Talk:2005 French riots/Archive 2

Islam
This article sounds as if all of the rioters were Muslims. That's not true. Many of them are African Black Christians as well.


 * 2005 French riots/Summary and Map : To put clear and referenced informations which will be use to make maps, use this page. Yug

Explain
Someone should put in that this story is BARELY being mentioned on the major news networks, bias on their part perhaps

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * I don't really think this is that all illogical. I was just talking to a friend about these riots and thought how it really is up to the youth to shake things up. We have to remember how much changes in just a generation. The rioters are young, poor, maybe immigrants or children of, so with so much latent frustration and an excellent catalyst (one of their own running in fear of cops, represenitive of a supressive athourity) they revolted. And why would there be such frustration? These are the bastard children of France; France colonized a good chunk of Africa. So the people go to France but still can't be respected. Not trying to contribute to violence, hate, and fear, I do think that it may be healthy for parts of a society to riot, especially the youth. Challenging the status quo is a great thing. Unfortunately, violence came from this but maybe this will spark healthy action for change. But I do urge you, intellectuals, to challenge the status quo and wonder.
 * well what were the peaceful marchers demanding? for french cops to not chase anyone anymore? keith 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Please notice that the case of similar behavior by immigrants, notably Moslems, in Europe is being discussed by economists esp. in comparison to American Moslem community.

The main difference is that the American system forces people to work, while the socialist European countries seem to keep the high unempoyment by various forms of allowances. It definitely leads to frustration, also in connection with the anti-western propaganda so popular among Moslem youth - incl. those living in western countries. Polyhister 15:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If the American system forces people to work, then how come unemployment is so endemic among inner-city African Americans? (America's inner cities are often like France's suburbs, while in America the suburbs are for middle-class and well-to-do people.) 204.52.215.107 00:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC) (Rickyrab)
 * Hey guys, I was reading and saw that some of you wanted a French Muslim perspective on this. While I am not a French Muslim, I do have friends that are and so I wanted to let you know thier POV. Basically, the discrimination there is overboard. It's not really like racism in the US because at least in the US there are a lot of immigrants but in France,the people are French, and thus the immigrants feel totally out of place. And these youth they're just kind of lost because they are all second or third generation and probably have never been to what would be considered to be their country of orgin, and yet they are not accepted in French society, so basically they just fell like they don't belong anywhere.  When it comes to the riots, I don't know what the youth are thinking but my friend tells me that the elder French Muslim don't like the idea of rioting very much although they do think that the riots will bring publicity to their situation.  I hope this explains some stuff.
 * To Rickyrab-you are right. There are many other causes. However, this article is about immigrants. Arab immigrants in Detroit work hard and come to America to work. Arab immigrants in my Central European city are mostly drug-dealers. And the system almost forces them to be.

Polyhister 10:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. This article is about a riot first and foremost, however; the immigrants happen to be the folks causing most of the trouble right now.   &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 20:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been reading on the web all night and I have tried to clean up the introduction of this article with stuff I could reference from "official" sources. The unofficial information seems to have 3 contributing factors.  First, the Interior minister Sarkozy had stepped up patrols and antagonism in poverty-stricken areas in the last few months.  Second, the youths were electrocuted.  Sarkozy's police went into complete denial, claiming at first (a) They were thieves, and (b) They were not chased, which makes no sense but what the hell, this is france.  Third, when things were calming down a mosque was tear gassed on Sunday, along with racial slurs by police, causing more riots, and Sarkozy poured gas on the fire by calling the protestors "scum" and "riffraff" and threatening to vacuum up the poor neighborhoods.  To top it off he denies that police gassed the Mosque!  This was so inflammatory that the parents told Sarkozy to take a FLYING LEAP and met with the Prime Minister instead.  Teargas in a mosque on Ramadan when Muslims are bottom-class citizens in your country.  Could a hardline conservative policeman do any better at creating a crisis so that he could showcase himself for next years' election?

SystemBuilder 12:37 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * These riots are very similar to the Los Angeles / Rodney King riots, although police brutality against one person was the source of the riots, and these ones seem to be brutality and insensitivity coming from the upper echelons of french politics. I do not think that 2 dead high school kids could single-handedly cause national riots, but that plus an attack on a mosque on ramadan, and also incendiary statements and behaviors by hardline police - all that together plus perpetual povery and discrimination could possibly cause a continual escalation into National chaos...

SystemBuilder 2:05 7 November 2005 (UTC)

According to a recent San Diego Union-Tribune article, the background to this is that although the Arab/Berber immigrant community in France is not experiencing "establishment" discrimination -- they're citizens, they can vote, they can legally do everything their native French neighbors can -- nobody's hiring them except on the lowest level. That's why unemployment is rife: because Arabs and Berbers can't get jobs, not because they just don't feel like it. (Although I'm sure there are plenty of cases that tend towards the latter; nothing is absolute in this world.) The article (which I can't find) seemed to imply that the youngest of the 2-3 generations of immigrants are just starting to get marginally accepted/hired by their native counterparts, but they still have to scratch and claw (figuratively speaking) to get out of the situations and neighborhoods they were born into. This runs totally parallel, IMO, to the status that women/blacks/Poles/Jews/Irish/Germans/what-have-you have held during different times in American history, and so it's logical that the people subjected to it would react similarly: when called "scum" and "riffraff" by the authorities, when their places of worship are gassed, when their leaders are spitting on them, their mindset is as volatile as a Molotov cocktail. It's easy for us to stand here and blame genetics, language, religion, video games, media, or whatever, but the reality is that the situation is complex and yes, the population involved is disenfranchised. Are there better ways to solve their problems? Probably. But now they're getting attention, and maybe that's what they need. It's unfortunate that violence is attention's calling card in this situation, but that's usually how it goes; in our busy world it takes a lot for even an important issue to find its way to the forefront of peoples' minds.

So--is this terrible? Absolutely. Is violence necessary? Hopefully not, but we'll never know now. Can you boil it down to a couple of simple factors like race and religion? No. Disbomber 00:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Title misleading

 * I think the title is misleading, at first glance I thought people were fighting under the Eiffel Tower. Should be 2005 riots in Paris northern suburbs or something of the kind.Hektor 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * the title doesn't say Eiffel Tower riots now, does it? Paris is larger than Notre-Dame-Eiffel-Tower-Louvre. It is true, however, that the riots started outside Paris, in the infamous ville de Clichy-sous-Bois which doesn't have an article, and spread into Paris territory from the north-east. 81.63.50.227 10:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I have checked, there has been no riot whatsoever on the Paris territory. The title should be modified. The riots are in small cities in the northern and eastern suburbsHektor 12:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Although it seems magnifying events and distorting the truth is favoured by some of us here, i must stress that these are not Paris riots, but clichy-sous-bois-riots. You should perhaps go to the north of Paris (18ème, 20ème), you wont find these arrondissements barricaded and populated by hordes of Mujahid conducting a massive urban guerilla, but just the north of Paris, untouched by these riots.
 * if we move it to Ile-de-France riots it will sound even scarier :o) but sure, 2005 Clichy-sous-Bois riots would be an acceptable title. 81.63.50.227 11:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't 2005 Paris banlieue riots or 2005 Paris suburb riots be more appropriate, given that the violence has spread to Seine-Saint-Denis? Grumpy Troll (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

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)
 * Clichy-sous-Bois is not part of Paris.Hektor 15:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but it is a banlieue of Paris, which is close enough to be considered Paris for most practical purposes. Few outside of France know where Clichy lies, and Paris is a good approximation.  Further, it is a vital part of the system that could be called Metropolitan Paris.  Clichy would not be there in it's present form except that it is a banlieue of Paris, and Paris could not exist in its present form without banlieues like Clichy. Ionesco

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.
 * That's really a question of semantics IMO. Do you call it "The Riot" or do you refer to it as "that riot that happened in France in 2005"? I don't think proper-noun status is really acheived until a lot of people start calling the event by a specific name and that name can be universally recognized by said specific name. What I'm saying is that you could've referred to the Nixon scandal as "the Washington Political Scandal of 1972" but IMO the only real proper noun referring to the event was "the Watergate scandal". YMMV Disbomber 01:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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).
 * see the "Background" section, which is based on Islam_in_France 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)
 * 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).
 * what do you mean, the source is linked right next to the statement, ; 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).

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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


 * There have been many news stories publishd with the oppinion that muslim immigrants have been alienated as far back as 2003. There should be no question about this being a tried and established theory that explans of how muslims in France feel.  Therefore, it should not be removed.  If there is an opposing theory that has existed prior to the riots, then maybe it should be given equil time in the article.  --Dr. Worm --24.15.4.5 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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


 * Isn't that a rather long winded way of agreeing with '...if we don't like it, we should find another news source and add to the article.' !

The whole article seems dripping with intent to mske this a purely religious issue, or to cast Islam as a political force rather than a religion, or to combine the two. There is a throw-away reference to desire for self-governing areas, outside national control; the implication is a desire to implement Sharia rule within. The BBC has not been terribly neutral in reporting upon Islam, and while I  agree with their slant, and the selection of quotations appears inflamatory throughout, not just in the NPOV Disputed sections.

It is possible to see Islam as both a religion and inherently, due to its beliefs in the need for religious law, a political and/or subversive element, but this should not be written as fact.


 * WH

09:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Isn't that a rather long winded way of agreeing with '...if we don't like it, we should find another news source and add to the article.' !"


 * It's close, I'll grant you that. I think I was attempting to call on people to make sure they are not citing things out of context to give them a slant.  Like when they cite what strikes them in the article while ignoring other things even within the same darn article that would balance things out.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 3:48 pm (Pacific Time), 6 November 2005

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 . Ze miguel 16:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, the frogs fail pretty hard, then
 * Speedy doesn't mean unfair in any way. When someone is caught putting fire to a car during a riot there is no need to spend two years before the trial. Med 14:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ten points to the French for that then! Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 11:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_the_Red_Fern_Grows206.195.19.43 22:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a note: the above is a completely unrelated link. However, I agree that the Redfern riots parallel is an interesting one that would be worth a "See also" link.  Ben Cairns 13:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC).


 * I think you want 2004 Redfern riots

I just wanted to add another incident to the similar list. Remember Jean Charles De Menezes ? He was the brazillian man killed by Scotland Yard this summer, mistaken for a terrorist. He, too, was running from the police. He, too, was innocent. He was shot in the head, shoot to kill style. Fear is a dangerous thing.


 * But in that case, there was no riot. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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.


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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]


 * You've been asked several times to be more specific, Antelope, but it looks like I'll have to do it again: what facts do you feel have been omitted, and why don't you attempt to add them in? If you can't answer at least the first one, you've no right to add NPOV tags; you're just grasping at straws. -- Scott Wilson 21:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And there has been general lack of understanding because people don't READ what I've written! I've written before even within this section of Discussion that ECONOMIC FACTORS for these riots were being neglected in the BACKGROUND of this event.

I've said over and over that the BACKGROUND (or at least a summary of it because it's gotten so big) belongs at the beginning of the article, along with the "triggering event" or "immediate cause.

I've already stated the reasons why I think this should be so......

That said, as of this morning, the problem was largely rectified. So my points have become, for the most part, moot.

Although I will say that the "Background" section could currently use some cleaning up. It's getting a little cluttered. Lots of good information, but a little hard to wade through.

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[2:18 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]


 * I retract the following statement, of course......


 * "That said, as of this morning, the problem was largely rectified. So my points have become, for the most part, moot."


 * The problems with this article stand.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[12:31 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 4th]


 * Now* the main section that needs POV (a *little* bit) is the underlying causes. The rest of the article is coming around....


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[11:22 am (Pacific Time), Nov 5th]

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)


 * 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)


 * 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]

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)

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)


 * Thank you Rama, those were pretty much my exact problems with the piece, too. Dan Carkner 16:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The Australian is a newspaper. Anyone quoting it is simply using the resources they have at hand.  Have faith, any problems will soon be fixed by someone with access to better sources, such as the ones you list.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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.


 * There are recurrent problems with the US press which greedily broadcasts alarmist comments by French specialists taken out of their context, and tends to put everything in the "religion and race" point of view. This is completely at odds with the reality of the terrain, where you see that the major problem of the "cités" is not religion, but poverty and despair.
 * Of course there are people who take advantage of this to stir religious hatred (see the story of Khaled Kelkal); there are problems of segregation by individuals (that people of Magreb origins tend to be denied access to some dancing clubs for instance); but the problem is subtle and complicated, and making gross approximations by the standards of the US society is very unlikely to bring a good understanding of these matters. Rama 08:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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


 * The explanation that immigrants have been marganilized and experience high unemployment is better established. --Dr.Worm 01:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I think you should proceed carefully in drawing such a definitive conclusion as the "failure of multiculturalism". There are more factors here than just race and religion.  WHY did it fail?


 * Celtic1, I would check the validity of your premises. Claiming that Multiculturalism has failed, assumes that race/religion/ethnicity/etc, are the only key issues here.  That has not been proven.  Rather, it is being taken for granted.


 * Just because someone is of a certain race and/or religion and they immigrated somewhere, does not, in itself, lead to social unrest. For instance, history shows that many riots have happened when basic needs are not being met or are being threatened.  Which in turn makes an economic analysis worthy in this case.  It takes a lot to lead to things like this and implying it's just because they are Arabs or Muslim, is oversimplifying.  And ultimately, biased.


 * It does not help that most of the mainstream coverage focuses on the ethnicity of some of these rioters. And even when some sources are citing economic reasons/factors for all of this, Wikipedia editors have, so far, selectively ignored it.


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


 * -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)


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


 * France is not a multiculturalist society, its organs brag as much. It is a secular society which demands assimilation, unless, apparently, you are not white. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


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


 * I think we should note that this isn't the first time people running from cops (who later say they weren't chasing them) has happened. Remember Jean Charles De Menezes? Same thing, triggered by similar circumstances.

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

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


 * It's "casually brushed aside" as a fallacy because it is a fallacy. The technical term is correlation implies causation.  --Cholling 21:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Islam is not incompatable in Europe any more than Catholicism or Protestantism is. Any religion can be, and has been, taken to extremes (witness the Crusades, the War of the Roses, ad nauseum.  Cultures are going to collide, and sometimes that collision is going to cause an explosion.  That is just the way the world has always worked.  Sixty years ago, people were wondring if the Germans were ever going to be able to be integrated into Europe.  Now it is Muslims, who knows who it will be in 60 years.  Multiculturalism just is, and that produces good things and bad.  --Ionesco

First, it is not fallacy, it is fact since the same failure of multiculturalism has happened in all countries that have experienced it. When the Dutch start to question Multiculturalism, the famed super tolerant Dutch, then you know it is a major problem for the west! Go ahead and keep deluding yourself that it is somehow good, while the rest of us living in reality try to solve this mess.

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

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


 * Yes, it is a fallacy. Even assuming your statement that "the same failure of multiculturalism has happened in all countries that have experienced it" were true (which has not been shown), it would still be a fallacy, akin to "Warfare has broken out in every country inhabited by white people, thus white people are the cause of warfare."  Furthermore, I don't see what you mean by "Christianity has its place in Europe," since Christianity certainly didn't originate there; nor was its rise to dominance on that continent (or any other) achieved entirely through peaceful means.  --Cholling 23:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who's not a liberal politically correct fool and knows the facts! Multiculturalism is a failure - riots, deaths, honour killings, the proof is there. I don't get why people who use facts for their arguments are simply branded as "racists". It's disgusting. This article needs a cleanup already. - Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk


 * Multiculturalism is neither a failure, nor a success, it is a work in progress, as much in france as in another countries. France having integrated Italians, Poles, Spaniards, Chinese and Vietnamese, and other various people, is now adding a north-african/african component to its population.Kcyclopedist 04:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Has anyone else noted how integration in very different societies (the USA, France, Holland, etc.), where there are very different problems ad questions, is suddenly supposed to be completely interchangeable for the purpose of proving that "integration" is per se a failure ? Rama 08:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Celtic1: Could you please stop stating that there are ongoing riots in Denmark. There are none and there has not been riots since the anarchists rioted against the EU voting. Could you also explain what the Seine-Saint_Denis riots, the murder of a far right dutch politician by a disolusional mental case and 9/11 have in common? Wouldn't the Seine-Saint_denis riots be more like the Rodney King riots?, the murder of Van Gogh like the one on JFK? Is that also multiculturalism problems? And what has 9/11 to do with mulitculturalism? You make no sense what so ever. Multiculturalism includes many things, of which many add to our life quality. People, like you, who will only recognise the problems and single out extremes and make unlogic conclusions on multiculturalism, for whatever reason, are often slapped with the term racist, and in my book that's not really wrong.


 * Celtic1: While you are at it, you might want to give some thought to how incredibly long Christians and Muslims have lived side-by-side in the region. It doesn't go back decades, but centuries.  Our words Algebra, Chemistry, and the concept of Zero (as well as all our other numbers) come from this failed multiculturism.  The Protestant Reformation would not have happened had the Arabs not preserved ancient biblical texts in their libraries that contradicted later monastic translations.  By the way, the World War that ended sixty years ago was II, not I, and the Germans (or at least a German) were most definately responsible for that one.  My comment was to the questions Europeans had at the time, not to the outcome (Actually, the outcome proves my point.  Bonus!).  Ionesco

http://www.jp.dk/aar/artikel:aid=3354408/

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * So you are a danish speaking Celt, thats some multiculturalism. I would hardly call it a riot, nor does Berlingske or Politiken but then of course they are in on the worldwide conspiracy aren't they. Searching for riot and Aarhus gives you some dispicable pages and then some references to rock concerts in Aarhus and of course the page you are refering to. But isn't it funny that your reference is actually the paper that published these cartoons of Mohammed with swords and women to provoke a discusion on free press? and that they might have an interest in making a story out of this "riot".

"hopefully, the traitorous far left will be silenced once and for all." Well. At least now we know exactly where you are coming from. --Ionesco

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


 * "former moderate" ! Now that's quite a statement ! Rama 17:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain the disconnect, I am having trouble making both of these statements true under the same thought process. "I think Supremacy is evil in any case, as no people should lord over the other." and "People are fed up, and hopefully the traitorous far left will be silenced once and for all."  If the traitorous far left is silenced once and for all, how are they (or, I guess from your earlier assertions, we.) not being ruled over? -- Ionesco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Are you then saying that algebra, the arabic number system, algebra, chemistry, the Protestant Reformation, are all nothing? Worthless?  Please address these issues, because they are currently not being disputed as being positive effects of the meeting of cultures, and I want this to be fair and balanced.


 * Also, maybe you could help me to understand your point of view on Arabs versus Muslims. You use both in your statements, so let us be clear on what you you are advocating.


 * Would you want to deport all Muslims, or just those who are from other countries? If so, are we just talking about the Middle East here, or would Chinese muslims be deported as well?


 * What about the Kurds or the Chaldeans, who are largely Christian? They are not Arabs, but are often mistaken as such.  Same thing for Sephardic Jews?    What about Salman Rushdie, who is an atheist?


 * What about Celtic French Muslims, can they stay? Where would you deport them to?  Ireland?


 * Does having one French Christian parent mean you get to stay or you have to go?


 * If any of these people get to stay, and they are liberals, do they get to vote, or shall they be silenced as well? --Ionesco


 * "A corrupt elite with far left leanings decided to change the nations over night" - Celtic


 * Wow.


 * 1.) The "left" has historically opposed the preservation of wealth and power.


 * 2.) Left-wing politics is concerned with the conditions and rights of large numbers of workers in factories and of lower classes in general.


 * Any corrupt elite is actually diametrically OPPOSED to points #1 and #2. To put it simply, those with the kind of money and power needed to do the things you're talking about, want to preserve it even at the cost of rendering others poor.  It's a little like Monopoly (the board game).  You've played Monopoly, haven't you?


 * Allowing for more money to be spread out amongst the middle and lower classes would take away from your bottom line, and resultingly, your money.


 * So perhaps the phrase you're looking for, is "far right".


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [11:53 am (Pacific Time), Nov 4nd]

Multiculturalism is a joke. A sick failed joke aimed at wiping out and diluting culture and promoting differences. I'd rather a french France than a 20% Moroccan, 10% Tunisian and a 70% French France. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We have had similar riots in Australia, on a much smaller scale. Here, it is a class problem; poor people who see no hope of anything better, ever.  They don't normally get any respect.  They have no real control over their own lives, let alone the rest of the world.  When they riot they feel that at least for one night they aren't powerless, they are in control, they own the streets, what they do matters and nobody is going to ignore them. They might be punished, but they might not, and they don't see that they have anything much to lose anyway.  The police generally treat them as criminals whatever they do (and often with good reason).


 * I don't blame the cops. But if we don't want people to behave as outlaws, we have to offer them some hope of getting into the system.  And at the moment, that isn't happening.


 * Regards, Ben Aveling 06:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is interesting you mention the Australian riots, as an Australian reading about the situation in France, I was also reminded a lot of our own (much much smaller) riots a few months back. There are a lot of similarities between the two, though clearly not in severity. (See Wikipedia: Redfern Riots) I wonder if the underlying social/poverty tensions behind the riots here were very simliar to those in France... goodsmonth 10:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this article gives a good background. I would like to link it to this article, but am not sure where. http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html Whyerd 11:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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)


 * 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)


 * Your statement seems to apply that most or all of the rioters are Mercedes driving drug dealers. That simply doesn't make sense.  If everyone in Cilchy-sous-Bois drove a Mercedes then the place would no longer be a slum.--Dr.Worm 01:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There was an article in the economist recently that calculated that most drug dealers earn less per hour than they would working at MacDonalds. The only ones who make money are those at the top.  The rest just hope that one day, they will be the 'big man'.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * God, has this become a page for the Front National and European supremacists ? Anyway, strange how in *my* Arab-populated Parisian suburb, there are no riots. This is because in my well-to-do suburb, although there are problems, the economic situation does not pose a significant threat to most of the people here. Sure, people may feel discriminated, but the situation is not the same everywhere. Interestingly, it has only exploded in the poorest areas. The problems are complex and ethnic and social causes are intricately mingled. Additionnally, I'd like to add that quite a lot of Maghrebi parents are ashamed of their children's behavior. And I find hard to believe "they are no education from their parents" from someone with such bad grammar, yes in English, but still.


 * I'm sorry for my english grammar, I do the best I can. I know the problems as I lived there and I'm not an elector of the Front National. If you look at my contribution, I didn't speak about ethnicity or religion. The people who participate into those riots are a minority. And they have no education. Why children are outside during the night. Which parents let their children staying outside during riots ??? Parents don't care about their children, they have a part of responsibility. Who suffer from those riots ? the poor people who discover their burn cars in the morning, people who loose their works because firms had been burn...
 * For me searching excuses and reasons for thoses riots has no sense, they make that just for fun, they are just dumb. Some of my friends came from those suburbs, their parents were poor, but they forced their childrens to go to shool and work. It's true that there is discrimination for finding job, but some companies like Total love people who re speaking arabic, it's a quality and they can get good jobs. Pok148

What people are rationally saying is that these people should be deported, and the failed multicultural experiment be dismantled as soon as possible in a humanitarian way. Celtic1

Europe was formed as a defense against expansionist Islam. It is hardly surprising that poor Islamists are unable to integrate, or that they attempt to destroy Europe. The best solution, I think, is to expel the Islamists - they are not compatable with modern Europe, and, frankly, they don't appear to be compatable with modern anywhere.--24.205.74.150 06:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your definition of identity is narrow. One could be christian and narrow minded or muslim and open minded regarding any subject related to modern social questions (women rights, religion and public life...)


 * lol. "Europe was formed as a defense against expansionist Islam"  What an extreme claim.  If I take this literally, all the countries in Europe formed as a defense against expansionist Islam.


 * For the benefit of the doubt, I looked in the history of France and Germany but found nothing that mentioned the formation of either as a state for such a reason. Even the Moorish conquest of the Iberian Visigothic kingdom affected states that *already* existed.


 * No states formed up as a "defense". States that already existed did react to that conquest.  States that already existed did also mount the crusades.


 * One of your supporting premises appears to be false. You'll have to find another.  ;)


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [11:44 am (Pacific Time), Nov 6th]


 * check out the Charlemagne, Reconquista, and Crusade articles to get some idea of how Europe emerged from the Dark Ages, and what the main impetus was.


 * Sorry for being picky. I don't doubt that culteral interaction between the Middle East and Europe affected both regions.  It just sounded like you were saying that states/nations in Europe formed or became cohesive because of expanionist Islam.  But nations that were already there merely reacted.


 * Given your premises (the second of which I don't assume to be true),
 * 1.) Culteral interaction between the Middle East and Europe affected both regions (made them "defensive)
 * And 2.) This defensiveness made (and continues to make) them unable to integrate into European society.


 * I don't consider your conclusion to be valid. (Expel the Islamists.)


 * Your 2nd premise only stands a chance of being true if cultural differences are the *only* factor facing affecting integration. I don't think that's been proven.  Especially not when the French government has been changing it's economic policy in ways that are affecting employment rates and standard of living amongst the poor in France, which includes more than just Muslim immigrant families.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [10:58 am (Pacific Time), Nov 7th]

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)

npov?
sorry, but could whoever is insisting on the npov warning make a clear case on how they think the article's problems should be resolved? I don't see any particulars of the article being under discussion here, and it is very difficult to address a 'blanket npov warning', saying that 'everything about this article is somehow biase, but we cannot point out how exactly'. How is this constructive? 80.219.217.252 22:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone doesn't answer in a few hours (if it wasn't a current event it should be given longer of course) it should come down.--Brentt 22:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Chuck a header up again. This article is not NPOV. The causes are almost all pathetic liberal-esque reasons that do not ask "why are these people rioting but actual ethnic French unemployed are not?". Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 01:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * When an explanation comes from a neutral and authoratative souce, you can try to include it. However, until such an opinion exists, it cannot be added to the article without it being anything other than one guys opinion.  Since the liberal-esque reasons are the ones offered by authoratative sources at this time, they are the only ones you can use.  Even if you disagree with them.  I feel that if you feel strongly about this matter, then your energy can be better put to use by looking for other points of view that can be included in this article.  --Dr.Worm 02:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"ethnic french" is a non-existent entity Kcyclopedist 04:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, ethnic French are the descendents of people of Gaul, and they are European. Celtic1
 * You should learn of bit more of french and european history. France has been invaded many times over the last two thousand years and is now a mix of many people. The Franks themselves (who gave their name to France) came from Asia and conqueered France during the fall of the Roman Empire. The people of Gaul can't be french as France didn't exist and was founded by people from Asia few centuries later. Med 16:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The franks were German, not asian. On the other hand, how can you say that Frenchmen don't exist? --Dr.Worm 02:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

MP?
"background but not a single metropolitan MP with the same background" What's an MP? - mabye this should be explained in the article.


 * The complaint seems to be that France has MPs representing its territories around the world, but doesn't have MPs representing its African immigrants. It's unsourced and seems very misleading to me. I've commented it out until it can be clarified. -- Zeno of Elea 01:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "MP" is "member of parliament", I don't think this needs to be explained ! A lot of articles were published in the French media over the years about the lack of political representatives from Muslim North (and other) African and other colonial background in metropolitan France (France métropolitaine, i.e. European France, not Martinique etc.). There are data (in French) about this at http://users.skynet.be/suffrage-universel/fr/frmiel.htm and at http://www.minorites.org/ . There are in the National Assembly MPs representing Martinique, Tahiti, Réunion etc., but no one representing e.g. Seine-Saint-Denis and with a Muslim Algerian background for instance. The minister Azzouz Begag has never been elected anywhere, he was just put in the government when Villepin replaced Raffarin, before that he was known as a writer. Hamlaoui Mekachera, the other member of the governement with Musilm Algerian roots, has never been elected either, he was an officer in the French army, fighting against the Algerian Liberation Army during the colonial war in Algeria (he's over 70). I don't understand why the paragraph I added was erased from the article. --Pylambert 09:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In France, "parliament" refers to both the Assembly and the Senate. You want to say "député" of the French National Assembly.
 * For the record, nothing forces representants of such or such départment of France to be of the same cultural background than the majority of the people who live there. All people are equal, and matters of religion or ethnicity are of no relevance on this respect.
 * Also, you seem to be surprised that Begag was never elected (did you notice that this is also the case of the Prime Minister ?); there is nothing that suggests that ministers should have undertaken a political career. The executive branch of the State is supposed to be composed of technical administrators. Rama 09:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In English, a MP is the equivalent of a député in French, if someone means "senator", he writes "senator". Your second paragraph is a reflection of the "republican" thought in France, represented by the site www.communautarisme.org for instance, it is not a scientific analysis. Your vision of the government as formed of "technical administrators" is irrelevant for France and most of the democratic countries of the world, where ministers are first of all politicians and not "technicians", whose place is in the technical committees (cabinets ministériels) advising the ministers. --Pylambert 10:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be preferable if you provided an English source, since this is English Wikipedia even though this is describing events in a Francophone country. This way others can verify your statements. It would also be preferable to keep the statements concise. For example, you could simply mention the lack of political representation for various communities (Muslims, Africans, Arabs, etc) and provide a link to an article or a source. -- Zeno of Elea 10:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My website Suffrage Universel is the main reference about the political representation of migrant minorities in Belgium and France, because I don't only mention numbers, but the whole list of names, and my sources (the official parliamentary biographies), plus many press articles, so that everything can be checked. At the last legislative elections in 2002, 21 out of 555 députés were born in Algeria, Morocco or Tunisia, but all of them were from European settlers families, plus a few Europeanized (assimilated) Jews (e.g. Pierre Lellouche). The only Muslim député at the French National Assembly is Mansour Kamardine, representing the French island of Mayotte, near Madagascar. But I don't want to begin a multilingual website, it would take too much time. My only English article online was about the Political participation of Belgium’s Muslim populations, and it is largely outdated. --Pylambert 07:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

LA Riots Link?
Maybe we should include a link to the 1992 Los Angeles riots? I mean, riots sparked by reckless police actions (or actions percieved as reckless) are not all that 'rare', but when it is (in part) sparked due to racial/religious conflict within a major city (such as Paris or Sydney), I think it is worth mentioning, especially in an article about a 'similar' event. -- UNSIGNED


 * There are already too many links to other riots. If LA Riots is added, I'm going to have to add Battle of Tours -- Zeno of Elea 01:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd add Battle of Tours, its a good example of what this is once again representing Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I evidently walked into an edit war by mistake - I hadn't read this when I added that link. We're about a world view, so perhaps a link to one Australian and one American one rather than two Australian events would be better? --Yelgrun 02:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on Zeno, comparing a military campaign to a case of civil disorder AGAIN? Tell me you're smarter than that?  Evidently, you are at least lazy if you're on that horse again.


 * Tsk tsk Zeno, yet another case of bias for us to document. The comparison you appear to be making is that local people are considered "invaders", simply because their families haven't always lived in France.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 10:00 am (Pacific Time), 4 November 2005


 * The Los Angeles riots might be relevant in light of what French pundits and former French president Mitterrand had to say about the riots then.
 * The Los Angeles riots might be relevant in light of what French pundits and former French president Mitterrand had to say about the riots then.


 * e.g.


 * ''Back in the 1990s, the French sneered at America for the Los Angeles riots. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1992: "the consensus of French pundits is that something on the scale of the Los Angeles riots could not happen here, mainly because France is a more humane, less racist place with a much stronger commitment to social welfare programs." President Mitterrand, the Washington Post reported in 1992, blamed the riots on the "conservative society" that Presidents Reagan and Bush had created and said France is different because it "is the country where the level of social protection is the highest in the world."
 * Intifada in France
 * Rune X2 16:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)''


 * I wonder if "French pundits" represent all of their people as poorly as "US pundits" represent Americans?


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [11:49 am (Pacific Time), Nov 6th]

Media Bias
While everything has to be refrenced to be stay, is it just me or is there terrible bias in the media itself? While Australian newspapers (owned by news corporation) offer another side, along with some American newspapers (owned by news corporation) they are deleted and removed while the liberal BBC news and others are kept! How about the reinsertion of some Weekly Standard and The Australian references to balance this filth out? At least News Corp is showing another side of this mess Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 02:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't appear to matter whether something is referenced. Evidently it can be removed if it shifts this article away from a focus on religion and race as primary factors for the riot.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 10:00 am (Pacific Time), 4 November 2005

Strong problem with this article
As a french really interested by what is happening, I have red a couple of things on the riots. The current Wikipedia article is the worst one. This article really does not deserve to be on the front page of wikipedia. This article has been written by people who really do not know anything about France. It is not a question of political matter: right wing along with left wing people could find the article really bad. It is so bad, that I am considering stopping to use Wikipedia. This article contains a strong bias from Non-french people about Islam in France, while they don't know anything about this. The fact that the two guys were muslims has *nothing* to do with the riots. No French Newspaper has written that they were two muslims. Right know, young muslim leaders are calming the teenagers to go further on riots. This is widely known in France (all TV channels) while not even mentionned here. I really think wikipedia proves its limits on such issues. Keep it at least under a PoV tag, Pease.


 * What's the bias, exactly? Why don't you improve the article, citing sources?  Everyone here is doing the best they can, and citing from news sources they've read. -- SCZenz 06:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but do they say "Muslim youths"? If you read the Islam in France article, the 10% figure is a high estimate for the people of Muslim extraction. About half of them are irreligious or atheist. The number of actual Muslims is about half then. It should be taken great care to distinguish "North African" or "Arab" from "Muslim". The two teenagers killed were of "North African extraction". Did any source claim they were actually Muslims? I think the npov complaints of our French readers are to the effect that the article is touted up to be about Islam, rather than ethnic or social issues. This is an important distinction in France, because they care very much about the laicité of the state, and 'religious riots' would be felt as much more grievous and unheard of than 'social riots'. I think the complaint has some justification: US editors hear "Islam" and immediately start phantacizing about the "clash of civilizations" their own leaders drone on about, so the French readers will feel that their riots are being used for propaganda of US ideas about Islam. 80.219.217.252 06:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The kids who were electrocuted were Muslims. Many news sources have confirmed this. Furthermore, after a tear gas gernade was sent into the Clichy mosque, the brother of one of the electrocuted "youths" expressed great dismay and called the mosque attack "disrespectful" and canceled a meeting with the Interior Minister of France. So these are clearly Muslim famalies. -- Zeno of Elea 07:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"Non-french people about Islam in France, while they don't know anything about this." Just because someone is "Non-french" does not imply that he or she does not know anything about Islam in France or these riots. Unless you are reporting live from the riots, you don't have anymore information than anyone else in the world. Furthermore, I doubt that most French sources really know anything about the "alien" population in their midsts. Finally, there is no doubt (based on the media sources) that these riots at least begun with the youth of the Muslim community of Clichy-sous-Bois, after the death of two Muslim teenagers (meaning, from a Muslim family). This is a communal riot and the community in question happens to be of both a religious and an ethnic nature. -- Zeno of Elea 08:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * well, obviously, if you send a tear gas grenade into a mosque, the people affected are not going to be buddhists. That is why the politicians were so apologetic. whatever is really going on, I think French media and politics are very sensitive about calling the whole thing "Muslim riots", and if Wikipedia does just that, we'll get npov tags. The point is, if the religious affiliation of the rioters is to matter, we need some reference that religious topics were brought up. The entire "Timeline" is void of any reference to "Islamic militancy", and it really appears that the connection between the riots and religion is nonexistant. Show a single incidents of rioters protesting against religious discrimination, or a reference to hijabs, or anything like that. If you cannot, the riots should be described as purely fuelled by social inequality, and not by religious sentiment at all. You may know all about Islam in France (which I doubt), and you may know all about these riots, but what you need to show is that there is a relation between the two. Just because the two dead teenagers were from a Muslim family doesn't make the riots "Muslim". This would be like calling the 1992 Los Angeles riots a "Christian riot" because Rodney King is a Christian (I don't know if he is, but the point is that it is irrelevant. You wouldn't call those riots "atheist riots" if Rodney King was an atheist, either.) 80.219.217.252 08:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps the tear gas gernade was sent into the Clichy mosque because the rioters belonged to the mosque? Clearly a riot was taking place in the vicinity of the mosque, and the rioters were Muslims. It is not the launching of the tear gernade into the mosque that started these riots. -- Zeno of Elea 08:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is not as much as whether these people are or are not Muslims (or football lovers, or amateur photographs, or whatever) as how the whole thing is presented. With the present state of the article, I get a confused picture of a proto-religious-war starting in the "cité". This is not the case. Where did anyone hear about Muslim or islamist slogans chanted by the protesters ?
 * One of the sources of the problem is that people of Norther African origins tend to have shitty lives. They are frustrated and rioting because they have shitty lives, not because they are "Arabs", "Muslims" or whatever.
 * By the way, these protesters are 2nd or 3rd-generation immigrants. They have typically never lived in Africa at all, do not speak Arab, are not practising Muslims. Muslim leaders in these places call for calm and are not listened to.
 * It is very important to realise that the views of the US press on these subjects is very naive, simplistic and set in the US model of society. Refusing to listen to the warnings of editors who are more familiar with the French society defeats the whole purpose of having an encyclopedia written by people from all over the world (And frankly, if one wants to merely copy-paste uninformed US point of view, or worse "Free-Republic"-styled rants, rather than learn things, why come on an encyclopedia at all ?). Rama 08:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The place of Islam in France is a major theme in the coverage of these riots. This is an historical moment in the relations between France and its Muslim community. These protestors are 1st, 2nd, and perhaps also 3rd generation immigrants - they are not merely 2nd or 3rd generation, as you claim without any basis in confirmed facts. Are you at all famaliar with sourcing facts? You are suggesting that any mention of Muslims or Islam be removed from the article. I cannot tell whether you are an extremist left-wing French sissy or a extremist fundamentalist Muslim, but I do know that your brand of POV should not replace every other POV. If you feel that this has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam (contrary to what the media and common sense are saying) then cite a reliable source and add that to the background section. But do not attempt to delete everything that doesnt conform with some extremist POV because that certainly does not help us understand all the dimensions of this conflict. -- Zeno of Elea 08:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am French, and live in the Paris suburbs. There have been interviews of the rioters broadcast on the French TV channels over the last few days. When asked the reasons for the riots, they cite the brutality of the police which led to the deaths of the two teenagers, the lack of opportunities in their lives, and the lask of respect of Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, specifically asking for his resignation. Trying to link this to a Jihad in Europe is nonsense, and your agenda is obvious in this matter. Ze miguel 09:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this might be a good point to remind everyone that No personal attacks and Civility are policies, not suggestions. -- SCZenz 08:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rama made a very intelligent statement above, and Zeno unambiguously revealed himself, NPA or no NPA, as a bigot troll and simpleton. Yes, Islam can be mentioned, as one factor among many. This is no excuse for using "North African" and "Muslim" as though they were synonyms. We don't randomly replace "French" with "Catholic", either. 80.219.217.252 09:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * They are largely Muslims from North Africa. Over 90% of Algeria is Muslim. It is simply dishonest to pretend that this communal rioting has nothing to do with the religious and ethnic communities in question. -- Zeno of Elea 09:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * yes? your point being? 90% of Algeria is desert. will we say "desert dwellers" for "Algerians" because of that? The two teenagers apparently were born in France, and French citoyens. Your problem is that you keep saying "religious and ethnic" as if the two terms are inseparable. 80.219.217.252 09:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is dishonest to pretend that this communal rioting has nothing to do with the religious and ethnic communities in question. -- Zeno of Elea 09:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * nobody disputes that. What is disputed is that the riots should be religiously motivated. The communities are predominantly Muslim because that is the predominant religion where they came from. They are poor because they are immigrants, not because they are Muslims. They are rioting because they are poor, not because they are immigrants, and not because they are Muslims. It is dishonest to draw a direct connection between religion and these riots. 80.219.217.252 09:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your original research as to why the rioters are rioting cannot dominate the article. Your simple explanation that they are rioting because they are poor is not the final say in the matter. Every major media outlet is drawing a direct connection between relgion and these riots. You seem to be suggesting that the all major media must be censored in order to support your extreme POV. -- Zeno of Elea 10:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How comes that beside speculations of foreign newspapers, we have zero first-hand reference to religious matters ? If, as Zeno of Elea says, religion is an "obvious" problem, there should be no difficulty to find statements by French officials, protesters or even first-hand journalists that would confirm the fact. Rama 10:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * French media is no more reliable than non-French media. BBC, for example, has correspondant reporters all over the world, including Paris. Concerns about the religious factors leading these riots are being expressed by a number of important and reliable sources. If you have an opposing point of view, find a source that supports your opposition and add it to the article. -- Zeno of Elea 12:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the guy who let the first message. I am sorry, I don't know how to sign. The problem is: people like Zeno of Elea who are obsessed by Muslim stuff pretends that the riots are on a religious basis - which is not the case. There is a strong tradition of rioting in France, as shown in history by 'La commune, Le front populaire, mai 68'. Religion has nothing to do with that except for people looking for some materials for their PoV. I strongly agree with Rama. Zeno of Elea show me one reference of one of the kids saying this is 'intifada' or whatever. This is not the case. Ths is about a recurrent social problem expressed in a *very French* way that is rioting. You PoV is strongly biased and I suggest you to express it on Blogs rather than here. I also suggest you go into the French suburbs and then come back to talk about religious topics overthere. A bunch of people have expressed their different opinion here, and I strongly beleive that it should be now obvious that the religion issue is not *that* obvious. Once again I think some links on other french riots would be more pertinent than the links to Islam in france which also contains a strong biais. 68.21.173.20 15:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Bluehilldigger


 * Look, this is an anglophone corner of Wikipedia (there is a Wikipedia for each language, and this happens to be the English Wikipedia. So, of course, many of the edits are going to be by English-speakers citing English-speaking sources. Since the French generally speak, well, French, there will always be a kind of an anglophone slant to the whole article. You are more than welcome to edit this article as you see fit; plenty of us are interested in hearing what the French think about the whole banlieue affair.   &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 21:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm usually pretty skeptical about claims of POV, but in this case, isn't a section about underlying causes a little premature at this point? It's really just speculation and reports of editorializing. I'd suggest that the whole section be removed and put on hold or maybe moved to it's own article (though I don't think that's a great idea, either).--Kevin 01:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I just spent an hour looking at LeMonde.fr and the French version of wikipedia and want to call attention to the fact that scarcely any mention is made in either of Islam. It's fascinating to see the difference between what contributors to French wikipedia feel is relevant what English contributors think is relevant. I'm inclined to think that those closest to an issue -geographically- know the subject better. User:Monsterinabox 22:45 EST

Don't bite the newb
Okay, I'm not really new...but nobody leap on me :Þ I just wanted to point out that Arab and Muslim were being used as though they meant the same thing in the article (Background section), and I'd appreciate the facts not melding into each other, when comparing two distinct societal groups. I assume it was accidental, I'm not sure if the actual reports say Arab or Muslim, but either way, they shouldn't be repeated after each other in statistics as though they correlate :) Sherurcij 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I cleaned it up myself. I also changed "first and second generation Muslims" to "first and second generation immigrants", since that was the context, and the former made no sense.  Made a few edits, a couple of small(ish?) NPOV touchups, a bit of grammar, a tiny bit of new information, etc.  I would also like to add my voice to those asking for French wikipedians to get some photographs Sherurcij 08:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

North African Origins
The people who died are described as having a North African origin. This is true for Ziad Benna, but not for Bouna Traoré, who had a sub-Saharian African origin. A picture of the two teenagers is available here. I don't know if it would be appropriate to insert the picture in the article. Ze miguel 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * that's right, instances of "North African" should be changed to "African", then. 80.219.217.252 09:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag and my problems with the article
I state here the most obvious problems I see the in the "background" section which justify the NPOV tag.


 * Lengthly part about "ISLAM AND FRANCE": There is no reason to link Islam and the recent events specifically. There are proably as many people who wear baseball hats that Muslims among protesters, and I fail to see a section about baseball hats.
 * "The BBC also 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": Is that a self-defeating argument or what ?
 * Laws providing for restrictions on display of religious symbols in schools, including the Muslim hijab, blablabla: Until someone of the government, the French press or the protesters states so, I fail to see any connection between this and the current events. Beware that there is a US-centric obsession about this law. "resented by some Muslims" is imprecise and tendentious; we have no statistics nor significant, recent quotes relating this to the recent events.
 * Note that the reference added by Zeno of Elea says nothing relating the recent riots and the law, it is merely the same sensationalist sort of description of this law that is commons in the US and UK.


 * "The Australian reports that assimilation has failed": over-simplification of the article of the Australian
 * "hopelessly segregated": this must be refined and explained. France has its own problems, which are different from Warsaw under the Nazi occupation or the South of the USA in the 50s.
 * "Some aspects of French society are questioning whether France can integrate its Muslim community, which remains hopelessly segregated." The reference cites http://www.proche-orient.info/, a sensationalist, pro-Israeli website, which is turn cites a "AN OFFICIAL REPORT DEALING WITH religious expression in French schools has become a must read for anyone interested in the Islamization of France. Written under the auspices of the top national education official, Jean-Pierre Obin, the report was not initially released by the Ministry of Education". This report is nowhere to be found. How the reference allows to say that "Some aspects of French society are questioning whether France can integrate its Muslim community, which remains hopelessly segregated." remains a mystery.

Zeno of Elea, if you can remove my comments from the page on the ground that they would be better placed here, I would find it logical and polite to move them here in the process. Thank you. Rama 09:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So the bottom line is that you want to argue against the content of the BBC article and censor any mention of any possible relatation between the communal rioting that we are seeing that the associated religious community. The fact that these people are aliented from French society due to their religion, according to the esteemed BBC, is (in your opinion) totally unrelated to the riots. As far as the BBC was concerned, they are related. This is also the view of all major media outlets, who are all explaining the context of the riots in its economic, social, ethnic, and religious communal aspects. You may object to this, but it is not your perogative to insert NPOV tags or to delete such information just because it neutrally describes a POV that you disagree with. -- Zeno of Elea 10:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "The fact that these people are aliented from French society due to their religion, according to the esteemed BBC, is (in your opinion) totally unrelated to the riots. As far as the BBC was concerned" ?? Err yes, I do find that unrelated. Unless, of course, the protests are in fact a rampage of BBC journalists turned mad. I find the depiction of the BBC ununderstandable.
 * As for "all major media outlets", I think that you mean "all major US media outlets".
 * It is my prerogative to insert a NPOV tag if I have precise criticism to make, which turns out to be the case. I find the inclusion of the part of the BBC unacceptable in the present state, and since we obviously seem to disagree on this, I find it good policy to discuss the thing here before editing the article.
 * As for "it neutrally describes a POV that you disagree with", I am confounded. Rama 10:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rama, it is more than evident that ALL major media news outlets are finding numerous connections between French Islam, French Muslims, and the riots that are currently taking place. This is a legitimate point of view which is neutrally represented in the article. If you disagree with this point of view, then find a source that disagrees and insert that information in a neutral manner. You are not disputing the neutral WAY in which a particualr view is being protrayed. All you are saying is that "if there is any mention of Islam or Muslims in this article i will insert the NPOV tag." You are just pushing your POV, trying to censor or discredit by underhanded means any view that conflicts with your very peculiar and extreme point of view. This is a complex conflict with many factors. Islam is widely seen as one of those factors and as that information should be reported here in a neutral manner. I have addressed the rest of your objects, so I am removing the NPOV tag. -- Zeno of Elea 10:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, this is far from obvious. Most media from the US and the UK belong to one person, and share the same sort of obsessions about Islam in France, notably embodied in the fascination for the so-called "Scarf law".
 * An uninformed and imprecise understanding of a situation can be described in a neutral manner, it will still be mostly irrelevant to the situation itself. Move this to Anglo-saxon misconceptions about French society if you want.
 * I am reinserting the NPOV tag until we reach an agreement on the surrealist statement that integrating people makes them feel alienated.
 * By the way, I would be grateful if you could stop accusing me of "You are just pushing your POV, trying to censor or discredit by underhanded means any view that conflicts with your very peculiar and extreme point of view" and such things for one second. Rama 10:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "No, this is far from obvious.. Most media from the US and the UK belong to one person, and share the same sort of obsessions about Islam in France, notably embodied in the fascination for the so-called "Scarf law"." This is your personal POV. I'm not interested in delving into such wildly paranoid conspiracies and absurd generalizations. It is more than evident that ALL major media news outlets are finding numerous connections between French Islam, French Muslims, and the riots that are currently taking place. The BBC (a publicly owned institution), the New York Times, ABC News, Reuters, Associated Press, and a number of other major media outlets are reporting the connection between the riots and the status of French Muslims and French Islam in French society. The article already contains many such sources. It is evident to me that your NPOV objects are just your desire to push your very peculiar POV into the article by means of deleting any mention of Islam or Muslims. -- Zeno of Elea 10:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, some foreign media might draw some completely abusive conclusions based on their misconceptions and their fantasies about the situation in France. So what? US media repeatedly reported that iraq had some WMD, this didn't make that true. The situation is the same here. They just repeat the same stupid things, aided by their unbased hate for everything that in French. Med 11:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Listen, no serious mainstream French newspaper have connected these events to religion. No French official have. And no protester has. Do you think that you know better than the protesters themselves just because the BBC publishes an article about the "Scarf law", beginning the article with an allusion to the present problems ? None of the media you cite is French. I have yet to see any of them providing anything concrete about this alleged link between religion and the riots -- something factual, like protesters stating that they do that on religious basis, rather than speculations about the general evolution of the French society in the last 30 years. And could you please consider actually trying to stop accusing me in every single of your comment, ? This is getting really tedious. I fail to remeber making wild guesses as to your own political opinions, and I would appreciate if you could return the favour. Rama 11:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The French media is also acting a bit odd considering the circumstances. On Le Monde's website this morning, of the first seven leading stories listed, five relate in some way or another to the United States. Only the third story, not the headline, is about the riots spreading across France, and the first two are about Bush's trip to Latin America and his exciting "showdown with Chavez" and the other is on the speculation about the CIA's detainee spots. So I wouldn't say that only French sources are ideal on this. While you could say British or Australians might have a little glee here, their perspective bypasses the touchy French politics which make this story difficult to discuss. Tfine80 11:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing is that this event is not nearly as dramatic as some foreign media want to make people believe. Urban violences are quite common in many countries. I'm really surprised by the foreign media coverage who tend to show a completely deformed reality. Med 11:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, the three uppermost headlines of "Le Monde" rotate during the day. Chances are that the entry was the topmost at some point. Rama 13:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're returning to this "only French media are NPOV" argument. This is an ad hominem logical fallacy. I don't speak French, so why should the media I cite be French? -- Zeno of Elea 11:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zeno of Elea you don't get the point with the current riots.Rama tried to explain it to you quite well.The current riots are related to suburban poverty and social problems.There's a long history of such troubles back in the 80s, long before the present day topic about "islam" went mainstream in the anglo-saxon media after the New York,WTC bombings.The fact that part of the youth involved in the riots are more or less originating from maghrebi muslim ethnies is completely secondary to the core of the event.There's a very tense social climate in France in the last years, and great dissatisfaction against the social politic of the Chirac governement.Many anglo-saxon media instead of reports and comments on the real issues, jump into an interpretation with focus on Islam.My concern is that either you have no clue about french society or you are pushing ahead some sort of agenda.Your "ad hominen logical fallacy" argument about lack of knowledge of french is silly.If I was to write an article about some german topic people would expect me to know german and german society.--AntonioB 12:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Be aware that Zeno of Elea does have an apparent obsession with attacking Muslims and Islam. For further information you can check out his "guild" - Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG.  He has referred to Muslim Wikipedians as "Muslim fundamentalist Nazis", "ramandan crazed narcasistic fundamentalists" and "enslaved victims of a deranged rapist psychopath".. So, yeah, be aware. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because it is a French event? How can foreigners ever hope to understand things as accurately?


 * nobody asks you to read French media if you don't understand French. Maybe you should just sit back then and be grateful that we have editors who do speak French, and who do have a clue abou t French society? (I think it is pretty clear from this page alone where Zeno is coming from; it is a fallacy of Wikipedia that clueless extremists get as much of a voice as he does, but besides wasting everybody's time, it doesn't much damage) dab (&#5839;) 11:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should sit back instead of forwarding clueless suggestions that all mentions of Muslims and Islam be deleted from this article and that only French sources be used. -- Zeno of Elea 12:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"The current riots are related to suburban poverty and social problems." Anyone who claims to know the exact and sole cause of the current riots is merely pushing a particular POV. There are a myriad to factors leading to the riots that are being cited. I am not suggesting that poverty is not a factor. However, attempts to portray poverty as the sole cause of the riots and attempts to delete suggestions that there could be other factors (such as religion) is plainly POV pushing. I quote the BBC and I am branded a "clueless extremist" by people who are plainly POV pushing. -- Zeno of Elea 12:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You selectively quote the BBC to suit your Bias. You used an article about how French Muslims from immigrant Backgrounds are "desperate" to be intigrated and used it to say Muslims and French assimilation/Secularism.. the opposite of what the article says!! --Irishpunktom\talk 12:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Irishpunktom, you should read the quote more carefully. It is not describing what Muslims are doing, it is describing how they are percieved (according to the BBC) and how that has led to alienation. It might be your peculiar opinion that main-stream Islam is compatable with French secularism, but that is not how it is percieved in France according to the BBC article. It is true that the same article goes on to quote ONE invidual who says that she has no problem with secularism - but you deleted the whole quote about the "values and security of the republic" and replaced it with a completely unsourced claim that "most Muslims in the ghettos agree with secularism." What is worse, you attributed your unsourced claim to the BBC article. You deliberately falsified the information to suit your purposes and you deleted the quotes outlining a the main theme of the article. Your representation of the article is false. The article first describes how Islam is percieved in France, i.e. the concerns about the values and security of the French republic, and then the BBC article questions whether such concerns are well founded. However, the point is that such perceptions have caused alienation and segregation which is a factor the underlying causes of this rioting. -- Zeno of Elea 12:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But this article is not about the perception of Islam in Franc by the BBC. Rama 13:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have trouble comprehending English? The BBC is describing the perction of Islam in France. -- Zeno of Elea 13:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The question you aggressively asked should really be asked at yourself. You militantly persist in adding 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 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." - Which completely twists the article.  how can "French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism" lead to "Alienation" ... It makes no sense!!  Obviously there has been a failure of Alienation.. SHOCK - HORROR.. just like it says in the BBC article! - "they are not supposed to exist in a nation that views itself as indivisible, and able to assimilate its diverse components" .. in fact it says the problem of alienation is that "The main problem is that many French people do.. see [a] contradiction between being French and having foreign roots" according to the BBC article!  You've twisted it beyond comprehension to suit your own POV and then have the audacity to say to another editor "Do you have trouble comprehending English"!! --Irishpunktom\talk 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

A Call for Better Explanation From Zeno for Language Removal
[Reasons listed by Zeno for "revising" this article.]

"All of these other "causes" are redundant."

They are not redundant. All the factors that came together in the riots need to be in a summary at the front.

Compare the riots to a gunpowder keg. If someone set it off by lighting a match, you wouldn't write an article about it saying that someone just lit a match and then there was an explosion, then write more about the explosion and the damage it caused, and then at the end of the article, finally mention that the match was lit by a keg full of gunpowder.

My point is this, the riots were NOT caused by the immediate cause. They were TRIGGERED. Yes the trigger is important, but without the "keg", there is not explosion. And what this article is currently doing, is leaving readers wondering why people are rioting for 7 days because 2 kids got themselves killed.

If the Background is placed at the end, they have to wade through to the very end to find the answers to questions that should be answered at the BEGINNING of the article, NOT relegated to the end. The way facts are being represented (or omitted) makes it biased.

"yes, they are poor and unemployed, and the interior minister is calling them names, etc, a seperate section for the immediate cause is needed"

You say a separate section for immediate cause is needed and then meet this "need" by omitting the language entirely? These omitted facts are not represented clearly, if at all, in the rest of the article. You have gutted this article.

If you look at Wikipedia articles for other similar events (i.e., CIVIL DISTURBANCES), like the 1992_Los_Angeles_riots and the Watts_Riot, you will notice that the articles do NOT isolate the triggering event. They deal with ALL the background (along with the triggering event(s)) FIRST. WHY? Because the Background provides the underlying causes for why the triggering event was able to set something into motion.

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 3:42 am (Pacific Time), 4 November 2005


 * And a few additional notes, Zeno.


 * I find it very telling that you are apparently omitting any information that draws too much attention to FACTS that point away from your apparent theory that race and religion are the most significant factor behind the riots.


 * The Associated Press has been reporting information that points to unemployment and police brutality as reasons for the riots. The rioters themselves and residents within these suburbs AND politicians are all agreeing on this.  And you remove this from the beginning of the article and change the 1st section back to focusing on the deaths of 2 kids as the "immediate cause" for the riots.


 * It is wrong what you are doing. You should not continue editing this article if all you have such a blatently biased revisionist agenda.  Do you think you can answer these charges without lying or resorting to personal attacks?  I hope you can.


 * But I expect that you'll fail to answer my questions or defend yourself, without resorting to some sort of logical fallacy. If you don't know what that is, look it up.  There's an article on it in Wikipedia.  Good day.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 3:42 am (Pacific Time), 4 November 2005

I think that a "background" or "underlying causes" should come first in the article only after the riots are over. At the moment, the article covers a current event. Once the event is over, the Background section should be merged with "Immediate cause" under the heading "Underlying causes," as it is in 1992_Los_Angeles_riots. This is just my opinion. I encourage you to add the information that was deleted from the "Immediate cause" section. You added information under "Immediate cause" when you should have added that information to the "Background" section. Then you argued that the Background section should come first in the article. Those are clearly two different issues - you should have added your information in the correct section. -- Zeno of Elea 12:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Immediate cause" is still a biased title, as well as biased focus for the 1st section of this article. Focusing on the triggering event and placing more weight on it, is biased when there are more factors.  Especially when the article then waits until the end to supply the reasons why the triggering event led to anything.  Inaccuracy and bias, even on a temporary basis, because "this covers a current event", is not right.


 * I was not talking about two different issues. They are related.  Let me explain for you, AGAIN.  Maybe this time you will understand.  We have enough already to list a summary of causes/factors at the beginning of the article that explain why things were volatile enough that the triggering event led to anything.  This summary belongs RIGHT AFTER the "triggering event", because it explains WHY the triggering event led to anything.


 * So the information placed was in the right section. It was placed, and then summarily removed and not completely replaced, if at all.  It is not redundant is it is not even present.


 * I will say it yet again...... The Associated Press has been reporting information that points to unemployment and police brutality as key reasons for the riots. The rioters themselves, residents within these suburbs AND politicians are all agreeing on this.  And you remove this from the beginning of the article and change the 1st section back to focusing on the deaths of 2 kids as the "immediate cause" for the riots.
 * You have not even replaced this information clearly, if at all, within the article.


 * Also, it is biased to have an "underlying causes" section that lists "history of violence" and "poverty" simply as reasons. Why?  Because that assumes that "history of violence" and poverty are "causes" when there is evidence YOU are ignoring, which seems to show that they are only a SYMPTOMS of other problems.


 * You are also ignoring the same evidence by placing such an emphasis on religious/racial tension in the "underlying causes" section.


 * The reasoning seems to be that these people are Muslim immigrant families and that is why they are poor and violent. Any other information or provides better context is removed.  That is not right.  Perhaps a truely objective article would be thought of by you and your guild as "apologist".  I find this truly sad.


 * It is unfortunate when people can't argue their points without changing the subject (e.g., committing fallacies).


 * It is also unfortunate when people are so passive-aggressive that they avoid explaining themselves or addressing issues and instead persist in editing a news article to maintain such bias. One might conclude that they know they have no ground to stand on.  That is not appropriate behavior for Wikipedians.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 11:10 am (Pacific Time), 4 November 2005

First sentence
The first sentence is a run on. It should be tightened up. But with the highly charged atmosphere surrounding this article, I'm loathe to touch it.--malber 14:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Editorializing
I removed a paragraph made of editorials from the BBC and The Australian. I strongly doubt that an Australian newspaper has any kind of competency discussing French social problems. David.Monniaux 14:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree! An editorial is, by definition, just an opinion, not NPOV news reporting.  They should only be included if it is clear that they are only "reactions to the riots" rather than real analysis or reporting.  --24.15.4.5 17:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, this has nothing to do with any Ausie newspapers. The Australian paper in question was quoting the publisher of a French magazine. Secondly, the "Ausie issue" does not apply to the BBC which is British, not Australian. Finally, why exactly is this "editorializing" but speculations about the "underlying poverty causes" is not? -- Zeno of Elea 14:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Rama 14:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are a dishonest person. YOU are undoing edits without explanation. You are just deleting something that doesn't conform to your ridiculous point of view. Go read the three revert rule yourself, and review NPOV while you're at it. -- Zeno of Elea 14:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, can you stop adding pointless editorials? They are mere speculation. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 14:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea that poverty caused the riots is also "mere speculating" and "pointless editorials." Perhaps the entire "underlying causes" section should be removed, on the basis of your reasoning? -- Zeno of Elea 14:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It is widely known that rich people riot more frequently than the poor.  I'm sure you can think of dozens of riots that were caused by the rich, like the Bel-air riots of 1992...

Zeno of Elea, you perfectly know hat I have been documenting the faults in this section above. They have been discussed, a majority of users in against you. You have invited me to edite the article and removed the NPOV tag; then you reverted my edits; another user edited the article in the same direction than me, you reverted againt. Then another, which you reverted too. Calling me "dishonest" and "without explanation" is quite strartling, especially since I am trying to save you from a ban on the WP:3RR rule. Rama 14:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your argument, so far, has been to say that religion or race has absolutely nothing to do with these riots, and that all UK and US media are "owned by one person" and therefore we can only rely on French media outlets. These are not legitimate reasons for your deletion of relevant information. ALL of the possible factors leading to these riots will be discussed, including religion - not just the possible factor of poverty. The irony in all this is that you are deleting one of the few French sources that have anything to say about the underlying causes. -- Zeno of Elea 14:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am willing to discuss and include any factual item. However, editorials by Anglo-saxon media re not factual items. And their views about France is not the subject of the article. Why don't you point to factual, verifiable facts that suggest that religion is a motive for the protesters, and that they are reacting to the several year-old so-called "scarf law" that so obsesses Anglo-saxons media ? If things were half as clear as you suggest they are, this should be no trick. Rama 14:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a "verifiable fact" when it comes to identifying the "underlying causes" of a riot. Whether it's poverty, immigration, race, religion, or anything else, there is no way to turn it into a "verifiable fact" in the context of the underlying causes of the riots. Identifying the underlying causes of a riot is clearly not the same as, for example, identifying the current weather in Paris as a "verifiable fact." However, many media outlets (including French media) are suggesting that religious tensions are a factor. Now the question arises as to what kind of religious tensions, and that has been answered with the 3 quoted sources: (a) the BBC article which identifies the negative sentiment towards Islam in France, namely the verifiable fact that "the assertiveness of French Islam is seen as a threat not just to the values of the republic, but to its very security." (b) the BBC article reporting that the "Headscarf defeat riles French Muslims," detailing the impact of the headscarf ban on Muslim religious tensions in France (in the context of the riots), and (c) the interview with the publisher of a French magazine, where he claims (in the context of the riots) that "The republican model of integration of ethnic minorities is in trouble. The young people of the suburbs are not in agreement with any aspect of this model." This concisely summarizes the main relgious tensions that may have led up to these riots. They are sourced, they are logical, they are factual, and they agree with common sense. -- Zeno of Elea 15:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But things are not "logical" ! Do you think that you can consider base axioms about what France is (a country plagued by a civil war of religion), construct a "logical" argumentation and infer the facts from there ? It is not so !
 * Is is a fact that no quote where the protesters cite religion as a cause had been put forward yet. The BBC articles that you quote say nothing of the sort. The one about the so-called "headscarf ban" does not link the law with the present riots. The interview is one among a gazillon one, and it does not say that the whole French society is a failure ("in trouble" is different from "failure").
 * You obviously have trouble distinguishing news reports from editorials. Rama 15:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, that problems of poverty are as much speculation as problems of religion or of so-called "race" is quite true. However, this has been said by most of the French press, officials and politicians. Problems of religion and "race" have not been cited. While the French political class is relevant to this article, the Anglo-saxon press is not. Hence, unless references to problems of religion and "race" being appearing in the discourse of relevant people, I hold them for irrelevant. Rama 15:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to voice my support of Zeno in this dispute. Rama and Alphax are operating from a misconception. Zeno is not claiming he has exclusive knowledge as to the "root causes" of the riots, he is simply reporting what commentators of various affiliations and nationalities have themselves given as causes. All such statements from such commentators (Anglo or French or Martian, it matters not) are inescapably POV, but Zeno's descriptions of these statements are not POV and belong in the article as a summary of majority and/or minority opinion on a topic that can be nothing other than opinion (unlike, say, a topic involving the number of electrons in a carbon atom or a topic on the temperature of the sun). Encyclopedias have content on social issues and events. Commentary on these issues and events is intrinisically POV. Summaries of these commentaries are, however, NOT THEMSELVES POV-- they are summaries of POVs. This is not "editorializing", it is reporting the editorializing of others. This is all Zeno is doing, and he's right to do it. JDG 22:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, if (and only if) there is a balance of editorials. -- SCZenz 23:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a question of which editorials are notable enough to make it into the "underlying causes" section. The BBC seems fair enough, but take care not to allow any media outlet with an axe to grind into the section. We should be picky. The best choice would be experts, i.e. French analysts/sociologists who have written a monograph about the situation of the immigrants. If we can't get these, pick second best. Just look at who is writing the editorial and pick those with credentials in the area. Idle journalist comments can go to a "media coverage" section or something. 130.60.142.65 07:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

CFTC: minor syndicate
In 2003, Action Police CFTC received 0.32% of votes for the police professional elections. You don't even have to read french to see it for yourself:. Ze miguel 14:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, that's four
I am filing a violation of 3rr. BrandonYusufToropov 14:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good for you, Yusuf. -- Zeno of Elea 14:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just for the record (the fourth "happens" to reinstate all the text under dispute):


 * 1) (cur) (last)  14:26, 4 November 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv vandalism)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 14:09, 4 November 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv those are not editorials. they are describing the reality on the ground.)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 14:05, 4 November 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv this is not "editorializing". the text merely quotes the BBC and a French magazine)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 14:04, 4 November 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv in what sense is this a minor police union? presumably this union represents the police forces who have to fight these "youths")

BrandonYusufToropov

You are misrepresenting the history. -- Zeno of Elea 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In that ...? BrandonYusufToropov


 * Brandon, Edit number four doesn't count, it was actually reverting simple vandalism.. this edit, however, is a revert (despite not being marked as such) -> 13:52, November 4, 2005 Zeno of Elea (→Racial and religious tensions - restoring deleted text. the Australian is quoting the FRENCH magazine "Marianne")--Irishpunktom\talk 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We disagree about edit #4, then, because it has the effect of restoring the text you wanted in.


 * It sounds like my count for your work this morning is five reverts, and yours is four, at least as of 14:26, 4 November 2005. Correct? BrandonYusufToropov 15:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Err... that was me above, forgot to sign, sorry!--Irishpunktom\talk 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. Tom, I guess we're just waiting for a response from Zeno. BrandonYusufToropov 15:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeno doesn't appear to like responding when it's inconvenient for him.

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [ 3:57 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 4th years later]