Talk:2005 French riots

Archive 1

Explain

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

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

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

this is not very different from the assorted race riots in the USA. The immigrants feel they are treated as underdogs by the authorities, and they blame the police with chasing the youths to their deaths. So the deaths sparked latent wrath against the police, and things took their own course from there. 10:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Race riots in the US are generally sparked by some kind of concrete event (cf. Rodney King etc.), as far as this case is concerned, I agree with Avengerx - why such outrage? It was a tragic accident, sure, but how were the police to blame? The article admits that they were chasing completely different people, if the youths have a paranoia-complex then thats not the police's problem. As said before, if this outrage is justified, could someone please explain why in the article? Thanks in advance. Jdcooper 10:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

that's what the police say. I doubt that the rioters take the police's word for it. They probably have reason to assume, from their own experience, that the police doesn't always portray 'accidents' exactly the way they happened. ANd of course, once the riot gets going, the initial cause ceases to matter. This probably started as minor skirmishes, and things escalated. 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I originally thought it was just a minor event that caused an edgy situation to explode, and thats what I get from what you are saying. I think it would be good for the article if we could get a French Muslim POV on the article, just to see what the other side of the spectrum might hold. I'll be watching to see how it develops. Thanks. Avengerx 12:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Abos did this in Redfern too, it just seems to be a illogical phenomenon caused by the not even proletariat who can't accept responsibility for their own.

well what were the peaceful marchers demanding? for french cops to not chase anyone anymore? keith 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Oh yeah, I'm sure France has oppressed these people. France gave them citizenship, public education, healthcare, clean water, welfare, freedom, all the amenities of a modern, Western socialist country. If they are so oppressed in France, why are they fleeing their Islamic countries for France? These people are not oppressed. They are criminals. -- Zeno of Elea 06:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Bihal, I can definitely understand what you are saying. What I am trying to say is that from what the article stated, it didn't seem like justifyable cause for a riot. In the US, we've had race riots, but they always tend to start with solid evidence of horrific events like the police mercilessly beating a man while someone films it ie.Rodney King. As someone unfamiliar with French culture, I wanted to know what the French Muslim perspective was on the event.

Zeno of Elea, I'm sure that there is some sort of reason leading to these events. An entire mass of people do not riot because they are 'criminals'. Obviously you're trying to underscore the event, which isn't helpful to anyone. Avengerx 12:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The main difference is that the American system forces people to work, while the socialist European countries seem to keep the high unempoyment by various forms of allowances. It definitely leads to frustration, also in connection with the anti-western propaganda so popular among Moslem youth - incl. those living in western countries. Polyhister 15:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Title misleading

• I think the title is misleading, at first glance I thought people were fighting under the Eiffel Tower. Should be 2005 riots in Paris northern suburbs or something of the kind.Hektor 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  the title doesn't say Eiffel Tower riots now, does it? Paris is larger than Notre-Dame-Eiffel-Tower-Louvre. It is true, however, that the riots started outside Paris, in the infamous ville de Clichy-sous-Bois which doesn't have an article, and spread into Paris territory from the north-east. 81.63.50.227 10:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  As far as I have checked, there has been no riot whatsoever on the Paris territory. The title should be modified. The riots are in small cities in the northern and eastern suburbsHektor 12:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Although it seems magnifying events and distorting the truth is favoured by some of us here, i must stress that these are not Paris riots, but clichy-sous-bois-riots. You should perhaps go to the north of Paris (18ème, 20ème), you wont find these arrondissements barricaded and populated by hordes of Mujahid conducting a massive urban guerilla, but just the north of Paris, untouched by these riots.
  • if we move it to Ile-de-France riots it will sound even scarier :o) but sure, 2005 Clichy-sous-Bois riots would be an acceptable title. 81.63.50.227 11:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't 2005 Paris banlieue riots or 2005 Paris suburb riots be more appropriate, given that the violence has spread to Seine-Saint-Denis? Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

The Timeline section contains the following.

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

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

see the "Background" section, which is based on Islam_in_France#Reaction_to_the_rise_of_Islam_as_a_social_and_political_force_among_Muslim_immigrant_groups among other sources. This is not so much weasly as euphemistic. Put plainly, you would say "it's a shithole". 81.63.50.227 12:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I know how French people consider the Seine-Saint-Denis region, but a quote requires attribution, and unless a reference is found, I suggest the sentence be rewritten as to put forward the region's sensitive issues. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 13:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

what do you mean, the source is linked right next to the statement, [1]; feel still free to rephrase. 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this, for I was oblivious of the above link being related to the statement. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 13:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

balance out perhaps

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

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

well, it is quite objective that French fears of "the worldwide rise of Islamic militancy" will be fanned by these riots, among the Front National crowd anyway. Whether these fears are rational, let alone whether there is any relation to the riots at hand is quite another question of course. But there is a 'great divide' in French society, and the notion "Gauls vs. Arabs", and/or "Christians vs. Muslims" is certainly part of it, predominantly among the fundamentalists on either side, of course. 81.63.50.227 14:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but this isn't a vessel for only one side to voice their fears (about Muslims). The way that it's phrased is biased.. Saying that Muslims are alienated due to assimilation and secularism (the latter is probably an over-generalization, I'm sure most Muslims are happy that secularism keeps Christians in power from persecuting them more) and then leading into the the next idea as if one flows from the other.. I just don't like the bias, and I'd like it if a French Muslim counterpoint was included somehow, a *realistic* one. Dan Carkner 17:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this might not be a question of "balancing out", but a matter of following simple logical argument.

It has been suggested, but not proven to me, that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated for the reasons listed.

Then this unproven premise is somehow related to the "the assertiveness of French Islam" that now possibly threatens "the values of the (French) republic" and "its very security".

It is unclear to me just how "traditional values of assimilation" are responsible for Muslims in the ghettos of Paris being alienated. In what way are they being alienated? Socially? Financially?

It's as if I'm to believe that Muslims are just pissed that they can't come to France and just take over. But all I have is the word of a reporter (or reporters) at the BBC. All I have is a statement. No evidence. Poor citing indeed to merely quote claims like that without proper context. The source those claims come from isn't even listed in your "External Links".

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 1:51 pm (Pacific Time), 2 November 2005

hello? this passage is just saying what BBC said, as is clearly pointed out. Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion, but if BBC says that this is the context, we may report that BBC said that this is the context. Find another news source and add it, if you don't like it. 81.63.124.173 22:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, hello yourself. I find it amusing that defense of this content had to be changed. First it's "objective". Now, if we don't like it, we should find another news source and add to the article.

I'm not saying Wikipedia has to have an opinion. But this forum is for discussion, yes? I don't think you can disagree with that.

What I am discussing is the need for better care while putting together these articles. It is irresponsible to merely parrot content from the BBC. Especially when that content is biased and ignores significant background for this event. It's like someone just cut and paste the content. There's no critical thought behind it. I'm not talking about original research. I'm talking about critical thought put into how it's presented. Like the kind of critical thought advocated in Wikipedia's policy regarding Neutral POV.

Maybe I'm lamenting the fact that people are going to just "parrot" what a news source says and call it gospel without even examining it. Or maybe they know it's incomplete and they don't care. It's too bad that I can point out bias in someone's source and be told that I have to fix it. If you're the one who did it in the first place, are you not responsible to see that it's done right?

I guess not.

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 3:34 pm (Pacific Time), 2 November 2005

Revolving door Courts?

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

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

Yes, there is a system in France called comparution immediate that allows speedy trials like this in certain cases [2]. Ze miguel 16:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the frogs fail pretty hard, then

Ten points to the French for that then! Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 11:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Similarities

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

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

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

Just a note: the above is a completely unrelated link. However, I agree that the Redfern riots parallel is an interesting one that would be worth a "See also" link. Ben Cairns 13:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC).

This Article is Misleading and betrays Unintentional or Intentional Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I advice wiki-en than -in France- we say than the "cause" is the death of "2 teenagers" in a stupid condition. We think than this area is poor, have many difficulties, worse by nowadays economis difficulties, and how explain to them than two boys are death like this, because affraid by cops ? Many teenagers every night are from the same social condition, from different religions but having the same difficulties. That is just ome thing too much. Yug (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC), French student.

so? WP:NOR+WP:CITE, right? We are just parroting what newsworthy people said. You have something to add? Cite your source and add it. "cause" could be changed to "immediate cause", but I don't see what's wrong. Do you see any specific inaccuracy in the Wikipedia articles cited? Point it out. Just ranting doesn't help, tell us which facts we got wrong. 81.63.124.173 21:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What I think is "wrong" is that listing the triggering event as the sole cause is irresponsible. Whether or not it was meant to be refered to as the "sole cause" is irrelevant. People reading the article are going to think the author intended it to be so.

What is listed under "Cause" probably contributed to the problem. But it is incomplete to list the cause as simply "the death of 2 teenagers". It's oversimplifying what is a more complex issue. Other articles regarding civil disturbances such as these, don't list a single cause, because that is OVERsimplifying. There is no one reason for an event like this, so it's better to focus on Background of the event as the reason. But the background section of this article remains slanted and marginalized besides.

Those deaths might have triggered the riots, but by themselves, I am not convinced that they *caused* the riots. There is evidence that other factors played a role. Evidence that was present in sources *already* cited within the article. It vexes me that I can point this out and merely be met with the directive that I should fix it. If I have to fix it, fine.

But one of my points was that the evidence was already there in the sources and DISREGARDED when the article was made. The article was purposefully or accidently SLANTED and when I pointed it out, the point is seemingly ignored and I am told to fix it myself.

And I'm not talking about inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles. You're missing the point. The point is that any "Joe off the street" can author or edit an article. So slanted articles can reference each other, providing evidence that seemingly prove the validity of each article. But that only means something if the sources of each article are valid.

So I'm advocating that it's easier for everyone to just skip a step and cite their sources, rather than simply citing a Wikipedia article as evidence. Cite as many sources as you can. Then we, in turn, can check the sources ourselves and make up our minds.

Lastly, if someone has tried to add a disputed label to this article and you keep taking it off while this debate still remains unresolved, you are indicating a certain level of close-mindedness.

Such an attitude does not exactly encourage anyone else to edit this article. Who is to say that you won't just delete something you don't like or agree with. You seem to have already made up your mind that article is complete. (?)

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[2:42 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd]

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

Your confusion comes from a lack of knowledge about riots, insurrections, and revolutions. VERY often such events are sparked by single events or people that inspire everyone. The death of these two teenagers certainly does show the cause that sparked it, and it DOES explain why it's spread to other suburbs and contintues for a sixth consecutive night. Youth in this area of France are fed up with oppression and the authorities enforcing it, that's why the rioting is happening. If you look at other recent examples you can see simliarity. In 2001 in Algeria, an insurrection which has taken on a national level, was triggered by the killing of a youth by an officer in Kabylia. This sparked months of bombings, rioting, clashes, and other insurrectionary activity. It is very difficult to get accurate news about what's happening currently in Algeria, but whispers internationally say that this is still going on, but we know for fact that such activity has been in full force (and quite anti-authoritarian force I might add) even into 2004. So you can see how one or a series of incidents certainly can cause such uprisings. This is not to say that it's purely a reaction to just these incidents, it is a combination of many factors. But when people have been pissed off for so long about the things going on around them, it often takes the straw that broke the camel's back to incite revolution. This is what's being demanded here. There is the initial revenge for the deaths of the two youths, but now it's taken a whole different edge.

I am not confused. I argue that all this is already in the article, and that you have difficulty making a coherent statement. Everybody agrees that the two deaths were just a trigger, ok? Stop ranting and be specific. In fact, I have this mental image now of one of the rioters, breathlessly pausing at a terminal to update Wikipedia in a Paris internet cafe that is just being looted. I also fear that the main mid-term consequence of this little 'civil war' will be a significant popularity boost for the Front National. Just like al-Qaeda is the only thing that keeps GW Bush in business, rioting Arabs is exactly what Le Pen needs to keep his thing together. Baad 00:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you must really be frustrated if you are resorting to labeling my points as rant. I apologize if we are having misunderstandings here. [Also, please note that that huge unsigned paragraph was not written by me.... I sign everything.]

Not making sense? Okay, I'll simplify my points as best I can to make it easier.

1.) My main point boils down to this: There is a bias in this article that warrants a Neutrality Dispute. The bias is due to: The very selection (and omission) of facts within this article.

This issue has nothing to do with the accuracy of individual facts, which has been the defense for this article's neutrality.

2.) I saw the "Background" section, but in keeping with my main point, it is presented in a way that is slanted. The only information in it seems to focus on religion and the ethnicity of the rioters, rather than actual reasons for their discontent. As if religion and ethnicity was the only variable in something as complex as riots spreading throughout suburbs in a major city.

I haven't "slapped the NPOV tag on an article just because I don't like it". My actions in this regard are irrelevant because I was refering to someone ELSE on this discussion board who said that he had classified this article with that label and it has been removed everytime without the issue being resolved.

I'm not sure I understand the "your very difficulty to have your way". I have not had the time to research any contributions or additions to this article.

3.) As far as your vague proof that "random, sub-standard edits" will be eliminated by "a dozen Wikipedians will reach for their rollback button"....... you are again missing the point. That point had nothing to do with me having "my way". It had to do with someone citing another Wikipedia article as evidence.

Using a Wikipedia article as evidence is presupposing the truth of that article. That is something we cannot know until we examine the sources upon which that article is built.

So I was advocating skipping a step and citing the sources of that Wikipedia article, rather than the article itself. Many of the articles on Wikipedia, are in need of editing or are incomplete in some way, that's why people contribute to them.

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[2:42 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd]

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

Whether or not I have any business tagging the article is irrelevant. Again, I was refering to someone else's words under Section #4 "Explain", of this discussion. *They* said they have tagged the article and the tag has been removed without the issue being resolved. What I am doing right now is discussing. This is a discussion board, right? Instead of answering my questions or responding to issues (like biased content) I have brought up, you are apparently ignoring them.

I will say it again: There is a bias in this article that warrants a Neutrality Dispute. The bias is due to: The very selection (and omission) of facts within this article.

Whether or not someone tags this article formally, or has researched additions to this article, does not change the fact that it is biased. How do I know? Because I read it. Contributing to this article does not give me the magical power to tell if it's biased. That's what I'm DISCUSSING on the DISCUSSION BOARD.

Though I understand this is a work in progress, the Background section does not cover economic reasons for unrest. Many people get pretty angry when they can't make a living, I'd say that warrants some attention.

It's your ball.........

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[4:56 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd]

"What I am doing right now is discussing." You certainly are not discussing any specific aspect of the article. -- Zeno of Elea 08:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And you aren't paying attention. I have been talking about the selection and omission of facts within the BACKGROUND section of this article. Right now it focuses entirely on the ethnicity and religion of the rioters. Demographical information for the residents in the suburb is insufficient as a reason for the unrest. There are more factors and they need to be listed in the Background. Or at least, if people are going to claim the information is already there, it needs more clarity.

And I've been saying that placing the BACKGROUND section of this article towards the end, downplays the significance of other factors that made this situation potentially volatile before those two youths even died. Placing the background section towards the end is inaccurate because the background gives part of the reason (i.e., CAUSE) for the event.

As such, it belongs at the top of the article along with the "Immediate Cause". If not, in the first section listing all causes. You don't put some of the reasons why at the beginning and some at the end. Doing it that way is places more weight on a triggering event that was only one of many reasons. It oversimplifies in a distorting way. It creates bias due to how the information is being presented.

If you'll note WP:NPOVD, an article can be considered biased due to the selection or omission of facts presented. That makes what I've pointed out specific enough.

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[12:46 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the NPOV tag

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

And once again, my reference to the NPOV label was refering to someone ELSE saying (under Section #4 "Explain", of this discussion) that they had used it, only to find it removed without the issue being resolved.

The issue here being, the selection of facts and the presentation thereof. An issue that has not been resolved. For an issue this complex, it is inaccurate to refer to the triggering event as any kind of "cause", immediate or otherwise.

Any triggering event should be listed under the Background for this article. Because Background gives proper treatment to the fact that several factors come together in an event like this.

The Background should not be marginalized by being placed at the rear of the article. For an example of all this, see the format used in the article for the Watts Riots. Furthermore, the background that is present, is incomplete and what is present shows a biased picture of this event.

Until it is fixed, this article is biased. This is true whether or not I fix it.

I'm amused that you failed to understand what I had to say, so it is a "rant". Although I am sorry that my comments ran long. That probably didn't help in your understanding of them. Though it also did not help that you made a number of assumptions following your lack of understanding.....

But whatever.....

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[4:41 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 2nd]

The news sources are all unanamous in saying that the riots were "sparked" or "triggered" by the the death of those two darwin award nominees. Almost all riots, and even some wars, are triggered by disproportionately small causes. It is often said that World War I was caused by the assasination of the Archduke of Austria by a Bosnian-Serb student. Are we to believe that the whole war was fought on account of the Archduke? Obviously not. You are being needesly difficult and irrational here. Whatever deeper underlying religious, political or socioeconomic causes there may have been to the Paris riots, the triggering event is ackowledged by all reliable sources. -- Zeno of Elea 06:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was debating the validity of the triggering event (?). Unless I missed something. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding? If you were addressing me, I'm debating the way the information is being presented in this article. Although I will admit that my presentation was not as coherent as it could have been when I started out. Mea culpa.

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[1:03 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]

"Acting African"?

Someone inserted the following text under "Immediate cause":

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

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

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

Now Zeno, you're trying to compare Civil disorder (i.e., a riot) to a military invasion attempt that was blunted by the French, in order to make a point?

I can see that one riot is different from another, perhaps this would be settled if the See Also section merely had a link to Civil disorder? It is a little gratuitous to link to any particular riot, if not Redfern, why not Watts. Where would it end? I can see that. But they are similar in that they are both civil disorder.

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[8:10 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]

OMFG! So Celtic I take it your acting European bygenerally being an all out racist? Apparently your one of those people proud of your real or imagined "Irish heritage"? Excuse my ignorance, but I don't recall Irish having any recent origins in Africa. Funny, because they have been known in recent history to "go around monekying and buring a lot of cars and generally acting 'African' and 'Medieaval"." I mean, they don't look African. Perhaps you take "African" to mean economically downtrodden and subjugated? --Brentt 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, acting European would mean acting like an all out realist. Racists do not base their statements on facts, but on ignorance. No one cares about the term "Racist" anymore since it has been over used by weak minded fools for too long; it is akin to the boy that cried wolf. I don't like racism either, but realism and racism are two different things.

People like you Brentt are too small minded to realize this, and have allowed your analytical skills to rot on the altar of political correctness. As for your bigotted anti-Irish comments, this just further illustrates who the real racists are. The people that burned cars in Northern Ireland last time were Protestants. They did not riot for seven nights, and belong in Europe, unlike those discussed in the topic at hand. Celtic1

Argh! Zeno, Brentt, do not worry. Everyone with a brain knows you are right and this person is surely a troll? Surely nobody with any powers of logic or observation would seriously claim that there is something inherently African about rioting, or rioting about being African? Surely nobody thinks the people are rioting because they are African? Or that europeans would riot any less in the same situation?

But if Celtic wishes to believe some Irish/European supremicist nonsense, that is their own problem. Just as long as POV doesn't get inserted into the article, and Irish 'realists' don't try to blow me up when I'm shopping any more.

Naivety in the article

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

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

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

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

I still fail to understand what makes a report from Australia authoritative about complicated matters of society in France. As for the article of the Weekly Standard, I fail to see where it is even mentionning the law about laicity in schools as a factor of unrest; even if it did, I would find it very revelating that one should cite US newspapers to find such declarations, rather than direct quotations by French papers, officials or people involved in the unrest. Rama 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

I didn't revert, I made an edit which got lagged. I tried to add your additions too, what did I miss? --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with what Rama said. Although clearly there are major problems ; problems important enough for people to riot, but the situation is not as dramatic as most media choose to depict it. In some areas (I'd be tempted to say most), the immigrant population has successfully become a part of French society. The whole of France is not like Seine-Saint-Denis, and even there some people live well and do not necessarily feel alienated.

There are recurrent problems with the US press which greedily broadcasts alarmist comments by French specialists taken out of their context, and tends to put everything in the "religion and race" point of view. This is completely at odds with the reality of the terrain, where you see that the major problem of the "cités" is not religion, but poverty and despair.

Of course there are people who take advantage of this to stir religious hatred (see the story of Khaled Kelkal); there are problems of segregation by individuals (that people of Magreb origins tend to be denied access to some dancing clubs for instance); but the problem is subtle and complicated, and making gross approximations by the standards of the US society is very unlikely to bring a good understanding of these matters. Rama 08:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Another example of failed multiculturalism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[8:24 am (Pacific Time), Nov 3rd]

• i think it is short-sighted to say that multiculturalism is a "blanket failure". of course something as ambitious is going to have teething problems, but the fact remains that the vast majority of ethnic minorities co-habit countries like France and Britain completely peacefully. i contest that these riots are purely racial, as per AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, but even if they were, while not an isolated incident, the beliefs of these rioters remain marginal. particularly in france, assimilation is in many respects quite a success, with most of France's muslim population managing perfectly well to uphold Islam while upholding France's secular values. to deny this is to deny facts. either way, references to the failure of multiculturalism do not belong on the encyclopaedia article of an incident like this. Jdcooper 17:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not suggest that we spend as much time publicising every dozen-people group of Northern African origin whose integration has worked like a charm as small groups of occasionally violent teenagers are. Just that we keep the comments about these in a reasonable scope.

Regarding "ad hominem attacks", calling someone who advocate discrimination on the basis of origins a "racist" is not an attack, it is a clinical statement. Lots of people are comfortable being called and identifying themelves as "racists".

As for how one can both stage such an outcry at my "personal attacks" and accuse me of having " an agenda, which is most like anti-European", is beyond me. Rama 16:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

poverty

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

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

They should all be deported out of Europe, no right to be here.

If poverty were the problem, then how come their home countries, which have far worse poverty, are not rioting all the time? These people are not compatible with Europe.

Stolen VCRs?

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

npov?

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

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

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

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

MP?

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

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

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

In France, "parliament" refers to both the Assembly and the Senate. You want to say "député" of the French National Assembly.

For the record, nothing forces representants of such or such départment of France to be of the same cultural background than the majority of the people who live there. All people are equal, and matters of religion or ethnicity are of no relevance on this respect.

Also, you seem to be surprised that Begag was never elected (did you notice that this is also the case of the Prime Minister ?); there is nothing that suggests that ministers should have undertaken a political career. The executive branch of the State is supposed to be composed of technical administrators. Rama 09:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

LA Riots Link?

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

There are already too many links to other riots. If LA Riots is added, I'm going to have to add Battle of Tours -- Zeno of Elea 01:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd add Battle of Tours, its a good example of what this is once again representing Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Media Bias

While everything has to be refrenced to be stay, is it just me or is there terrible bias in the media itself? While Australian newspapers (owned by news corporation) offer another side, along with some American newspapers (owned by news corporation) they are deleted and removed while the liberal BBC news and others are kept! How about the reinsertion of some Weekly Standard[3] and The Australian [4] references to balance this filth out? At least News Corp is showing another side of this mess Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 02:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong problem with this article

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

What's the bias, exactly? Why don't you improve the article, citing sources? Everyone here is doing the best they can, and citing from news sources they've read. -- SCZenz 06:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but do they say "Muslim youths"? If you read the Islam in France article, the 10% figure is a high estimate for the people of Muslim extraction. About half of them are irreligious or atheist. The number of actual Muslims is about half then. It should be taken great care to distinguish "North African" or "Arab" from "Muslim". The two teenagers killed were of "North African extraction". Did any source claim they were actually Muslims? I think the npov complaints of our French readers are to the effect that the article is touted up to be about Islam, rather than ethnic or social issues. This is an important distinction in France, because they care very much about the laicité of the state, and 'religious riots' would be felt as much more grievous and unheard of than 'social riots'. I think the complaint has some justification: US editors hear "Islam" and immediately start phantacizing about the "clash of civilizations" their own leaders drone on about, so the French readers will feel that their riots are being used for propaganda of US ideas about Islam. 80.219.217.252 06:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The kids who were electrocuted were Muslims. Many news sources have confirmed this. Furthermore, after a tear gas gernade was sent into the Clichy mosque, the brother of one of the electrocuted "youths" expressed great dismay and called the mosque attack "disrespectful" and canceled a meeting with the Interior Minister of France. So these are clearly Muslim famalies. -- Zeno of Elea 07:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

The problem is not as much as whether these people are or are not Muslims (or football lovers, or amateur photographs, or whatever) as how the whole thing is presented. With the present state of the article, I get a confused picture of a proto-religious-war starting in the "cité". This is not the case. Where did anyone hear about Muslim or islamist slogans chanted by the protesters ?

One of the sources of the problem is that people of Norther African origins tend to have shitty lives. They are frustrated and rioting because they have shitty lives, not because they are "Arabs", "Muslims" or whatever.

By the way, these protesters are 2nd or 3rd-generation immigrants. They have typically never lived in Africa at all, do not speak Arab, are not practising Muslims. Muslim leaders in these places call for calm and are not listened to.

It is very important to realise that the views of the US press on these subjects is very naive, simplistic and set in the US model of society. Refusing to listen to the warnings of editors who are more familiar with the French society defeats the whole purpose of having an encyclopedia written by people from all over the world (And frankly, if one wants to merely copy-paste uninformed US point of view, or worse "Free-Republic"-styled rants, rather than learn things, why come on an encyclopedia at all ?). Rama 08:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I think this might be a good point to remind everyone that Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility are policies, not suggestions. -- SCZenz 08:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rama made a very intelligent statement above, and Zeno unambiguously revealed himself, NPA or no NPA, as a bigot troll and simpleton. Yes, Islam can be mentioned, as one factor among many. This is no excuse for using "North African" and "Muslim" as though they were synonyms. We don't randomly replace "French" with "Catholic", either. 80.219.217.252 09:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

They are largely Muslims from North Africa. Over 90% of Algeria is Muslim. It is simply dishonest to pretend that this communal rioting has nothing to do with the religious and ethnic communities in question. -- Zeno of Elea 09:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

yes? your point being? 90% of Algeria is desert. will we say "desert dwellers" for "Algerians" because of that? The two teenagers apparently were born in France, and French citoyens. Your problem is that you keep saying "religious and ethnic" as if the two terms are inseparable. 80.219.217.252 09:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It is dishonest to pretend that this communal rioting has nothing to do with the religious and ethnic communities in question. -- Zeno of Elea 09:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

nobody disputes that. What is disputed is that the riots should be religiously motivated. The communities are predominantly Muslim because that is the predominant religion where they came from. They are poor because they are immigrants, not because they are Muslims. They are rioting because they are poor, not because they are immigrants, and not because they are Muslims. It is dishonest to draw a direct connection between religion and these riots. 80.219.217.252 09:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Your original research as to why the rioters are rioting cannot dominate the article. Your simple explanation that they are rioting because they are poor is not the final say in the matter. Every major media outlet is drawing a direct connection between relgion and these riots. You seem to be suggesting that the all major media must be censored in order to support your extreme POV. -- Zeno of Elea 10:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How comes that beside speculations of foreign newspapers, we have zero first-hand reference to religious matters ? If, as Zeno of Elea says, religion is an "obvious" problem, there should be no difficulty to find statements by French officials, protesters or even first-hand journalists that would confirm the fact. Rama 10:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

French media is no more reliable than non-French media. BBC, for example, has correspondant reporters all over the world, including Paris. Concerns about the religious factors leading these riots are being expressed by a number of important and reliable sources. If you have an opposing point of view, find a source that supports your opposition and add it to the article. -- Zeno of Elea 12:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newb

Okay, I'm not really new...but nobody leap on me :Þ I just wanted to point out that Arab and Muslim were being used as though they meant the same thing in the article (Background section), and I'd appreciate the facts not melding into each other, when comparing two distinct societal groups. I assume it was accidental, I'm not sure if the actual reports say Arab or Muslim, but either way, they shouldn't be repeated after each other in statistics as though they correlate :) Sherurcij 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a note, I cleaned it up myself. I also changed "first and second generation Muslims" to "first and second generation immigrants", since that was the context, and the former made no sense. Made a few edits, a couple of small(ish?) NPOV touchups, a bit of grammar, a tiny bit of new information, etc. I would also like to add my voice to those asking for French wikipedians to get some photographs Sherurcij 08:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

North African Origins

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

that's right, instances of "North African" should be changed to "African", then. 80.219.217.252 09:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag and my problems with the article

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

• Lengthly part about "ISLAM AND FRANCE": There is no reason to link Islam and the recent events specifically. There are proably as many people who wear baseball hats that Muslims among protesters, and I fail to see a section about baseball hats.
• "The BBC also wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism": Is that a self-defeating argument or what ?
• Laws providing for restrictions on display of religious symbols in schools, including the Muslim hijab, blablabla: Until someone of the government, the French press or the protesters states so, I fail to see any connection between this and the current events. Beware that there is a US-centric obsession about this law. "resented by some Muslims" is imprecise and tendentious; we have no statistics nor significant, recent quotes relating this to the recent events.

Note that the reference added by Zeno of Elea says nothing relating the recent riots and the law, it is merely the same sensationalist sort of description of this law that is commons in the US and UK.

• "The Australian reports that assimilation has failed": over-simplification of the article of the Australian
• "hopelessly segregated": this must be refined and explained. France has its own problems, which are different from Warsaw under the Nazi occupation or the South of the USA in the 50s.
• "Some aspects of French society are questioning whether France can integrate its Muslim community, which remains hopelessly segregated." The reference [5] cites http://www.proche-orient.info/ , a sensationalist, pro-Israeli website, which is turn cites a "AN OFFICIAL REPORT DEALING WITH religious expression in French schools has become a must read for anyone interested in the Islamization of France. Written under the auspices of the top national education official, Jean-Pierre Obin, the report was not initially released by the Ministry of Education". This report is nowhere to be found. How the reference allows to say that "Some aspects of French society are questioning whether France can integrate its Muslim community, which remains hopelessly segregated." remains a mystery.

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

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

"The fact that these people are aliented from French society due to their religion, according to the esteemed BBC, is (in your opinion) totally unrelated to the riots. As far as the BBC was concerned" ?? Err yes, I do find that unrelated. Unless, of course, the protests are in fact a rampage of BBC journalists turned mad. I find the depiction of the BBC ununderstandable.

As for "all major media outlets", I think that you mean "all major US media outlets".

It is my prerogative to insert a NPOV tag if I have precise criticism to make, which turns out to be the case. I find the inclusion of the part of the BBC unacceptable in the present state, and since we obviously seem to disagree on this, I find it good policy to discuss the thing here before editing the article.

As for "it neutrally describes a POV that you disagree with", I am confounded. Rama 10:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rama, it is more than evident that ALL major media news outlets are finding numerous connections between French Islam, French Muslims, and the riots that are currently taking place. This is a legitimate point of view which is neutrally represented in the article. If you disagree with this point of view, then find a source that disagrees and insert that information in a neutral manner. You are not disputing the neutral WAY in which a particualr view is being protrayed. All you are saying is that "if there is any mention of Islam or Muslims in this article i will insert the NPOV tag." You are just pushing your POV, trying to censor or discredit by underhanded means any view that conflicts with your very peculiar and extreme point of view. This is a complex conflict with many factors. Islam is widely seen as one of those factors and as that information should be reported here in a neutral manner. I have addressed the rest of your objects, so I am removing the NPOV tag. -- Zeno of Elea 10:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, this is far from obvious. Most media from the US and the UK belong to one person, and share the same sort of obsessions about Islam in France, notably embodied in the fascination for the so-called "Scarf law".

An uninformed and imprecise understanding of a situation can be described in a neutral manner, it will still be mostly irrelevant to the situation itself. Move this to Anglo-saxon misconceptions about French society if you want.

I am reinserting the NPOV tag until we reach an agreement on the surrealist statement that integrating people makes them feel alienated.

By the way, I would be grateful if you could stop accusing me of "You are just pushing your POV, trying to censor or discredit by underhanded means any view that conflicts with your very peculiar and extreme point of view" and such things for one second. Rama 10:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"No, this is far from obvious.. Most media from the US and the UK belong to one person, and share the same sort of obsessions about Islam in France, notably embodied in the fascination for the so-called "Scarf law"." This is your personal POV. I'm not interested in delving into such wildly paranoid conspiracies and absurd generalizations. It is more than evident that ALL major media news outlets are finding numerous connections between French Islam, French Muslims, and the riots that are currently taking place. The BBC (a publicly owned institution), the New York Times, ABC News, Reuters, Associated Press, and a number of other major media outlets are reporting the connection between the riots and the status of French Muslims and French Islam in French society. The article already contains many such sources. It is evident to me that your NPOV objects are just your desire to push your very peculiar POV into the article by means of deleting any mention of Islam or Muslims. -- Zeno of Elea 10:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, some foreign media might draw some completely abusive conclusions based on their misconceptions and their fantasies about the situation in France. So what? US media repeatedly reported that iraq had some WMD, this didn't make that true. The situation is the same here. They just repeat the same stupid things, aided by their unbased hate for everything that in French. Med 11:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The French media is also acting a bit odd considering the circumstances. On Le Monde's website this morning, of the first seven leading stories listed, five relate in some way or another to the United States. Only the third story, not the headline, is about the riots spreading across France, and the first two are about Bush's trip to Latin America and his exciting "showdown with Chavez" and the other is on the speculation about the CIA's detainee spots. So I wouldn't say that only French sources are ideal on this. While you could say British or Australians might have a little glee here, their perspective bypasses the touchy French politics which make this story difficult to discuss. Tfine80 11:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that this event is not nearly as dramatic as some foreign media want to make people believe. Urban violences are quite common in many countries. I'm really surprised by the foreign media coverage who tend to show a completely deformed reality. Med 11:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the three uppermost headlines of "Le Monde" rotate during the day. Chances are that the entry was the topmost at some point. Rama 13:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

nobody asks you to read French media if you don't understand French. Maybe you should just sit back then and be grateful that we have editors who do speak French, and who do have a clue abou t French society? (I think it is pretty clear from this page alone where Zeno is coming from; it is a fallacy of Wikipedia that clueless extremists get as much of a voice as he does, but besides wasting everybody's time, it doesn't much damage) dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should sit back instead of forwarding clueless suggestions that all mentions of Muslims and Islam be deleted from this article and that only French sources be used. -- Zeno of Elea 12:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

You selectively quote the BBC to suit your Bias. You used an article about how French Muslims from immigrant Backgrounds are "desperate" to be intigrated and used it to say Muslims and French assimilation/Secularism.. the opposite of what the article says!! --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

But this article is not about the perception of Islam in Franc by the BBC. Rama 13:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have trouble comprehending English? The BBC is describing the perction of Islam in France. -- Zeno of Elea 13:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

A Call for Better Explanation From Zeno for Language Removal

[Reasons listed by Zeno for "revising" this article.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And a few additional notes, Zeno.

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

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

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

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

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

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

First sentence

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

Editorializing

I removed a paragraph made of editorials from the BBC and The Australian. I strongly doubt that an Australian newspaper has any kind of competency discussing French social problems. David.Monniaux 14:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rama 14:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You are a dishonest person. YOU are undoing edits without explanation. You are just deleting something that doesn't conform to your ridiculous point of view. Go read the three revert rule yourself, and review Wikipedia:NPOV while you're at it. -- Zeno of Elea 14:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, can you stop adding pointless editorials? They are mere speculation. Alphax ^τεχ 14:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea that poverty caused the riots is also "mere speculating" and "pointless editorials." Perhaps the entire "underlying causes" section should be removed, on the basis of your reasoning? -- Zeno of Elea 14:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeno of Elea, you perfectly know hat I have been documenting the faults in this section above. They have been discussed, a majority of users in against you. You have invited me to edite the article and removed the NPOV tag; then you reverted my edits; another user edited the article in the same direction than me, you reverted againt. Then another, which you reverted too. Calling me "dishonest" and "without explanation" is quite strartling, especially since I am trying to save you from a ban on the WP:3RR rule. Rama 14:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Your argument, so far, has been to say that religion or race has absolutely nothing to do with these riots, and that all UK and US media are "owned by one person" and therefore we can only rely on French media outlets. These are not legitimate reasons for your deletion of relevant information. ALL of the possible factors leading to these riots will be discussed, including religion - not just the possible factor of poverty. The irony in all this is that you are deleting one of the few French sources that have anything to say about the underlying causes. -- Zeno of Elea 14:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

CFTC: minor syndicate

In 2003, Action Police CFTC received 0.32% of votes for the police professional elections. You don't even have to read french to see it for yourself: [6]. Ze miguel 14:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, that's four

I am filing a violation of 3rr. BrandonYusufToropov 14:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Good for you, Yusuf. -- Zeno of Elea 14:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

BrandonYusufToropov