Talk:2007 Villiers-le-Bel riots

It's a riot, not 'civil unrest'

This should be refered to as "2005 Paris Riots" or "2005 Val-d'Oise riots", every news media I've seen has refered to it as "rioting" or "riots" from AFP (French) to BBC (British) to Al Jazeera (Arabic) to New York Times (US). When you have 80+ police officers injured, guns being fired, and cars being torched its gone from being mere "civil unrest" to a full blown riot. (Madrone (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Don't exagerate. A few policemen have been wounded by shotgun pellets. This is unusual and shocking. The typical offender does not carry a firearm, and policemen certainly do not use theirs.

Exactly. Shotgun pellets are exactly that: small, insignificant pellets. They're practically harmless and nothing to get excited about. The damage they cause is usually minimal, so it's not even fair to call the damage "wounds". What kind of damage can pellets do, anyway? It's just pellets! Loundry (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And torched cars certainly is no criteria for full-blown riot. Rama (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If the news media is refering to something as a riot, as well as everyone else I've heard talk about it, then it should be refered to as that. Also dont understate, a few policemen? News reports have reported 86 injured police officers, and 70 buildings and cars, including schools were set on fire.(Madrone (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

86 policemen have not been shot. Only a handful were. More were suffered from concussion, but this is (unfortunately) not uncommon.

I never stated that 86 police officers were shot, I specifically used the word "injured" however even the front page of Wikipedia lists it as a "riot "Riots continue for a second night in the Val-d'Oise department of France following the death of two youths in a motorcycle collision with a police vehicle. ", as well as numerous instances in this article itself using the word "riot". Furthermore, for example the 2005 Toledo Riot is called a "riot" even though its far less destructive than either this "civil unrest". Ultimately though what it is called not be based on whether individual people think its a "riot" or "civil unrest" but what it most commonly refered to in the world, and every instance I've seen in the news media has used "riot", again from French to British to American to Arabic major news outlets.(Madrone (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Your first post mentioned police officers being "shot", and the second mentionned the number of 80. It was not apparent that you had changed subject in between.

French papers do not, as far as I know, use the word révolte to qualify these events. And I would advise some critical distance with British and US media; there are very notorious instances of these making overstatements about foreign subjects. Rama (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Direct translations from one language to another never work well. Furthermore "révolte" sounds much more similiar to "revolt" or "rebellion", which is not what riot is understood to be as in English. I would put "Émeute" as a better translation of "riot" (again though, its always risky translating words from one language to another), which even the French Version of Wikipedia calls the 2005 riots/civil unrest.

As for dismissing US/British (and evidentally Arabic) news medias, here is the English version of the AFP

"VILLIERS LE BEL, France (AFP) - Riot police deployed late Tuesday across a north Paris suburb bracing for a possible repeat of youth riots that have left 120 police injured, as the government vowed zero tolerance for the "criminals" behind the violence."

Bolding is mine, another article also from the AFP specifically has the word "Riot" in the headline: "New riots rock Paris suburbs" http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/071127160825.uaztqink.html (Madrone (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

"Riot police" so it's a riot ? Google really twists the mind of people... :p

Let me clarify: I am not opposed, nor in favour, of the term "riot". I don't have an opinion. But I am not willing to accept some arguments, and for now I have not been convinced that these events should be a "riot" when the more extended violence in 2005 are a "Civil unrest". Rama (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That was just one of the instances of the word riot that I cited, way to attack the weakest one and leave out "youth riots" from the AFP as well as the headline of "riots rock paris suburbs", as for the 2005 one, I would like to see that one be called what it was, a riot, however its two years old, and its not easy to change articles names once they are are well established. (Madrone (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Rama, according to that last statement, you are basing your judgement about whether this is or is not a "riot" on a comparison with another incident (the 2005 "civil unrest") which was also unfittingly labeled a "civil unrest" on this wiki rather than basing it on the actual english usage of the word "riot." The 2005 incident was also a riot and it's a shame no one made an effort to get that article titled correctly (I speak without having looked at the talk page. For all I know, someone did try and was shot down by one person who was devoted to maintaining the article, as seems to be the case here). You are also relying on a flawed direct translation. A "riot" is a form of "civil disorder." Civil unrest/disorder is a very board term that can apply to a wide variety of things. In this case, it has taken the form of a "riot." Using the broader term is misleading and needless. I don't know how to go about this, but I would love to have a vote opened or something similar in an attempt to reach a community consensus rather than continue to attempt to convince one person of something that is rather well-grounded. --S.Reemas, November 28, 2007.

As for "70 buildings and cars", sorry, but I am deeply unimpressed. This sounds impressive for one who has no point of comparison. Rama (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is weak. Those youths are pathetic compared to what the Germans did to Oradour sur Glane. *That* was impressive! These old Chinese women who are unimpressively burning up cars in France have a thing or two to learn from the Germans about destruction. Loundry (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And torched cars certainly is no criteria for full-blown riot. What is Wikipedia's criteria for a riot?198.77.206.228 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The same as in common sense: a group of people uniting in a violent struggle for a political purpose. There does not seem to be any identifiable political purpose in the present events. Rama (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a good time to remind people that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. The main reason many of the news agencies and papers are calling them riots is because a headline with the word 'Riot' sells more copies than 'Civil Unrest'. Since when has the media ever been a reliable source? --81.156.140.24 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be a case of language differences, Rama. In English "riot" is not necessarily political, but is rather "a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons" per dictionary.com's definition and my own sense of the word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/riot I would submit that the current events under discussion would qualify under this definition.

Under this definition, a bunch of drunks brawling is a riot... Rama (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But not a "full-blown" riot. Loundry (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Google estimates 37,000 hits for the familiar term "soccer riot", which is obviously not political. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, they're not "full-blown" soccer riots. Loundry (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

the main page is calling them riots. it's the word that links to this article. seems like a riot to me. 81.96.166.242 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, a large group of drunks engaged in a prolonged brawl could conceivably be called a "riot." Now that that much has been agreed upon, I think it's fair to say that a better title to this article would be one that refers to this as a "riot" rather than a deceptively tame and vague "civil unrest." If more clarification on the english usage of "riot" is needed, the English Wiki itself is an excellent resource. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Riot The page also provides good examples of "riots," complete with images of burning cars, buildings and police who are obviously equipped to withstand attacks. All very recognizable characteristics; all very applicable in this case. It is not a matter of "sensationalism" or not, but rather about finding a direct and accurate term for the event. We are currently using two words with a less direct connotation than the one we can be using to portray the event quite accurately. --S.Reemas, November 27, 2007

Erm... in a legal sense, violent disorder of 20 or more people united in a common mens rea, is classed as riot. I don't know what French law is, but I would say that it is by French law that we name this article. I wouldn't trust any news articles to judge what was and what was not a riot/civil unrest. SGGH ^speak! 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Civil unrest includes such actions as sit-ins; literally speaking, "civil unrest" describes the pathological condition in which for some reason members of a civilization fail to "rest" on their behinds and ignore what's happening in the world. While this problem is usually regarded by police as being just as serious as a riot it isn't technically the same thing... 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a riot not civil unrest. Furthermore this article merits a POV tag with unsourced inflammatory statements. Hadrianheugh (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

They are nearly always referred to in France as émeutes de Villiers-le-Bel - which translates as riots - or violences.Richard n 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ethnical part

to be honest it should be pointed out the two deads were maghreb-french teenagers and the rioters are all maghreb-french and african-french. this is ethnical riot like in the us. Cliché Online (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have serious sources for this ? Rama (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

i have tv dude :) blog comments and pictures are available everywhere from the Figaro website to Yahoo News. Cliché Online (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources in this sort of cases.

Photographs I have seen do not support the theory that the offenders are from such or such ethnic group. Rama (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

you are a funny guy aren't you? i don't know what pictures you've seen, but look at these ones from Le Figaro's special report. they don't look like Normands nor Britons to me. they are all africans. the dead were two muslisms, a blackboy and an arab as read in L'Express. the same as in 2005: same scums, same riots, as in the Watts riots. blogs are not reliable and so is wikipedia. Cliché Online (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not mprove the article yourself? If you feel Wikipedia is not doing a good job on this article, you can improve it! Just use sources to back up your claims. There is no conspiracy here, we're just trying to report the facts from a neutral point of view. Please tell us where we're making mistakes, and we'll try to improve the article with your help. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-27 22:22

Cliché Online, it sounds like you are a racist. Maybe it's just your bad English but the way you phrased that rather implies that the victims were "scums" as were people involved in the watts riots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.10.81 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

dear anonymous, yes my english is sometimes poor, i'm sorry about this. what i meant was this is ethnical riots involving black people as in the watts riots. these black people shooting on the police are called "scums" here by the right wing media. now rama comes and claims i'm telling lies, and asks for evidence, i've posted official pictures (AFP press) of the rioters and he refuses to admit what's obvious. telling rioters are maghreb-french and african-french is not being racist, this is using the US ethnical terms and this is the truth. there were trouble in toulouse's suburbs yesterday, this suburb called Reynerie is like a chinatown but with maghreb and africa inhabitant instead; i've been there. this is the truth without lies nor being political correct. some here might dislike it. now about being racist if i've talked wit rioters in blogs and dailymotion video cxomments and they are racist, they hate france and the french and they are islamists. Cliché Online (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is obviously a race-related riot. I was in France at the time of the 2005 riots in Toulouse and the rioters were all North Africans Arabs and Sub-Saharan Blacks. They're violence was also directed at ethnic French and white tourists from what I saw. I witnessed several attacks personally. However due to irrational political correctness this incident is not being reported as a race-riot, which it clearly is. Koalorka (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't obvious, far from it. And the 2005 riots had nothing racist or religious, they stemmed from a feeling of despair.

I agree. Burning up someone else's car is a completely legitimate reaction to feelings of despair. If you're feeling even more despair, then the legitimate reaction would be to burn down a library or a school. Loundry (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's neither here nor there. Wanton destruction is not legitimate, should it stem from racial hatred, despair or political design. But speaking of racial riots when absolutely nothing supports it is not tolerable. It was done already about the riots of 2005, and was disproven by Police intelligence. Rama (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Burning up a car is not "wanton" destruction if it's a single car. Likewise, burning down a school is not "wanton" destruction if it's a single school. We have to understand that these are legitimate reactions to feelings of despair. I often burn up cars when I feel despair. It's natural. Loundry (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, "ethnic French" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Rama (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't obvious for you, since you have an agenda of trying conceal this clear manifestation of racial tension. You wouldn't happen to be affiliated with the French Ministry of Internal Affairs? You've done nothing useful but downplayed the significance of the riots, bad for tourism? Ethnic French has no meaning? Maybe to an apologist like yourself, and that's your opinion. Many people are proud and assert their French inheritance. Koalorka (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he may be hinting that there has been somuch mass migration in Europe that ethnic French is a bit of a confusing identity, as is the case in England, where the majority of those who consider themselves "English" actually have ancestors from other parts of Europe. Nevertheless, lets calm down. There is no need to comment on the conduct of any user, lets just comment on the conduct of the article. Try to appreciate that many interpretations can be made of the same event, and they can all be equally valid. SGGH ^speak! 12:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Koalorka, you are suggesting that there are racial tensions. Yet no serious sources back your claims. Foreigners, especially Americans, are easily tempted to cry wolf because they do not understand the French social system (which is radically different from that of the USA on many respects) and because they have been spoon-fed ludicrous propaganda for years by right-wing media whose natural tendency to point the finger to disaffected youth and to treat "blacks", "Arabs" and "Muslims" as alien and hostile monolithic entities has been exacerbated by the bitterness of the Iraq fiasco (the French have to be wrong about something).

Nothing of these "analysis" can replace facts and proper sources. And the fact is that nothing suggests racial riots. Rama (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a source. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/27/europe/riots.php#end_main I will add this to the article. Jules1236 (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"the fact is that nothing suggests racial riots", false again, even the BBC said "ethnically diverse" suburbs. this Reuters news said it as well. you are clearly pushing an agenda. it's like the AFP picture of the blackman caught by the police... you were: "nooo he isn't black!" lol. these pictures published in Le Figaro clearly show they are black and arab people. Cliché Online (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true, the facts support the idea that this is a race based riot. As found in the wikipedia article for Villiers-le-Bel "Arab youths attacked a police station in Villiers-le-Bel, torched cars..." If there is to be consistency the rioters described in this article should be described in a manner that at least shows them to be an ethnic minority. Before anyone jumps at the chance to call me a racist I just want to say that I believe their race/religion adds context to the events that the euphamistic "youths" does not.--SCJE 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

8 scums busted

in Le Figaro here. Cliché Online (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is said that 39 people were arrested on the third night. Kromsson (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

newspaper

hey, wikipedia is not a newspaper, why do you write an article about this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.20.246 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is an event that is noteworthy. SGGH ^speak! 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the point : newspaper also speak about these events. An encyclopedia should wait that historians write books about this. 213.103.20.246 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the difference with wikipedia. Wikipedia can be update to include the most recent events as opposed to other encyclopedias. Spencer ^{(Talk to Me)} 02:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be de facto, but there is no rule about "current events" (just a link to a portal) and common sense should be that we wait for historians write books about this. 80.170.184.38 (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So should we only start writing our article on September 11th Attacks right about now? When the first books are coming out? Wikipedia is more than a collection of historical journals, otherwise we wouldn't have articles like "space", "wormhole" or "Lindsey Lohan". Sorry, but I can't understand your thinking. As long as we avoid POV or Original Research, articles on current events are perfectly valid. Remember there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a journalists article. I hope you see where I'm coming from. SGGH ^speak! 12:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

«So should we only start writing our article on September 11th Attacks right about now?» Yes. 80.170.184.38 (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy regarding this matter. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and you are correct about that. However, that does not mean that recent events cannot be made into articles. The policy states that "News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." One qualifier is that notability is not a temporary thing. If in 6 months, for example, nobody cares about these events anymore you can make an argument to have the article deleted. -- Atamasama 00:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Beware of press reports

As an example of how reports can be hyped and overstated, I'd like to show an example of a BBC article, Paris rioters 'criminals' says PM. I regard the BBC as a very good source of information, and read it regularly. Now,

• The title, no less, is wrong and misleading. Fillon said exactly this: "Those who shoot policemen are criminals" ("Ceux qui tirent sur des policiers sont des criminels"). Which is probably untrue (it's probably a lesser offence), but is much less provocative. Since the correct statement is quoted further in the article, it's a good example of the gross distortions that journalists deem acceptable to have a catchy title (People are dying in Iraq as we speak partly because of a wave of similar lines 5 years ago).
• "The youths said they were avenging the death of two teenagers killed when they were hit by a police car on Sunday". Misleading at best by not stating clearly that "hit by a police car" is part of the quoted statement. That the teenagers where his by a police car is not a generally accepted fact. Actually, it seems that it was the other way round.
• "Police say some officers suffered bullet wounds": apparently untrue. The projectiles seem to have been shogun pellets, not bullets from pistols or rifles.
• "They responded with tear gas and rubber bullets.": misleading. The French police responded with a riot control weapon known as flash-ball, not rubber bullets fired from standard firearms as the article could suggest. Flashball projectiles, if disagreable, are probably less dangerous than rubber bullets.
• "The 2005 unrest, sparked by the accidental deaths of two youths, spread from a nearby suburb of Paris to other cities and continued for three weeks, during which more than 10,000 cars were set ablaze and 300 buildings firebombed.": 8 973 is not more than 10 000. There were more cars torched in the UK that year than in France.

Nothing of this is dramatic, and I still regard the BBC as a good source of information. Yet there are lots of details that are rendered in a confusing, exagerated and misleading fashion. We should not build on this. Rama (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

you are ridiculous, look what a busted rioter looks like in L'Express (#6). aww! it looks like he's a black man, how can it be? another picture maybe, now what does the family and neighbours look like (#18), impossible! it looks like they're not Gauls!! a last one? ok, cheese! (#20) Cliché Online (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, one whole Black ? They sure must all be, yes.

Agreed. Showing one black person means nothing. The rest of the "youths" are all old Chinese women, just like it was in 2005. Surely we must ignore and/or rationalize this problem as hard as we can to avoid looking racist, ageist, or sexist toward old Chinese women who are clearly having feelings of despair. Loundry (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, what sort of Black ? French Guinea ? Guadeloupe ? Rama (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

here's another one, just for your viewing pleasure. this is an official media Rue 89. what there are black people there too?! that's impossible! which blacks you said? african blacks, the others you mentioned are french from centuries, catholics and have nothing to do with these scums. Cliché Online (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you

1. cease making irrelevant inferences from a few cases: because one person on a photograph happens to be Black does not imply that all the people in the crows all are. If you look at the other photographs, you can see that it is not the case.
2. leave religion where it belongs: outside of this topic. Besides, where on earth did you acquire the silly notion that people in Guadeloupe and French Guiana "are catholics" ?
3. watch your language.

Thank you very much in advance. Rama (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

just who do you think you are? rejecting the BBC, opposing to everyone here, etc. It is you who is irrelevant to this article, you don't have a clue about what's happening there. if you don't know about an article you are not supposed to edit it. Cliché Online (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not reject the BBC. I twice mentioned that I regard it as a fine source of information.

Nor am I opposing everybody here, I am merely objecting to points I find weak so that we keep the strong ones. This is called "constructive criticism". Rama (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your scare quotes are unintentionally, yet entirely apropos. Loundry (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia routinely lists the ethnic make up of individuals

Take any simple article about an individual and you will find Wikipedia refer to them as "Russian-American, born to parents from Lebanon and Iraq, born to Jewish parents, etc.), yet in this article, there seems to be a effort to avoid the ethnic makeup of the participants. Is Wikipedia leaving it apolitical roots? user:mnw2000 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I you are referring to the victims, as for now I don't think that their nationalities have been mentioned in the press. Rama (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rame : see http://jt.france2.fr/20h/ Meithal (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article says, at the very bottom, that the two boys were of Algerian origin. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7115267.stm --RenniePet (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that they are French ? Rama (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably means that they (and their parents) are French citizens, but that the parents come from Algeria. --RenniePet (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

you said before beware of the medias and now you use one of them because it helps you. the BBC is right and everybody knows what's going on there except you Rama. Moushin is black and he is a muslim, there's a picture of him and a report about him in L'Express available here. Cliché Online (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I say that the media should be read with a critical distance and that we should stick to original sources to avoid accumulation of approximations and distortions. This is a truism but it is useful to remind it from time to time. As for the rest,

1) One of the victims was Black. So what ?

2) From where do you hold it that he his of Muslim faith ?

3) If it were true, what would this have to do with anything ?

Besides, the photograph could easily be that of a Berber or another group not considered to be "Black" in the banlieues. Rama (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't how Wikipedia works. We use reliable sources and report what they say, not conduct our own independent investigations into the facts. Wikipedia is a place to summarize consensus knowledge, not to conduct original investigations into whether that consensus is true or not. --Delirium (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

people i have the feeling some people here like rama refuses to admit what's obvious. everybody knows this is ethnical riots and that's all even though the french mass media call them "young" to be politically correct but the politicians from right to left now admit this is ethnical riots and the BBC has no such taboo. the BBC news article was talking about "ethnic diverse population". Cliché Online (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's an ethnically motivated riot. That's why it's is up to us as a responsible community to prevent cultural apologists like Rama from distorting and obstructing the truth. Koalorka (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then source it. Rama (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it stolen?

Some, (smaller), papers have reported that the bike was stolen. Does anybody know if, (officially), the bike was stolen or if it belonged to one of the two youths? FFMG (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have heard the bike was unlicensed from the local radio.--Doom Child (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Caution, these are different things: "unlicenced" means that the bike was not approved for road use.

I have looked into the matter of "stolen vehicle" and I've seen nothing in the mainstream newspapers that supports it as for now. Some blogs and blog comments say it, but it apparently stems from a received idea. Rama (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the sense I meant it as, (to take something without permission). I just wasn't sure if it was true as none of the 'bigger' papers were mentioning that the bike was stolen. FFMG (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that early reports did mention this (Reuters, for instance), but the information was not repeated later.

Incidentally, there's an interesting item in this report: the victim are said to have died during transport to hospital. This could be interesting from a medical point of view, in conjunction with the information that firemen could not treat them on the scene. Rama (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

France24 of the 26th does not seem to mention that the bike was stolen. But there are reports of the policemen leaving the scene. It does not say it they ran away or if they were chased away, (or even if the reports are true). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFMG (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the bike was STOLEN! ---Novis-M —Preceding comment was added at 09:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any reference to prove that it was, (why use uppercase BTW?). Do you have any links or references to help us? FFMG (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have. But they're in Czech, so I think you won't understand them. I'll try to find something in English. ---Novis-M —Preceding comment was added at 09:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's the Czech press that has the first-hand information on French matters. I should have known. Rama (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there were such allegations of the Police leaving the scene, but they were formuled along with accusations of ramming the motorbike and forbidding witnesses from helping the victims, and don't seem to hold water. At least, the results of the investigations don't seem to confirm it. Rama (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see what the investigation says, (but I suspect some people will not accept it).

At the end of the day I think it was nothing more than a terrible accident that sparked the unrest(s). FFMG (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

in the line of your remark, after the 2005 riots, a study by the Renseignements Généraux (the police intelligence service) highlighted that calm was precarious and that any new death could trigger new incidents. Of course the report is now cited at length in the press. Rama (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow what you are saying. What has my remark got to do with what the study highlighted?

As an aside, I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that any death where the police is, even remotely, involved would re-trigger the unrest. FFMG (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's your "terrible accident that sparked the unrest" remark that is a good intuition, since it's confirmed by police intelligence analysis. It sounds like a trivial observation now, but that the tension was high enough that an incident would spark a wave of violence is less trivial. Rama (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. FFMG (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This article says that it is still not sure the motorcycle was stolen or not. The AFP said it was at first, but didn't confirmed. Kromsson (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Context: Rue 89 is a news website in the "new information" trend, written largely if not entirely by professional journalists. The articles are generally of an excellent quality, at least on par with what you find in the main news websites. Rama (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion need ??

Hello, I first state clearly that I'm French, to be clear.

I think that this article is useless and a dramatisation.

1. Every day(night) in France, that's about 90 cars which are burn to the ground for criminal reasons, from which probably 45 in the Capital area. 2 teenagers death and 70 cars burn it's a local (Sarcelles) riot, not a "unrest in France".
2. Please talk about "an unrest in Sarcelles (and the area ?). Medias are often happy to use Great tittles : it's really convenient to underline bad things which happen is other countries... but that's really naive to follow them.
3. French wikipedians are currently seriously considering to delete this articles according to this position : local riots + not enough time gone to judge calmly.

I don't come to ask to delete this article, but I encourage you to don't copy mass-medias, and to use more neutral words depicting the situation. Especially, the name "2007 civil unrest + in France" seems to me really misleading far from the reality. Yug (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We all need to understand that "youths" stomping on burned-out abandoned police cars, shooting at police, torching cars, and burning down buildings is completely routine in France. It's an everyday occurrence in modern France. No need to get dramatic about it -- it's completely normal. Loundry (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've heard Paris (the City of ...ahem... "Lights") is lovely this time of year. Loundry (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful pieces of sarcasm, really helps a lot. But in future can you please add you comments at the end of the discussion rather than inserting them at the top. FFMG (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the "end of the discussion" is easy to find, then sure, I'll comply with that. I appreciate your completely un-sarcastic compliments, which are much more helpful than my own comments. Cette année, Noël à Paris? Formidable! Loundry (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent, but maybe it should only be renamed?

I understand that a lot of cars are burned, but France is not used to 50+ policemen been injured, stations attacked, (and burned).

And in light of the 2005 events, this article is a useful footnote to have. FFMG (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I finaly dared to make the rename myself. I don't try to chage history, I try to be more factual. This rename made by myself is simply faster and so more efficient. Of course, the article may still be rename in ".... in Val-d'Oise (France)" if the riots spreads. Yug (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The French interior minister liking the situation to a guerilla war, does that not make this situation a little more unique? I don't know much about France in a social sense, someone will have tro enlighten me. SGGH ^speak! 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Where have you seen that the Interior Ministry qualified these events of "guerilla war" ? Rama (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I may comment if it's true : yes, our current president really love use great words. But do you already seen a guerrilla of just 2 days ? This sentence is wonderfully funy. Yug (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Words, especially those of politicians, don't make facts. Words are really welcome in Wikinews to give clear opinions. My POV is that this is a local riots/unrest, with destructions, with people beaten. The citation should be take especially cautioniously on Wikipedia. Citations don't make facts, and Medias don't give good definitions. Yug (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (feel free to correct my English if need)

As an inclusionist, I would oppose this article's deletion. Nevertheless, I think we need to be very careful about the direction this article can take. A quick glance at the edit history and the discussion page shows how this article is attracting a lot of contributions that give off more heat than light. Rama and Yug's comments are quite helpful in putting the events of the past few days in perspective. So let's stay vigilant :) A final point -- in line with Rama's remarks about the problems with some media reports.. This story, cited in the article, calls Seine-Saint-Denis a "town". We all make mistakes, and I'm not trying to slam that IHT, but someone who actually knows a thing or two about Paris' suburbs probably wouldn't confuse a département and one of its similarly-named towns. And we need to take articles written by a journalist who knows little about Francilian suburbs with a grain of salt, no matter how well-meaning he or she may be. --Zantastik talk 15:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Yug has made some good points, but the article still doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. Calling it a "riot" or "civil unrest" in misleading because this kind of violence (torching cars, burning down schools, shooting police officers) is a normal, everyday occurrence in France, and thus this "story" is entirely unnewsworhy. These days, a school being burned down in France is as newsworthy as a drug assassination in Colombia. Indeed, we must be vigilant. Loundry (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? I have heard that Paris and France in general has many car burnings everyday and that it is not as safe as in the US anymore. However, I doubt that schools are burned down on a regular basis. The article should clearly be kept. As an aside, can you imagine the international news coverage if this had happened in NYC or Washington DC. Mohummy (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Yug agrees with me. The entire article should be deleted if it doesn't reflect the current reality of France, which includes burning cars, burning schools, and shooting at police officers. This isn't "news", it's France! And yes, there would be international news coverage French-style car torchings happened in NYC, but there would also be international news coverage if there were Colombian-style drug assassinations in NYC. This is about projecting the reality of today's France and not some sensationalized media hype. What's everyday reality for NYC isn't everyday reality for France or everyday reality for Colombia. Loundry (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To Mohummy and Loundry : are you aware that your talks have serious "US-media" biaises. Paris city (intra muros) is perfectly safe (or like every peaceful big town : with some few exeptions every day), and was perfectly safe all the time of the 2005 unrest. In the same time, US gouvernement, and then newsparpers were saying to US citizen to cancel travel in France, a really nice [sellable] no sense. Paris is perfectly normaly safe because many tourists and rich peoples come frenquently : it have to be (perfectly) safe if we want to earn as much money as possible.

Burning school is not commons, but yes : when some poor students have troubles, they may stupidly came and launch a little fire, when in USA the most unhappy students come out and kills one dozen.

Looking this two exceptional facts, I will still say that FRANCE (fully), the area of PARIS (fully), and USA are at 99.99% safe.

Burning cars in France happen. Yes. But quickly calculated, that's about 1car/night/300.000cars ! So you have one chance on 300.000 to get your car burned in France. Yes, France stay in all probabilities a safe place, don't follow media who just want to sell their beautifully illustrated papers and heavely focused + alarmist papers.

My conclusion

Yes, we have here a local riot, unusual, it's true. But keep this article objective : that's currently perfectly local, and quasi unsignifiant in the France scale. This should understood. Yug (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not "Which country is safer?" The issue is, "Are car torchings a normal, everyday occurrence in France?" By your own words, yes, it is. Since you think the entire article is unnewsworthy and should be deleted, then I can only conclude that shooting at police and burning down schools are equally normal and everyday occurrences in France. (Vous etes francais, vous connaisez bien la France que moi, donc, vous sont savez que le tirer aux gendarmes et l'immolation des ecoles des evenements normales et communes. Pardonez-moi que je ne parle pas bien francais.) Thus, this article is sensationalistic and should be deleted because the article only reflects something that is common in the France of today. Whether or not France is safe is beside the point. Let me illustrate: if an individual is murdered in Sudan, is that newsworthy? Of course not, because murders are common there. Whether or not Sudan is safe is beside the point. This is about newsworthiness, not about safety. Loundry (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To Loundry

First, read again my first post, where I state that I don't ask deletion. Then please stop to manipulate what I wrote.

1. I wrote something saying "yes, that happen, some times, like every where : that's exceptions, the probability being about 1/300.000." England, Spain, and USA have probably same rates, and I claim that "car torchings is normal, everyday occurrence in France, England, Germany, Italia as well" (countries with 60 millions hab.!), or your are really naive about what happen daily in your country. Accordingly, I simply support that some dozen cars burning daily in an entire 60 millions people's country is not a amazing breaking news. No more.
2. I never asked to delete this page, read again my first post : "I don't come to ask to delete this article, but I encourage you to don't copy mass-medias, and to use more neutral words depicting the situation."
3. I stated clearly, honnestly and calmly the statement "Burning school is not commons, but yes : when some poor students have troubles, they may stupidly came and launch a little fire", but from this same sentence and comment you summarized "I can only [By [Yug's] own words] conclude that shooting at police and burning down schools are equally normal and everyday occurrences in France." <= I never wrote to support such ideas.

In conclusion, simply claim that shooting at police and burning down schools is no daily, but possible. And accordingly -On my own opinion- have not to become an International breaking news. This is a mediatic rush, to take a not-common-event, and display it as an Amazing Dangerous France-located unrest. Moreover, please don't give me opinions that I never had. Yug (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that Loundry has resumed normal behaviour.

Torching of cars are indeed commons events in France. Not in this magnitude of course, but there are cars torched every day, yes. And in days of riots, torching of cars is the way people express themselves, so to say. Think of the yearly burning of cars in Alsace at the New years Eve. Incidentally, in 2005, there were more cars burnt in the UK than in France, so don't think that France is especially disintegrating because of this.

I think we're in agreement. Common, everyday events like car-torchings make France a much crappier place, but I don't think it's especially disintegrating. Crappy, but not yet disintegrating. Unless you enjoy car-torching, then you probably think France is great. In all honestly, I find it almost hard to believe that there are others here nodding and smiling while saying, "Oh, car torchings are totally normal!" as if that were an acceptable thing. "Nothing to see here!" I happen to like France and the French people and greatly resent you being testy not that France is being raped, but that other people are pointing that out as a bad thing. Loundry (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Arson of public buildings is less common. Shooting of policemen is even less.

Give those things time to become as common and everyday as French-style car-torchings. It seems that we're already becoming accustomed to those things being associated with France. "Nothing to see here!" Loundry (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The person who suggested that this article be deleted is entitled to his opinion, which is respectable. I do not share it. Neither do you, fine. But you are rendering yourself a disservice with your arrogant and contempting attitude, especially when you engage in borderline racist rants.

Here's where the sarcasm comes off. I think you are working extremely hard to both minimize the scope of the problem and obfuscate the source of the problem. Likewise, I think you are also extremely arrogant and quite possibly mind-blowingly racist. To say that this does you a disservice would render the word "disservice" meaningless. Loundry (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And even if I do not personally share his opinion, he makes a good point that for now the riots are localised, and that the event will probably be completely forgotten in a few months time.

This seems to be Rama's agenda. "Let's all just pretend this didn't happen!" Loundry (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rama (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: and as I re-read the thread, noone suggested deleting the article, only to rename it, which has been done in between. So I don't know where the big outrage comes from. Rama (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point Yug was trying to make is that the article should not refer to the whole of France but rather should refer to the city/suburb where it happens.

When there is a shooting in a school in the US you would not start an article with '2007 Murder in the US', rather you would give the name of the school/university/town where it happened.

This is the same here, France is a very safe place and this article, (as originally titled), was giving the wrong impression that there were riots in the whole of France.

I agree with Yug that would should keep the focus to this banlieue of Paris rather painting the whole of France with the same brush. FFMG (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Are they Muslim and should it be mentioned?

I doubt the protesters or dead teenagers were Buddist, Catholic, or Jewish. However if a protest including molotov cocktails, burnt cars and building, firing guns at police happened by a bunch of American baptists, I'm sure their religeon would be mentioned. Should it be here? Mohummy (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the pictures. The people who are having feelings of despair are clearly old Chinese women. Loundry (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Loundry, shut up.

Mohummy, the religion of these people is

1) unknown

2) irrelevant

Hence it must not be mentioned. Rama (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rama is lying again, don't trust him. The kids were muslims, both of them. there was a report on moushin in L'Express magazine, the journalists focus on the fact he was muslim, there are messages from his blog and messages from his friend calling for revenge against the cops. i've posted the link earlier, check it out. religion is what bounds these african "youngs" together. for your information: On November 28, French news channel BFM TV officially announced "the teenagers will be buried in their country of origin, respectively Morroco for Larami and Senegal for Moushin". note they will be buried in their country of origins not in france. it speaks by itself. Cliché Online (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

for your information and because Rama lies, let me post this quote from L'Express magazine's report on moushin. moushin had a blog, L'Express introduces moushin, here's the quote from L'Express:

"Il témoignait du respect pour deux êtres: Dieu et sa maman." in English it gives "It testified to the respect for two beings: God and his mom." so Rama is lying when he says we don't know if they are muslims, because i've posted this link for him before. And now this is a quote from moushin speaking on his blog quoted by L'Express: "On c’est c ki contrôle, ni les renoi (Noirs), ni les harbi (Arabes), ni les parain, ni les tange (les Gitans), c Yarbi ! Dieu est grand on crain que lui !" in English "We know who is the one who controls, not the blacks, not the arabs, not the godfather, not the gypsies, it is Yarbi ! God is great (the "Allah wakba" expression) we only fear him". voilà. this is available in L'Express article, you can use babelfish to check my translation. beware of Rama he says my links were irrelevant because he denies facts since he is clearly pushing an agenda. i already got a warning message on my talk page because truth is uncomfortable for some people here, so i'll give it up about this news. Cliché Online (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand, but what has their religion got to do with the incident?

Maybe they were Muslims, but surely this was not the cause of the unrest. FFMG (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cliché Online, saying that Rama is lying sounds a bit like assuming bad faith. Please respect WP policy. Now, should we note that Moushin was Muslim? No. The rioters didn't destroy property or attack people based on the religious affiliations of the latter (e.g. public buildings, not churches, etc, were attacked, fonctionnaires in general and cops in particular, not priests, were the prefered (exclusive?) targets. Convinced that there was in fact a religious dimension to the riots? Then start citing some reliable sources that make that claim, or that cite people making that claim. Absent such sources, mentioning that Moushin was Muslim about as much sense as mentioning that he claimed to be a beau gosse ("hot guy", kinda), or any number of biographical details. --Zantastik talk 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Though it might be useful to mention something about "hopelessness" and unemployment rates (La "désespérance" des jeunes) --Zantastik talk 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Burning up cars is a legitimate reaction to hopelessness and unemployment. Loundry (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a marked difference between assuming bad faith and acting based on blatant evidence of bad faith. There comes a point when the empirical evidence is just too strong to argue with, and we got there a while ago. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was unemployed for a period of time in 2006. I somehow found the strength within me to resist the temptation to set buildings, cars and fire and shooting at police with firearms. We have a reverse racism going on here. Rama has proven time and time again that he is a lying cultural apologist, the type of appeasing socialist that dominated Chiraq politics and led to this situation. The religious, ethnic cause of the rioting should be mentioned. Koalorka (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's insane, you just don't make sense out of that conversation. Even if you are sure that the religious background is important wea ll agree that your opinion doesn't matter. Rama and now myself are asking for a reliable source stating that the religious inclination of the rioters had something to do with the violent behaviours. and of course the same goes for the whole desperation about unemployement. I bet we can find sources talking about the malaise social but not about a religious discimination/alienation. KungFuMonkey. 82.66.206.198 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Their religion per se is irrelevant, but what is not irrelevant is that France has a systemic problem caused by its inability to succesfully integrate this immigrants. The article is missing something until this fact is noted. Jules1236 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jules, that is wrong. The French way of integration is perhaps the most progressive in the world. It rejects the communitarianism that so many "diversity" advocates endorse and embraces the idea that all citizens are French. The thing is that these immigrants refuse to be integrated into society. They want to segregate themselves and refuse to play a role in French society. Iceberg007 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Koalorka, you know nothing about my political opinions, and I would be grateful if you refrained to make uneducated guesses about it. Calling Chirac a "socialist" is very telling about your knowledge of France.

It is very different to be unemployed "for a period of time", in the USA, than being unemployed in France with no prospect of finding a good job (for a varieties of reasons among which education is not the least).

Your suggestion of "religious, ethnic cause" is unsupported by sources, even the most stridden Right-wing ones. In 2005, as the situation in Iraq was degenerating and basically everything that Chirac had said was turning out to be true, there were packs if neo-conservative extremists all too happy to cry bleeding Muslim murder and paint the situation as an islamist revolution taking down France because it had not "properly" addressed the issue of "terrorism". Which of course was bollocks. We don't even have any of this now. Rama (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it cannot possibly have escaped your notice that not even the most right wing and paranoid of major news sources is calling this Muslim rioting. Since we all know very well that they must be foaming at the mouth to do so (as they have in the past), this is either evidence of a major shift in Western politics, or some very serious politicking on the part of interested parties. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We know that Moushin was

• Gemini
• Heterosexual and single
• had some sort of religious convictions, though was can't tell from which religion from the Express article. He could have his own for what we know.

We can infer that he probably was

• Muslim
• right-handed.

Now, two things:

1) We don't speculate. As long as we don't have source to confirm things, we don't mention things.

2) We mention relevant things. Assuming that this teenager was indeed Muslim, this is a matter of personal convictions of his and of private life. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Mentionning a (supposed and unsourced) religion is insinuatin that religion has something to do with the incident at hand. Religion has nothing to do with the present incidents.

• Believers of all religions die in the same way after recieving massive trauma
• The rioters are not chanting religious slogans.

What would it look like if we said "Moushin, a Gemeni heterosexual, probably right-handed" ? Well it's just the same with "muslim" -- only worse because that's feeding sentiment that there are people hating Islam out there, ready to twist anything to make Islam look bad. Rama (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia article

for now, I think you should go read/edit wikinews, the event is not over yet. I'm an editor in fr.wp and of course we refused to start an encyclopedia article so early, because this is news and news are simply ... un-encyclopeadic Ofol ^(t) 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• + 1 , Yug (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, fr: lags years behind en: because it is younger, has fewer editors, and generally less mature policies; its quality on political topics is abysmal; its contributors are often incapable of even trying to write in a neutral, precise and scientific manner.

So I am very dubious that en: should take example on fr:, especially on something which can be considered to be a display of weakness and terminal unability to have people work together on an ongoing event. Rama (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

for me, the problem is not a question a encyclopedia "maturity" or number of editors. It is simply a problem of what is and is not an encyclopedia, and what should be tackled in wikinews Ofol ^(t) 00:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia fr: has lessons to give because ? Are we supposed to be impressed by the zero articles published on fr.wikinews ? Is that what's supposed to contrast with the stub-stage article on the encyclopedia ? Rama (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that there is in fact one article on fr.wikinews (it's just that I never saw it on the front page...) The article in question is stub-like, cites one single source, and makes vague and unsourced statements ("La police espère ne pas voir le même scénario se répéter"...). No need to say it doesn't mention international coverage. It is true that this wikinews article is longer than the fr.wikipedia one, but that's more telling about the wp one than anything else. And I really doubt that this is an example that anyone would want to follow. Rama (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rue89.com not reliable?

I added this :

However, the scene of the accident was kept untouched by the crowd [1].

But it was deleted, provided that the source was not reliable. You can check : several sources confirm this fact. Try this one: "Des habitants ont monté la garde autour des véhicules en début de soirée pour contribuer à l'enquête." Kromsson (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rue89 is generally a good source. It is an independant, "new-journalism" thing written by professional journalists and generally on par with the main news websites. In fact it's often the quality of a good paper newspaper. Rama (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So I will restore what was deleted. Kromsson 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

removing sourced facts?

why this sourced fact was removed: "On November 28, French news channel BFM TV officially announced "the teenagers will be buried in their country of origin, respectively Morroco for Larami and Senegal for Moushin"</noiclude>." by the way it was confirmed on the radio this morning. it was also confirmed in a newspaper, it's just too bad for the one who has removed it... I've re-added this fact. :) Cliché Online (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've re-removed it. Le Monde says these countries are their parents' countries of origin, not the boys'. Until the matter becomes clearer, we should refrain from discussing this detail which has little to do with the riots. :) --Zantastik talk 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

and i've added an unreferenced tag for your unreferenced statement. so it is eligible for deletion. 8) Cliché Online (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s.:i've read your link it says they will be buried in moroco and senegal as BFM TV and 20 Miniutes, you have no reason to remove my fact. another agenda pusher... :/ Cliché Online (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

removed unreferenced and false statement about unsure burial place since it is confirmed to be morocco and senegal by three serious sources. ;) Cliché Online (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't insert the unreferenced statement, as a quick glance at this diff shows. The debate was never about the burial location -- rather about whether the parents, or the boys, were from these countries.Be that as it may, any discussion of the burial location would have to note the conflicting newspaper accounts. And since this article isn't about the two teenagers tragically killed, but rather about the riots and the events leading up to them, the burial is not relevant. As soon as rioters, or the press, or ministers, start talking about the burial, then we can, and not before. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Primary = the facts and events themselves. Secondary = the accounts of and commentary about these facts and events. Tertiary = in the case of Wikipedia, an NPOV balanced summary of these accounts and commentary.

We don't get to analyse these events. At all. We get to summerize other analysis and observations. That's it. The secondary sources don't consider the burial location to be important in the context of the riots, the subject of this article. So guess what? The tertiary source (us) doesn't get to inject this element into the commentary or meta-narrative surrounding the riots. If one wishes to do so, I might suggest posting about it on an FN blog. Aside from not violating wikipedia operating procedure, such comments might also be better received there. --Zantastik talk 19:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

re-added removed referenced statement about burial place senegal and morrocco, please refrain your vandalism or your account will be blocked. Cliché Online (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you addressed my comments regarding the relevancy of the burial location? It seems as though you have not.--Zantastik talk 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, Zantastik is obviously having some computer issues. He is a long-time contributor and not a vandal. Please keep that in mind from this point forward, everyone (including you, Zantastik). · jersyko talk 19:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on further investigation, I see that this dispute is not in regard to any computer or formatting issues, but rather is a content dispute. Cliche Online, please refrain from making accusations of vandalism or threatening Zantastik with a block. Such statements are disruptive and uncivil. Please see dispute resolution for how to handle situations like this. · jersyko talk 20:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in the introduction? I have no doubt that they will be buried but it has nothing to do with the article and much less with the introduction.

Furthermore this link is not 'official' in any way, none of the bigger, more reputable, papers have reported where they might be buried. I suspect that there will be a lengthy investigation before their body are released. FFMG (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that it be removed, especially with the different reports. Comments? --Zantastik talk 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly irrelevant to the issue at hand. I understand that it can be exploited politically by fringe far.right-wing extremists, but this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Rama (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think that they should be removed. I could be mistaken, but I really don't see what this has to do with the article itself.

But Cliché Online keeps reverting edits, (and makes some kind of empty threats that are supposed to mean something to us I think), so there is no point. I don't want to get into an edit war.

A real admin should remove those links as they are irrelevant to this article, (and probably nothing more than a guess). FFMG (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is a content dispute, administrative action regarding the links isn't appropriate. If a clear consensus emerges on this talk page to remove them, however, removal of the links (with possible administrative enforcement) would be appropriate by any user. · jersyko talk 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the that the consensus is that the links/information is irrelevant to this article.

I was only suggesting that an admin would help prevent what is fast becoming an edit war. FFMG (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

i've heard BFM News a few minutes ago they told 2 times, "the country of origins of the kids" (le pays d'origine des enfants). Rama has removed information because he iq pushing an agenda, i've restored to the version with the two versions for the origins of the kid, this info is relevant unless you want to hide informations like Rama who denies facts in order to retell a different story of these events. i'll record the video next time! :D Cliché Online (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have warned Cliche Online at his/her talk page about edit warring. Additionally, Cliche Online needs to understand that allegations that other users (which appear to include everyone other than Cliche Online) are pushing a POV or vandalizing this article are disruptive and uncivil. Further such actions or comments will result in Cliche Online being blocked. · jersyko talk 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

yes you've done right, only threating me and not the vandals removing sourced facts, well done. you'll get a rewxard for this. by the way i've found thep odcast for BFML News it's here. Cliché Online (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to label the opposition in a content dispute "vandals" is disruptive. I have blocked Cliche Online for continued incivility and edit warring. Also, given that he/she has just called me a "son of a bitch" on his/her talk page, I wouldn't be surprised if that block was extended by someone else, but I'm done there. · jersyko talk 21:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen, noone is questioning whether the factoid is true. We are questioning whether it is relevant. The riots would have happened the same whether the kids be burried in Marroco or Nebraska.

I'd really like to kill this lame "you can't remove it because it's true" argument. Of course we can. If we kept stuff just becuase it's true, it would lead to articles saying anything. Rama (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

People, the burial of these kids is a private matter which, as far as I know is not the base of an ideology. Face it:

• These riots would have occurred wherever these kids would have been buried
• The riots started before the place of burial was known (and probably decided...).

So this has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Also, I am starting to have had enough of being insulted continuously. People whose views are unsupported by sources, who cannot tell what is relevant from what is not, and who find themselves facing a cabal of a majority of the users against them, should consider making their wisdom public in a blog. Rama (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

References

moushin's blog

"Moushin, who is of immigrant descent, wrote under the pseudonym of Chamoo on his blog". moushin's blog is now in English in Yahoo News. here, also available in French here. "Many youths in the poor and ethnically diverse suburbs"... he is pictured in his blog, he was nicknamed "chamo" french for "camel". 8) Cliché Online (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Chamo" is French for "Camel" ? Now that's news ! Rama (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

yes and Rama is an african name (Senegal), that's another one who's surprised? probably no one. Cliché Online (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This could be construed as a personal attack, and is at the very least uncivil. If you do not discontinue this tact immediately, Cliche Online, I will block you. · jersyko talk 21:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

noooooooooooooooooooooooo! telling Rama is an african name is a personal attack and uncivil nooooooooooooooooo! how could i dare to do this! nooooooooooooooooooo! you are ridiculous and absolutely sharing Rama's agenda. this is sad. Cliché Online (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

which will be your next shameless excuse now to block me and let Rama and Zantastic rewrite the article so they can hide sourced facts and retell the events? Cliché Online (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

French for "camel" is chameau, not chamo. On the other hand, Chamo could by a verlan writing of Moushin.

Rama is indeed an African first name (France currently has Rama Yade for minister), but this is one of the many things which have no connections to my username. I could as well have been a Yugoslav town, an Indian god or a very Franco-French Régiment d'Artillerie de Marine. Rama (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Riots continue for a second night..."?

The first sentence needs to be updated; we are now well past the "second night". Writtenright (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

The riots seem to have more or less stopped after the second night. Rama (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Riots and aftermath

I have made some small changes but I think that the sentences for the 28th and 29th of November should be revisited to give a better summary of what happened. Not sure if we need to leave "the authorities decided not to give detailed account of the riots", surely we can find an account of what happened that night. Also the reference does not seem to have much to do with the preceding statement. FFMG (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference says this : "Les autorités ont toutefois décidé de ne plus communiquer de bilan détaillé des dégâts." I added this because, in 2005, the same decision was taken, to avoid that rioters try to break records. Some argued it was some kind of cover up, etc. Kromsson 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Which it is, in fact. But being a cover up does not mean that it is only a way to bury ones' head in the sand. It appears that one of the motivations for the riots was a sort of competition between quarters as to who would do the best, or worst, on TV.

I seem to recall that the Greek government has has a similar attitudes towards a wave of far-left terrorism in the 70s. After the national media ceased to report attacks, the attacks died out by themselves. Rama 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Liberal Inquisition

E pur si muove!... (The preceeding unsigned comment was added by User:89.155.102.192 at 14:56, 30 November 2007.)

France stunned by rioters’ savagery

The article France stunned by rioters’ savagery [2] is a typical instance of things with which we should be careful.

This is an editorial, not a report on facts; it is sensationalistic ("conceivably, the deployment of the army to keep peace" ?); and the sort of comments it attracts speaks at length on the sort of sentiment it is courting. Rama 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should be careful about editorials. However, the London Times is not even close to being like newspapers such as the Washington Times et al. The LT is a very comprehensive and thoughtful newspaper which engages in reporting as honest as pretty much any on the planet. Rarely, if ever, does it tilt to any sort of partisan agenda. This article seems to be as honest as any could be on the matter and should be included as it appears to be NPOV. One other thing. It appears that this article is not an editorial at all, but simply reporting of the facts. Iceberg007 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. A factual article does not make stretched-out comments on the state of mind of a whole country. A factual article does not include gratuitous considerations like "conceivably, the deployment of the army to keep peace" (for Heaven sake, when is the last time French policemen have shot an innocent bystander repeatedly in a metro ?).

The London Times is a rather good newspaper, but it is clearly leaning on one side. And even if less strident than some US conservative papers, isn't it owned by one Rupert Murdoch, by any chance ? Rama 11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil unrest is people chanting, doing sit-ins, picketing, maybe throwing eggs. These people were buring cars, schools, other buildings, and shooting at the police. This isn't civil unrest, its a riot. Maybe we should change articles about US 60's riots to "civil unrest" too. 131.107.0.71 (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen "civil unrest" used to refer to the present situation in Iraq, where people throw things after removing the pin. Rama (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who call the situation in Iraq "civil unrest" would also call the Stalinist Gulag system a minor bit of incarceration. The crap that's going on in Iraq today is, while reduced over the last few months, just short of a civil war. The cowardly acts in France in late November was nothing short of a riot. Heck, dozens of police officers were wounded by armed thugs and dozens of buildings and cars were torched, for Pete's sake! If this doesn't classify as a full-blown riot, the race riots in Los Angeles were really just a few people going crazy. Iceberg007 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cowardly???

And are you seriously saying that this event was on the same level as the 1992 Los Angeles riots? FFMG (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying these riots were at the same level as those in LA. I'm trying to show that these riots weren't just a bunch of rock-throwing teens. This wasn't just a simple demonstration. It was a series of serious violent acts which resulted in dozens (if not hundreds) of injuries and millions of dollars of damage. Rama seems to be trying to minimize the seriousness of these events. Iceberg007 (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly… I would rather think these events to be magnified by English-speaking media.This matter, sounds in fact like a violent "news in brief" which can't be compared with Los Angeles's Riot. Actually, it was not truly a riot, but acts from some criminal gangs that do not represent ethnical interests. Moreover, a large amount French wikipedians asked for the supression of the French version of the article (see here). Alexander Doria (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that what happens on fr: is of any concern or relevance for what happens here.

Also, I don't have an opinion as to whether the term "riot" is adequate. For all I know, it might well be.

On the other hand, I think that Iceberg007 is mistaken when he says that "these riots weren't just a bunch of rock-throwing teens". In fact it seems to have been much closer to that than to a ethnic riot à la Los Angeles 1992, or to a French Intifada, as some people appear to believe. Rama (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RACE-RIOT OR NOT??? FALSELY LOCATED ARTICLE Looking for race riots I bumped into this article... It is not possible to find the words "race-riot" in this article, no problematisation of it. For my part, I have never seen anything that suggests that these events should be classified as race riots. The confrontations did not take part between different ethnic groups, neither was the cause of the riots ethnic in any obvous sence. I therefore suggest that this article is removed from the list of race riots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stina marre (talk • contribs) 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)