[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:2005 French riots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pok148 (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 3 November 2005 (→poverty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Electrocuted

"electrocuted" [1] is an American term coined to refer to the death penalty (execution). It was apparently used for accidents as early as 1909, but that it seems to be purely American English, and it does carry connotations of 'execution'. In this case, it would be advisable to say "Died of electric shock", to be on the safe side, I think. Baad 10:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The OED cites use of the word to refer to any death by electricity as early as 1909. The Yorkshire Post is cited, so this use is not confined to American English. Rhobite 17:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sure, I wouldn't object in any other case, but the entire riots revolve around allegations that these youths were killed as a result of police action, so to speak accusing France of the deaths. The death-penalty connotations of "electrocution" should be avoided because of this. If it was a completely uncontroversial accident, I would agree that the word would be unproblematic. 83.79.181.171 18:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a world outside America. 'Electrocuted' is English for 'killed by electricity'. If you don't speak English any more, then the onus is on you to translate it into American, not for us to change the language to suit your 'dialect'. 65.213.215.153
did you even read the above comment, and click on the link? for your benefit:
electrocute: "execute by electricity," 1889, Amer.Eng., from electro- + (exe)cute; sense involving accidental death is first recorded 1909.
the term is American. I was requesting that it be changed from American. I realize that the term is sometimes used in English outside America, also in the 'accidental' meaning. I really don't see where you are coming from if you are putting the 'onus' on me to translate it 'into American' when I'm pointing out that the article is in American. 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on the above, I went ahead and replaced it with "died of electric shock". Noone seems to reject that term outright even if some folks are standing up for "electrocuted". I also gave this thread a title. --Brian Z 13:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, as a native North American English-speaker, I have to say that "to electrocute" means "to kill by electricity", and in and of itself it is not at all specific to execution via such means. Whoever here thinks that in NAE it is somehow specific to execution today is most definitely mistaken. --128.105.45.12 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


ummmm Baad , i dont know if you are a native American english speaker but, I have never heard the term Electrocuted, used exclusively to refer to execution. As a matter of fact unless you specified execution, i believe most Americans would assume Electrocuted, by an electrical outlet or something of that sort. Mac Domhnaill 21:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that this depends on the generation. What you say may well be true for people aged below 30, but less likely for those above 60. The fact remains that the term originated as slang, based on the execution on the Electric chair, as late as 1909, as a contraction of "electrically executed". I was only pointing out unwanted connotations, I didn't claim it was factually wrong. 81.63.124.173 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem relevant since the change in question occured almost a century ago. The connotation no longer exists. I doubt people over the age of 60 are going to be confused by the use of the term. Given how much the English language has changed over the past century, it's a bad idea to worry about what words meant back then. -- KarlHallowell 17:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

Tags added owing to nature of writing, repition and revertion of attempted corrections. there is a clears bias and original Researc. removing of the tags is vandalism, do not remove them. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You must be more specific if you wish to make such allegations. Otherwise you aren't interested in improving anything, you are only interested in spin doctoring with a ridiculous battery of unsubstantiated tags. -- Zeno of Elea 13:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit harsh, but I agree that Irish should go into more detail. --Kizor
Already engaging in a POV edit, and POV protection. Don't remove the tags without discussion, it is vandalism! The article needs to be cleaned up, it repeats itself on several occasions, and has grammar problems elsewhere, do not remove the cleanup tag. The point on including a synagogue attack is what exactly? How, exactly, is it related to the crisis at hand (Apart from it being in the same area; using that as a Criteria we should include every criminal incident in the area from, apparently, 2001). Why did you write "The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism and due to the rise of militant Islam", and then revert to it twice, when the referenced BBC article actually says "Far more common is the attitude of Nour-eddine Skiker, a youth worker near Paris: "I feel completely French. I will do everything for this country, which is mine." Mr Skiker's Moroccan origins mean a lot to him. But, like many youths in the suburbs, he sees no contradiction between being French and having foreign roots.". Your refusal to accept correction leads to the necessity for the {{disputed}} tag. Your using a Blog as source reference also adds to that. You say that left Wing politicians were "Shocked" at the government reaction! I doubt that, but it remains unsourced. There is an Anti-Muslim, Pro-State bias in the article,a nd frankly needs a complete Re-write. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom: Could you please stop falsly accusing editors of vandalism just because they disagree with you selection of tags? Another thing is that there is no way that this needs to be rewritten. If you feel that you need more references for some of the information then add them, but what you are doing now looks more like trolling. -- Karl Meier 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, removing validly placed tags without any discussion is a form of vadalism, its as simple as that. The article uses a Blog which refers to the Victims as "Foolish" is used as a source, clearly that is not an acceptable source. We should not use blogs as refernces anyway, less they are part of the situation. The article needs to be re-written, as it stands it's POV and factual accuracy are in dispute. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know the definition of vandalism very well, and you adding them with mentioning any mentioning any reasonable concerns seems like an attempt to attack Zeno just for the sake of doing it. There is a word for that kind of behavior and I already mentioned it. Also, if you find that a single source needs to be replaced, then fix it, instead of just yelling and screaming and adding a huge amount of silly tags about that the article needs to rewritten. -- Karl Meier 15:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried fixing problems but was reverted in every step. Then you reverted the tags added to highlight the problems. The concerns are highlighted above. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did some various cleanup work on the article. This doesn't require a complete rewrite, nor is there much of an accuracy dispute, so I removed the tags and replaced with a single POV tag. The blog link is unacceptable, it appears to be a right-wing blog and it is the only source which accuses youths of attacking the rescue squad during the rescue attempt. It also accuses the youths of being "foolish". Rhobite 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a starters I dispute the accuracy of the statement "The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism and due to the rise of militant Islam" further, I dispute that "Clichy-sous-Bois has a large Muslim community, mostly immigrants from Africa." - From what I've been reading, most are 2nd and 3rd Gen youths. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what you think and believe. The information is sourced and it's no excuse to remove it, that it doesn't suit your personal PoV. If you think that a different PoV need to be added then do that, but don't remove any proberly sourced information. -- Karl Meier 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where, and be precise is the source for "The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism and due to the rise of militant Islam" - Because I've read the source provided and it says the opposite. Further, where is the source for "Clichy-sous-Bois has a large Muslim community, mostly immigrants from Africa".--Irishpunktom\talk 18:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, will you stoop to turning anything into a point-scoring contest about Islam? I fail to see how the synagogue burnings are at all relevant, since no synagogues appear involved in the present riots. It makes sense to disuss France's immigrants' ghettos in this context, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with 'militant Islam'. If anything, these are class or race riots, nobody called for Shariah rule in Paris. 83.79.181.171 18:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A BBC article that says "The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism and due to the rise of militant Islam". Ok the BBC has a serious problem with accuracy. Muslims and Blacks in Paris are treated with exceptional dignity. The US and GB could take a page out of their book. There are many Black communities from Algers, Refguees from Libya, Morocco. Where was the Shadow governments for Iraq and Iran based? Paris.
Other articles cite that Youths were arrested in connection with the riots. Huh? Youths in Paris Rioting? There were at least 3 riots when I was there, and a beatifull french girl, with 'Mal De France' ran up and kissed me on the lips! Even if you are right there, in the middle of the situation, you may not see the causes of it.
Lastly 'Clichy-sous-Bois' ( If you never have been there, dont quote that you read something about it...I had read about it too, but was suprised by how diffrent it was than what I read. ), has a large Black community, from all parts of Africa. I met some people there from Etheria, who had a lot of fun mocking my french. They spoke perfect french, and had been there for generations.
Finally. Anyone who puts Muslim, and any religious inflection in this article is detracting from a neutral point of view. This is a problem with some kids, and not a race or religious riot. Artoftransformaiton} 21:47, 1 November 2005 (U

Thanks for removing the tags. Once again, my premise that it is only Angry Youths, and not Islmaic Terrorists, and the BBC does not have a clue, in the statment by French President "clashes between youth gangs and Paris police...". ( As soon as I find the french quote, I will post it. ) 69.181.232.116 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I *think* I agree with you Art of Transformation, as long as you are allowing for demographical information. It does belong in this article. It should not be the *focus* or the only thing in any background for this event, but it should be there.
I also think we also have a problem with people citing sources that while established, might be making unsubstantiated claims. It's kind of a cop-out to just cut-and-paste what some source said. Just because it is a news corporation or entity doesn't mean that they aren't fallible.
But I understand the difficulty. Most of the coverage I have been able to find is slanted. Maybe the trick then is that if you are going to use such a source that appears to be slanted, then the slanted information needs a proper context (i.e., other sources like alternative or independent media). Or at least such a source should be used to support objective speech, rather than simply parroting.
I appreciate the difficulty everyone is experiencing who is trying to edit this article. It is apparently very hotly contested at the moment. When I woke up someone had replaced all the text of the article with something that looked like Spanish. Sheesh
-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[7:56 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]

Again, I ask, how, exactly, is the synagogue attack related to the crisis at hand (Apart from it being in the same area; using that as a Criteria we should include every criminal incident in the area from, apparently, 2001).--Irishpunktom\talk 18:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example that there has also been religious/political unrest in that specific area previously, and that is of course relevant information. The attack on the synagogue is not just any kind of crime. -- Karl Meier 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as related. An attack on a synagogue has nothing to do with two boys being so afraid of police interrigation that they are chased to death. They are unrelated, certainly as stated there. INdeed, the unemployment stats would be more relevent than that. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not just about the incident with the two guys, that for some reason didn't wanted to talk to the police. The name of the article is - if you didn't notice it - the "2005 Paris riots". It's about the riots and it's relevant to mention that previously there has also been other incidents of religious/political unrest/violence in that specific area. -- Karl Meier 19:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The riots triggered by the deaths of those two teenagers. Nothing to do with a Synagouge. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That the riot happens in an area where there also previously - and only a few years ago - has been other incidents of religious/political violence and unrest, is worth mentioning. One of the incidents of previous religious/political unrest was the attack on the synagogue, and there is no excuse not to mention it. -- Karl Meier 19:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, if you are so interested in the history of the area, why don't you do Clichy-sous-Bois, which is still a redlink; you can supply a nice timeline of all sorts of events in that article. 83.79.181.171 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I am interested in, is that this article contain the information that is relevant to it's subject. Another thing is, can I ask you to please log in? I think that some people might find it a bit confusing not to know who they talking to, and perhaps it could even lead to some unnessecary misunderstandings. -- Karl Meier 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if you refuse to delegate "information that is relevant to it[']s subject" to articles linked from this article, I'm afraid you'll have to copy the entire French rule in Algeria, Colonialism, History of Islam, Franks and Neolithic Europe into this article. You see, npov doesn't mean that anything with a remote connection to the subject mentioned here and now, no matter what. 83.79.181.171 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To mention that the neighborhood where the riots are taking place, have a history of previous religious and political violence is more relevant and appropiate in this article, than it is to copy "the entire French rule in Algeria" article into it. A short mentioning of previous, and quite recent political/religious violence should be appropiate. If the article is getting too long we can of course start to make subarticles about the history of political/religious violence and so on in that neighborhood, but that isn't the case yet. Also, I find it strange why there seems to be editors around here, that are so determined to remove that piece of information from the article? Irishpunktom almost vandalized the article, only to aviod the mentioning of other recent incident of political/religious violence in that specific place. -- Karl Meier 00:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speculate as to why you didn't invest the time you spent haggling with Tom into making a Clichy-sous-Bois stub where your information will be undisputedly at home. That would have been the productive approach. I am tempted to do it for you, but I prefer to give you a chance to do something worthwhile on Wikipedia for once. 81.63.50.227 07:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The information belongs in this article. -- Zeno of Elea 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, I suggest you put it back, and do a decent Clichy-sous-Bois stub, including the ancient and medieval history mentioned in the French article, and we'll know that you're capable of contributing to the encyclopedia, and not just haggling, edit-warring, trolling and meatpuppetry. 08:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


I have given some background now. The Interior minister saying that "violent crime is a matter of daily life" in the banlieu sums it up. Picking out the synagogue attacks is completely random in this context, and I fear, a thinly disguised attempt to portray the riots as religously motivated. Show evidence that there were religious, be it militant Islamic or antisemitic, connotations to the riots, and we can re-import the reference as relevant. I am exporting it to Clichy-sous-Bois for now (which I have created now, since Zeno and Karl were too busy point-scoring). 81.63.50.227 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks on the synagogue of Chlichy-sous-Bois is entirely relevant to this article. There is no denying that there is a religious element to these riots. Two Muslims died as a result of their own extreme stupidity and criminal activities. Such an event could only cause a riot in a Muslim neighbourhood. Lo and behold Chlichy-sous-Bois's population of 25,000 includes a signficant number of Muslims originating from North Africa. This is a violent conflict in which religion is undoubtably playing a role. The youth of a religious community have been instigated into rioting. Surprising religious violence has occured in Clichy-sous-Bois in the past and that deserves mention. I think this information is being deleted because it was a Jewish place of worship that was attacked. If a mosque had been recently attacked in Chlichy-sous-Bois there would have been a whole section about it in this article. But since it was Jewish place of worship, the single sentence mentioning the attacks is persistently being attacked by people who are arguing that there is no way that past relgious violence has anything to do with the current riots in Clichy-sous-Bois. This is a surprsing claim given the reported facts and it betrays a strong POV. -- Zeno of Elea 08:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explain

This is the first time I'm reading this article, and I must say that I have absolutely no idea what it is talking about. From what the article states, a couple of Muslim teens mistakenly thought they were being chased by police, and then mistakenly caused their own deaths by touching live electric. Where is the outrage coming from? As someone who has little knowledge of French culture, I would appreciate the background being explained, and hopefully someone could help create a section in the article to make it more clear to outsiders. Avengerx 09:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not very good at the moment and has been and should be tagged with the disputed tag, obvious from the discussion on this page. However, someone keeps taking the dispute tag away. Also some of the wiki-links like Islam in France, banlieue and Clichy-sous-Bois has a strong bias and do not correlate with the french wiki sites. This puts the authors ambitions in doubt. In addition the quotes from BBC are taken out of content.

There is also a background to this story where Sarkozy a couple of weeks ago said that the suburbs should be cleaned with high pressure water jets, which of course made way for a huge debate and further increased the already tense sttuation in the northern suburbs of Paris which was cannalised by the death of two teenagers.

this is not very different from the assorted race riots in the USA. The immigrants feel they are treated as underdogs by the authorities, and they blame the police with chasing the youths to their deaths. So the deaths sparked latent wrath against the police, and things took their own course from there. 10:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Race riots in the US are generally sparked by some kind of concrete event (cf. Rodney King etc.), as far as this case is concerned, I agree with Avengerx - why such outrage? It was a tragic accident, sure, but how were the police to blame? The article admits that they were chasing completely different people, if the youths have a paranoia-complex then thats not the police's problem. As said before, if this outrage is justified, could someone please explain why in the article? Thanks in advance. Jdcooper 10:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
that's what the police say. I doubt that the rioters take the police's word for it. They probably have reason to assume, from their own experience, that the police doesn't always portray 'accidents' exactly the way they happened. ANd of course, once the riot gets going, the initial cause ceases to matter. This probably started as minor skirmishes, and things escalated. 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I originally thought it was just a minor event that caused an edgy situation to explode, and thats what I get from what you are saying. I think it would be good for the article if we could get a French Muslim POV on the article, just to see what the other side of the spectrum might hold. I'll be watching to see how it develops. Thanks. Avengerx 12:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abos did this in Redfern too, it just seems to be a illogical phenomenon caused by the not even proletariat who can't accept responsibility for their own.
well what were the peaceful marchers demanding? for french cops to not chase anyone anymore? keith 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus guys, you cannot imply that poeple are (and in reference to the Redfern riot, which I remember) rioting because they have no education. Why don't you stop and think for a minute about just how OPPRESSED a community of people must feel before they riot like this? Let alone for six days. You go out into your street and try and get hundreds of people to riot. You simply cannot do it. Bihal 00:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I'm sure France has oppressed these people. France gave them citizenship, public education, healthcare, clean water, welfare, freedom, all the amenities of a modern, Western socialist country. If they are so oppressed in France, why are they fleeing their Islamic countries for France? These people are not oppressed. They are criminals. -- Zeno of Elea 06:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bihal, I can definitely understand what you are saying. What I am trying to say is that from what the article stated, it didn't seem like justifyable cause for a riot. In the US, we've had race riots, but they always tend to start with solid evidence of horrific events like the police mercilessly beating a man while someone films it ie.Rodney King. As someone unfamiliar with French culture, I wanted to know what the French Muslim perspective was on the event.
Zeno of Elea, I'm sure that there is some sort of reason leading to these events. An entire mass of people do not riot because they are 'criminals'. Obviously you're trying to underscore the event, which isn't helpful to anyone. Avengerx 12:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title misleading

Clichy-sous-Bois is part of Paris. When people say "LA riots" they don't mean that rioting was happening at Paramount Studios. I'm sure if you had given it a little more thought you would have concluded that the riots must be happening in some poorer areas of the city and not under the Eiffel Tower. -- Zeno of Elea 06:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the "r" in "riots" be capitalized, since this is a specific historical event, and therefore, a proper noun? Nightscream Thur. 11.3.05. 10:43am EST.

Vandalism... Literally

In response to the Paris vandalism riots, French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, stated that police officers should be armed with non-lethal weapons vandalism to combat urban violence. [16] After the fourth consecutive night of riots, Sarkozy declared a zero-tolerance policy towards urban violence and announced that 17 companies of riot police and 7 mobile police brigades would be stationed in contentious Paris vandalism neighborhoods. Undercover police officers were sent to identify "gang leaders, drug traffickers and big shots." Sarkozy's approach was criticized by vandalism left-wing politicians who called for greater public funding for vandalism, housing, education, and job creation, and refraining from "dangerous demagoguery." [17] Sarkozy was further criticized after he referred to the rioters as "scum" [18] and "riff-raff." [19]

During his visit to Clichy-sous-Bois, the Interior Minister was to meet with the families of the youths, but when the tear gas grenade was sent into the Clichy mosque, the families pulled out of the meeting. Bouna Traoré's brother Siyakah said, "There is no vandalism way we’re going to see Sarkozy, who is incompetent. What happened in the mosque is really disrespectful". [20]

The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation, secularism, and due to French fears of "the worldwide rise of Islamic militancy," vandalism reporting that "the assertiveness of French Islam is seen as a threat not just to the values of the republic, but vandalism to its very security." [21]

Why can't all vandalism be this easy to spot (and this literal)? I need to go to bed, someone fix this, please. And someone also find out who the jackass was who did this in the first place.

--Ihmhi 10:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was presented with something not so subtle, when I loaded up the page I was greeted by a nice big blowjob image filling about half the page. Before the image finished loading I was thinking "Boy its odd for an image this big to be sitting right here in the middle of the page."Jasongetsdown 01:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph references the “five previous French revolutions.” Is this vandalism, or is that actually at all relevant? —GJK 10:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seine-Saint-Denis region considered to be a "sensitive area of immigration and modest incomes" by who?

The Timeline section contains the following.

The unrest was particularly intense in Sevran, Aulnay-sous-bois and Bondy, all in the Seine-Saint-Denis region, which is considered to be a "sensitive area of immigration and modest incomes."

The quote has no reference, and strongly resembles a weasel term. Who precisely called the Seine-Saint-Denis region a "sensitive area of immigration and modest incomes"? Grumpy Troll (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

see the "Background" section, which is based on Islam_in_France#Reaction_to_the_rise_of_Islam_as_a_social_and_political_force_among_Muslim_immigrant_groups among other sources. This is not so much weasly as euphemistic. Put plainly, you would say "it's a shithole". 81.63.50.227 12:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know how French people consider the Seine-Saint-Denis region, but a quote requires attribution, and unless a reference is found, I suggest the sentence be rewritten as to put forward the region's sensitive issues. Grumpy Troll (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
what do you mean, the source is linked right next to the statement, [2]; feel still free to rephrase. 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of this, for I was oblivious of the above link being related to the statement. Grumpy Troll (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

balance out perhaps

The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation, secularism, and due to French fears of "the worldwide rise of Islamic militancy," reporting that "the assertiveness of French Islam is seen as a threat not just to the values of the republic, but to its very security."

I think we could maybe balance this out a bit. Perhaps someone just wanted to editorialize on how they view Muslims in France and looked for some "official" source that was saying what they wanted. Surely we can balance it out with the Muslim POV a bit? Dan Carkner 14:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, it is quite objective that French fears of "the worldwide rise of Islamic militancy" will be fanned by these riots, among the Front National crowd anyway. Whether these fears are rational, let alone whether there is any relation to the riots at hand is quite another question of course. But there is a 'great divide' in French society, and the notion "Gauls vs. Arabs", and/or "Christians vs. Muslims" is certainly part of it, predominantly among the fundamentalists on either side, of course. 81.63.50.227 14:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that, but this isn't a vessel for only one side to voice their fears (about Muslims). The way that it's phrased is biased.. Saying that Muslims are alienated due to assimilation and secularism (the latter is probably an over-generalization, I'm sure most Muslims are happy that secularism keeps Christians in power from persecuting them more) and then leading into the the next idea as if one flows from the other.. I just don't like the bias, and I'd like it if a French Muslim counterpoint was included somehow, a *realistic* one. Dan Carkner 17:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might not be a question of "balancing out", but a matter of following simple logical argument.
It has been suggested, but not proven to me, that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated for the reasons listed.
Then this unproven premise is somehow related to the "the assertiveness of French Islam" that now possibly threatens "the values of the (French) republic" and "its very security".
It is unclear to me just how "traditional values of assimilation" are responsible for Muslims in the ghettos of Paris being alienated. In what way are they being alienated? Socially? Financially?
It's as if I'm to believe that Muslims are just pissed that they can't come to France and just take over. But all I have is the word of a reporter (or reporters) at the BBC. All I have is a statement. No evidence. Poor citing indeed to merely quote claims like that without proper context. The source those claims come from isn't even listed in your "External Links".
AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 1:51 pm (Pacific Time), 2 November 2005
hello? this passage is just saying what BBC said, as is clearly pointed out. Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion, but if BBC says that this is the context, we may report that BBC said that this is the context. Find another news source and add it, if you don't like it. 81.63.124.173 22:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hello yourself. I find it amusing that defense of this content had to be changed. First it's "objective". Now, if we don't like it, we should find another news source and add to the article.
I'm not saying Wikipedia has to have an opinion. But this forum is for discussion, yes? I don't think you can disagree with that.
What I am discussing is the need for better care while putting together these articles. It is irresponsible to merely parrot content from the BBC. Especially when that content is biased and ignores significant background for this event. It's like someone just cut and paste the content. There's no critical thought behind it. I'm not talking about original research. I'm talking about critical thought put into how it's presented. Like the kind of critical thought advocated in Wikipedia's policy regarding Neutral POV.
Maybe I'm lamenting the fact that people are going to just "parrot" what a news source says and call it gospel without even examining it. Or maybe they know it's incomplete and they don't care. It's too bad that I can point out bias in someone's source and be told that I have to fix it. If you're the one who did it in the first place, are you not responsible to see that it's done right?
I guess not.
AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 3:34 pm (Pacific Time), 2 November 2005

Clichy-sous-Bois not a commune

I didn't know the entirety of Clichy-sous-Bois shared things and had collective production. Let's try not to inflate the popularity of communal lifestyles on Wikipedia please, at least not in articles linked from the front page. Thanks. MrVoluntarist 14:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my bad. the intended term was municipality, but kindly see commune (subnational entity). 81.63.50.227 14:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
better yet, see Commune in France and fr:Clichy-sous-Bois, according to which Clichy was solemnly decladed a commune by 100 revolutionaries on 6 January 1790, and has been one ever since. 81.63.50.227 14:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revolving door Courts?

"Friday, October 28 - Two 25 year-olds and one 27 year-old male were sentenced to 8 months in prison, with 2 months' firm imprisonment for throwing projectiles at police officers. Monday, October 31 - Three men were sentenced to prison."

What? This started on the 27th, and people were already convicted a day later?

Yes, there is a system in France called comparution immediate that allows speedy trials like this in certain cases [3]. Ze miguel 16:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the frogs fail pretty hard, then

Similarities

Im not sure if anyone wants to add this, if they see it as important or not, but these events in many ways seems to echo a similar chain of incidents in Redfern, a suburb of Sydney Australia, in what was labled the 'Redfern Riots'. An Aboriginal boy, apparently fleeing police, rode his bike into a fence impaling himself upon it. That night in response to his death hundreds of Aboriginal youths stormed the Redfern Train station, trapping police inside and later were confrounted by Riot Police. Just a thought...

I had a vague recollection of that -- I think the parallel is sufficiently close to warrant a link as 'see also'. Do we have an article on the Redfern riots? 81.63.124.173 22:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_the_Red_Fern_Grows206.195.19.43 22:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is Misleading and betrays Unintentional or Intentional Bias

I don't understand. I open this article, expecting to be able to find out about a few different points of view as to the underlying conditions that brought about the riots.

Instead, an event that seemingly SPARKED the riots is listed as "the cause" of the riots. This seems a little inadaquate to explain why the rioting has continued for this long, or why it has spread to 10 other suburbs.

Most of the news coverage I can find on this event seem to focus on the fact that 2 *Muslim* youths accidently electrocuted themselves while running from police and now Paris is enduring all these riots, apparently ALL of which are because of angry Muslims. Or angry immigrants.

This article is no different. In all of this I'm expected to believe that so many people in that many suburbs, are all willing to take so much time out of their day to protest the death of 2 youths.

I expected to be able to follow links from this article to a variety of sources. This article should reflect in it's external links, all the sources referenced. Instead it merely includes 2 of your sources and links to pictures of the riots. Whether unintentional or not, limiting the external links in this way is biased.

The problem of unemployment and poverty within these suburbs is left unexamined and even unmentioned in the "Background" section of this article (as of this posting 12:05 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd). This despite the fact that one of your sources (the Globe & Mail) refers to this issue:


"It (the riots) also has renewed debate about France's failure to fully integrate its millions of immigrants, many of whom are trapped in poverty and grinding unemployment, living in low-cost, sometimes decrepit, suburban housing estates where gangs dealing drugs and stolen goods sometimes are in control."


This article FAILS to address or even acknowledge this issue (as of this posting 12:05 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd), and instead infers that the problem is Arab immigrants. And then further infers that this is Islamic militancy, while ignoring other aspects of the background of this issue, namely unemployment and poverty. I think that issues like this that are related to people being able to meet basic human needs are quite possibly significant and should not be glossed over.

Lastly, in Discussion about this article, other Wikipedia articles have been used as sources. I find this to be rather irresponsible and potentially misleading. ANYone can write or edit Wikipedia articles. The value in a Wikipedia article is that you can check all the SOURCES that the author is referencing. So if you're going to bother referencing something, at least reference the references within a Wikipedia article.

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [12:05 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd]

I advice wiki-en than -in France- we say than the "cause" is the death of "2 teenagers" in a stupid condition. We think than this area is poor, have many difficulties, worse by nowadays economis difficulties, and how explain to them than two boys are death like this, because affraid by cops ? Many teenagers every night are from the same social condition, from different religions but having the same difficulties. That is just ome thing too much. Yug (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC), French student.[reply]
so? WP:NOR+WP:CITE, right? We are just parroting what newsworthy people said. You have something to add? Cite your source and add it. "cause" could be changed to "immediate cause", but I don't see what's wrong. Do you see any specific inaccuracy in the Wikipedia articles cited? Point it out. Just ranting doesn't help, tell us which facts we got wrong. 81.63.124.173 21:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is "wrong" is that listing the triggering event as the sole cause is irresponsible. Whether or not it was meant to be refered to as the "sole cause" is irrelevant. People reading the article are going to think the author intended it to be so.
What is listed under "Cause" probably contributed to the problem. But it is incomplete to list the cause as simply "the death of 2 teenagers". It's oversimplifying what is a more complex issue. Other articles regarding civil disturbances such as these, don't list a single cause, because that is OVERsimplifying. There is no one reason for an event like this, so it's better to focus on Background of the event as the reason. But the background section of this article remains slanted and marginalized besides.
Those deaths might have triggered the riots, but by themselves, I am not convinced that they *caused* the riots. There is evidence that other factors played a role. Evidence that was present in sources *already* cited within the article. It vexes me that I can point this out and merely be met with the directive that I should fix it. If I have to fix it, fine.
But one of my points was that the evidence was already there in the sources and DISREGARDED when the article was made. The article was purposefully or accidently SLANTED and when I pointed it out, the point is seemingly ignored and I am told to fix it myself.
And I'm not talking about inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles. You're missing the point. The point is that any "Joe off the street" can author or edit an article. So slanted articles can reference each other, providing evidence that seemingly prove the validity of each article. But that only means something if the sources of each article are valid.
So I'm advocating that it's easier for everyone to just skip a step and cite their sources, rather than simply citing a Wikipedia article as evidence. Cite as many sources as you can. Then we, in turn, can check the sources ourselves and make up our minds.
Lastly, if someone has tried to add a disputed label to this article and you keep taking it off while this debate still remains unresolved, you are indicating a certain level of close-mindedness.
Such an attitude does not exactly encourage anyone else to edit this article. Who is to say that you won't just delete something you don't like or agree with. You seem to have already made up your mind that article is complete. (?)
-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[2:42 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd]

sorry, you are not making sense. I asked you to point out specifics, and you just repeat your rant. Did you even see the "Background" section? It has the precise intention to give context beyond the "immediate cause". Since you are not pointing out specific fixes, the NPOV tag is not warranted. You don't slap them on articles just because you don't like them. Your point of "Joe off the street" can edit the article, your very difficulty to have your way is proof enough that not any random, sub-standard edit stands a chance on a highly monitored WP article. Joe off the street may add his shtick, but a dozen Wikipedians will reach for their rollback button within the minute. 81.63.124.173 22:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusion comes from a lack of knowledge about riots, insurrections, and revolutions. VERY often such events are sparked by single events or people that inspire everyone. The death of these two teenagers certainly does show the cause that sparked it, and it DOES explain why it's spread to other suburbs and contintues for a sixth consecutive night. Youth in this area of France are fed up with oppression and the authorities enforcing it, that's why the rioting is happening. If you look at other recent examples you can see simliarity. In 2001 in Algeria, an insurrection which has taken on a national level, was triggered by the killing of a youth by an officer in Kabylia. This sparked months of bombings, rioting, clashes, and other insurrectionary activity. It is very difficult to get accurate news about what's happening currently in Algeria, but whispers internationally say that this is still going on, but we know for fact that such activity has been in full force (and quite anti-authoritarian force I might add) even into 2004. So you can see how one or a series of incidents certainly can cause such uprisings. This is not to say that it's purely a reaction to just these incidents, it is a combination of many factors. But when people have been pissed off for so long about the things going on around them, it often takes the straw that broke the camel's back to incite revolution. This is what's being demanded here. There is the initial revenge for the deaths of the two youths, but now it's taken a whole different edge.
I am not confused. I argue that all this is already in the article, and that you have difficulty making a coherent statement. Everybody agrees that the two deaths were just a trigger, ok? Stop ranting and be specific. In fact, I have this mental image now of one of the rioters, breathlessly pausing at a terminal to update Wikipedia in a Paris internet cafe that is just being looted. I also fear that the main mid-term consequence of this little 'civil war' will be a significant popularity boost for the Front National. Just like al-Qaeda is the only thing that keeps GW Bush in business, rioting Arabs is exactly what Le Pen needs to keep his thing together. Baad 00:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you must really be frustrated if you are resorting to labeling my points as rant. I apologize if we are having misunderstandings here. [Also, please note that that huge unsigned paragraph was not written by me.... I sign everything.]
Not making sense? Okay, I'll simplify my points as best I can to make it easier.
1.) My main point boils down to this: There is a bias in this article that warrants a Neutrality Dispute. The bias is due to: The very selection (and omission) of facts within this article.
This issue has nothing to do with the accuracy of individual facts, which has been the defense for this article's neutrality.
2.) I saw the "Background" section, but in keeping with my main point, it is presented in a way that is slanted. The only information in it seems to focus on religion and the ethnicity of the rioters, rather than actual reasons for their discontent. As if religion and ethnicity was the only variable in something as complex as riots spreading throughout suburbs in a major city.
I haven't "slapped the NPOV tag on an article just because I don't like it". My actions in this regard are irrelevant because I was refering to someone ELSE on this discussion board who said that he had classified this article with that label and it has been removed everytime without the issue being resolved.
I'm not sure I understand the "your very difficulty to have your way". I have not had the time to research any contributions or additions to this article.
3.) As far as your vague proof that "random, sub-standard edits" will be eliminated by "a dozen Wikipedians will reach for their rollback button"....... you are again missing the point. That point had nothing to do with me having "my way". It had to do with someone citing another Wikipedia article as evidence.
Using a Wikipedia article as evidence is presupposing the truth of that article. That is something we cannot know until we examine the sources upon which that article is built.
So I was advocating skipping a step and citing the sources of that Wikipedia article, rather than the article itself. Many of the articles on Wikipedia, are in need of editing or are incomplete in some way, that's why people contribute to them.
-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[2:42 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd]

"I have not had the time to research any contributions or additions to this article." -- well, I'm sorry, but then you have no business at all tagging the article. Fix it or leave it. The NPOV tag is reserved for cases where you attempted to improve the article, but people wouldn't let you. The "Background" section focuses on immigration, unemployment, delinquence, ethnicity and religion. These are pretty much the factors any other source will list. Baad 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I have any business tagging the article is irrelevant. Again, I was refering to someone else's words under Section #4 "Explain", of this discussion. *They* said they have tagged the article and the tag has been removed without the issue being resolved. What I am doing right now is discussing. This is a discussion board, right? Instead of answering my questions or responding to issues (like biased content) I have brought up, you are apparently ignoring them.
I will say it again: There is a bias in this article that warrants a Neutrality Dispute. The bias is due to: The very selection (and omission) of facts within this article.
Whether or not someone tags this article formally, or has researched additions to this article, does not change the fact that it is biased. How do I know? Because I read it. Contributing to this article does not give me the magical power to tell if it's biased. That's what I'm DISCUSSING on the DISCUSSION BOARD.
Though I understand this is a work in progress, the Background section does not cover economic reasons for unrest. Many people get pretty angry when they can't make a living, I'd say that warrants some attention.
It's your ball.........
-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[4:56 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd]
"What I am doing right now is discussing." You certainly are not discussing any specific aspect of the article. -- Zeno of Elea 08:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And you aren't paying attention. I have been talking about the selection and omission of facts within the BACKGROUND section of this article. Right now it focuses entirely on the ethnicity and religion of the rioters. Demographical information for the residents in the suburb is insufficient as a reason for the unrest. There are more factors and they need to be listed in the Background. Or at least, if people are going to claim the information is already there, it needs more clarity.
And I've been saying that placing the BACKGROUND section of this article towards the end, downplays the significance of other factors that made this situation potentially volatile before those two youths even died. Placing the background section towards the end is inaccurate because the background gives part of the reason (i.e., CAUSE) for the event.
As such, it belongs at the top of the article along with the "Immediate Cause". If not, in the first section listing all causes. You don't put some of the reasons why at the beginning and some at the end. Doing it that way is places more weight on a triggering event that was only one of many reasons. It oversimplifies in a distorting way. It creates bias due to how the information is being presented.
If you'll note WP:NPOVD, an article can be considered biased due to the selection or omission of facts presented. That makes what I've pointed out specific enough.
-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[12:46 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]

is

"Paris suburb riots" the proper name for the riots? -- unsigned

Yes, it is. -- Zeno of Elea 06:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the NPOV tag

look, Antelope, it works like this: First, you try to 'fix' the article. If you are reverted, you try to suggest a compromise. If your suggestion is turned down, then you add the npov template, to the section you are objecting to. Just slapping an npov tag on the entire article, accompanied by an incoherent rant about Wikipedia in general on the talk page is not how you do it. Baad 00:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, my reference to the NPOV label was refering to someone ELSE saying (under Section #4 "Explain", of this discussion) that they had used it, only to find it removed without the issue being resolved.
The issue here being, the selection of facts and the presentation thereof. An issue that has not been resolved. For an issue this complex, it is inaccurate to refer to the triggering event as any kind of "cause", immediate or otherwise.
Any triggering event should be listed under the Background for this article. Because Background gives proper treatment to the fact that several factors come together in an event like this.
The Background should not be marginalized by being placed at the rear of the article. For an example of all this, see the format used in the article for the Watts Riots. Furthermore, the background that is present, is incomplete and what is present shows a biased picture of this event.
Until it is fixed, this article is biased. This is true whether or not I fix it.
I'm amused that you failed to understand what I had to say, so it is a "rant". Although I am sorry that my comments ran long. That probably didn't help in your understanding of them. Though it also did not help that you made a number of assumptions following your lack of understanding.....
But whatever.....
-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[4:41 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd]
The news sources are all unanamous in saying that the riots were "sparked" or "triggered" by the the death of those two darwin award nominees. Almost all riots, and even some wars, are triggered by disproportionately small causes. It is often said that World War I was caused by the assasination of the Archduke of Austria by a Bosnian-Serb student. Are we to believe that the whole war was fought on account of the Archduke? Obviously not. You are being needesly difficult and irrational here. Whatever deeper underlying religious, political or socioeconomic causes there may have been to the Paris riots, the triggering event is ackowledged by all reliable sources. -- Zeno of Elea 06:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone was debating the validity of the triggering event (?). Unless I missed something. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding? If you were addressing me, I'm debating the way the information is being presented in this article. Although I will admit that my presentation was not as coherent as it could have been when I started out. Mea culpa.
-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[1:03 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]

"Acting African"?

Someone inserted the following text under "Immediate cause":

These riots are disturbingly similar to the Redfern riots in Sydney, Australia in February 2004. In Redfern, riots ensued after a young Aboriginal boy was killed whilst allegedly being chased by police. However, in this case, although the police were only remotely involved they were the direct target of blame, for a death which was accidental in nature. Both cases though are similar in that the Colored youths go around monekying and buring a lot of cars and generally acting 'African' and 'Medieaval".

No source is given. Who has compared these riots to the Redfern riots in Australia? Anyone of note? I feel that this violence is very "disturbingly similar" to the Battle of Tours. But I have the good sense to keep such POV opinions to myself. This isn't the Battle of Tours, and it isn't some Aboroginies in Australia. If you want to draw some comparison then you must cite a reliable source. Also, note the pedestrian and seemingly racist language: "go around monkeying, buring a lot of cars, and generally acting African ..."??? I've deleted this whole thing. Who added this stuff? -- Zeno of Elea 06:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Zeno, the person was just using realist language to describe the events. It is sad that you still subscribe to the politically correct cult. Time to call a spade a spade, as multicutluralism is clearly a failed idea. Celtic1

Now Zeno, you're trying to compare Civil disorder (i.e., a riot) to a military invasion attempt that was blunted by the French, in order to make a point?
I can see that one riot is different from another, perhaps this would be settled if the See Also section merely had a link to Civil disorder? It is a little gratuitous to link to any particular riot, if not Redfern, why not Watts. Where would it end? I can see that. But they are similar in that they are both civil disorder.
-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[8:10 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]

Naivety in the article

This article is plagued with a very naive view of French society. I have edited the "background" section, notably around these items;

  • the synagogue thing has nothing to do with the present unrest. Citing this specific item might give the erroneous impression that the present unrest is antisemitic in nature, or something similar.
  • There are no "getthos" in Paris
  • How people should feel alienated because of a tradition of integration is beyond me. This need rewording.
  • The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, while widely publicised in the USA in particular, has not been a major society problem. That this law is a heavy burden on the Muslim community of France is a notion which is essentially foreign to France itself.
  • The part about municipal officials of North African origin not being interviewed is dwarfed by the large mediatisation of declarations of the minister Azouz Begag. Rama 10:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "However, the Austrlaian reports that assimilation has failed, citing that the majority of people living in the poor run down suburbs or Paris are people from immigrant backgrounds." is also really a wierd thing to say, especially without any reference. What makes "the Australian reports" so authoritative about the situation in France ? Rama 10:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rama, those were pretty much my exact problems with the piece, too. Dan Carkner 16:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to understand what makes a report from Australia authoritative about complicated matters of society in France. As for the article of the Weekly Standard, I fail to see where it is even mentionning the law about laicity in schools as a factor of unrest; even if it did, I would find it very revelating that one should cite US newspapers to find such declarations, rather than direct quotations by French papers, officials or people involved in the unrest. Rama 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irishpunktom, I would appreciate it if you could care to engage in discussion rather than revert other people's edits. You have reinserted very dubious and strange assertion that I had put to question, and restored approximative and inexact translations of the terms "voyoux" and "racaille", removing the French words which had been inserted by 83.199.126.51. Your version are obviously less precise and exact than these ones, so I think that at least explaining your reverts is a must. Thank you. Rama 12:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert, I made an edit which got lagged. I tried to add your additions too, what did I miss? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with what Rama said. Although clearly there are major problems ; problems important enough for people to riot, but the situation is not as dramatic as most media choose to depict it. In some areas (I'd be tempted to say most), the immigrant population has successfully become a part of French society. The whole of France is not like Seine-Saint-Denis, and even there some people live well and do not necessarily feel alienated.

Another example of failed multiculturalism?

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

No, there should not. Wikipedia is not about original research or crackpot theories. If you want to start a racist blog, you can do that elsewhere. Thank you. Rama 15:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it racist to say the obvious ? The integration policy has failed. There is nothing more obvious than that.

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

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

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

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

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

I think you should proceed carefully in drawing such a definitive conclusion as the "failure of multiculturalism". There are more factors here than just race and religion. WHY did it fail?
Celtic1, I would check the validity of your premises. Claiming that Multiculturalism has failed, assumes that race/religion/ethnicity/etc, are the only key issues here. That has not been proven. Rather, it is being taken for granted.
Just because someone is of a certain race and/or religion and they immigrated somewhere, does not, in itself, lead to social unrest. For instance, history shows that many riots have happened when basic needs are not being met or are being threatened. Which in turn makes an economic analysis worthy in this case. It takes a lot to lead to things like this and implying it's just because they are Arabs or Muslim, is oversimplifying. And ultimately, biased.
It does not help that most of the mainstream coverage focuses on the ethnicity of some of these rioters. And even when some sources are citing economic reasons/factors for all of this, Wikipedia editors have, so far, selectively ignored it.
-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[8:24 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]
  • i think it is short-sighted to say that multiculturalism is a "blanket failure". of course something as ambitious is going to have teething problems, but the fact remains that the vast majority of ethnic minorities co-habit countries like France and Britain completely peacefully. i contest that these riots are purely racial, as per AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, but even if they were, while not an isolated incident, the beliefs of these rioters remain marginal. particularly in france, assimilation is in many respects quite a success, with most of France's muslim population managing perfectly well to uphold Islam while upholding France's secular values. to deny this is to deny facts. either way, references to the failure of multiculturalism do not belong on the encyclopaedia article of an incident like this. Jdcooper 17:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I do not suggest that we spend as much time publicising every dozen-people group of Northern African origin whose integration has worked like a charm as small groups of occasionally violent teenagers are. Just that we keep the comments about these in a reasonable scope.
Regarding "ad hominem attacks", calling someone who advocate discrimination on the basis of origins a "racist" is not an attack, it is a clinical statement. Lots of people are comfortable being called and identifying themelves as "racists".
As for how one can both stage such an outcry at my "personal attacks" and accuse me of having " an agenda, which is most like anti-European", is beyond me. Rama 16:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My my Irishpunktom you seem to be on a mission ! I suggest next time you have something to say as blatantly absurd as saying that France "demands assimilation, unless, apparently, you are not white.", you think about it twice and go to the 93 for a while. Have you ever been to Seine Saint Denis ? Have you ever seen the "white" people who live in conditions as terrible as those of there Arab, Berber or West African neighbors ? Of course they are huge problems in France, problems of integration, of poverty, of unemployment. But as Jdcooper rightly points out, in many instances immigrants from every ethnic background have successfully taken part in French society. Nicolas Sarkozy himself seems to forget in his comments that he descends from Hungarian immigrants. And although this may be a slightly clichéd example, the French national football team possesses players of African and Arabic origins, and I am not aware of the existence of any French person who denies them as French. The existence of the problems is certain suburbs must not lead people, particularly the international public to deduce that all French Muslims want to riot for a week without interruption. While they have suffered problems adapting to France, the situation is not nearly as bad as that presented. As a final example, I'll say that the cafeteria of my French public high school, that may ban girls from wearing the hijab, allows to apply for a refund if they intend to do the Ramadan, as clearly they will not be eating their meals. So yes France does demand a certain amount of integration, and "secular" is hardly an insulting adjective, but it is deeply multicultural, and does not make much difference, that I know of, out of the fact that you are white, but more out of the fact, sadly, that you are a poor immigrant period.
    • I think we should note that this isn't the first time people running from cops (who later say they weren't chasing them) has happened. Remember Jean Charles De Menezes? Same thing, triggered by similar circumstances.

I am floored by the many apologists for failed multiculturalism. There are currently riots in Denmark with the same groups committing the violence, and this has gone on for seven days in France. Islam repeatedly tried to invade Europe via the Ottoman Empire, and this is just the latest incursion.

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

poverty

For me, not so far from Clichy-sous-Bois, it's not surprising that these riots occured the same days a survey point that poverty is growing faster then ever in France. Problems of multicultiralism ? Yes, people with no money have not the same culture as people with a lot of money. Alvaro 16:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for me it's not a problem of poverty. I'm french and lived in Paris. I know the kind of people who are fighting against the police. they are not poor, those people want to protect their traffics of cannabis. they say themselves that they earn in a day what you can earn in a month of work. Some of them have big Mercedes car or BMW car even they are just over 18 and they do not work. The big major problem for those people is that they are no education from their parents, they stay outside during the night, don't work in shool. Pok148 20:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen VCRs?

There is some text that says they were carrying stolen VCRs, but the link next to it doesn't have that text at all. What is the source of the quote? Naelphin 08:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Unreal

Wow.... I'm a big asshole.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_French_riots&oldid=27280023"