Talk:2005 French riots/Archive 1

Electrocuted
"electrocuted" 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Tags
Please dont stop this article of being published if you really brave enough to face the fact and truth. I know on the name of equality, secularism, freedom, human rights, rules, regulations, courtacy, etc most of the people do not take this kind of things in account but how long would you keep yourself away from the emerging danger in the whole world.

The paris riots reveals the fact, that everybody understands and knows but doesnt want to express publically, that north african origin muslims minority in france is responsible for these violence. This is not only the problem of france but problem of every country of europe and world. All the industralized country like US, UK, Australia, France, Germany, canada and many more intake immigrants and refugees on the name of international protocol and rules and regulations and putting their nation in danger. Because most of this refugees and immigrants are from muslim countries (north african and asian. This muslim community (irrespective of nationality) on the name of islam supports not only terrorism but also separatism. They can not live in peace and harmony with other community or people of other religion. Because the can not assimilate with civilized and cultured society.

Look at Yugoslavia the muslim community came there about 100 years before and increased their population by high birth rate (one man marries with four women and produces at least dozen children)and later on asked for their separate land or province.

In Russia, muslim population is 15% and now they are demanding for their own vice president(!!!!!) Tomorrow they will ask for their separate region.

Thats what happened in British india in 1947 and pakistan (an islamic nation ) was created. Historically india, pakistan and bangladesh were one country and with only 5% muslim population. now Pakistan and bangladesh are almost 95% muslim population nations. In indian sub continent the % of muslim population is now 35%. (it was just 5% in 1925). In 1947, at the time of partition of British India muslims in pakistan expelled 20 million hindu and sikh and killed over one million of them.

Noe this muslim community has started to creat problem in western countries. And the very recent example is france (where muslim population is 10%). US, UK, australia and other european countries are their next target. Their strategy is to increase the population by immigration, asylum and extreme high birth rate and then create a disturbance in that perticular country to show their existance and draw attention of the world that they are being discriminated and are unemployeed and poor etc.

Now the very simple is that if they double their population in just 5-10 years then which country can afford to spend chunk of money for their welfare. Because it is ultimately burden on the other tax payers of the country.

So basically, all the western and civilized nation are playing with fire and danger by taking them as refugee or immigrants to their country. It is not only social, economical threat but also security and even existance threat to the country.

Look at history, monitor the current incident and think i am sure that everybody would realize what i mean to say.

Remember that for muslim the religion is first and then the loyality towards nation comes unlike other religions. So they are not trustworthy, reliable.

Someday one MULLA from mosque will say (provoke) that do jihad and kill all KAFIR (people of other religion) and almost all muslim of the world (irrsespective of nationality) would do it because they are religious blind.

And every muslim of the world is connected by its religion faith, mosque and islamic organization from regional level to international level. So they all are together and have strong inter communication and thats whey they are more dangerous.

When any government take an action against the muslim community because they are suspicious and supporting terrorism (either directly or indirectly like providing moral support or financially on the name of islamic charity)world media especially amnesty and international human rights starts to criticise it. But when islamic militant groups kills innocent people (obviously non-islamic) why dont they criticise it. So that means terrorist are free to do anything, to kill anybody and if any government takes any hard action they are always blamed.

It is said that "prevention is better than cure". In this context I would say that before the situation gets worst enough that it becomes impossible to control, act now and stop muslim community of growing like virus ( viruses starts multiplication when they come in contact with human body) and sinking the world in the flood of islam. Stop muslims entering your country through immigration or asylum.

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)
 * 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)
 * 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  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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
 * Yo, ArtofTransformation, about "putting muslim and any religious inflection" in the article: where do you draw the line between neutrality and truth? Are you denying that these vandals are almost all from muslim parents?207.179.172.216 20:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * 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]

Related
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The riots triggered by the deaths of those two teenagers. Nothing to do with a Synagouge. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The information belongs in this article. -- Zeno of Elea 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I dont believe anyone is trying to be anti-semetic in this case, but that fact of the matter is that the burning of a synagogue has no relavance. Even if were the case that religion was the sole motivating factor in this incident, a previus action such as the one that is the topic of debate, would have no relavence.  Just because the people living in Clichy-sous-Bois happen to be muslim, and the time we live in makes us believe that muslims define thier lives by thier religion, does not mean that this incident is religiusly based, they just happen to be muslim.  Its more an example of class warfare and discontenment.  -Ian

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * my bad. the intended term was municipality, but kindly see commune (subnational entity). 81.63.50.227 14:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * better yet, see Commune in France and 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)

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


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

I think it'd be a better idea to just say that teenagers were killed, and this led to riots. Leave the cause up to the reader.

We can sort out causation when the riots are over and it's not sohectic to keep up with.

We should really be reporting facts, and not analysis at this point.

Image in background section
This image doesn't really mean anything, does it? It seems like a very simplistic graphic like they might have on CNN for breaking news, not something for an encyclopedia. If you want to illustrate that France has a muslim population, why not include an image of some French muslims? -- SCZenz 03:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it makes a good point of the article being about France and Islam. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 04:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't address my comment at all. It doesn't make any point; it's just a cute graphic.  It's like having an article about American Jews, and having a giant picture of the U.S. with a Star of David superimposed&mdash;or would you do that too? Again, why not use pictures of French muslims if you want to make a point about Islam and France? -- SCZenz 06:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "it makes a good point of the article being about France and Islam", precisely. Where did anyone see that this has anything to do with Islam ? Rama 07:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To say that these riots nothing to do with Islam is clearly an apologetic POV. If you can present your POV with citations then go ahead. But do not attempt to enforce your view while deleting all other analyses of the events. -- Zeno of Elea 08:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a POV-pusher for either side, but I say again that this image is easily mis-readable. It might be read as "All of France is Muslim," or "Islam is the state religion of France," or "Muslims are taking over France," or what it's actually intended to mean, which I think seems to be "Islam and France have something to do with each other."  Since this image isn't real, but rather a clever superposition of two different symbols, I say it has no place in the article; since nobody has taken the time to address my concerns above seriously, I am going to be bold and remove it.  I urge you to discuss before reinstating it. -- SCZenz 08:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I see someone has beaten me to it. My request for discussion before reinstating the image stands.  Note also I made an alternate suggestion above. -- SCZenz 08:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did, and I find this image outrageous. It contain absolutely no information, and merely convoys a simplistic feeling of "ZOMG, ISLAM TERRRIST INVASION !!!". As such I find it completely unappropriate to discuss matters of religion in Franc ( I am of course ready to discuss arguments for it, but I fail to find any myself).
 * There is also the problem of why putting religion forward at all is probably going astray from the true nature of the problem, see the discussion below. Rama 08:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)