Talk:Samira Bellil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field.

???

This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

[edit] Earlier Discussion

Perhaps this article could be expanded, but CltFn's version is unusable due to its overtly bigoted tone. We cannot write things like "In Islamic communities in French suburbs young Muslim women who disobey proscribed Islamic conduct such as behaving and dressing in as a non-Muslim, or wanting to live as Europeans or refusing to wear the Hijab are considered fair game for Tournantes". Are you suggesting that all Muslims in the community consider it fair game to gang-rape women? Sentences like this make me sick: "Non-Muslim women who are unlucky enough to pass through islamic regions have also been targetted , and brutally raped." Rhobite 16:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have done editing of the expanded version of this article. It definitely needs more NPOV work, and could really do with more sources. However, removing very large fractions of the article is not the way consensus and NPOV is going to be achieved. Sdedeo 17:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you changed a few words and did a find and replace on her name. It's still basically blood libel. I'm tagging this as POV. Rhobite 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get someone from the French wiki (post a message there) to translate for us. I'm sorry you think poorly of my efforts; I made a good faith attempt. Sdedeo 01:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What the French wiki got is exactly the same that I reverted to earlier today. If you can check my user page, u'd find that there's no need for a French wiki translator. Cheers -- Svest 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Hi -- I got into an edit conflict with some while you were working on the article. I incorporated some of my material into what they added (some of the quotes I removed because their meaning was rather obscure, seems it was somewhat clumsily translated.) Sdedeo 02:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

lol! It was me. I'll try to merge yours and mine. Cheers -- Svest 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Did a little more tweaking; I've paraphrased some of the quotes, which were kind of obscure in translation, using my semi-OK French and the French wiki; Bellil uses the word "traine", which literally means "trails" or "slides", but here is used idiomatically to refer to generally sort of "hanging out" and "going with the boys"; kind of hard to translate, but bascially I think I've captured it by writing "does not appear sufficiently 'chaste'." Sdedeo 19:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Sorry guys for reverting all the stuff before Nov.3. I was in a hurry and wanted to make a point. The problem in France, especially in the suburbs of large cities (les banlieues) is considered a social problem. Unemployment is very high compared to European standards and crime rates have never decreased since early 90's. There is one thing worth mentioning. It's the fact that some young gangs of muslim bkground view girls of their own culture who go out with other guys as a praw. It is also worth mentioning the fact that after she wrote in her book, she got condemned. Her parents threw her out in shame, and her quartier, or neighbourhood, rejected her. "People outside the estates don't know," she said. "And everyone on the estate knows, but they won't say anything." There were years of drug abuse, squats, foster homes, despair"Guardian.co.uk. Apart that, I oppose everything that relates this phenomenon to Islam in wikipedia. The reasons are the following:

First of all, Islam forbids Zina (premarital sex and adultery like other religions). Rape is definitly worse than that. It also forbids taking drugs, stealing or any thing related to crime.
...Samira was first gang-raped when she was 14, when her boyfriend handed her over to three of his friends.' - Which is true. She wasn't rapped by strangers or muslims as the article suggest. If Islam forbids adultery, than how come the guy befriended her? Those cases happen everywhere, no matter which culture or religion the rappers are affiliated to.
...Pack-rape of white girls is an initiation rite of passage for a small section of young male Muslim youth, said Jean-Jacques Rassial, a psychotherapist at Villetaneuse University. So if white males (of christian bkground who are not practicants) rape a black female, would we say that the were Christians? What if a Muslim (while raiding a Jew shop) kills that Jew? It was because he happened to be a Jew or because of other [criminal] motives?
To whoever who understands French, Samira, in an interview, never mentioned that she was rapped by young muslims.

Q : Qui sont les garçons qui organisent ces tournantes ? Des chefs de bande, des petits trafiquants ? Who are those people, Gangsters, small street boys?

R : Souvent, c’est des gamins en échec. Dans mon cas, c’était un caïd, un vrai méchant ; il était beaucoup plus vieux que moi, il avait 21 ans. She answers clearly that those who commit that are considered to be in a state of despair. She says In my case, it was a Caid (captain), a very bad one; he was older than me, he was 21.Interview with Chiennesdegarde.org

Most of those young gangsters use drugs, rob, steal, etc... I know of no muslim (that the article refers to as doing all that). They never visited a mosque to be considered literally as Muslims. They are called Muslims because their parents are. That's it.
The problem is purely social. Young people in despair as many others around the world who commit those kind of crimes. That is what the Australian or American media can't understand better than the French one in this case.
Have a look at her entry in the French wiki (use an online translator if needed). Nothing about this Muslim young stuff is mentioned there French Wiki article. She says Devenue éducatrice en banlieue, elle affirme : « La cité, c'est plein de gens formidables qui essaient de s'en sortir courageusement. Car tous les petits gars de chez nous ne sont pas des violeurs, loin de là». In other words, she says that the problem is purely social. We cannot judge on her place and refer to a thousand miles away reporting. -- Cheers Svest 20:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

[edit] Translation of the book title

The title of the book reads Dans l'enfer des tournantes. The personal inserted translation reads In Gang-Rape Hell: Life in Islamic France. Wikipedians should be very ashamed. Cheers -- Svest 20:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

CltFn should be ashamed.Yuber^(talk) 00:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not at all , its the actual translated title of the book in English. It comes from the linked references. --CltFn 03:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean the translation of Dans l'enfer des tournantes is In Gang-Rape Hell: Life in Islamic France. Is that serious? ^{Wiki me up}

Just to be clear, the book has apparently not been officially translated in either the US or the UK according to amazon. The "translation" is thus not anything but the literal one of the original French title; any subtitle is extrapolation. Sdedeo 19:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revision according to the French wiki and sources

I revised the article according the talk page and the french wiki version and reliable sources instead of original research and broad journalistic analysis. I hope this version would be fair to Samira and the community accused here in Wikipedia by 2 editors of many horrible accusations. Please check. Cheers -- Svest 01:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Sorry you only blanked out most of the information and set your standard to an incomplete article in the French Wiki. Your changes have been reverted.--CltFn 03:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions to the article

I have NPOVed the article and it is now fully supported by credible sources in the reference section. Take a look at it and if you want to make changes then discuss the specific points in the talk page.--CltFn 23:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

There are two different versions of this article which are being "flipped" back and forth. I have done a very hasty "merge" of the two versions (one that CltFn is a proponent of, and on that Yuber, FayssalF, Rhobite and I, among others, have been working on.) We should now focus on sourcing and NPOVing this merged version. It is not the best solution to the problem, but otherwise everyone will just be reverting each other to infinity. Sdedeo 23:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks , I think this article is starting to get where it needs to be.--CltFn 23:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need for sources

CltFn -- this article requires more sources. In particular, this set:

According to the testimony of numerous victims, young Muslim women who disobey proscribed Islamic conduct in the neighborhoods such as behaving and dressing in as a non-Muslim, or wanting to live as Europeans or refusing to wear the Hijab have been considered by some to be "fair game" for Tournantes. Young women have testified to having been threatened for acting like non-Muslims and they are told they will face severe punishment.

The typical scenario that takes place is that the targeted young woman is drawn or lured into a secluded area where she is brutalized and repeatedly raped by groups of men who take turns raping her. The victim is usually insulted for behaving in an non-Muslim manner. Typically the girls are often released afterwards, but rapes are often unreported for fear of reprisals against their families. In nearly every case on record the young victim who do report the crimes commited on them say days later they would again be re-caught by the gang and the gang-raped again.

of paragraphs needs to be sourced, probably to more than one source, in all its particulars. Please note that some of the article is inaccurate; for example, the articles on Tournantes in Australia describe the phenomenon as perpertrated by Muslim men on (ethnically) white women. Needless to say, when you have a controversial statement, and here it seems that anything ascribing the gang rapes to aspects of Muslim culture is going to be controversial, you need to source it and also preface the information by saying "According to source X, blah". Source X should be the name of the newspaper if the claim is made by a journalist, or the name of the person quoted; also be careful to distinguish between journalistic sources and editorial ones. For example, if you use the Sydney Morning Herald article as a source, you should describe it as "According to an editorial in the SMH...", since it appears in that paper's opinion section.

Sorry to be so explicit, but trying to avoid more conflict here.

You should also take out some of the more "colorful" language, e.g., describing a victim of an assault as "unlucky" and so forth. Encyclopedic language needs to be as sober as possible. Good luck, and thanks for tackling the merged article. Sdedeo 00:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I see what you are saying , I will try to get to this as soon as I can , in the meantime , we can all sleep better at night knowing that the sources are right at the bottom of the page for those hardy souls who can muster enough energy to click on the links .--CltFn 00:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that many of the sources at the bottom of the page say different things, some of them are opinion pieces as opposed to standard journalism, and the bulk of the more inflammatory things are sourced only to one or two articles. The source issue needs to be cleared up right now, and inline sources need to appear like this [1]. I am putting a "sources" tag on the page. Sdedeo 02:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, CltFn, the tag is up. The burden is really on you at this point to directly, and with inline citation, source the bulk of the claims the article makes. The sooner you do this, the sooner this issue will be resolved. As of right now, I am very skeptical of large chunks of this article's claims; furthermore, I anticipate that we will have a couple rounds of NPOV edits; however, we cannot do NPOV until many of the claims in the article are properly sourced. Good luck, Sdedeo 03:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on citations

Hi CltFn --

The source you cite for this paragraph

Tournantes, discussed in detail in Bellil's book, are a relatively recent phenomena in Europe referring to collective Gang rapes in predominently Muslim neighboorhoods by youth gangs who target young women that dress as westerners or who do not follow strict Islamic religious conduct like wearing the Hijab.

is a Time magazine article [2]. However, the citation is invalid. In particular, the Time magazine article does not suggest that tournantes ("gang-rapes") are restricted to Muslim neighbourhoods, nor that they are selectively targeted against women who "dress as westerners" or who do not follow Islamic religious conduct.

You will need to find a different source to sustantiate the claims in this paragraph. Sdedeo 03:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need for sources is urgent

Hi again CltFn --

The need for sources on the bulk of the claims in this article is rather urgent. It is important that wikipedia not leave contentious material "up" and online for very long. You've really been given the "benefit of the doubt" on the article here, and we've worked to keep many of your claims up and online even without the required citations.

However, the article needs to be sourced, and very soon. I'll swing by the article tomorrow (in perhaps ten hours), and I will remove material that I feel is both contentious and lacking in adaquate sourcing. After that, we will sort of "switch"; you are of course welcome to continue to add and contribute to the article, but we will incorporate material from the current version on a "paragraph by paragraph" basis, with each added paragraph containing contentious material requiring adaquate sourcing.

Yours, and good luck, Sdedeo 07:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added more sources and fact checking to the article and there are now far more sources availaible here than many other Wikipedia articles. I have re-read the article and do not see anything that is not easily verifiable in the references. --CltFn 17:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Le Monde Diplomatique

Dans la campagne de stigmatisation des « banlieues » et des populations immigrées, les viols collectifs, ou « tournantes », jouent un rôle central. Ces pratiques barbares, de plus en plus médiatisées, dévoileraient la nature profondément machiste des populations issues de la culture musulmane. Il faut un immense courage pour oser s’attaquer à ces lieux communs, tant est grande la peur de se voir accusé de justifier la violence contre les femmes. C’est le grand mérite de Laurent Mucchielli d’avoir porté un regard sociologique sur ces pratiques.

Les résultats de son enquête sont sans appel : la pratique des viols collectifs depuis vingt ans, date à laquelle ils sont répertoriés par le ministère de la justice, est plutôt en recul, alors que celle des viols « simples » est en croissance fulgurante ; d’autre part, le viol collectif est une pratique ancienne en France (et ailleurs) et a de nombreuses origines, bien éloignées du culturalisme. Mais alors pourquoi ces « dérives médiatiques », pourquoi la place croissante que les médias accordent à ce phénomène ? On pourrait y voir un intérêt nouveau pour la « cause des femmes ». Il n’en est malheureusement rien. Cette campagne fait partie des « nouveaux habits de la xénophobie », de la diabolisation des Arabo-musulmans. Et, une fois de plus, les médias pensent qu’un mensonge répété cent fois, quand il s’agit des musulmans, devient une vérité. -- Alain Gresh

[edit] Translation

In the campaign to stigmatise the "suburbs" and immigrant populations, the collective rapes, or "tournantes", play a central role. These barbaric practices, increasingly the focus of media attention, are supposed to reveal the deeply macho nature of the communities of Muslim origin. One needs immense courage to attack these common assumptions, so great is the fear of finding oneself accused of making excuses for violence against women. It is greatly to the credit of Laurent Mucchielli to have examined these practices from a sociological perspective.

The results of his investigation are incontestable: the incidence of collective rapes has been in decline for twenty years, since the time the ministry of justice started to record them, whereas that of "simple" rapes is growing very rapidly; in addition, the collective rape is a long-standing practice in France (and elsewhere) and has many origins, quite unrelated to culturalism. But then why these "media scares", why the increasing attention that the media give to this phenomenon? One could see in it a new concern for the "cause of the women". Unfortunately, this is not at all the case. This campaign is part of the "new face of xenophobia", of the diabolisation of the Arab-Muslim population. And, yet again, the media thinks that, as far as Muslims are concerned, a lie repeated hundred times becomes a truth. --Alain Gresh (LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE | avril 2005 | Page 27) [3]

[edit] Further reading

For more details, refer to this [4], w/ 17 notable sources of notable French researchers that totally deny the attribution of the phenomenon to Islam.

[edit] Notes about the above

Laurent Mucchielli is a researcher at CNRS, teaching at the university Versailles Saint-Quentin in Yvelines, director of the sociological Research center on the right and the penal institutions (CESDIP, UMR 2190). Author in particular of Violences and insecurity, phantasms and realities in the French debate (the Discovery, 2001) and the scandal of "tournantes". Media drifts and sociological counter-enquiry (the Discovery, 2005) and co-director of Crime and safety: the state of the savoirs (the Discovery, 2002). This article is been published in the review Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société, n°75 (2005), under the title: Tournantes. Un incendie médiatique à démystifier. Cheers -- Svest 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

[edit] We are not attributing the phenomeneon of Tournantes to Islam

The article is simply reporting that the incidents occured in predominently Muslim suburbs of French cities. We have also mentioned the reports that the pious girls are generally left alone while those who seek to be more emancipated tend to be targeted. we are not making any connection to any of verses in the Qu'ran regarding unbelievers, since we all know that Islam is a religion of Peace. Obviously the youths involved in the tournantes could not be practicing Muslim anymore than the ones rioting in Paris these days or the ones involved in Terrorism as even President Bush has said that Islam is a religion of Peace. And if he said then it must be true, which should be a standard we can all agree on.--CltFn 01:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still zero sources in the article

There are still zero sources in the article for a number of contentious statements. For example, the following passage still has zero sources:

...

It has been over ten hours since I last posted here asking for these things to be sourced. They have not been sourced. I am removing anything I consider to be contentious and requiring sources from the article now.

CltFn, you are of course welcome to continue contributing to this article. However, anything you add that is contentious or possibly inflammatory requires sources. If you do not include sources for additions, they will be removed. Again, there is nothing discriminatory going on here; wikipedia rules simply require that sources be provided.

Yours, Sdedeo 01:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've added a long list of links to external sources. This is fine, but as explained above on this page, we need inline citations for specific claims. Again, inline citations look like this [5]; the idea is that the source contained in the inline citation contains the information described in the preceeding sentence or paragraph. And, again, when adding sources, you should both include the inline citation, and describe in the text the source of the information (again, to be completely clear, "According to Time Magazine, blah [6]". Yours, Sdedeo 02:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm , that is odd , why would you do this despite the long list of credible sources I listed at the bottom of the page? You seem to be overly stressing inline citations and rather than blanking out specific paragraphs that you seem to question, you just blank out 3 quarters of the article. This seems a bit much considering that the infomation you seek is in the references. I am therefore going to revert back to the earlier version and ask you to simply add the ^{[citation needed]} tag at each point you want a citation and then I will add it. --CltFn 02:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

CltFn, please do not revert the article, or we will be in conflict.

You need to provide inline citations for the various contentious statements, and you need to source these states as, e.g., "According to Time Magazine..." "According to a report by the French government..." etc. etc.. This should not be hard for you to do, since you are presumably familiar with the various sources you have put in the external links page. Sdedeo 02:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Particular references

How about this from the first reference?:

They rule gangland style, combined with the male-dominated traditions of the Arab countries they came from. It's gotten so bad that, today, most of the young women only feel safe if they are covered up, or if they stay at home. Girls who want to look just like other French girls are considered provocative, asking for trouble. --CltFn 02:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is fine. Here is how you should add the paragraph to the article:

According to a documentary report by 60 Minutes about the French suburbs, "[many young men] rule gangland style, combined with the male-dominated traditions of the Arab countries they came from. It's gotten so bad that, today, most of the young women only feel safe if they are covered up, or if they stay at home. Girls who want to look just like other French girls are considered provocative, asking for trouble." [7]

Sdedeo 02:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the first I hear of such a writting policy , is this the official Wikipedia policy ? Off the top of my head I would say that most articles in Wikipedia are not written in that format , if they were, they would become very boring indeed. Yes here and there there are quotation from sources, I have done this myself, but generally articles are written in the words of wiki editors rather than the format you suggest.--CltFn 03:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

We are trying to avoid conflict here, CltFn. I am not going to argue "official Wikipedia policy" with you; I am not a wikipedia admin of any sort. However, I will point you to this note in the "Cite Sources" page:

The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel phrases such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion. [8]

As you can deduce from the conflict you've had with other uses on this page, there is a lot of controversy about this stuff. I am attempting to resolve the conflict you are having with other people who wish to remove large chunks of your material. Almost certaintly, there are going to be editors watching this page who disagree with the 60 Minutes description; instead of deleting your paragraph, they will then be able to add their own sources and quotes or summaries.

As for this becoming "boring", yes, I confess I find the current back and forth we are having here very boring. As I've said, this is an attempt to solve the edit wars that have been going on. You can make this whole process less boring by following these rules, and we will be done with it. I understand you have strong opinions about the subject at hand.

I would strongly encourage you to use direct quotation from sources instead of summaries, as this will provide the minimum possible grounds for complaint. Sdedeo 03:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Should you be held to the same standard then , on the articles you have written? What is good for the goose is good for the gander is it not?--CltFn 03:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

We are trying to resolve a particular conflict on a particular article, CltFn. If you do not want my help and support, you are welcome to continue reverting back and forth with a number of other editors who have been watching this page and who strongly disagree with you. Presumably you and they will quickly be in conflict with a number of "official" wikipedia admins, who will almost certaintly suggest the solution I have proposed.

I have proposed a way that is consistent with wikipedia large-scale rules that I believe will solve this conflict. Again, I strongly suggest that you follow this solution, in which case I will support the version that arises. Otherwise, I will stop watching this page, and you and others can continue fighting until infinity. Sdedeo 03:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I actually would prefer that we let whatever is to happen play itself out . I appreciate you help and efforts and I understand what you are saying here , it does have validity , but I would also like the hear the views of other impartial Wiki editors views on the subject.

I do of course expect a particular group of editors ( whose names I will not mention and whom I do not consider to be impartial on this whole family of topics ) to come around and try to undo anything that I have added to this page as it apparantly challenges a certain image they would like to portray of themselves.

So if you would not mind , lets put back the last version I had and let this play out and I will try to work it out with what comes up. what do you think? The worse thing that could happen is that I will have to cite everything in minute detail --CltFn 04:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, what I am gathering here is that you do not want to work with the solution I have proposed. I feel that my solution is fair, NPOV and that it is strongly consistent with wikipedia's goals and rules.

I believe that your refusal to add inline citations, and to cite sources, is unacceptable.

I further believe that the "previous" version of the article -- i.e., the version that has lots of paragraphs without sources and that I most previously reverted -- is unacceptable, is biased, and contains a large amount of strongly biased and factually incorrect statements. I do not agree with your reverting the article to that state. I believe that it represents opinions as settled fact.

However, I have had my fill of wikipedia conflict over the last couple days; I have previously negotiated compromises over two other articles (on topics unrelated to Islam), and do not have the time or the leisure to deal with doing it again. Again, I do not agree with reverting the article, but I am not going to get into a revert war. Sdedeo 04:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I was simply responding to your offer of letting me deal with whatever dispute is in store in the future if I did not do the minute citations. I appreciate your efforts , but I understood you to say that if I did not wish to follow your suggestion that you would not intervene , thus I have stated my choice. If you did not make such an offer then I will certainly not go into a revert war with you.--CltFn 04:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi CltFn -- I don't have the energy for this kind of back-and-forth. The article as it currently stands [9] I think is pretty OK, and it is much better than the just-prior version [10] for reasons I have stated above; I thus do not agree to a reversion, but I am not going to force the issue, and I am no longer going to be involved in the debate. If you want my opinion of what you should do in future versions of this article, it is to follow my "compromise" advice above and provide these -- in my view -- necessary inline and in-text citations. While I am no longer going to be involved in negotiating a compromise between the various editors here, I believe that doing this will greatly reduce the amount of conflict you and other editors find yourselves in and will result in a fair and balanced article that will be a credit to wikipedia. Yours, and good luck, Sdedeo 04:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

CltFn, Sdedeo is perfectly correct in asking that for a controversial topic, sources be properly cited and comments be attributed within the article. This is something frequently done for all controversial article, and actually the easiest way to have all writers of an article accept a specific position. Without attribution, it seems to appear Wikipedia itself support the claim, or the reader has no idea if the claim is supported by a large group of people, or only one person. This is why it is particularly important to clarify who holds a position and how much support he gets. I totally agree with you that it sometimes results in a rather heavy writing style, but this is the best way we can stay neutral and include all relevant opinions on a given topic. This is in particular important in ongoing stories or recent stories. It also helps other readers to check the validity of what a given editor writes (and incidently, help him be more credible...). Upon time, we usually observe that the article evolves toward less inline citations, once a certain opinion is widely recognised. What Sdedeo is proposing is not even a compromise... it is the way we usually handle such issues. Please try to make an effort to stick to these techniques. If what you write is correct and well sourced, it should not be difficult at all to follow such good guidelines. Anthere 20:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict with CltFn and others

I previously tried to negotiate a compromise with various editors on this article. Part of the compromise involved user ClfFn adding inline and "in text" citations to many disputed paragraphs in this article. CltFn has rejected this part of the compromise. Sdedeo 04:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Therefore you call on the back up troops to force your situation?? Excuse me , but are we being a bit disingenous here?

Below your message you just posted on Yuber, Rhobite, and Fayssal's pages: --CltFn 04:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Bellil and CltFn

Hello Yuber, Rhobite, and FayssalF,

There has recently been a conflict over a article, Samira Bellil, that you were involved with, involving user CltFn. I have tried to negotiate a compromise over the article that I believed was fair, but CltFn has rejected part of that compromise (which involved him adding inline and in-text citations to many of his contributions.) I believed the compromise was very fair and that it was strongly consistent with wikipedia rules.

I've been involved with a few recent content disputes over other articles, and both of them were resolved to everyone's satisfaction after lots of work. I really don't have the energy to do it all over again right now. I would appriciate it if you would attempt to find a solution to the problem of NPOV, bias and what I think is anti-Islamic and racist material, that exists in the article any way you can. If you end up having an "official" dispute with CltFn, either about this article or in general, please contact me on my talk page, and I will be happy to provide any comments to any official dispute process. Sdedeo 04:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yuber"

While I would love to command an army, neither Yuber, Rhobite or FayssalF are "my troops". Indeed, if you look over the edit histories, you will find that I have reverted and removed changes by them as well (or tacitly assented to you doing so.) I attempted to resolve a conflict between all parties; you rejected a part of that compromise, and I have notified other users involved in the dispute that I do not have the energy to continue involvement with this dispute. I have also told them that if you and they end up in an official dispute requiring arbitration, that they should contact me so that I can provide comments about my work on the discussion page; naturally, the same goes for you if you find yourself in conflict with any of them over this article. This is the last post I will make about this issue. Yours, Sdedeo 04:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way I was alluding to troops as it relates to calling for "mercenary" help on this topic. I wonder why you did not contact any of the excellent impartial admins we are blessed with in Wikipedia but instead chose the ultra POV editors you know will gladly jump in the fray to forward their own POV which happens to coincide with your own in this particular instance.

Seing is believing folks, who would have thought the guile that some folks will resort to but I guess that comes with the territory.--CltFn 04:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommand that you all take a 24 hours break from the article. The Earth will go on turning around the sun meanwhile (and the cities will go on burning in France, but that is another problem). Please also consider making little changes one at a time to the article, to avoid full reversion of good as well as more questionable changes. If not, there is a serious risk of the article being frozen for a while, which would not be very constructive solution. Thanks Anthere

[edit] interpolation

I think the quote from Le Monde Diplomatique is worth reading, and I've taken the liberty of slightly revising the translation to make it more easily readable. Palmiro | Talk 19:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Palmiro for the note. People at this place use to come running (i.e. User:Karl Meier) (w/o any prior knowledge of the subject - as long as it concerns Islam just to say Ohhh!! Why do you revert all that block of info?. Apart from having no single knowledge, they are too lazy to have a look at better sources instead of the easy propaganda they read about in the regular media that does just the same as they do here. -- Svest 11:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

[edit] My comments

I was asked to comment about this and so I shall. Most comments will be based on the edit war from this diff. Karl re-added "The phenomena of the Tournantes" section and I think all of that should be moved to tournante because it completely eclipses the scope of this article. So, debates about that content can be had out at that article. I think it is safe to point out that "traditional conduct" there is a meaningless term more or less unless it is defined... when tournante is created there will need to be something about what the Maghrebi culture that is being "strayed from" is. Some of the redundant information from Ni Putes Ni Soumises could be removed as well I believe. So, that leaves (I think) the issue of her life.

"wanted to live freely as a French young woman" -- That has no real meaning, you'd have to get into what is a French (whole issue of secularism in France, etc.) before that statement means anything. In fact, I think I can safely say you need some sort of footnoting that attributes statements to articles, so it's not a jumble that can't be verified. Honestly, I don't really mind most of the data (providing it can be cited) but it does read like a sob story, or a story of a hero... and, we really aren't supposed to aggrandize anyone here. That can be fixed by some language changes but that writing needs to be cited first.

Also, adding Islamic gang rapes to this article was completely uncalled for. The article doesn't mention Islam and only mentions Muslim once to say that her family didn't practice. There was no reason whatsoever to add Islamic gang rape and I can see why Yuber would react strongly because things like that really do seem like this is looking for any attack against his (you are Muslim right?) religion. It's bad enough that half of the articles already seem like they are wars between pro- and anti-Islam parties we don't need another one turning into that. So, what do you say to my ideas? gren グレン 09:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem started after Nov.3 when an anon added a large amount of info [11] that was in most biased and suggesting simply that Samira was rapped by Islamic gangs because she didn't follow the Islamic rules, etc... It also, for unknown reasons, translated the title of the book to In Gang-Rape Hell: Life in Islamic France and I don't know from where we got the last part of the title. It also suggested the the tournante phenomenon is a new one in the whole Europe!!! I discussed these points above and also brought an astonishing report about a research done by the prominent French sociologist Laurent Mucchielli, a director from CERN finding out that it is a propaganda about Muslims and Arabs. (see Le Monde Diplomatique ref above). Rhobitte, Sdededo and Yuber both showed their concerns about that as well. So if people are removing the Tournante section, they do so because the phenomenon existed for centuries now. -- Svest 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Critic of Islam"

Let's see something in the text of the article to support this categorisation, before it goes back onto the page. It's a bad idea to put articles into controversial categories when there's nothing in the text of the article to indicate that it belongs there. Palmiro | Talk 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

1) Then why is she on this list?: List of critics of Islam.

2) Why don't you surf on over to her web site and take a look for yourself.

3) Its actually not a bad thing or are you one of those people who think that criticizing Islam is a bad evil thing? --Amenra 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't know why she's on the list. Do you? Palmiro | Talk 03:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I mistakenly put this reply on this page , it was meant for the Irshad Manji talk page. Wow , you did not even catch that ! That is quite a remarkable lack of interest in the topic one is having a dispute about.

But as far as Samira Bellil is concerned , well of course one can criticize the oppresion of women in Islamic culture , the literal interpretation of the Islamic religion , the culture of silence and submisiveness demanded by Islam , but that has nothing to do with Islam does it? --Amenra 03:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's half three in the morning and I didn't have the time or inclination to verify your claim that she was on the article you linked to. I just took your word for it. I knew it hadn;t been discussed on the talk page there or mentioned in an edit summary, so I knew I didn;t know why she was (as you appeared to claim) listed there. I was surprised to find myself on Irshad Manji's website but presumed i had got confused about where I had opened the new tab from.

Yet again, if Samira Bellil is to be in this category, it should be obvious why from the page. I don;t see where the article refers to a "culture of silence and submisiveness demanded by Islam".Palmiro | Talk 03:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

CltFn, is this your permanent account now? If you start to use this account for sockpuppet purposes then both of your accounts will probably be blocked. Yuber^(talk) 03:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/m/Talk%7ESamira_Bellil_faa0.html"

Categories: Unassessed-Class legal articles | Unassessed-importance legal articles