Talk:2005 French riots/Archive 3

Article is too long
Suggest spliting it. I've already created the article 2005 French urban riots timeline.--malber 00:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Error in the "Assessment of rioting"-part
Isn't it wrong to sum all the vehicles and arrests and get a total of 4,551 burned vehicles and 948 arrests?
 * I updated the sums to 4610 and 981 respectively. Andrew pmk | Talk 20:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who reads the figures downwards chronologically? As in you're not supposed to add the figures together, but rather that 5/11 the burned vehicles count was up in 897, 6/11 it rose to 1,295 and today it rose to 1,408 which is the final number, and the total number of vehicles burned? Does it make sense to add those figures together? Drange_net

Background info and underlying causes
I have found this brilliant article from a respected journal that may serve as an extra background for the underlying causes. It seems well balanced and not too judgemental. Perhaps some of the original contributors could take a look at this and incorporate it in the main topic. Chelman 15:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I wouldn't say it's very neutral. A very middle-class, obsessed-with-"law-and-order" perspective. Dan Carkner 15:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As is the case with any editorial there is some POV in there. In general though it gives a good overview certainly from the perspective of civic engineering that plays a part in dehumanizing the inhabitants. That is something that can be observed in many suburbs or even American projects. That is definately an interesting perspective. I didn't notice a particular 'law and order' obsession. Yes he points out the shortcomings of the legal system but then again he doesn't call out for a hardcore-zero-tolerance policy. Chelman 15:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The "pro-law-and-order perspective" is not neutral? Does this mean that the "anti-law-and-order perspective" is neutral? Organized crime is now gets the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" excuse? -- Zeno of Elea 15:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is not achieved by writing a schizophrenic article which pushes two contradicting point of view with a dosage that achieves a "middle term" set by the personal delusion of some editor. It means reporting facts. Editorials are not relevant to this article unless they illustrate something said by someone relevant to the problem. Rama 15:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that you need a few more edits and you'll reach the Godwin's point. :) Med 15:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's such a Hitler-like nazi thing to say Med :P --Irishpunktom\talk 16:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Irishpunktom, as a Wikistapo member, I have to solemnly warn you to refrain from such cheating with the Godwin point, in compliance with the Dont't Spoil The Fun policy ! ;) Rama 16:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * you mentioned him once, but I think you got away with it. So it's all forgotten now and let's hear no more about it. So that's two egg mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Herman Goering and four Colditz salads... no, wait a minute... I got confused because everyone keeps mentioning Hitler.

Stronger reminder of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL
Everyone, please keep this discourse civil. Please note that the following words, and similar, are all examples of personal attacks when applied to other users: sissy, bigot, simpleton, and (in most ways it's used) extremist. I'm sure there are others. Regardless of other disagreements, this must stop. There are no personal attacks allowed on Wikipedia, period. Have a nice day. -- SCZenz 16:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As TShilo12 put it, look at the pretty flowers, and let them calm you. --Kizor 21:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we get primary sources outside of main media ?
Paris is a huge city. I would expect there to be at least one or two eye witnesses to the rioting that are blogging about it in a factual manner. Can anyone point to some of these? Also, is a reputable blog a (e.g. factual eye witness reporting) considered a valid wikipedia source?

While this article has lots of problems, it and this discussion page are much more illuminating that anything I've been able to glean from mainstream media. Go wiki! Funkyj 17:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

May be you should have considered this on an sociological point of view ; the problem of suburb riots in France has existed since the 80ies and has begun in "the Minguettes" a suburb of Lyon... For those who read French, you can go for exemple on www.univ-paris8.fr/sociologie/ fichiers/sauvadet-journalparis8.pdf It's really funny and sad to read you, if we consider we are on an encyclopedia which has the ambition to give a neutral and fair light! French, English, US, Australian press !!! You forgot the Russian press which has recommanded to Russian not to go to Paris because the situation was on the type of this of Tchétchénie... C'est tout pour aujourd'hui! Ch.
 * he is right, this is ridiculous. there are differing povs within France, so it's not like we're going to get a "French pov" by letting people familiar with the situation lead the article's development. We should encourage the direct quoting of (translated) French media, and avoid opinion pieces with an agenda from abroad. 81.63.122.115 20:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We should quote facts from media, whether they're French or not. I don't think the BBC's coverage is any more, or any less, suspect than a French media outlet.  Some editorials may be relevant, but they should be clearly made summaries of points-of-view, and they should be balanced.  -- SCZenz 23:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What are those flowers doing there -- Zeno of Elea 22:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the section above, they seem to be intended to keep everyone calm. -- SCZenz 23:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is the article called Paris suburb riots when there are riots in other places too? Although, they are pretty minor. They are not on the scale of, for example, the 1969 Paris riots. In the center of towns (eg Nice) where there are some riots in the suburbs, its not a big topic oc concversation and no-one seems particularly bothered or to feel themselves in any danger. The US media seems to be having a field day, though. Its telling that I have had concerned emails from American freinds asking if I am okay (because their sources are the media) and none from feinds who live here (because their sources are direct experience and local newspapers, and its no big deal). --Nantonos 14:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Background or events first?
"(Michaelgabrielsen, there is already a "background" section. it comes after the events are described. first we describe WHAT is happening and THEN we can describe WHY it is happening)"

With due respect, descriptions of WHAT is happening do not make sense unless you provide enough background as to WHY it started happening.

To use a simple example, let's say I am going to describe a fight that broke out in a grade school cafeteria.

If I say that the fight broke out when Kid A threw a punch at Kids X, that would be the trigger.

Then I described the fight and it's consequences. Perhaps some chairs were knocked over and some bystander got food in the face or something.

If I waited until the end to explain that Kid X, beat up Kid A's little brother the day before, it changes the context. And if I have all this information, it makes more sense to lay it out at the BEGINNING of the article so that a reader can understand from the beginning. As opposed to reading on confused or having to make assumptions to fill in the gaps.

If you look at the articles for other riots, the background and triggering event are FIRST, then the events of the riots.

Because it helps the reader understand by explaining the environment under which the events are taking place. The "what" doesn't make sense before the "why". Why make it more difficult?

The only time I can think of when it's good to hold back the "why" until the end, is a suspense novel or a mystery story. But this is a Wikipedia article.

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [3:42 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 4th]


 * When the why is so multi-faceted, with multiple POV's to be presented, I think it's pretty standard on Wikipedia to give the verifiable, undisputed what first. -- SCZenz 23:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at 1992 Los Angeles riots, Watts riots, Baltimore Riot of 1861, hell, look at Boston Massacre. You are actually contradicting the standard on some very clear articles written on Wikipedia.

At the very least, something that explains why the situation was so volatile (even just a summary), belongs right after the triggering event. In the same section. Otherwise the triggering event doesn't make sense. And it needs to make sense before you move on the events of the riots.

Am I making sense yet?

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [ 4:13 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 4th]


 * Yes, you are making some. Those articles are easier to do this with, though, because we have a much longer perspective.  That means that more analysis has been done, and passions are much less.  In a current event, the actual facts become more important.  However, I think there should be something like you describe, in NPOV language and referring to the section later.  Let me think a minute and I'll make a proposal. -- SCZenz 00:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I already made one.......


 * The deaths appear to have aggravated what was already a volatile situation. Protesters told the Associated Press the unrest was an expression of frustration with unemployment and police harassment in the areas. The rioting suburbs are home to a large North African immigrant population. One protester said, "People are joining together to say we've had enough. [sic] "We live in ghettos. Everyone lives in fear."


 * -shrugs-


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [4:20 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 4th]


 * That's pretty close to reasonable. I'll tweak it a tiny bit and put it in. -- SCZenz 00:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There was more that was deleted and not replaced (All of it was called redundant and removed when there was no other occurance of it within the article.)


 * "Christophe Berthossi, head of the Immigration and Citizenship Program at the French Institute of International Relations think tank, said France has ignored suburban neglect and discrimination for too long.


 * "This is an area where the unemployment rate is 20 percentage points higher than the national average," he said. "These are youths who want to integrate but do not have equal access. They are being sent the idea that they are not French, when they are," he said.


 * Suburban residents said calming the violence will take more than police force, and they accused Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy of fueling tempers by calling troublemakers "scum."


 * "Sarkozy's language has added oil to the fire. He should really weigh his words," said Kaci, who immigrated from Algeria. "I'm proud to live in France, but this France disappoints me."


 * BUT, I understand if this would bloat any summary at the beginning. Perhaps there is a home for it under "Underlying Causes"......


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [4:32 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 4th]


 * I think you may be right that it fits better in background. I put a "see below" link right at the end of the immediate causes section, as part of my edit of your paragraph.  Hopefully it's satisfactory. -- SCZenz 00:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bravo! That is a lot better.  I'd put a smiley or something but it'd confuse the scripting I think.  I wasn't sure what to expect when you said "tweak", but that is better.


 * Especially better than before.....


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [4:32 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 4th]


 * Thanks. :) And now I'll fade into the background and go back to trying to be an honest arbiter. I've learned a lot from this article, and it's getting pretty good, but the amount of POV-pushing involved in getting it there is craaaazy. -- SCZenz 01:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"the amount of POV-pushing involved in getting it there is craaaazy."

No joke....

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[11:30 am (Pacific Time), Nov 5th]

Proposed tag change
I think the POV in this article is disputed, not the facts. I propose we replace Template:TotallyDisputed with Template:NPOV. Any objections? -- SCZenz 01:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope.


 * I nominate the "Underlying Causes" section, if anyone is going to get picky about picking out a particular section. I've gone over my reasons before but I'll understand if anyone has to ask *again*.


 * -sigh-


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [ 5:55 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 4th]

How did this start ? I've been told ..............
How did this start ? I've been told by others that if this happened in China, it'd be treated AS a rebellion and subsequently and forcibly crushed. I do NOT mean to be offensive. I was also told about another riot, a student riot in another country, the police shot them down with .50 Cal. Machine guns. Remember what happened in Tianaman Square in 1989 ? The military and other security forces crushed what they had seen as a rebellion. Had seen it on the news long ago. Again, I do NOT mean to be offensive, and I DO apologise if I was. I'm only telling the truth,no more,no less.Martial Law 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

MY concearn is that the French government may initiate Martial Law/ a State of Emergency, thus alerting the military and other security forces to take action, should these riots continue,get worse. If that happens, rubber bullets will be replaced by the real thing, and, more than likely, "shoot to kill" orders will be issued. Lets all hope things do'nt get that far, that these riots end as soon as possible.Martial Law 02:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OK people, lets keep things civilized, we do'nt need a riot in this format. As stated, lets hope that these riots end soon,REAL soon. Just calm down.Martial Law 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

One other thing, I'm NEW to this format.Martial Law 02:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC) :)
 * France isn't China.07:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course France is not China, that's why so many cars are burning...... Anyway the more you shout in France the more they listen to you ,politicians are already talking about a new marshall plan for these immigrants, strange when you think that a lot of french people are loosing their job since factories are moving to China and east Europe at a very fast pace.

Logic dictates that, should these riots continue, the riots get worse, the French people will no longer be in any mood to listen, then they'll petition their government to do something about the situation, meaning the French will declare Martial Law, thus allowing the security and military forces to FORCIBLY end the riots. Lets hope that this mess ends soon, before things get to that level. See the Article Martial Law in case the French govt. decides to use it.Martial Law 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

World reaction
Could we perhaps have another perspective other than just the US for the World Reaction section? Much as some of us Americans would like to beleve, there is a whole big world outside our boarders. I'm sure some of them have an opinon on this as well. -Ross Taben 8:51 pm PST 11.4.05


 * That was moved there by somebody to get the U.S. out of the timeline, I think. I vaguely recall someone mentioning above the U.S. isn't the first country to issue a travel warning, though. -- SCZenz 05:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Turkey
I originally added the Turkish reaction. Someone has added: 'Turkey has similar laws.'. I propose to remove this as it is neither a part of the Turkish reaction nor does it relate to the article at hand. Furthermore I believe that it is not exactly accurate since schoolgirls are not prohibited from wearing headscrves in Turkey AFAIK. Chelman 14:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

fr:Émeutes de Clichy-sous-Bois
the French article has now progressed enough to use as a guideline. (To all the French people who came here complaining that this article was very bad, you should note that the English article was way ahead of the French one; if you'd just gone and developed the French article, we'd have had something to go on). Note that the article gives some context, discussing similar events throughout the 1980s (which puts things in perspective a little bit), before entering discussion of immediate causes. Also note their more comprehensive list of international response. dab (&#5839;) 08:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, that format is better than the English one. And it basically follows the format that I've been pushing all this time......  But unfortunately a lot of people working on this article seem to be rather enamored with the way they made it, which makes it hard to institute such changes.


 * Any suggestions on how these changes might be made without egos getting in the way? I've tried explaining it from an logical point of view, to no avail.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [11:41 am (Pacific Time), Nov 4th]

the map


since there have been riots way beyond Paris now, we might need a map of all of France highlighting affected areas. The present map is only intended to show the area where the first riots flared up. dab (&#5839;) 08:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The German wiki has this: --24.31.29.171 12:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * well, it's a beginning. I would prefer something based on Image:Île-de-France map.png, with greater accuracy and the administrative boundaries visible. 83.79.177.187 13:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this pretty job ! we were and are planning to do a little the same on wiki-fr. We noticed the same difficulties : how show every where have vandalism without affraid all the world. I live in Bordeaux, and here is just some little acts of vandalism, really not riots, and the mojority of french cities are like this : vandalism, but not riot. Yug (talk)  00:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Moreover, please : what is your former pic to do this ? Yug (talk)  00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

moved my comment to another sectionMike McGregor (Can) 07:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

synagogue
Jesus Christ, you were just dying to mention synagogues, weren't you? See the discussion above. The intro mentions that "a synagogue was attacked with an incendiary device", linking to an article about the spread of the riots in general, and the burning of a disabled woman in particular, mentioning that "an incendiary device was tossed at the wall outside a synagogue". FFS, with half the city in flames, how is that incident notable enough to make it on the intro. Once again: There were no religious slogans or motivations discernible in the riots. Jews or synagogues were never even mentioned, except by Zeno who insisted on droning on about synagogues from the beginning. Now a molotov cocktail bumps off the wall of a synagogue, and this is mentioned in the intro (compared to, hundreds of cars and dozens of buildings went up in flames; a bus was savagely attacked and a disabled woman severely burned). Now if this isn't the pov of somebody who obsesses with Armaggedon and Religious War, I don't know what. dab (&#5839;) 09:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like you are insisting that the attack on a synagogue by muslim rioters is not worthy of mention. Considdering the recent spate of post 9/11 Anti-semitic incidents in france, it is certainly worthy of mention. Klonimus 07:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

list of cities
careful with the list in the intro now. There is a list of cities, and four links, and most of the cities do not appear mentioned in any of them. We need to summarize the spread beyond Paris better, and do a separate section listing these cities, with references, and estimates of severity. Baad 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Bot
also, the Bot statement is now both in the timeline, and in the "political" section. These should be collapsed somehow. Baad 17:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes in the Underlying Causes Section OR NPOV in the Underlying Causes Section
Put the label on the Underlying Causes section for these reasons:

1.) Listing "History of Violence" as an underlying cause for riots is Begging the question. That is, saying that something violent like riots is happening because they have a history of violence isn't really saying anything.  It is biased because it implies these riots are happening because the rioters are somehow naturally violent.  This does not explain the violence.

If you're going to examine history of violence, it should explain the context of that violence (i.e., what were the grievances behind the violence). Otherwise nothing constructive is being said.

2.) I don't know how to resolve this, but out of all the coverage I've found that lists the stated grievances of the rioters, Religious Tension is not listed as a driving force.

So how is it listed so very prominently (as a huge portion) under "Underlying Causes" when the only people who seem to be making a big deal out of it (for example the BBC over in England) are people who are not the rioters? Even the politicians in France seem to place more weight on the living conditions, economic reasons, etc.. It seems biased to spend so much time on racial/religious tension, at least under a section titled "Underlying Causes", when the really significant reasons appear to be related to making a living, living conditions, etc.....? (i.e.,social class?)

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [12:00 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 5th]


 * Since some officials seem to be placing blame on extremists but others are saying they understand why the rioters are mad from an economic standpoint, I can see a place for religious tension in this article, but I don't think it really belongs in this section, but more in the political response or something. Since it reflects what some politicians are saying, but there has been no direct link made to the riots, other than the mere establishment that many of the people in the rioting neighborhoods happen to be Muslim.


 * And the language needs to reflect that religious/racial tension or extremism or whatever, is disputed since the officials are saying that but the people down in the riot areas are not agreeing and instead are citing the economic reasons, etc..


 * Maybe a section like related to "Controversy" for factors regarding "racial/religious tension" or "extremism"?


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [12:30 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 5th]

yes, it should be made very clear that the rioters themselves were not religiously or even politically motivated. There may be some organized crime involved (the 'hidden hands' organizing the supply of molotov cocktails etc.) -- the political, ethnic and religious backlash is beginning now however. If it wasn't about race or religion at first, it will soon be, anyway. While people could understand some amount of violence due to frustration, the unfettered barbarism of the burned woman, and (if related, but in their minds it is), the man beaten to death. Sites like http://www.france-echos.com/ are calling for army intervention, crying "ethnic civil war". The French are outraged, and the immigrant communities have hard times ahead; I suppose the mid-term result will be a noticeable shift to the right in French politics, with more Front National style laws enacted, and a Giuliani "Zero Tolerance" approach. Baad 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, since Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups, one could say they are trying to be involved in politics. Trying to be heard and/or change bad living conditions could be considered political.  But that's not a bad thing, imho.


 * Also, I take the silence from everyone regarding my 1st point, to mean that people agree but don't see an easy solution?


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [12:18 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 6th]

interviews / copyright issues
I don't know whether the statements of the interviewed locals are notable enough to be here, but quite apart from that, they are verbatim ripoffs of a Reuters interview. I am not sure we can do that. Sure, we can pick the facts off their site and quote them, because they don't have a copyright on what happened. But if they send a journalist there who interviews people, can we just take verbatim copies of that? I suggest they be at least paraphrased and summarized. We can still link to the original, after all. Baad 20:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Direct quotes are fair game..... Or does that actually answer your question?


 * I thought since there were two or three quotes listed from Reuters in that paragraph originally, regarding "hidden hands" and fundamentalists, etc., it was not *as* balanced to minimize the opposing view by limiting it to:
 * "Meanwhile, other Aulnay-sous-Bois residents interviewed considered this unjustified."
 * Especially since they actually went on record, which 2 of the 3 others who were quoted as believing the "hidden hands, etc." theory didn't.
 * But more importantly, I was trying to give them equal time since they are opposing opinion AND actually closer to the riots than many of those listed making putting the "hidden hands" theory forward.


 * Most of what I added was the direct quote used by Reuters. Since it's cited, proper form is already being followed.....


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [1:46 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 5th]


 * Looked at WP:FU.


 * Fair use of text
 * Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under Fair Use. Under Wikipedia policy, text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an elipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis ([emphasis added]).


 * In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not Fair Use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.


 * Articles must not contain unattributed copyrighted text. See Policy and Law sections for more detail.


 * ""Counterexamples
 * Some people find it easier to understand the concept of fair use from what is not fair use. Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as Fair Use:


 * An article containing one or more unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source.
 * An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses.
 * A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted. The only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be fair use.
 * A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, used without permission to illustrate an article on the war. (However, because of its iconic status, it is presumably Fair Use where we have a small image of Picasso's Guernica in the article Bombing of Guernica.)


 * This would seem to say that as long as it's clearly marked and brief, it's following correct form? It's been attributed by the citation/link following the quotation......


 * Please let me know if I have addressed your grievance....


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [2:01 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 5th]

I am not "grieved" as such :) I am just uncomfortable with ripping off Reuters' interviews. The point is that these are not notable people. We cannot in any way verify if they actually said that, because we don't know who they are. We are taking Reuters' work, and Reuters' word that this is what people in the street actually said. Maybe you see my point. In any case, I will not insist, since I'm not the copyright police around here. I'd just like to hear other opinions. 23:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Reuter's is a reputable source, so we certainly take their word for it. And I don't think there are any copyright issues with using quotes from inverviews, or indeed briefly quoting any reputable source if they're properly attributed.  (There could be NPOV issues if we limit which sources we use, or use misleading lines from a source, but that's a completely different issue.) -- SCZenz 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I realized afterwards that grievance might have been a strong word, but I was heading out the door; a little pressed for time. ;)  But SCZenz makes the point I would have.


 * And the way I figured, there was a direct quote from a prosecutor and information from 2 anonymous people from French suburbs regarding "hidden hands", etc.
 * so those 2 interviews (used in the same article, no less) from people living in rioting neighborhoods who have a different view, should be shown alongside to balance it out. "Straight from the lion's mouth".


 * So now it's a little from both sides, as it stands.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [10:55 am (Pacific Time), Nov 6th]

Correction required
"the murder was apparantly minimized"

Doesn't make sense. Not obvious what was intended. Can someone please fix, or delete?

Thanks, Ben Aveling 23:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * remove it. the gist is that the media are too sympathetic towards the rioters, glossing over their crimes. This is a pov that could conceivably be presented face-on, with attribution, but not snuck in like that. 81.63.61.110 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Ben Aveling 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

10th Night
See www.ninemsn.com.au for details of 10th night - 607 cars torched etc

Suggest article name change
I suggest that this article's name be changed as the incidents have moved beyond suburban Paris--Kevin 04:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced. This article needs a new name.  I'm way to new to know the implications of renaming/moving an article, so I'll petition those more knowledgable than I to discuss the method. --Kevin 05:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Martial Law Option
Has anyone addressed the possibility that the French Government may use one of two options,or both of these options:Martial Law and/or State of Emergency to FORCIBLY end these riots, if they do not end of their own accord ? It means the military can FORCIBLY end the riots or treat them as a rebellion, and act accordingly, should either option, both options be exercised by the French Government. I am NOT being offensive,etc., just asking a question.Martial Law 05:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm all for martial law. Where is Napoleon willing to give the paris mob a "snif of grapeshot" when you need him?  But, should we really record what the government Italic textcouldItalic text do rather than what the government is actually doing?


 * There is a third option, which is to use the Article 16 of the French Constitution. See the article President of the French Republic for the text. Note however that the article was only used once in 1961, and was not used in May 1968.Hektor 14:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I read the situation, that's the direction Sarkozy is leaning - hence the calls for his resignation. It's a strange situation and I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on.  The assimilation hypothesis passes the makes sense test, though.--Kevin 05:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Who is this "Sarkozy" ? Is this individual a defense/security officer of some sort ? See both articles Martial Law and State of Emergency should one,both options are used to deter further loss of life,property.Martial Law 05:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nicolas Sarkozy is the french Interior's Minister. He is very famous, as he want to become the next president of the republic. I think he would appreciate the martial law, but the president Chirac doesn't want to make Sarkozy loose. Behind the riots there is a political war, some people ask Sarkozy to resign. Pok148 08:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Martial Law", I would really recommend you spend five minutes reading our article before you blunder on the talkpage asking things like Who is this "Sarkozy". Just a friendly suggestion. 83.79.181.237 10:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not want to sound like killing the discussion, but the only mention of such extreme means that I have seen seriously mentionned in France was from the ultra-minor far-right ("Reconnaissance des racines Judéo-chrétiennes de l'Europe et attachement à la morale sociale chrétienne." -- yeah, right...) police union "Action Police". Rama 17:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read the article referred to here, NOT jumping into things at all. Sounds like the French prez. wants to restrain matters. It's just that if these riots continue (10 days ?!), they get worse, this Sarkozy may have NO choice. The French people WILL force the government to act. the French prez. will have no choice, except to follow the will of the people. This political war should be publically investigated, so that no more violence will happen. I did not know that the French officer in control of the French Interior CAN control security forces. That is like our Secretary of the Interior controlling the the police and the like. WOW! I am NOT familiar with the French govt. power system at all. How much power does the Executive Branch have in the French govt. ?Martial Law 20:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am only stating cold, hard logic here. Once the violence has ended, there should be a PUBLIC investigation of the whole matter, incl. the indicated political war, as User 83.79.181.273 has kindly pointed out. How many agree with this ?Martial Law 20:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, for what I see in the press, people are more anxious to bring back calm without a bloodbath. Actually, bring calm to avoid the risk of this degenerating into a bloodbath. Rama 21:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Why news black out on the rioters, very few picture if any and demands not relayed clearly Is this a case of PC correctness gone mad?
I have added a reference to rioters on a rampage shouting ALLAH AKBAR, does anyone have any data on this that can cross check with the reference I added?--CltFn 08:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Demands not relayed clearly?"


 * Check the last paragraph of "Immediate Cause"


 * The teens' deaths, the tear gasing at the mosque, and statements by police seem to have ignited pre-existing tensions. Protesters told the Associated Press the unrest was an expression of frustration with 25% unemployment and police harassment in the areas. One protester said, "People are joining together to say we've had enough," and continued, "We live in ghettos. Everyone lives in fear."   The rioters' suburbs are also home to a large North African immigrant population, adding ethnic and religious tensions which many believe contribute further to such frustrations.  For further discussion on the background of the conflicts, see below.


 * Although I will say also that I think titling that section "Immediate Cause" is part of the problem. I was making this suggestion before and was countered and reverted by Zeno.


 * Since he failed to properly justify the reversion, I would make the suggestion again that the context provided at the end of "Immediate Cause" be placed in a prior section. We could call it "Background" or "Historical Context" (as is done in the French article.  Or put "context" or "background" or "history" through a Thesarus or something.


 * "Immediate Cause" as a title of that section seems to be biased and confusing.


 * Thoughts on this? (SCZenz?)


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [11:15 am (Pacific Time), Nov 6th]

Please cite sources!
This is part of the policy Verifiability. You cannot add material on a topic as disputed as this one is without citing some kind of reputable source. See WP:CITE for guidance. -- SCZenz 08:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, cite REAL sources. Sometimes people have cited blogs rather than newspapers. (* Belein, Paul (Nov. 5, 2005). "The Fall of France". Brussels Journal.)

the map, again

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

Note about using Le Monde as reference
Le Monde is regarded (as one of) the best newspapers in France, so using it as reference for research can be a good thing; on the other hand, the website of Le Monde does not stay available for long, so putting references from there is almost a guarantee to get broken links within days. Hence, it would be nice to find the same info on other, more persistant sites. Rama 11:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * By whome? :) Kghose 13:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm ? Are there mistakes in my English here ? Rama 13:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If someone can mirror the articles in question, that would be nice. Kade 06:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

History of violence
This section focuses on Seine-Saint-Denis, but the rioting has spread to other areas. Perhaps the heading should be changed to read "History of violence in Seine-Saint-Denis". Also, in the first part of the article, the section reading "They were triggered by the deaths of two teenagers of African origin in Clichy-sous-Bois, a poor commune in an eastern banlieue (suburb) of Paris. The riots then spread to other parts of Seine-Saint-Denis. " might be changed to read "They were triggered by the deaths of two teenagers of African origin in Clichy-sous-Bois, a poor commune in an eastern banlieue (suburb) of Paris, part of the Seine-Saint-Denis département."

Any thoughts? I'm really new, or I'd just do it. 199.241.34.5 11:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Enough NPOV to kill a yak.
It seems everyone is so paranoid about pointing fingers that I, an Australia, who hasn't heard anything about the riots apart from seeing bits on the news before switching stations, who has now taken interest and wants to know more, have no fucking idea what the riots are about.

Two kids frying themselves on a transformer is not a reason for a revolutionary assault on civillians by what appear to be ethnic / race related riots against French. Who is assaulting who? What is the 'ethnic minority' group mentioned constantly? Who are the targets of these actions?

Can we please address these issues in the first paragraph instead of the ambiguous nature of it. Perhaps the authors of this article could take creedance from the LA riot references, as for all intents and purposes this seems to be a race riot. Jachin 11:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * did you read the "underlying causes" section? this is our best attempt so far. Since there are no official statements issued by the rioters, all statements about their motivations are speculative. We should attempt to describe the various povs about the issue, but Wikipedia Is Not A Crystal Ball. Baad 11:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As a foreigner in America, who has seen a little bit what poor race/police relations can be like, let me try to explain. The French authorities are claiming that the kids were not doing any crimes when they fled and died. So now, ask yourself this - why are law-abiding kids fleeing the police? It sounds like they have such poor community/police relations that the mere sight of policemen sends people running (into a electrical substation, no less). Do you think that's normal? Whatever the history of the neighborhoods are, it's clear that the normal people fear the police (and probobly the rioters as well, to be fair).


 * From what I read in some of those links, the police regularly stop youths on the street and ask them for their 'papers', and search them arbitrarily when they have not been accused of a crime. One youth said it's happened up to 10 times a day. This would not even be constitutional in the US, don't know about Australia. Presumably it's legal in France, but it's still harassment.


 * What I am trying to say is, it's not just a case of "oh well, tragic accident, let's move on". This case is seen (at least by the rioters, and probobly the community) as the consequences of repressive policing making the law-abiding fear the police.--Identity0 11:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Just saw this little gem in the immediate causes section: "however, at the same time the police are reported to have been provoking citizens in other districts". The only reference given was for a blog. Can anyone provide a reputable source for this claim? It looks like a lot of this article is being used to pass rumor and inuendo now. --StuffOfInterest 13:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like in the middle of the night in the US and UK some vandal came on and wrote his bizarre, fantasy version of the events. But it was not reverted completely and has only been reverted piecemiel since then. Tfine80 13:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * even, why do we keep repeating the "scum" reference of Sarkozy's, several times over. So he called the rioters racaille. It's not like he said "Muslims are racaille", and anyone not rioting need not feel insulted. So we have these people trashing their own neighborhood, doing their best to prove Sarkozy's statement was accurate, and with a straight face blame Sarkozy for the violence as if he had thrown the molotov cocktails with his own hands? Isn't this a very obvious cheap excuse on the rioters' part? Sure, we can mention people felt insulted by the racaille slur, but to seriously quote that as an excuse to wreck half of France does not seem very appropriate to me. 83.79.181.237 14:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The remark is noteworthy because it is regularly mentioned in the media, and when a reporter interviews a denzin of the area they are quick to comment on the french slur. Its not our place to decide if it is a cheep excuse or not.--24.15.4.5 16:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I found a definition of "racaille" as "rabble". I was wondering how "accurate" that might be?


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [11:02 am (Pacific Time), Nov 6th]


 * Please see my comments in Section #44 of this Discussion, "Why news black out on the rioters, very few picture if any and demands not relayed clearly Is this a case of PC correctness gone mad?" The 2nd posting.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [11:55 am (Pacific Time), Nov 6th]


 * What exactly does "racaille" translate too? Calling the rioters riff-raff doesn't seem very offensive to me. That said, the vast majority of the rioters are angry muslim arabs from north africa, who are angry at their treatment by french society, and have decided to respond by burning down their own neighborhoods. BTW John Howard, would never stand for this if this happend in OZ.Klonimus 09:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The French word "racaille" stems from the same root as the English word "rascal" (from Old French "rascaille") and refers to 'the poorest and most contemptible part of society' (http://atilf.atilf.fr/tlf.htm). I think it would however be mistranslating Sarkozy to use it strictly in this meaning - if only because a minister would most likely not say anything demeaning to the poor on purpose (though he might well think just as much) ... -. I think in this case, the second meaning of the word is more relevant: it is just a scornful way of designating a group of people, without any direct poverty implications. And I actually believe a lot of the outrage comes exactly from this ambiguity.

Title
we need to seriously consider moving this to French urban riots (2005) or similar, since this has long ceased to be confined to Paris or the Ile-de-France. As for "French Intifada", I have googled this a moment ago, and it is by all appearances a term confined to clearly extremist Anti-Islamic sites who have an interest in making the riots seem as "Islamic" as they can. If the term catches on, we can of course mention it, with a description of its origin, but it is inherently biased, and it cannot be the title of this article, or be named as just a variant term in the intro without specifying who uses it. [I note thatthe Russian WP has Пригородная интифада ("suburban Intifada", but it is up to the Russians to npov their article.] Baad 11:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This riots haven't any links with "intifada", that's not link with religion 82.244.80.175 13:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that "Intifada" doesn't have a link with religion? If you do, you are right, theoretically, since "Intifada" means simply "defense". But the word is tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with all its religious overtones. 83.79.181.237 14:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I mean Intifada is people fighting against Israelian (other contry), for Islam or for their country ; France is French poor people fighting and destroying things because not happy of the/their economic situation. 82.244.80.175
 * I was always under the impression that intifada means "shaking off", ie a spontaneous rebellion against parasitical and unwanted rulers. It is not a religious struggle, it is purely political and economic--note the key number of Palestinian/Lebanese Christians involved in their intifadas.  Naturally it will tie in with religious groups if they are powerful in a certain area, but that's like saying the Russian Revolution was essentially a religious (Orthodox Christian) one.  Frankly I don't think intifada is an accurate term for these riots, and unless the rioters think different I don't think it should be used.  Dan Carkner 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * you are right, apparently it means "uprising, rebellion" in Arabic. Maybe these events will come to be known as "French Intifada", but it is not for WP to help coining the term. So far it is in use by right-wing sites wishing to imply an anti-semitic (in their worldview identical with anti-zionistic) background, but it is true that this is not really an implication of the Arabic word. In any case, "uprising" is too noble a word for the events. We are not looking at a freedom-struggle of a majority opressed by a ruling minority, we are looking at unfettered criminals and vandals trashing their own habitats. Those affected most by the violence belong to the same societal group, the immigrant community. A better metaphor than "uprising" would be that of caged chicken pecking each other to pieces. 83.79.181.237 16:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't look at it as disapprovingly as you, I think people act out their rage in self-destructive ways in riots. It's not up to me to judge them.  However I don't think this fits a "shaking off"--there are often riots in the Arab world which don't get called "intifada". Dan Carkner 04:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it's not up to you to judge them? Do you think the actions of the rioters are morally acceptable or not? Would you encourage other people to engage in similar conduct? Klonimus 09:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you really think they care if they have the approval or disapproval of some random North Americans? I'm not there, I'm not passing judgement.  Dan Carkner 13:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What is relevant history?
Last night, the following paragraph in the section 'History of violence in affected areas' was removed:

"The French newspaper Le Figaro reports that on October 27 a 56 year old white man was beaten to death by a group of youths in Epinay, in front of his wife and daughter. Not directly connected to the riots, the murder was apparantly minimized, and not covered by any other major national or international media."

I wonder why this is any less relevant than the police accidentaly firing teargas into a mosque, certainly in this section. Unless of course we want to join in minimizing reverse racism...


 * yes, see the discussion above; I argued for removal of the opaque "the murder was apparantly minimized". Apart from that, it is unclear whether the incident is related to the riots, or whether it is just another example of the high incidence of violent crime in the area, but I think we can certainly mention it, at least as an illustration of the general shape of the banlieue. 83.79.181.237 15:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll give it a more neutral try. User: 1652186

RE:What is relevant history asks a Figaro reader to the recent "riots" and mentions a Figaro event classified under Miscellanious("Faits divers"). Evians et Thonons ont eu aussi "deux garcons Francais tue par balle". The death of those two kids who received the bullets by French Security Forces was the reason and cause why nearly the the whole Youth of Thonon and Evian went out during more than two week-ends to the street to protested against that action. Ce sont les precurseurs. I repeat: This event belongs to this recent events as an ancestor with historical relevance. RE_Position: The header is not quite correct:Therefore. Sarkosy is an Hungarian immigrant who was the darling of Jacques Chirac's daughter! Then Sarkosy quitted the private relationship with Chirac's daughter and became his rival. See:


 * In french medias, I confirm than it said a "old man was beaten to death by a group of youths", I never heard that was a white or black. Yug (talk)  23:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

what 2007 election?
"Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, who heads the national police and is widely believed to be a candidate in the 2007 election" -- for what? president, prime minister? this needs to be clear? Dsol 16:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

click on the blue link. I agree that the article is getting jumbled again, with lots of people adding random tidbits. Please concentrate on a clean account of the events. Most of the cities listed still lack references. Please concentrate on cleaning this up, and don't complicate things more by adding more and more random quotes. 83.79.181.237 16:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Kärcher
The article seems to imply that the statements of Sarkozy about the Kärcher was after the two guys were electrocuted. In fact it was some months ago (March 2005?). The article should also state the obvious, is that now a lot of rioters have one clear objective: the resignation of Nicolas Sarkozy.Hektor 17:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It was actually said on june 20. An article about this can be found here, but I'm unsure about putting external links in french in the main article. Comte0 18:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * To me, the only clear objectives of the rioters are to loot, burn cars, destroy property, assault innocent bystanders, and kill police.--malber 20:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

sketchythoughts
the "sketchythoughts" blog is clearly partisan. It's okay to link it under "eyewitness account blogs" etc., but it will not do to link to it and portray what is written there as fact. It's just a blog, and even people on the blog say they are reporting on hearsay. This sort of evidence is too "sketchy" to stand up. 83.79.181.237 18:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As opposed to large media corporations, which are totally reliable and nonpartisan, and would never ever ever supress a story :) Dsol 21:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Firefighters and Urban Riots
Are discussed here [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=244290] I sometimes wonder, how the servicemen feel now. Well, the riots are the results of multiculturalist policies, will those responsible please stand up and pay for the damage?!
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please keep your comments relevant to the development of the article. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 20:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Stormfront ? What is the connection between a forum of Stormfront and Wikipedia ?
 * Damage will be paid for by insurances. This is their purpose. Justice is a completely different matter. Rama 20:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To User AKA the "overenthusiastic" editor
I'm removing your instructions. "THE TIMELINE AND IMMEDIATE CAUSE NEED TO BE BACKED UP A WEEK OR TEN DAYS", etc.

There are labels for that sort of thing. Though I may kick myself for saying this, you can find them and instructions for using them at the pages regarding Cleanup resources WP:CR and Neutral Point Of View Disputes WP:NPOVD.

That said, you have not justified the use of a label, let alone vandalizing the article. It would help if you mentioned specific examples as to what you think isn't cited or supported properly. Everything there so far appears to be cited by news sources. Maybe we missed something.

If the problem isn't specific examples but something else, please try to be as clear as possible as to what that problem is. There are a few problems being discussed around here that will probably be fixed in the coming days.

But what you are currently doing is vandalizing, not discussing.

(I haven't even finished this entry and this guy is now "editing" the article in a seemingly unconstructive way, inserting things that haven't been cited and that sound borderline ridiculous. Who knows, they might be facts, but they aren't cited.)

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 12:42 pm (Pacific Time), 6 November 2005


 * Okay, User the stuff you're adding doesn't belong in the area titled (Riot) Timeline. Because it's not an event occuring during the RIOTS.  It may have a place in some sort of Background or Historical Context section.  But not in the Timeline.  I won't remove it outright, but it doesn't belong there.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 12:57 pm (Pacific Time), 6 November 2005


 * OK I see some of this information I was trying to add is possibly under the Underlying Section at the BOTTOM of the page but it STILL should be added back into the top as it is part of the timeline. I'd be interested of what happened between Oct 19th and Oct 27th but are WE all afriad to look at that truth here collectively. Your truly overenthusiastic editor


 * Acutually as part of the "whole" story, without going back to Adam and Eve here, this information needs to be added back in for background on what started the "searches" which led too the "tragic" death of those two kids. Thank you very much. I await the correction and addition back in or I'll back in again.


 * I'm with you..... and thank you for pointing out the relevance of your additions.  I agree that that belongs in some sort of Background or Historical Context section.  And I agree that section belongs *before* the "immediate cause".  In fact, I've been beating that drum for days now, if you look throughout this Discussion page.


 * But we need just a little patience. A lot of the information that would go in the proposed section needs to be pulled from the "immediate cause" section, if not the "underlying causes" section.


 * And the problem is that some people appear to be rather enamored of the way they made the article, regardless of how effective it is, so I am trying to discuss before I change so that we can come to a consensus. So that I can justify my changes and they are not just rolled back.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 12:57 pm (Pacific Time), 6 November 2005

Thank you AntelopeInSearchOfTruth. Just trying to keep this all straight. If I have the time and the patience I'd go back through and check from Oct 19th thru Oct 27th to see what else was actually said by the French Govt and or what type of violence was going on in the flashpoint area. Just for historical record.


 * No problem. The tricky thing is finding information regarding what the grievances behind past violent events.  Information I can cite.  Because "violent" historical background only has value if is related to the riots.  And we can tell that by looking at what people were pissed off about.  Related events will feature people pissed off about the same things.


 * In this way, we can weed out unrelated things like violence related to soccer/football matches.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 3:41 pm (Pacific Time), 6 November 2005


 * Going to have to leave for the day..... I've been sitting in front of this computer, trying to do research for the "Background" section I propose, for hours!  I want to go outside.   :(


 * I'll be back tomorrow.....


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 5:24 pm (Pacific Time), 6 November 2005

Added the following sentence under Recent Political Section ||Wendesday October 19 - French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy announced a crackdown on urban violence and black marketeers on Wednesday, ordering specially trained police to tackle 25 tough neighbourhoods across the country.|| Not sure who has been working on this section but it's a start I guess.

PUBLIC INVESTIGATIONS
First and foremost, the riots will have to end, then the people should DEMAND that PUBLIC investigations be initated, so that NOTHING is "swept" under the rug, so that this does'nt happen again. I've read the article referred to here, even related articles, such as France's history, Islam, everything I can find to understand what is going on. A neutral country should conduct the investigations.Martial Law 21:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Any recomendations ?Martial Law 21:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move
I propose we move this article to 2005 riots in France, along with the better edited German article as the riots have spread from just the suburbs of Paris.  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 21:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. But Capitalize "Riots".  :)


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 1:29 pm (Pacific Time), 6 November 2005

Removing "Speedy Deletion" Tag
Seeing as how there was no discussion under a appropriate subsection on the talk-page of why it is canidate for deletion I am removing the tag (its difficult to find the objection on such a long talk page if you don't put it under a obvious section title). Its unlikely to have much merit anyways (especially seeing how many ignorant and racist objections people have made to the article). The article may not be the best and most NPOV article ever written, but its not that bad, and unless there is a wikipedia rule against current events made because of inherent issues with sketchy information and the need to hammer out NPOV issues then there is no reason to delete it. If you really think you have a good reason to delete the article, discuss' it under an appropriate section title here before just smacking a tag on it. (Don't bother if your one of those people who object to it for the irrelevant crackpot reasons above, e.g. "multicultralism has failed" and "their acting African", go find a "National-Front-pedia" to edit if thats the case.) --Brentt 22:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It was added by a vandal. There was never a serious move for speedy deletion. HollyAm 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

NEWS ALERT
Just seen the latest news, it seems that the French. Prez. MAY initiate either a State of Emergency and/or Martial Law. I can't confirm this,nor deny it either. SEE Wikipedia's Main page about the restoration of order.Martial Law 22:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

CHANGE NAME > 2005 France suburb riots
That's really not "France", I live in Bordeaux and that's totaly peaceful, except... suburd. Please move quickly this page, "2005 France riots" is really too alarmist. Yug (talk)  23:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. -- Zeno of Elea 06:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

well, what do you suggest Yug? The riots are in France, after all, we can't just call them "Paris riots" anymore, and it's too early to call them "Pan-Eurabian Muslim Insurrection (be afraid and vote conservative!)" 130.60.142.65 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing information
There was recently a revert with the following explanation: ''History of violence in affected areas - Partisan media is to be avoided; The Jewish Week is partisan. We wouldn't cite specifically Muslim sources either.''

While I'm not going to mess with it in case I'm in the wrong, I'd like to ask... we wouldn't? I would. I thought part of WP:NPOV was including all POVs except for blatantly hateful ones, or ones held by a very small group. Someone please school me if I'm in the wrong... Jacqui ★ 00:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Under WP:RS,


 * Partisan websites
 * Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, Stormfront.org, Hamas, or the Socialist Equality Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.


 * This isn't an article about the opinions/beliefs of the Jewish community...... So since a Jewish (online)paper is partisan.....  It seems like we should avoid it under their policy.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 5:29 pm (Pacific Time), 6 November 2005


 * Jewish Week is a real newspaper, it's not at all on the same level as Hamas or Stormfront, or the Revolutionary Worker. Klonimus 09:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue was not whether or not it was a "real" newspaper. I'm also not talking about "levels" (of quality?)


 * The issue is whether or not it is "Partisan". Which it appears to be.


 * AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 10:14 am (Pacific Time), 7 November 2005

Evreux information duplicated
the almost exact same sentence about cars and a mall being torched is repeated between saturday 5 night and Sunday 6 morning. Can someone check for precise date? Circeus 03:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening Sentences
I made some minor changes here to reflect the fact that the riots are no longer "focused around Paris" but actually started near Paris and spread. Also tried to improve the readability a bit by breaking up some separate thoughts into separate sentences. capitalist 03:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why Action Police is minor and far-right

 * minor: See above, "CFTC: minor syndicate". . 0,32% is their score in the professional elections of the police.


 * far-right: see their web page. They use royalist symbolism and rhetoric (among their values, they cite "Reconnaissance des racines Judéo-chrétiennes de l'Europe et attachement à la morale sociale chrétienne." -- "Aknowledgement of the Judeo-Christian roots of Europe and attachement to christian social morale"); see their leader use the fleur-de-lys and cross on the French flag. Etc... Rama 06:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Sdedeo, thank you for, well spotted (especially since I kept writting 0,23% instead of 0,32%) Rama 06:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rama -- just saw this. Thank you for providing sources. It's up to you whether or not you want to include all this information in the article, I certatinly won't object now that you've provided sources. Perhaps you could start a wikipedia article on Action Police CFTC? Yours, Sdedeo 06:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I'd almost say "unnotable"... but if they make further noise, I'll try to draft something. The hard part of it will be not to have a Wikipedia article more important than their own site :p (actually, by google standards it will probably prove impossible) Rama 06:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's interesting, though. The French newspapers seem to know what the deal is (I guess these guys come out of the woodwork every now and again), but the English-language ones just kind of assume they're on the same level as the mainstream unions and mention neither the union's politics nor their complete irrelevance. Personally, I think it would be great if wikipedia had better info than the Guardian on the question. Sdedeo 06:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, now you're using arguments I can't resist ! :) Rama 07:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done! I think we beat the French wikipedia to it. Sdedeo 09:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

possible rioting in Denmark (I don't trust the source)
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513137/posts


 * "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark!" - William Shakespeare


 * Check this: . They seem unrelated to French riots, just a synchronic explosion in Arhus. On the other side there's been a minor extension of French riots into Belgium (a few cars burned in Brussels) - but I only have a link in Flemish (Dutch): (that I can't read). --Sugaar 08:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Will NATO get into this ?
IF they do, they'll treat it like a rebellion. 2 nations undergoing riots @ the SAME time ?! THAT is why I say NATO may get involved. Just hope this rumor about Denmark is only that, a rumor. Martial Law 06:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Man, don't create a whole new section to reply to another section. This page is big enough as it is. Please fix. Anyways, please don't put anything about this in the article until it is confirmed by a more reliable source. --Brentt 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

IF the above IS Confirmed..... NATO involvement ?!
IF the above statement IS proven correct, all bets are off. NATO may get involved in this matter. They'll treat this like a rebellion - and crush it. Two nations having similar riots going on ? THAT is why NATO may get involved. I hope I am proven incorrect.Martial Law 06:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No it won't. (dear...) Rama 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If more than half of France's parishes become uncontrollable and they don't use their military to restore "peace" there may be no choice but for the international community to take action for unnumerable reasons.

I pray this doesn't happen.

grazon 06:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Man, don't create a whole new sub-section to make a reply. This page is big enough as it is. Please fix. Anyways, please don't put anything about this in the article until it is confirmed by a more reliable source. --Brentt 06:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Has France been attacked? No, its suffering from civil unrest.  Thus, NATO cannot intervene unless either the French ask or their government complete collapses.--Kross | Talk 05:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

right wing rumors
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=denmark+riot

IMHO it looks like some right wing people in America are trying to fuel the flames of fear. grazon 06:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean civilised people are concerned about that something like this will also happen elsewhere?!--Anon


 * Sign your posts! And watch where you place your reply! --Brentt 07:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Its very unlikely this would turn out to be anything like the 1968 revolt. It appears to be only among a minority of islamic immigrants, who are themselves a minority. Its unlikely to turn into anything resembling a popular insurrection. It may on the other hand turn into a popular counter-insurrection with a severe backlash against the islamic community in France. --Brentt 07:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree this is more likely. It will happen anyway, but the right-wingers have of course smelled the opportunity and are trying to make the most of it. Can we stop talking about NATO intervention now, please? The French army hasn't even bothered to get involved. dab (&#5839;) 07:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * minority? So were those engaging in the 68 revolt
 * from French May,
 *  Some philosophers and historians have argued that the rebellion was the single most important revolutionary event of the 20th century because it wasn't participated in by a lone demographic, such as workers or racial minorities, but was rather a purely popular uprising, superseding ethnic, cultural, age and class boundaries.
 * this is clearly not what we're looking at here. Apples and oranges. Compared to the political 1968 revolt, this is really just race riots and racaille trashing cars. dab (&#5839;) 07:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yea, most insurrections, even succesful revolutions, are participated in only by a minority of the population (idealogical support is a different matter). But the 1968 revolts seemed to have a much broader base of support than this. Although I wasn't there, just going by what I've read. --Brentt 07:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * most successful revolutions are carried out by an oppressed majority (the French revolution, the Bolshevik one (literally, Bolshevik=majority) -- not by a minority, opressed or not. The active revolutionaries may be small in number, but their party needs to be large. Even if this was a revolution, it doesn't represent more than 6% of the French population at most (I doubt most French Mulims are able to identify with the rioters. Most of them will be concerned that US-style racial profiling is heading their way) dab (&#5839;) 07:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "most successful revolutions are carried out by an oppressed majority (the French revolution, the Bolshevik one" This is not true. As al-Qaeda has shown, with the advent of modern weaponry there is no need for huge masses of people in order to cause sporadic violence on a massive geographical, economic and humanitarian scale. All it really takes is a few thousand people at most. Hit a vehicle fuel tank with a Molotov cocktail and you have a large-ordinance bomb that is highly portable and inexpensive. -- Zeno of Elea 08:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I really don't think a majority of people actively participated in most revolutions, thats why I paranthetically differentiated between ideological support and active participation--it need not even be support per se, as passivity because of no particular attachment to the current government. Active Bolsheviks were most likely not a majority--its hard to ascertain now just how much real support they had, despite the name. The problem was that Russian society was coming apart at the seams, people just wanted change and the Bolsheviks took advantage of this. The Mensheviks didn't have a coherent idealogy to rally behind, even though most people probably would have been more comfortable with Menshevik policies. --Brentt 08:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Zeno, I was talking about successful revolutions, not about successful infliction of violence. You are giving al-Qaeda too much credit if you rank them as a "revolution". No govenment has been replaced by them (well, arguably the Spanish one, but they are not in charge in Spain. Maybe they will be in charge in Iraq, but they wouldn't have achieved as much without the help of the USA. this is what they call an "unholy alliace". Without US warmongery, al-Quaeda would have paled into insignificance, and without al-Quaeda, the Bush administration would have been laughed out of office years ago). dab (&#5839;) 09:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

animated gif

 * 2005 French riots/Summary and Map : To put clear and referenced informations which will be use to make maps, use this page. Yug -- POSTED SOME TIME AGO, COPIED FROM ARCHIVE 2

ok, now the map looks scary. Also, the caption has to be adapted, and the frames need to be labelled, saying which date they refer to. Also, fact checking. I hope to do an updated map later today. dab (&#5839;) 07:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I've removed it. It doesn't do the job. On top of design problems, it is factually incorrect. It is better to have no map than to have a false map. For example, the Eure departement of Évreux, where riots were particularly heavy, is not even included. We need a cleaner list of events first. dab (&#5839;) 07:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have restored the map deleted by Dbachmann. The maps appear on many other language wikipedias and on the main page. As we can clearly see, the author of the maps is also known. Dbachmann, please allow time for the proper people to response before deleting this important data. You will note that I have already noted the time issue in the comments and adapted the caption, before you deleted them. Also please note that no one can claim to have a completely accurate picture of the chaos but that we must nevertheless have a map. Thus it will always be an approximation and your demand for zero error tolerance is unjustified. -- Zeno of Elea 07:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Zeno, you may not realize this, but I have uploaded the original Nov 3rd map, as a suggestion to this talkpage. Before I knew what happened, it was moved to commons and used on lots of WP articles, even though I hadn't finished making it, and didn't have time to check it. Now somebody has added an animation. This isn't more than a quick hack on top of an already flawed map. Please help with a tabular list of events, and I promise I will make a very nice and accurate map once that stabilizes. This is an ongoing event. Collect data first, make flashy graphics about it later. dab (&#5839;) 08:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that the November 5 map was made by User:Yug. The animated version was made recently by User:Beatyou. your November 3 contributions does not mean that nobody else used any sources. By the way, where can we find a record of the creation of the Nov 3 map? The map in Wikicommons does not appear to have been uploaded by you.  -- Zeno of Elea 08:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * sigh, didn't I just tell you that I uploaded it to en:, and it was moved to commons without my help? In any case, this is insubstantial. The point is that I have shown an inaccuracy of the map in my comment above. Do something productive for once and help completing the chronological tables, so we can make a better map. dab (&#5839;) 08:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * at least two other users were involved in the creation of the image, and a seperate talk page was created for the issue which neither you nor anyone else has touched since nov 5. this is a recently ongoing collaborative project and not merely a creation of your own with which you have subsequently become uninterested. i have moved the map to the "assessment" section and added a caveat at the begining of the section. You seem to have taken the initiative on making the tables, why dont you try to find the rest of the people who worked on it and continue? -- Zeno of Elea 08:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, I don't claim I 'own' the map, it is GFDL. I am saying it is a hack. I will do one based on the chronological table, representing the following data: The more references you collect stating such particulars, the more coloured dots will be on the map, ok? dab (&#5839;) 08:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * city
 * number of cases of arson/vandalism
 * date


 * where is the table? i think you should have a seperate table for each day instead to keep things sorted. We can aggregate the tables for official presentation. -- Zeno of Elea 08:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * dear Zeno, see 2005_French_riots/Summary_and_Map -- somebody has to compile the table. Yes, it's work. Wikipedia doesn't thrive on nopv-disputes alone :) dab (&#5839;) 08:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to add dates to the animation, so that affected departments are hghlighted only on the nights when there are related occurrences in a given department? I think this would help people have a more precise understanding of the spread of scope of the crisis.Mike McGregor (Can) 07:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No pictures of rioters
Odd. -- Zeno of Elea 08:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Tough to get photos of current events with proper licensing. Not sure how to go about it. Sdedeo 08:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he means there are very few images of the actual rioters, even in the papers. Just fires and firefighters. The riots take place during the night, but you'd still think it would be possible to take images. Not least, the rioters themselves being all equipped with picture-phones, you would expect images shot by rioters themselves to be all over the internet? dab (&#5839;) 08:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't notice. I would guess that most photographers are staying with the police for protection, so photos of rioters are going to be taken from afar, behind police lines, and flashes are not going to work. I would imagine it to be very dangerous to go out "freelance" right now. Sdedeo 09:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The danger didn't stop us getting photos of rioters in Northern Ireland earlier this summer, in circumstances somewhat similar (live fire at police, barricades of burning vehicles, hijackings of cars/lorries/buses, petrol bombs and homemade grenades). In fact, there's even the potential that the NI rioters will be caught as the photos were enough for police to identify some.
 * Of course, as happened in NI at the time, the video evidence may be being with-held pending prosecutions (the police there showed it to media privately just to prove it was as bad as they were saying - we didn't get to see it ourselves until days later and still may not have seen some of it).
 * I wonder do the French police have the same tactic of using helicopters and armoured surveillence trucks to gather evidence for later prosecutions? zoney &#09827; talk 10:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Chane to arrest figures
In the Timeline section, the number of arrests for Sunday 6 November was written 312 in the article, but was 349 in the assessment of rioting section. However the Reuters article which is given as source, only mentions 193 arrests. To harmonize them, I changed both figures to 193 (if 349 or 312 is the correct figure, then please change it back, but cite your references).


 * Isn't this related to the terms interpellation, garde à vue, deferer en justice and so on? The French words for arrest, arreignment and prosecution are just weird (+ nowhere to be found on French Wiki)!! I think the figures you want is 349 arrests/people taken into some type of custody, while 193 people have been brought in front of a judge, but I've got no sources for you. 85.8.2.43 23:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

what is the problem?
I am french I live in the south of France I am 17 years old and excuse me if I don't speak english very well. I think you don't really understand why people are rioting in France this maybe help you to understand:

1)Who is rioting?

People who are rioting are the youths of the suburbs.They are the third generation of immigrants from Maghreb or West Africa.They are mostly muslims and very young.

2)Where are they rioting?

In the suburbs that we call in french banlieu or cité or HLM (you can translate this in ghetto)

3)What is a banlieu?

It is a neighborhood oustside the city.It's very poor,most of the people who live in are immigrants,and it's dangerous (last week a man has been killed by three youngs he was just taking photographys of a street lamp because of his job)

4)What are the daily problems there?

Many.Te first is the poverty,the unemployment and delenquency.The rise of the fanatism(some french muslim are going in Irak to fight for the djihad).There is problem with drugs too. It's very hard for women so thy crated "ni putes ni soumises" (not slots not submissives) after that a girl was found burned in a trash.Sometimes there are "tournantes"(it's a collective rape on one girl). So it's a daily shit.

5)Why are there rioting today?

The rioters say it's because the police chase two young muslim others say that it's because of unemployment and racism.But you must know that there are a kind of competition between them and they want to be the dangerous banlieu in France.

6)What will happen? Some are saying they will stop some are saying in would be worse each day.

7)Why did France build thoose banlieus?

After the war between France and Algeria the pied-noir needed to go come in France (the pied-noir are spanish,sicilian,algerian jewish,italian and french that lived in Algeria from 1830 to 1961)like my family (my grand parents are pied-noir).So France build huge and hugly living quaters for us. After it was the Algerian who came in France and also West Africa.So this is why the large majority of the habitants of the banlieu are immigrants.


 * Just for your information, here is one way a native English speaker might write it:


 * I think you don't understand why people are rioting in France. Perhaps this will help you to understand:


 * 1)Who is rioting?


 * The rioters are the youths of the suburbs. They are the third generation of immigrants from the Maghreb or West Africa. Most of them are Muslim and very young.


 * 2)Where are they rioting?


 * In the suburbs; we call those suburbs "banlieu" or "cité" or "HLM" in French (you can translate "HLM" as "ghetto", perhaps).


 * 3)What is a banlieu?


 * A banlieu is a neighborhood outside the city. It's very poor, most of the people who live in are immigrants, and it's dangerous (last week a man was killed by three youngsters, even though he was just taking photographs of a streetlight because of his job)


 * 4)What are the problems in the banlieus? (note: many anglophones don't know how to properly spell French plurals)


 * There are multiple problems. The first issues are the poverty, the unemployment and delinquency. The rise of fanaticism (some French Muslims are going to Iraq to fight for the jihad). There is a drug problem as well.

It's very hard for women so the women (presumably to protect themselves) created "ni putes ni soumises" (neither slots (or sluts?) nor submissives) (presumably, some organization, please clarify). After that a girl was found burned in a garbage bin. Sometimes there are "tournantes" (gang rape of a girl). So life is a daily shit.


 * 5)Why is there rioting today?


 * The rioters say it's because the police chase two young muslims; others say that it's because of unemployment and racism. But you need to know that there is a kind of competition between them and that they want to be the most dangerous banlieu in France.


 * 6)What will happen?
 * We don't know. Some folks are saying they will stop, while others say the riots would get worse each day.


 * 7)Why did France build those banlieus?


 * After the war between France and Algeria the pied-noir (black feet) needed to leave Algeria for France (the pied-noir are Spaniards, Sicilians, Algerians, Jews, Italian and French that lived in Algeria from 1830 to 1961) - folks like my family (my grandparents are pied-noir). So the French built huge and ugly living quarters for us.


 * Afterwards, the ethnic Algerians themselves emigrated to France and West Africa. This is why the large majority of the habitants of the banlieu are immigrants.


 * Cheerios,   &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 16:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's definitly "sluts", but is "submissives" the correct word? I thought "soumises" was an adjective rather than a noun. Neither French nor English is however my native language so I'm open to suggestions. 85.8.2.43 23:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You claim that the majority of rioters are 3rd generation North Africans. But such immigration only started in the 1960s and beyond. This means that most of the 3rd generation would be too young to riot at the moment (children of 20-30 somethings). -- Zeno of Elea 09:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are wrong it began not long after the end of World War II.


 * well, yes, but why do you think we do not understand the problem? All your points you could have directly taken from our article. Zeno, it depends how you count the generations. people who immigrated as children, with their parents, are usually counted as second generation. The oldest of these are in their 50s now. this means that the oldes 3rd generation are hitting their 30s, and the oldest 4th generation are in primary school. dab (&#5839;) 09:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Communist insurection" and similar assertions
Please try not to overcite perfectly minor and unnotable points of views. For instance, "Communist Insurection" will be seen only on far-left militant sites of not interest. If the Communist Party said such things it might be noticeabe, but the arm race for the most sensationalistic editorial is pointeless. Rama 09:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are vehicles being targeted?
seems to be a lack of information on this matter? Everything burns. Trees,parks yet they focus on cars. Post office are explained as signs of authority and other government buildings. From what i can understand 2 trains only had thier windows smashed.(which would be considered a major form of transport for the rioters demographic which they would be more prone to attack. Friend group often meet on trains yet they need to be on the streets to riot?)) are their no links to this ? --Whywhywhy 11:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hit a vehicle fuel tank with a Molotov cocktail and you have a large-ordinance bomb that is highly portable and inexpensive (from the rioter's perspective). -- Zeno of Elea 11:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hit a park or forest and it will burn huge and generate a bigger spectacle . Think i might have to sell my car for fear of being accused of being in the possession of a arge-ordinance bomb.I dont see how a locked car is even highly portable --Whywhywhy 11:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess it is because a car is one of the few (if not the only one bar a house) valuable private properties that sits on a public place. It's a symbol of wealth to people who can't afford them, and for most of the people it's the most or second-most valuable thing they own; burning it achieves 3 purposes : you hurt a person that you percieve as wealthier than yourself, you vent your rage of being "poor", and it burns quite easily, makes a boom, and is quite a sight... Kcyclopedist 14:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just AFAIK, cars really do not explode like a bomb except under unusual circumstances. The fuel tank is very well protected. As far as I know, if you just kind of "set fire" to a car (with a Molotov cocktail, e.g.), the seating and upholstry burns; later, the fuel tank can rupture and feed the fire, but the entire tank will not go "at once"; the fire burns steadily for a long time. Certaintly there could be explosions, but it is not like the car is a bomb with a fuse. Sdedeo 15:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If there were such things as parks in the banlieue I'm sure they would burn too. The more adorned HLM's and cité's have at most a beton or ciment (sp?) sculpture and a paved square. Parks are for rich people. 85.8.2.43 23:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools
Could the lack of information from rioters side be due to a media monopoly controled by the government quoted as sayin by (Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who has called the rioters "scum" ) http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_media-bc.shtml seems like these people dont have voice and are bing backed into a wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools .(school are being burned) How ever correct or in correct their reason are. . --Whywhywhy 11:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * probably mostly because journalists are not necessarly well seen among them. But there are instances of reports and films taken directly among the rioters, one is linked in the external links. Rama 12:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * according to the timeline several journalist were attacked by the rioters. Such incidents are unlikly to encourage journalist to interview them to find out their POV. 213.191.70.226 12:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * the above only adds to the evidence that the rioters might feel they dont have a voice. Why do people attack others? Generally because from their point of view they have done wrong by them.--Whywhywhy 08:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Statistical prediction
I had to do this myself, but I'm not sure if it counts as original research or not since (despite possible apperances) it's a pretty straightforward calculation. If anyone is concerned / curious, the analysis was done in the R statistical programming language; the R code is posted at Talk:2005_French_urban_violence/stats and is self-contained. -- Zeno of Elea 11:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have removed the SP. It is cute (it made me laugh), but fundamentally invalid, as it assumes that the system can be modelled as a linear trend. Needless to say, nationwide riots are highly non-linear, possibly exponential in nature (the more people riot, the more people think about rioting -- one might expect a riot to double in size every night, and given the limited amount of data, such an exponential might appear linear.) Needless to say, speculating on the mathematical growth of riots is definitely OR. Sorry if my edit comments sounded harsh, by the way; I found it quite amusing. Sdedeo 11:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If we get the earlier data and the rioting keeps increasing, we can compare the exponential model with linear model. -- Zeno of Elea 11:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I just happened to be reading the article while the section in question was there. I agree with Sdedeo, the concept is bizarre. There's no simple predictive model. -- Tim Starling 11:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Its meant to be a local linear approximation for tommorow. Hopefully, reality will not show nonlinear asymptotic behaviour tommorow. And if we're "lucky" (i.e. if there is a drop in cars burned) then even the linear approximation will completely fail. You could think of it as a value at risk ("worst case scenario") calculation. -- Zeno of Elea 11:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who first posted the linear regression. I did it in excel, however I'm very impressed with Zeno's R code. I think it's quite impressive that the data fit a linear model with a highly significant R^2 of 0.9888 and that certainly merits mention that there was a highly linear trend in cars burned. Klonimus 07:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

chronology / geography
ok, it is really difficult to get an overview; I've attempted a chronological table now, and will base a map on it. if you add towns to the list, provide a reference, ideally saying what happened, and when. Both the table and the map will of course be of provisional nature for some time. The list of cities by departement is a bit dangerous, since there is no reference whatsoever, and it would be easy to sneak in towns without anyone noticing. keep everything referenced! dab (&#5839;) 13:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Image:France_Riots_spread.png is the best I can do at the moment. Please help keep improving the table, especially the scale of riots in each city, so that the map can be updated. And keep the badly flawed animated gif away, please, it is not based on any sort of comprehensive data, just hacked together from assorted news sources. Also note that gives a very high level of detail, mentioning every village where a single car was torched. I didn't bother to mark all these; if somebody is into it, there could be very small dots on the map for these incidents. dab (&#5839;) 14:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

History at front
Hi all --

I was sort of put off by the moving of the "historical context" material to the top of the article. I think this is going to irritate people, lead to NPOV arguments, etc. However, I went and looked at 1992_Los_Angeles_riots, and it seems that that's how they do it there (as well as in Battle of Gettysburg.) So I am going to say: I understand why people might be upset by having the historical context / speculation on causes stuff at the top of the article, but this seems to be how it's done elsewhere, and I think that is a very good reason to keep it this way here.

Good luck to all, and don't forget, as dab says: keep everything referenced!

Sdedeo 13:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

well, as an article about an ongoing event, people come here to learn what's happening. We have fine articles at Islam in France, and Demographics of France. Much of this material belongs there. Also, the creation of a separate "historical context" section on top of the "underlying causes" section was simply redundant. I have collapsed them now, but someone really ought to sift through it and throw out the redundancy. All in-depths treatments should be moved to Islam in France and related articles, with only a brief summary here. This article is about the riots themselves, not about all of the History of France. dab (&#5839;) 14:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree in part. Certaintly, just as the LA riots article should not cover Jim Crow or Malcom X, most material on context and causes should be shunted into Islam in France or Poverty in France or whatever. Only the particulars should appear here; we should not "concentrate" information at the expense of other articles. On the other hand, wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a news source (although people use it as such.) We should not try to be "the ultimate news article", but rather, "the ultimate encyclopedia article." Which may mean we make it slightly harder for someone just stepping in to see what's happened recently. I take no position on the position of the sections, though! Sdedeo 14:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for combining "historical context" and "underlying causes" sections. It makes mores sense that way and I was fixing to do so myself before realizing I'd spent too many hours "plugged in" and I needed to go outside.


 * I think for the most part, the section now focuses on the specific relevance of particular historical things, rather than getting too indepth.......?


 * Secondly, if you make the point that people come here to learn about current and ongoing news, I would contend that supports putting the historical context at the top. Why?  Because in order to understand what is happening, a *little* background is needed.


 * People have commented (on this Discussion page) over the last few days that they don't understand why 2 deaths started all of this. This would seem to indicate that it's not performing even as a news article.  The last paragraph of "Triggering Event" is like a patch on the problem, but putting Historical Context at the beginning is arguably a necessary prelude to this news story.


 * It might quicker and easier to read if the Historical Context is bumped to the end, but the news should never be quick at the expense of making sense.


 * Lastly, as Sdedeo said, I would remind that this is Wikipedia "the free Encyclopedia". Emphasis on the encyclopedia.  Though if my reasons make sense, there's no reason my proposed change wouldn't make it a better news and encyclopedia article.


 * So I move for the immediate move of the Historical Context section to the top of this article, as it is in the French article.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [12:14 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 7th]

Is this really related?
"French employee Jean-Claude Irvoas is beaten to death by youths in Épinay-sur-Seine in front of wife and 16 year-old daughter. [28]" This supposidly has nothing to do with the riots, just the result of a violent mugging that happened indipendantly of them. It is therefore misleading to suggest that Jean-Claude's death (murder?) is some how part of the riots.


 * Hmmm....that is hard to say. Do you have any sources claiming this to be (or not) a part of the riots? Chelman 15:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering what is going on in the streets, isn't almost everything "connected" to the riots now? I don't think there is anyway to really establish this. We should just mention it and people can decide whether it is an "official" toll of the riots or not. Tfine80 15:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like also to see the following contradiction solved:
 * "French employee Jean-Claude Irvoas is beaten to death by youths in Épinay-sur-Seine in front of wife and 16 year-old daughter. [28]" - this is cited in day 1 of the riots chronology.
 * "A 61-year-old man, Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec, a former Renault employee, died in the hospital because of the injuries sustained after being beaten when he went to check on a garbage can fire in the suburb of Stains. He succumbed to his injuries, becoming the first death caused by the riots.[68] [69] [70]" - cited in day 7.


 * If Irvoas is the first casualty, then Le Chenadec isn't. But if Irvoas'death is not related to the riots, Le Chenadec becomes the first casualty. What's the truth? --Cyclopia 15:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the newslink for the Death of Jean-Claude - http://www.lefigaro.fr/magazine/20051104.MAG0007.html - as posted on the wiki entry for him (nominated for deletion btw). The entry for him even mentions that he died during the beating of a mugging, that just happened to take place on the same day that the roiting started. The mugging happened during the day, and the rioting started at night AFAIK. All the news coverage i've seen so far suggestes that the death of Le Chenadec was the frist one directly linked to the riots. I really think a little more background information is needed to clarify whether this is directly due to the riots, or just something that happened to happen on the same day.

Reuters, the NYTimes, and the BBC are all refering to the death of Le Chenadec as the first of the riots. This would seem to indicate that Irvoas' death is related. A description of such a violent event, if unrelated, would make the riots seem more deadly that they have been so far.Jasongetsdown 16:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This: http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=336204 Says the incident took place around 16:00, the timing for the teens electricuting themselves, according to this wiki entry, is 16:12. So we are supposed to believe that at the same time those kids were frying themsleves in one part of Paris, in another part of Paris some thugs mugged and beat to death Jean-Claude, before the actual rioting started i should add, and that all this is directly related to the ongoing riots. I don't buy it, i think that bit should be removed, immediatly. Its grossly misleading.


 * Just a small remark: Paris is limited a something like a 12 km diameter circle. French do not considere Seine-Saint-Denis as Paris, although there is an urban continuity.
 * Cdang| write me 17:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Meaning unclear
In the 2005_French_urban_violence section, there is the line: "'During the extinction, firefighters watch for projectiles.'" I'm not sure whether extinction is referring to the extinction of the fire, or (mistakenly) the extraction of the firefighters, I'll leave it untagged for the time being, as it is a fairly minor nitpick (and I'm too new to really know what is appropriate anyways) but it would be cool if someone could clear that up... Odd bloke 17:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not native english speaker. What I mean is: during the fire extinction, watchers are placed on the roof of engines to tell the intervention team in case of danger.
 * Cdang| write me 17:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Historical part: NPOV ?
Hello,

Malber suppressed a large part of the historical part 7 November 2005 16:41, with the comment "Historical context and underlying causes - tightened up and removed non-NPOV material"

These are imho well known mechanisms, analysed for a long time in France (influence of the Algerian War, population hit by unemployment, constitution of ghettos, racism, rise of criminality), and I do not think anybody contest them, it is more a debate "these are explanations, no excuses".

Comments are requested.

Cdang| write me 17:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A lot of those things seem to be back in the Historical Context section...... Aren't they?  In any case, the immediate grievances of the rioters are currently in this article (unemployment and police brutality).  There are other factors but when they start running too long, they need to be linked to another article, for the sake of concision.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[12:25 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 7th]


 * Oh I see. There is a conflict here because Malber removed some information without replacing it, on the grounds that the section was getting too big.  I can see the need for some of that information being in the article about the Algerian War (like an "Aftermath" section) and then being linked to this article.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[12:46 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 7th]


 * Right, I create a page named Social situation in the French suburbs (possibly to be renamed) to put the information back.
 * Cdang| write me 07:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Finally, considering the attitude of Malber pointed at the "External link" section (see below), I considere his attitude as not-NPOV and restore the section : pointing out that the rioters are from African descent is an information, but not explaining the roots could imply that the root is their origin...
 * Cdang| write me 07:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, page too big, I create a full article.
 * Cdang| write me 07:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC) — "Only dumb don't change their mind" (François Mitterrand)

Summary of events
Erm, if we list the number of shuls and churches attacked in these riots, should we not also list the number of schools which are being hit? User:XYaAsehShalomX

Proposal: Move Timeline to separate article
The main article is getting large. I suggest the timeline and other lists on the page be moved to their own articles. --malber 18:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * huh? it is the core of the article. If anything, move the background material to the existing background articles, such as Islam in France. There is no need to explain "French Islam" on this page, we have an entire article about it. dab (&#5839;) 07:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

French citizens?
We currently say this:


 * These acts mainly consist of car and building arsons, and sometimes lead to violent clashes between hundreds of youths, mostly of North African Muslim[2] descent, [3] and the French Police. French citizens have also been caught up in the violence, although to a much lesser degree.

Are the youths not also French citizens? This phrasing implies that they are not. --199.246.40.54 18:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not the best solution, but I've used the phrase "French citizens of non-African descent." I am not sure what the immigration status of the rioters is, but I presume a non-zero fraction of them are French citizens (and not just there under the French equivalent of a green card or something.) Perhaps "civilians" is a better term, actually. Sdedeo 19:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My point was that people other than police and those actively involved in the rioting have been injured or even killed. I was looking for a concise way to state this. Nor did I intend to leave out those of N. African decent that may be injured and are not actively involved in rioting. I don't think we can exactly say, "Innocent people have also been caught up in the violence..." 216.237.220.179 19:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. "Bystander" is the term you're looking for! Sdedeo 19:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In a French point of view, they are French citizens, they have the French nationality.
 * Additionally, how do you recognise African or non-African descent ? How do you recognise a man from Middle-East and a man from North Africa ? How do you recognise a man from West Africa and a man from Antilles (French for several generations ?
 * This statement based on face features is ambiguous.
 * Cdang| write me 07:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

NYT on "racial/religious" tensions
I have restored the following to the "Racial and Religious Tensions" section of the "Histoical Context and Underlying Causes":


 * According to a November 5 article in the New York Times, "while a majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin," "the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones," and noted that youths in the affected regions in Paris say that "second-generation Portuguese immigrants" and "some children of native French" have been involved in the violence.

This is a major news organization making a very unambiguous statement about something very important -- and directly relevant to this section. I understand that some people disagree with the New York Times on this question.

I also understand that it contradicts many other assertions or suggestions in the article from other sources; i.e., that the riots are "Muslim" in ideology (hence the burning of churches, synagoges, etc.) That is a major reason why it should be kept. I encourage readers who find this statement mysteriously removed to reinsert it as they see fit, or to discuss why they wish to remove it on the talk page first.

Sdedeo 19:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The NYT isn't just a major news organization, it's a newspaper of record, just FYI. Kade 06:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)