] : the problem is essentially on the exaggerated weight given to the religious and ethnic references. This has been pointed out by many people in this discussion and by several sources (including a NY times reference in the article). Unfortunately, some of those repeatedly re-posting these references are not neutral: (I copied this from above) This article has been repeatedly targeted by right-wing anti-islamic extremists (remember, for example, all the links to notorious extremist web sites). This is a very common phenomenon on many french political web sites. Often, single users take several different names to repeatedly troll or push their agenda. Their world-view is often obsessively focused on an imaginary confrontation between islam and "civilization". I hope other wikipedia editors are aware of this.[[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 07:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::this is just normal procedure on Wikipedia -- it would be nice if everybody could enjoy their editing in spite of such differences, but sometimes tempers flare. We have the whole [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] industry to address that, but there is really no easy way. The important thing is to remember, this is just the Internet, and there are a lot of crappy articles on Wikipedia anyway, so one should really do a effort-benefit analysis of the sweat and tears invested in edit wars. But compared to articles like [[George W. Bush]], this article is a paragon of unanimity, of course. I agree, of course, with Rama's "Bingo grid" point. This should be an uncontroversial change. I also largely agree with Emile's take of the situation. Extremist pov will be edited out immediately, of course, but one has to be careful not to let the pendulum swing to the other side. Mere mention of the ethnic/cultural background of the rioters should really be fair game. Innuendos of "clash of civilizations" are FN-cruft and have no place here. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 08:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::: [[User:Emile123|Emile123]], I find your accusation of sock-puppeting a bit gratuitous. However repugnant you (and, I daresay, most of us) might find the views of some people, good faith should be assumed.
:::::: I do understand your point and your appreciation of the matter. However, one has to recognise that the French view of the world can be sometimes related to French particularisms; is particular, the "integration rather than coexistance" view of the society can be, from the point of view of an American, "this typically French thing" (though Germany, for instance, has a very similar view). Just think of the reactions to the so-called "scarf law", which shocked American non-muslims much more than it did Muslims on French soil.
:::::: It is quote understandable that a reader from America seeking for some perspective on the subject, for instance, should be surprised at not seeing these "racial infos" that his own media will provide. I do not say that the solution is to put proeminent and tendentious information in the introduction of the article, but you have to understand that for them, things like "Arab and Muslim race" is not connotated in the same way that it is in France (for the best and for the worst, but that's a matter for a chat over a beer, not for an encyclopedia :p)
:::::: In the interest of the article, I think that drafting a common position about this particular information should be worked upon. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 08:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::::: I back the mentionning of color, ethnicity and religion in the first introductory paragraph. ALl the unrest is about discrimination and inequalities. And discrimination is not based on wealth only, it is mainly the protestors say a question of color, ethnicity, religion and I would add localisation. If you are black or yellow or brown colored you are presumed by the police forces to be more likely to be 1 an illegal immigrant 2 a criminal. It's called statistical discrimination, we all realise part of the Police behaviour is based on sound statistics. If you come from from a "cité", it's the same. And if you are muslim, it's the same. That's 70% of the story we have. On top of this of course we have huge unemployment in France in general, huge unemployment for young people in particular, the possibility for french police to check the papers of all citizen at any time (sth unheard in most countries) and a lot of illegal immigration. Add to this the recent agressive policies of Sarkozy targeted at illegal immigration and crime, and translate these policies in police behaviour : anti minorities acts. If we supress all reference to ethnicity then we repeat the policy that led to the unrest, we do as if there were no discrimination. [[User:panache|panache]]
I think that [[User:panache|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". [[User:Rama|Rama]] 09:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks,[[User:Rama|Rama]] For the anti racist here who speak french, I recommend reading the website, [http://www.indigenes.org/ 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.
[[User:panache|panache]] (how do you get the time and d... Think I found out by myself ... :-) --[[User:195.221.193.15|195.221.193.15]] 12:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:well, panache, "the real arsonists are those in power" is a bit strong now, never mind all your hegelian-nietschean unterbau, isn't it? I like to imagine that I can be "anti racist" without being forced to subscribe to crackpot ''left''-extremist views. You see, panache, these kids are actually proving Sarkozy/the police ''correct'' by behaving like ''racaille'', and by proving that coloured people are indeed more likely to torch people's cars. It is all a racist's dream come true, as it were one huge "we told you so". Blind rage is the most primitive, and the most unsuccessful reply to oppression. The Palestinians learned this the hard way. If the Beurs had a brilliant tactician like Gandhi, they could have exploited French society's weaknesses for their advancement. Sadly, they don't, and they are, out of naivete, or stupitidy, playing the racists' game. But I guess they can always try again in a decade or so. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 16:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I would just like to mention that this "the real arsonists are those in power" echoes a relevant quotation by a parent of a schoolkid whose school was burned down, saying that "the one who really put on the fire [was] Sarkozy".
:: But appart from this detail, this indigenes.org thing is very similar to the "Eurabia Münich" "article", only at the other end of the spectrum. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 17:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I kind of want to start a revert war over the description of the rioters as "poor", but I guess that would violate [[WP:POINT]]. I mean, come on, that's rather prejudicial, don't you think? Doesn't it slyly attempt to insinuate that poor people are more likely to torch people's cars? Sigh. [[User:Sdedeo|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. [[User:Sdedeo|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".[[User:panache|panache]]--[[User:82.232.235.239|82.232.235.239]] 21:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
: lol, I hardly think our most sacred concern on Wikipedia is not to "insult the feelings of all those who torched cars" :o) 23:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Well you could be proved wrong. Our sacred mission is to accurately depict the situation, including the profile and motivations of the rioters. It is not because some people affect indignation at the burning of a few cars ("Private Property", with very capital Ps, in American parlance) that they only will be given the right to be represented and heard, and will be allowed to divagate about a situation that they do not even try to understand, for the shake of their own foreign and totally unrelated agendas. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
here is a quote to go with the "Muslim" bit: ''"The Front National's strategy is to wait for the media to repeat every day that these are ethnic riots, that most of the rioters are Muslim, and that the problem is with integration, not a social problem," says political scientist Jean-Yves Camus.'' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4440408.stm (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. [[User:83.79.177.65|83.79.177.65]] 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it is different to speak only about muslims (and then abide to the US-Le Pen anti alqaeda rethoric, completely unreal here) and to they that they come from ethnic and/or religious discriminated minorities and/or from discriminated Ghettos. (unsigned, please sign your posts using 4 tildes)
:I think we should answer 2 questions: 1) Are race and religion so important factors that they should figure in the opening paragraph? 2) Are rioters actually accurately described as "Muslims"?
: On point 1), I have seen no serious (non extremist) sources stating this. So, I believe, including prominent references to race and religion are unwarranted and un-sourced.
: On point 2). My personal experience (I teach in one of those areas) and everything I have read, indicate that only a tiny proportion of the youth actually practice Islam. Therefore, labeling them as "muslim" seems quite biased.[[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 08:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Clearly, your "original research" is different from what sources say. It is clear that there is an interst to hide who the rioters are and that you take part in this efforrt. The facts are relevant. If you have proof that they are budhist from Tibet please provide it. Every supported fact will stay. Wikipedia will present both sides when there is a dispute. Bring sources to your "assertions". [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 09:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
: [[User:Zeq|Zeq]], I think you misunderstand [[User:Emile123|Emile123]]'s point.
: [[User:Emile123|Emile123]], you say that "a tiny proportion of the youth actually practice Islam", and I have no reason to doubt your word. I remember reading somewhere that most of the youth actually believe in God, but very few ever set a foot in a mosque (I'll have to find the reference for this). However, I think that you are touching the problem here with the nuance between "Muslim people" or "people from Muslim culture/background/whatever", and what you very accurately discribe as "practice Islam".
: One of the differences between the French and Anglo-Saxon mentalities, clearly underlined by reading the press about the matter at hand, is the appreciation of the notion of "religion". It is well illustrated, I think, by citing our own [[France]] article:
:::The government does not maintain statistics as to the religion of its inhabitants. Statistics from an unspecified source and date given in the CIA World Factbook gives the following number: Roman Catholic 83 to 88%, Muslim 5 to 10%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%. However, in a 2003 poll 41% said that the existence of God was "excluded" or "unlikely". 33% declared that "atheist" described them rather or very well, and 51% said they were "Christian".
: So, [[User:Emile123|Emile123]], France is 88% Roman Catholic ! Interesting, is it not ? I will not insult your intelligence by asking you whether you see how the rioters have been described as "mainly Muslim"; as you see, in this mentality, "mainly Muslim" is probably a fairly nuanced wording :p
: So I suppose that if you could make up a wording which would be able to convoy the "mainly Muslim" but also include [[User:Emile123|Emile123]]'s point, which is valid, accurate and very relevant (there were sources for this also), we might get closer to an agreement. What about something like "... mainly youth of Muslim background -- though very few of them actually practise their religion -- blablabla" ? [[User:Rama|Rama]] 09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
the source of this is not "unspecified"; [[Demographics_of_France#Religion]] gives 64% Catholic, 27% atheist, and some 7% Islam. [[Islam_in_France#Statistics]] says that of these 7% or 4-5 million "Muslims", roughly a third, or some 2-3% of French citizens, are "observant believers", both article citing their sources. I can't believe that we are still discussing these numbers after all this time, they have been in plain view all along. They may not be accurate to four digits, but what difference does this make? They are clear about the general presence of religions in French society. I think it is perfectly evident that the bulk of rioters is from the 4-6% segment of non-"observant believer" "Muslims". All of this is not even disputed, the whole discussion revolves just around the question of how to present all this. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 13:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
: I case I was not clear enough, my point is that "muslim" can have lots of different nuances, and that by merely saying "muslim", one uses a technically justifiable word to convoy a picture which is not accurate at all. Non-practicising, very moderately religious believers should not be discribed only by a word which can also fit enraged Talibans (a confusion on which some a trying to capitalise).
: "unspecified" is in a citation of [[France]], which I just copied and never edited. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 13:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I agree with this important distinction between practicing believers and people who just have a cultural background associated to a religion. The other, more important, point is whether or not, it is relevant to speak about religion and ethnic background in the opening paragraphs. By doing so, you are making a strong political statement: "religion and race are important factors in this event". This statement is not supported by any credible sources.[[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 17:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Zeq, are race and religion so important factors that they should figure in the opening sentence? Do you have any serious sources that support this? [[User:Emile123|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. [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 19:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
: The article keeps being reverted, with [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] removing the sentence "predominantly [[Muslims]] of [[North-African]] background" from the introduction, and [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] and [[User:Karl_Meier|Karl Meier]] keeping at restoring it.
: Frankly, I find this edit war ridiculous and boring. Beside thinking and working about this very sentence myself, I have repeatedly called for people to discuss they differences here, yet we still get reverts with comments like "repeated repost" (thank you...), or "Restored what some may want us to ignore" (ridiculous, this point is treated at length later and in details later in the article).
: I solemnly call for everyone interested to state ''on the talk page'' why they think it is important to mention this information in the introduction, why they think we should not, and whether there is a possible wording which could satisfy everybody. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 20:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi [[User:Rama|Rama]], well I will restate my question for [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] and [[User:Karl_Meier|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.[[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
It appears to me that there is a consensus against [[User:Emile123|Emile123]]. -- [[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 05:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
: I do not think so, and I believe that [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] raises a valid point; furthermore, I do not support unilateral changes in a way or another.
: Also, I find it regrettable that some people are so eager that the word "muslim" be present in the introduction that they do not even take the time to make grammatically correct sentences -- not to speak of discussing their views here. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 07:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:: It was discussed many times. Is rama = emile123 ? Anyhow you can correct the grammer if you want but removal of the SOURCED info that they mulsim from NA is vandalism. If you have other facts (such as they are Budhist from Tibet) feel free to add <b> but cite source </b> [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 08:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::::: When young people have been interrogated about the reasons of their riots I ve heard this : police harassment and violence, unemployment, discriminations based on skin color, religion, and adress (if your resume specifies that you live in a cité then it has less chance of being approved...) leading to police harassment and unemployment.
So I can't understand how race and religion can not be the main cause of the riots. If those people had been white christian descendants from native french people, they would not be discriminated against, they would not have more problems in school ... etc.
I think sdedeo has a point somehow. If the riots had been caused by unionised workers protesting against the company anti union harrassment policy would any contest that unionisation is a factor in causing the riots ? There has to be a union if there are anti union policies.
Stating this is not denying that workers have a basic right to union and that blacks, arabs, Kabyls, turcs, Chinese, portuguese and other non french looking minorities have a right to live in peace in France without suffering from discrimination and police harassment, and that muslims have a right to pray in peace without being tear gased or insulted by clumsy (at least) police officers. [[User:Panache|Panache]]--[[User:82.232.235.239|82.232.235.239]] 08:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
: you are avoiding my question : Are race and religion so important factors that they should figure in the opening sentence? Do you have any serious sources that support this? (see above) [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 18:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::: I am not avoiding your question at all !!! I answered it. These riots are about police violence aimed especially at minorities and about discrimination in the employement. Do you deny this ? All sources say it. For instance there's a link to Le Monde saying there are 3 "ethnic" groups in Clichy Sous bois, turcs, blacks and arabes-kabyles and that the 3 teenagers burned in the power station came from the 3 communities so that it united them all.
How can you find sth more related to race ? Then comes the episode of the mosque with gas in it. How can you find sth more related to religion ?
It's not that they are "so important", it s that if you have not understood this then you have understood nothing about the rioting. Just what do you think are the alternate factors ?
By the way I disagree with the present wording mentionning only the religion. Religion has not been the major factor. First police violence directed at ethnic minorities, then on top of it religion.
[[User:Panache|Panache]]----[[User:195.221.193.15|195.221.193.15]] 09:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
== See also ==
Some one edited this item. I think the version with specific links to specific riots was more interesting.
I'm not sure that battle of Paris is of direct interest.
I don't know how to revert to the previous version.
Panache
==compleat this sentence==
"According to the Interior violence, arson,..."
:should it read "According to the Interior *minister* violence, arson..."
:or perhaps "According to the Interior *ministry* violence, arson,..."
:this is from the timeline section of the main article.
[[User:Mike McGregor (Can)|Mike McGregor (Can)]] 20:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Very probably "ministry". In any case, you can say "ministry", it will be true if the minister hismelf said so, while the converse is not true :) [[User:Rama|Rama]] 21:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
== Should 'triggering events' be split'? ==
Hi, everyone, it's me again. At the moment the section has both the initial spark and later, aggravating factors. Should it be split to subsections 'initial' and 'aggravating' while the context section deals (as it does now) with the underlying social situation? It was split once, but that failed to last. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 02:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
== Events in other countries -> South Eastern Turkey ==
[http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/11/16/67818.html 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. [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]] 04:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
What kind of comment is this ? Kurds have no state and they have a right as a nation to ask for a state.
*They are [[Muslims]], but so is 99% of that country.--[[User:220.238.198.217|220.238.198.217]] 23:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
==aftermath==
Since the French police has officially declared a "return to normalcy" in terms of violence (although it makes you stop to see that 98 burnt cars a night are considered "average" in France), it may be time to clean up our statistics, the graphics and timeline, and to begin an "aftermath" section. Some the state of emergency remains in effect, though, but we have to figure out how many communes continue to impose curfews on minors. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
: A three-month prolongation of the state of emergency has been voted by the Assembly on the 15th, with 346 for and 148 against. The UMP (conservative, ruling party) and the UDF (centre-right) voted in favour, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the Greens voted against. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 10:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I know, this should be in political response and/or timeline. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 15:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:::does it really make sense to be talking "aftermath" when it's still going on, just because some french officials have decided to declare it over?[[User:Amargo Scribe|Amargo Scribe]] 02:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
There are about 20 millions cars in france. 100 burned each night is about 0,5 per 10 000 I don't see why it's seen as big. There are also probably many burglaries, some murders, some rapes etc. I don't think these numbers are any higher than those of other countries, be they USA and it's tough police. The reason we are shocked at first is because we never look at the statistics on crime. For a comparison there are still some 7000 deaths each year on the road in France and many more accidents. 1 million cars stolen each year in the USA, 2500 stolen each 24 hours http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Panache --[[User:195.221.193.15|195.221.193.15]] 09:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
: Yes, I would be interested to know what makes [[User:Amargo Scribe|Amargo Scribe]] say that "it's still going on". [[User:Rama|Rama]] 10:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
::My misunderstanding--Panache makes a good case, he hit exactly what I was wondering about.[[User:Amargo Scribe|Amargo Scribe]] 17:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
== concerted, organized POV pushing ==
I have looked into the history of some people behind the repeated references to race and religion ( Zeq, Zeno of Elea, Karl Meier, Panache...) and noticed that some of them had a consistent history (in many other articles) of aggressively pushing their negative POV on Islam. Some are repeatedly engaging in edit wars, and are harshly criticized by other editors. Some of them are organized into a group [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG]] whose stated goals are to "Ensure Islam related articles ... are ...free from apologetics and sympathetic POV". Of course, this is a severe understatement.
Overall, this seems to be a concerted, organized effort, to push a POV on wikipedia.[[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 18:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:: False accusation. Can you cite anywhere where I had wrote about Islam in a negative way ?
:: You just vandalize wikipedia like those vandals who vandelize France.
:: When a group of muslims do something together you should be proud of it not try to hide their origin .
:: BinLaden doesn't feel bad about being a Muslim and nither should you. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 20:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
emile123 you are violating the 3RR rule. I suggest you start restoring the info you reverted or you will be reported and suspended. [[User:Zeq|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]]'''. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 22:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Kizor|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.
[[User:Emile123|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. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 00:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
::Hi [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]], somebody else added that tag. I was not aware that a normal user could add it.[[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 08:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes he has. Don't be unfair. Emile has a very unpleasant time here, unfortunately his first experience on wikipedia is with our Anti Islamic Troll League. Zeq's comment above is completely unacceptable, both for calling Emile a vandal, and for saying things like "it's ok to be a Muslim like Bin Laden". ''What the hell''? Go and read [[WP:CIVIL]] Zeq, I mean it. If you cross the line again like that, you will face short blocks. Emile has a clear pov, and clear proposals. They should be addressed. Emile will not get his way ''exactly'', but a compromise should be beaten out, amicably. People who instead of constructively addressing the issue make venomous snide comments have no place on Wikipedia. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 07:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Hi [[User:Dbachmann|dab]], the Muslim background of certain rioters is extensively dealt with in the "context" section. Do you think it should be in the opening sentence? I think the controversy is about the importance given to this fact. I will try to find some way of linking to this section without giving this fact unwarranted importance.[[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 07:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree about "race riots" - it should not be there. But there is an orgenized effort (outside wikipedia) to hide an important fact about the rioters (being muslim from North africa origin) and we should not take part in it.
On a different note, I am civil. You are attacking me (not civil) and thereeating me (not civil) while I wrote facts that are very simple and not about the editor:
* "BinLaden doesn't feel bad about being a Muslim and nither should you"
* "When a group of muslims do something together you should be proud of it not try to hide their origin ."
::: This is a comment and a suggestion about "no need to feel ashemed about one's religion". If you read into it more that your own projection mot mine.
I have no idea what Beur IS and why a simple fact about the rioters should be hiden. Please write an article titled beur and place there what ever you want, and act in civility toward your fellow editors (i.e. without making threats)
* It is also important to check if emile123 is a sockppuet of Rama. At one point there was a talk page explanation about a change that was made by emile123. Also emile 123 had clearly violated the 3RR for this page.
::: It is not civil to accuse zeq of being a memeber of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG]] which he is not and laso to claim that he edits against Islam ( a proof for that was requested but none provided) . Making fals accusations is not civil.
* additinaly (as if not enough) user emile123 has at some point made edits without edit summary or with misleading edit summary making it hard to find how important info was lost from the article.
[[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 07:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Zeq, you are being very unreasonable now.
*If you don't know what a ''beur'' is, why the hell are you even editing this article? Let alone in an aggressive fashion? Emile knows what a ''beur'' is, and he will be happy to tell you if you'll just sit back and learn.
:: First of all I <b> am </b> intersted to learn. Please do not attack me or my ability to edit this article. This is <b> not </b> civil. I edit an important and sourced info that is critical about this subject. I know enough and I agree with your compromise. so please don't charterize my edits. It seems that we see it differently what is "aggresive" because we come from different backgrounds. I find your comments offensive but that maybe just my background so i don't blmae you just inform you about how you are being precived. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]]
*Your accusations of "vandalism" are empty. This is about the content of the intro, not about "removing unsourced information". We are arguing over how to best summarize the character of the riots in one sentence, not about whether your sources are accurate. Removing content from a bloated or biased intro is not vandalism, so stop calling it so.
:: Agreed [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
*My issue with your version is that it is ugly to have five links crammed in there ("[1][2][3][4][5]" -what the hell?), and that you are linking to gratuitous terms ([[young]], [[poor]] - what the hell)
:: agreed [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
*I will not dignify your comments about Islam and Bin Laden with further comment. What is this? Is Bin Laden a new sort of Godwin's Law? Just stop it, ok?
:: Good point. I agree with you as well. no more Bin Laden. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 08:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I would be pleased if Emile 123 can bring any proof I have negative Point of view on Islam.
I've spent my time here trying to defend their revolt as an anti discrimination one. I think EMile 123 has clearly some problem. I notice he includes me in the list and then adds "some of them", which is basically the same as saying "those people are an organised group ugly racists" because "I have proof that some of these individuals are ugly racists". Sure... Some is a proof for all. And unrelated individual acts are proof that there is an organised group. If Emile's research is as biased as his logic then I don't think it's worth anything.
::Sorry Panache, I had missed some of your recent contributions to the talk. Even though I certainly do not agree with you, your ideas seem indeed to be quite different to those expressed by other contributors (such as Zeq and Zeno). I'm new to wikipedia am a bit overwhlelmed by the agressiveness [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 10:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe Emile 123 is the racist in here. He wants us to believe that there is no discrimination in France and that the people who burned cars are not doing so because they felt discriminated in any way. The only reason for his behaviour I can find is this one : "nations and ethnies must not be taken care of, there's only one reality the oppression of poors (labor class) by the wealthy (bourgeoisie), join with me in this fight. Nationalist and ethnic leaders and requests must be dealt with force. If these minorities do not join the working class, we'll deport them in Guyana or some other place, just like my old kamarad Stalin used to do when dealing with minorities."
We should not be fooled by people like him.
Panache--[[User:195.221.193.15|195.221.193.15]] 09:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Come on, Panache, your attack is not good faith. I certainly do beleive that discrimination is a major factor in these riots. There are many serious sources stating this. Therefore I would certainly support putting something about "discrimination" in the opening sentence. Note that only mentioning "race and religion" without mentioning "discrimination" is a very different matter. [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 10:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
: I am beginning to find myself seriously offended by these insinuations that "emile123 is a sockppuet (sic) of Rama". I do not know whether there is an anti-defamation policy on Wikipedia, but [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] should stay assured that this sort of behaviour does not make him look much more sympathetic that this his Bin Laden insults. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 10:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Selective quotes are as bas as lies. The complete sentnce was "It is also important to check if emile123 is a sockppuet of Rama." Please applogise for making my question look like an assertion. BTW, the question is still valid:
* It is also important to check if emile123 is a sockppuet of Rama.
[[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 12:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:: You have ''repeatedly'' insinuated that emile123 was a sockpupet of mine. I do not use sockpuppets. If you think that you have grounded motifs of complaint, you are welcome to fill in a [[WP:RFC]] against me. However, I find such insinuations and stealthy tactics despicable. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 14:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
: And Panache, please just stop it. I should block you just for your "kamarad Stalin" remark. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 10:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
::: you mean it's ok to accuse me of being part of an organised group who fight Islam ? Besides if Emile 123 suddenly discovers there are some discrimination issues at stake and if we all agree on this, I can't see why we can't have the word discrimination in the first sentence or paragraph. Indeed, I just added it. Panache --[[User:82.232.235.239|82.232.235.239]] 13:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I do not remember seeing you accused of such a thing. I merely warn you against the use of gratuitous and plainly insulting sentences which do nothing to solve the debate but merely upset people (I appreciate that [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] ignored it). [[User:Rama|Rama]] 14:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Panache is correct. I wrongly put him in the same reference along with people from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG]]. My apologies. [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] 15:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: Rama, while the nature of the connection between you and emile123 is still not clear to me: If you say you don';t use sockpupet I'll take your word for it. I am still waiting for an apology on being accused of belonging to aorgenize anti-muslim group. (iamnot) [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 18:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
::::: I said nothing of the sort, so, as far as I am concerned, you can wait. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 13:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::: Apologies accepted [[User:Emile123|Emile123]] but please beware. The way you once put me in an alleged anti islam group and the way you discard the idea that race and religion are important factors in the riots, rate you as non objective, "POV pushing" . I'm not sure this helps in making your accusation less credible. It is obvious that many here have anti islam and anti colored people prejudice. However it is much less obvious that there is any organised group action. And it is even less obvious that it is in any way related to how the first paragraph should be written. Panache --[[User:195.221.193.15|195.221.193.15]] 17:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
== Missing Map ==
There was a map in the article last time I looked at it that showed the affected areas in France each day at a time and then as a whole. It rotated through each day in sequence. I hope someone knows what I mean. Anyway, I didn't see it on there. Why was it removed? I thought it was a GREAT piece of the article in terms of showing how the riots in France spread. [[User:Davidpdx|Davidpdx]] 04:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:the problem is, people enjoy maps, but they rarely care if the map is even remotely accurate. In the case of your map, you would have been better off without it, because it was extremely inaccurate. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 07:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
== OK let's keep it this way ==
I agree with this change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_civil_unrest_in_France&diff=28655540&oldid=28654508] I think it is a good compromise and I second keeping it this way [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 08:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:It's since been amended by a word or two, and personally I find that those only help. Looks good to me. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 14:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
== GHoosdum's edit ==
the "rvv" reverts the edit by the anonymous IP, of course, not GHoosdum's. The line is not exactly the same as his because of a lost copy/paste, but I tried to convoy the same nuance. Edit ad lib, of course. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 17:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:I wasn't sure whether my edit would stick very long anyway - I am not really sure how Wikipedia deals with edits that are written concurrently, meaning if two people start writing edits off the same base at the same time, and one user saves their (minor) changes, and then the other user saves more comprehensive changes (perhaps in a different part of the article), will the first user's change be lost, due to a later save from the same base from edit? At any rate, with how frequently this article is edited, I was guessing something like that might happen. [[User:GHoosdum|GHoosdum]] 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Yes, this makes the revert of vandalism particularly difficult here. And since the subject is rather touchy, blunders can be mistaken for aggressive editing over debated points. Hence my precision here. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 18:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
== Guadeloupe ==
I corrected information on Guadeloupe's status in the French Republic. It is not a teritory, it's an overseas département (département d'outre-mer or DOM) with equal status to all départements in metropolitan (continental) France. It's comparable to the US state of Hawaii moreso than the US teritory of Puerto Rico. [[User:jd4508|jd4508]] 22:40 18 November, 2005 (UTC)
==cleanup==
What happened to the "Firefighters" subsection? [[Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France]] is rather short now, after all. We could re-import it. Anyone into it? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 22:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
==movies==
why did you get rid of the references to the movies ? it's another mean of expression to better understand the general context [[User: whywhywhy|whywhywhy]]
:there were no movies about the "2005 civil unrest in France" which is the topic of this article, so I moved the links to the "context" article. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there any added value of Kassovitz's personal website in the external links ? of the POV of actors and movie directors having delt with the subject ? [[User: whywhywhy|whywhywhy]] 15:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
== Belgian article ==
For two weeks, we've had a heated but fair discussion about keeping the Belgian article. The call for deletion was rejected, and a discussion about merging was still ongoing, when yesterday evening one user ([[User:SNIyer12|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? [[User:1652186|1652186]] 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
:no, you can revert the edit if you like, but you'll have to be prepared for further discussions and changes. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 17:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
== Freerepublic article ==
I am removed [http://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. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 14:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I dsiagree with your assesment. This article, like others just above it has a POV. We need to put both sides in front of the reader. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
::: As we said before a number of times, the aim in not to show a collection of increasingly hysterical editorials with less and less touch with reality, but to focus on the opinions of either people who actually give an analysis of the subject itself (like ''The Economist'') rather than merely write about it through the shaping mirror of their a priori ideology (and this article is very symptomatic of this sort of problem, since it both begins and ends with remarks about the European Union, which has nothing to do with the subject), or from people who are directly linked to the subject (like Matthieu Kassovitz). [[User:Rama|Rama]] 17:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
::: I disagree with your charterization. It is not "random" it is an opinion that you don't like. calling it "hysterical" is just an attempt to make not valid but it is a valid view point for wikipedia. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 18:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
with worldwide media coverage, we can allow ourselves to be picky and only link the most renowned publications or authors. The alternative would be a comprehensive list of links to editorials. This is not in question, Wikipedia is not a link farm. You have failed to explain why you think that an Israeli paper ( http://www.jpost.com/ ) and a British <s>tabloid</s> [[The Spectator|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 [http://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 :( [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 19:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
:Not just an Israeli paper, but a very right-wing (in Israeli terms) one; and the Spectator article is AFAIK by a Canadian neo-conservative, so calling it a "UK perspective", while an understandable mistake, is just wrong. [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 19:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: The jpost link was here before. rama removed so I added it. in nay case links to articles that give a prepective different from the main stream media are valid. Please free to add links that describe other view points. The way I see it a link is a ref to a veryfilable source and as such has room on wikipedia. There is not even a need to argue about it: Everyone can click and make up their own mind.
::::: "rama removed so I added it" ? [[User:Rama|Rama]] 08:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::Here the question is nothing to do with verifiability, it's whether it's a worthwhile addition, and generally we should be as limited as possible in linking to editorials, I would say. I haven't read that one and probably can't, so I can't comment on its intrinsic value. But the Jerusalem Post, one of [[Conrad Black]]'s rags until a year ago, giving a different perspective from the mainstream media? give me a break. [[User:Palmiro|Palmiro]] | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 20:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::my point is that the links were not properly identified. I may not have removed the jpost one had it been properly formatted, with a link to ''[[Jerusalem Post]]''. If you want your links to survive, at least present them properly and honestly. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 21:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::: I'll try my best shot at it but feel free to correct if I will not present it accuratly. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 21:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Why not add an "international coverage" section in the article itself ? After all, the extend of foreign coverage is rather notable, and this will allow to digress on the nature and the trends of the comments.
But I would be very shocked indeed if a downright racist article was presented as representative of the opinion of a whole country. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 09:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
=== [[User:Zeq|Zeq]]'s attitude regarding editorials ===
I am extremely disapointed by [[User:Zeq|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_civil_unrest_in_France&diff=28895575&oldid=28891578], citing a [[WP:STYLE]] which he very clearly has not read (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Complete_citations_in_a_.22References.22_section] 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. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 12:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Zeq|Zeq]] and Emile123 should calm down. I don't know who can act, but I back you Rama on your remarks. Panache--[[User:195.221.193.15|195.221.193.15]] 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
== On France ==
''[A] problem with France was that France was full of French people.'' - Anders Henriksson, ''Non Campus Mentis'', New York: Workman Publishing, 2001, page 67.
How true that is, lol. Other than that, no comment. [[User:204.52.215.107|204.52.215.107]] 15:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
: Pfff... Typical lefty bleeding-heart spineless liberal surrender talk, which tries to make us believe that it is the French who are the problem... :) [[User:Rama|Rama]] 16:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
::Ayup, lol... unless they really ARE the problem :) <nowiki></nowiki> — [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] | [[User talk:Rickyrab|Talk]] 17:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
::: This latent racism just baffles me.
:::: I can't stand the curiosity any longer; what does "Ayup" mean ? [[User:Rama|Rama]] 08:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
::::: Ayup = Yes, agreed to, affirmative. [[User:Ronabop|Ronabop]] 11:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
== predominantly of French Muslim background ==
Quote from beginning of the article : ''thousands of youths (predominantly of French Muslim background)''
:How do you know that? Is it a fact or a mere hypothesis?--[[User:Theo F|Teofilo]] [[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Teofilo-Folengo|<small>talk</small>]] 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
::From like a billion sources mentioned later in the article. See gigantic flamewar above as to whether we should say it in the opening paragraph or whether wikipedia should pretend, like the French, that race has nothing to do with it. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 14:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
:::
:::The first source mentioned in the Wikipedia article is [http://www.lemonde.fr/web/articleinteractif/0,41-0@2-706693,49-710990@51-704172,0.html this article from ''Le Monde''] and nowhere does it say anything about the ethnicity of the authors of those events. --[[User:Theo F|Teofilo]] [[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Teofilo-Folengo|<small>talk</small>]] 16:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Two reactions.
Muslim religion is not a race. Technically in France it is mostly believe by arabs, but there are other muslim believers, very few native french, many west africans (blacks), some indians and pakistanis, a few persians (iranis) etc.
The french never said it has nothing to do with race. Most analyses and almost all political leaders blame a reaction to race and religion based discrimination. There's agreement on this.
So again, I'm asking for us to agree on a phrasing that would include :
1 ethnic minorities. As there is no scientific basis to the word race for humans (as there are dog and horses races but no human races)
2 muslim religion
3 discrimination against those ethnic minorities and this religion (for instance there are very few mosques in France, the organisation of the muslim community is only starting, there are prejudices towards Islam easily reinforced by the terrorist acts of some islam fundamentalists).
I believe mentionning only muslim religion is weird as
1 many of these young people do not follow the islamic religion in a strict manner, have few signs showing that they are muslims (beards etc.)
2 as far as demographics are concerned, I'm pretty sure that a study if possible, would show that more youth rebels come from ethnic minorities than from muslim background. There are many christians in the black population from west africa, in the french foreign departments in the antilles and at la Réunion, and in the "white" partakers from european descent (many portuguese are living in the "cités")
So if we have to choose, we should be writing from ethnic minorities, and not from Islam religion.
3 however I do believe that among minorities, those with muslim religion background were more prone to act, and to act while mentionning their religion (allah ahkbar etc.)
So again, we should be mentionning, ethnic background, religious background and discrimination against those. Panache --[[User:195.221.193.15|195.221.193.15]] 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
: I am mainly agreed with Panache here; just two nuances:
: * A French will never use the word "race" to speak about ethnicity -- the mere existence of "races" in this sense being largely controversial, contrary to scientific definition of "race", and largely a characteristic word of the far-right. It might be a good idea to craft a wording which reflects this nuance ("ethnicity" or "origins" could fit, for instance).
: * There have been mentions that the mere fact of having your address in the 93 department will make your resume go right to the bin if you apply for a job, and that you'd find blond, blue-eyed "fanco-French" who also suffer of discrimination in this respect. That said, I have absolutely no doubt that statistically, the people who will suffer from discrimination are in the vase majority also victms of racism. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 21:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
why are you discussing "race"? We said "French Muslim", not "race". The term "[[French Muslim]]" accurately describes a certain socio-cultural-ethnical demographic segment in France. It is not equivalent to "race", but not independent of it. It is not equivalent to religion, but neither is it independent. Therefore we link to [[French Muslim]] and not to [[race riot]] or [[Intifada]] or [[Islamism]], all of which would be incorrect descriptions. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I take it all back! Argh! Sorry! [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 22:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Dab, the question here is, by mentionning only "french muslim" we exclude other possibly important segments of the rioters, mainly ethnic minorities of other religion : blacks from french foreign departments, from west and south africa, europeans, and on top of this potential indian indhouists .
Now may be what this shows is that there is no "french minorities" article in Wikipedia and may be so far the link proposed is the best one.
But there is this feeling that french muslim is here mentionned in order to describe as you say : a socio cultural ethnical demographic segment in France, and not as a reference to the religion of islam.
If islam is present only because islam believers are of a different colour, social status and culture, I think the term is still misleading.
However, if there is no better alternative, and as long as I do not start to write "french minorities", may be I should shut up.
: well you are welcome to give a try at writing [[French minorities]], [[Ethnic minorities in France]] or something like this and see how it comes out. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 13:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
===Sources===
Quote from beginning of the article : ''thousands of youths (predominantly of French Muslim background)''
:How do you know that? Is it a fact or a mere hypothesis?--[[User:Theo F|Teofilo]] [[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Teofilo-Folengo|<small>talk</small>]] 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
::From like a billion sources mentioned later in the article. See gigantic flamewar above as to whether we should say it in the opening paragraph or whether wikipedia should pretend, like the French, that race has nothing to do with it. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 14:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
:::
:::The first source mentioned in the Wikipedia article is [http://www.lemonde.fr/web/articleinteractif/0,41-0@2-706693,49-710990@51-704172,0.html this article from ''Le Monde''] and nowhere does it tell about the ethnicity of these events' authors. Before discussing whether to write that statement in the opening paragraph or elsewhere, one should verify if this is a proven fact, or an unproven hypothesis. --[[User:Theo F|Teofilo]] [[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Teofilo-Folengo|<small>talk</small>]] 16:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
You might want to examine the other sources in the article, including those from the BBC and the New York Times. You are welcome to put footnotes to these sources in the opening paragraph, but consider yourself warned that half a dozen people will occasionally all jump in to an edit or revert war both on and against whatever you chose to say. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] 21:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
| 