Jump to content

Talk:2005 French riots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.63.50.227 (talk) at 11:49, 2 November 2005 (→Explain). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"electrocuted" [1] is an American term coined to refer to the death penalty (execution). It was apparently used for accidents as early as 1909, but that it seems to be purely American English, and it does carry connotations of 'execution'. In this case, it would be advisable to say "Died of electric shock", to be on the safe side, I think. Baad 10:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The OED cites use of the word to refer to any death by electricity as early as 1909. The Yorkshire Post is cited, so this use is not confined to American English. Rhobite 17:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sure, I wouldn't object in any other case, but the entire riots revolve around allegations that these youths were killed as a result of police action, so to speak accusing France of the deaths. The death-penalty connotations of "electrocution" should be avoided because of this. If it was a completely uncontroversial accident, I would agree that the word would be unproblematic. 83.79.181.171 18:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a world outside America. 'Electrocuted' is English for 'killed by electricity'. If you don't speak English any more, then the onus is on you to translate it into American, not for us to change the language to suit your 'dialect'. 65.213.215.153
did you even read the above comment, and click on the link? for your benefit:
electrocute: "execute by electricity," 1889, Amer.Eng., from electro- + (exe)cute; sense involving accidental death is first recorded 1909.
the term is American. I was requesting that it be changed from American. I realize that the term is sometimes used in English outside America, also in the 'accidental' meaning. I really don't see where you are coming from if you are putting the 'onus' on me to translate it 'into American' when I'm pointing out that the article is in American. 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Tags

Tags added owing to nature of writing, repition and revertion of attempted corrections. there is a clears bias and original Researc. removing of the tags is vandalism, do not remove them. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You must be more specific if you wish to make such allegations. Otherwise you aren't interested in improving anything, you are only interested in spin doctoring with a ridiculous battery of unsubstantiated tags. -- Zeno of Elea 13:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit harsh, but I agree that Irish should go into more detail. --Kizor
Already engaging in a POV edit, and POV protection. Don't remove the tags without discussion, it is vandalism! The article needs to be cleaned up, it repeats itself on several occasions, and has grammar problems elsewhere, do not remove the cleanup tag. The point on including a synagogue attack is what exactly? How, exactly, is it related to the crisis at hand (Apart from it being in the same area; using that as a Criteria we should include every criminal incident in the area from, apparently, 2001). Why did you write "The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism and due to the rise of militant Islam", and then revert to it twice, when the referenced BBC article actually says "Far more common is the attitude of Nour-eddine Skiker, a youth worker near Paris: "I feel completely French. I will do everything for this country, which is mine." Mr Skiker's Moroccan origins mean a lot to him. But, like many youths in the suburbs, he sees no contradiction between being French and having foreign roots.". Your refusal to accept correction leads to the necessity for the {{disputed}} tag. Your using a Blog as source reference also adds to that. You say that left Wing politicians were "Shocked" at the government reaction! I doubt that, but it remains unsourced. There is an Anti-Muslim, Pro-State bias in the article,a nd frankly needs a complete Re-write. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom: Could you please stop falsly accusing editors of vandalism just because they disagree with you selection of tags? Another thing is that there is no way that this needs to be rewritten. If you feel that you need more references for some of the information then add them, but what you are doing now looks more like trolling. -- Karl Meier 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, removing validly placed tags without any discussion is a form of vadalism, its as simple as that. The article uses a Blog which refers to the Victims as "Foolish" is used as a source, clearly that is not an acceptable source. We should not use blogs as refernces anyway, less they are part of the situation. The article needs to be re-written, as it stands it's POV and factual accuracy are in dispute. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know the definition of vandalism very well, and you adding them with mentioning any mentioning any reasonable concerns seems like an attempt to attack Zeno just for the sake of doing it. There is a word for that kind of behavior and I already mentioned it. Also, if you find that a single source needs to be replaced, then fix it, instead of just yelling and screaming and adding a huge amount of silly tags about that the article needs to rewritten. -- Karl Meier 15:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried fixing problems but was reverted in every step. Then you reverted the tags added to highlight the problems. The concerns are highlighted above. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did some various cleanup work on the article. This doesn't require a complete rewrite, nor is there much of an accuracy dispute, so I removed the tags and replaced with a single POV tag. The blog link is unacceptable, it appears to be a right-wing blog and it is the only source which accuses youths of attacking the rescue squad during the rescue attempt. It also accuses the youths of being "foolish". Rhobite 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a starters I dispute the accuracy of the statement "The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism and due to the rise of militant Islam" further, I dispute that "Clichy-sous-Bois has a large Muslim community, mostly immigrants from Africa." - From what I've been reading, most are 2nd and 3rd Gen youths. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what you think and believe. The information is sourced and it's no excuse to remove it, that it doesn't suit your personal PoV. If you think that a different PoV need to be added then do that, but don't remove any proberly sourced information. -- Karl Meier 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where, and be precise is the source for "The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism and due to the rise of militant Islam" - Because I've read the source provided and it says the opposite. Further, where is the source for "Clichy-sous-Bois has a large Muslim community, mostly immigrants from Africa".--Irishpunktom\talk 18:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, will you stoop to turning anything into a point-scoring contest about Islam? I fail to see how the synagogue burnings are at all relevant, since no synagogues appear involved in the present riots. It makes sense to disuss France's immigrants' ghettos in this context, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with 'militant Islam'. If anything, these are class or race riots, nobody called for Shariah rule in Paris. 83.79.181.171 18:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A BBC article that says "The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation and secularism and due to the rise of militant Islam". Ok the BBC has a serious problem with accuracy. Muslims and Blacks in Paris are treated with exceptional dignity. The US and GB could take a page out of their book. There are many Black communities from Algers, Refguees from Libya, Morocco. Where was the Shadow governments for Iraq and Iran based? Paris.
Other articles cite that Youths were arrested in connection with the riots. Huh? Youths in Paris Rioting? There were at least 3 riots when I was there, and a beatifull french girl, with 'Mal De France' ran up and kissed me on the lips! Even if you are right there, in the middle of the situation, you may not see the causes of it.
Lastly 'Clichy-sous-Bois' ( If you never have been there, dont quote that you read something about it...I had read about it too, but was suprised by how diffrent it was than what I read. ), has a large Black community, from all parts of Africa. I met some people there from Etheria, who had a lot of fun mocking my french. They spoke perfect french, and had been there for generations.
Finally. Anyone who puts Muslim, and any religious inflection in this article is detracting from a neutral point of view. This is a problem with some kids, and not a race or religious riot. Artoftransformaiton} 21:47, 1 November 2005 (U

Again, I ask, how, exactly, is the synagogue attack related to the crisis at hand (Apart from it being in the same area; using that as a Criteria we should include every criminal incident in the area from, apparently, 2001).--Irishpunktom\talk 18:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example that there has also been religious/political unrest in that specific area previously, and that is of course relevant information. The attack on the synagogue is not just any kind of crime. -- Karl Meier 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as related. An attack on a synagogue has nothing to do with two boys being so afraid of police interrigation that they are chased to death. They are unrelated, certainly as stated there. INdeed, the unemployment stats would be more relevent than that. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not just about the incident with the two guys, that for some reason didn't wanted to talk to the police. The name of the article is - if you didn't notice it - the "2005 Paris riots". It's about the riots and it's relevant to mention that previously there has also been other incidents of religious/political unrest/violence in that specific area. -- Karl Meier 19:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The riots triggered by the deaths of those two teenagers. Nothing to do with a Synagouge. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That the riot happens in an area where there also previously - and only a few years ago - has been other incidents of religious/political violence and unrest, is worth mentioning. One of the incidents of previous religious/political unrest was the attack on the synagogue, and there is no excuse not to mention it. -- Karl Meier 19:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, if you are so interested in the history of the area, why don't you do Clichy-sous-Bois, which is still a redlink; you can supply a nice timeline of all sorts of events in that article. 83.79.181.171 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I am interested in, is that this article contain the information that is relevant to it's subject. Another thing is, can I ask you to please log in? I think that some people might find it a bit confusing not to know who they talking to, and perhaps it could even lead to some unnessecary misunderstandings. -- Karl Meier 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if you refuse to delegate "information that is relevant to it[']s subject" to articles linked from this article, I'm afraid you'll have to copy the entire French rule in Algeria, Colonialism, History of Islam, Franks and Neolithic Europe into this article. You see, npov doesn't mean that anything with a remote connection to the subject mentioned here and now, no matter what. 83.79.181.171 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To mention that the neighborhood where the riots are taking place, have a history of previous religious and political violence is more relevant and appropiate in this article, than it is to copy "the entire French rule in Algeria" article into it. A short mentioning of previous, and quite recent political/religious violence should be appropiate. If the article is getting too long we can of course start to make subarticles about the history of political/religious violence and so on in that neighborhood, but that isn't the case yet. Also, I find it strange why there seems to be editors around here, that are so determined to remove that piece of information from the article? Irishpunktom almost vandalized the article, only to aviod the mentioning of other recent incident of political/religious violence in that specific place. -- Karl Meier 00:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speculate as to why you didn't invest the time you spent haggling with Tom into making a Clichy-sous-Bois stub where your information will be undisputedly at home. That would have been the productive approach. I am tempted to do it for you, but I prefer to give you a chance to do something worthwhile on Wikipedia for once. 81.63.50.227 07:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The information belongs in this article. -- Zeno of Elea 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, I suggest you put it back, and do a decent Clichy-sous-Bois stub, including the ancient and medieval history mentioned in the French article, and we'll know that you're capable of contributing to the encyclopedia, and not just haggling, edit-warring, trolling and meatpuppetry. 08:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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.

Vandalism... Literally

In response to the Paris vandalism riots, French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, stated that police officers should be armed with non-lethal weapons vandalism to combat urban violence. [16] After the fourth consecutive night of riots, Sarkozy declared a zero-tolerance policy towards urban violence and announced that 17 companies of riot police and 7 mobile police brigades would be stationed in contentious Paris vandalism neighborhoods. Undercover police officers were sent to identify "gang leaders, drug traffickers and big shots." Sarkozy's approach was criticized by vandalism left-wing politicians who called for greater public funding for vandalism, housing, education, and job creation, and refraining from "dangerous demagoguery." [17] Sarkozy was further criticized after he referred to the rioters as "scum" [18] and "riff-raff." [19]

During his visit to Clichy-sous-Bois, the Interior Minister was to meet with the families of the youths, but when the tear gas grenade was sent into the Clichy mosque, the families pulled out of the meeting. Bouna Traoré's brother Siyakah said, "There is no vandalism way we’re going to see Sarkozy, who is incompetent. What happened in the mosque is really disrespectful". [20]

The BBC wrote that the riots illustrate that Muslims in the ghettos of Paris feel alienated due to French society's traditional values of assimilation, secularism, and due to French fears of "the worldwide rise of Islamic militancy," vandalism reporting that "the assertiveness of French Islam is seen as a threat not just to the values of the republic, but vandalism to its very security." [21]

Why can't all vandalism be this easy to spot (and this literal)? I need to go to bed, someone fix this, please. And someone also find out who the jackass was who did this in the first place.

--Ihmhi 10:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph references the “five previous French revolutions.” Is this vandalism, or is that actually at all relevant? —GJK 10:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_French_riots&oldid=27156861"