Talk:French schoolgirl injured with stones in playground
C'est un peu trop facile de laisser croire que l'on a le Progrès de Lyon dans sa poche alors que ce respectable quotidien régional utilise justement le conditionnel pour ses fameuses pierres. 220.127.116.11 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- you lost yourself, you'ld write in english, otherwise just a few people could read you
- but you're right, the tense is not good, the meaning of this act is not certain at all just a possibility. Jacques Divol 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The creator obviously knows French better than English et ainsi il aura la chance (contrairement à moi pour Alzheimer) de savoir précisèment en quoi son article est fautif... s'il revient ;-))) 18.104.22.168 13:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it, pretty simple story really, nothing much here. But please keep the story, as right wing American blogs are claiming that she was stoned to death. Nyarlathotep 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- both dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's define stoning as, To hurl or throw stones at, especially to kill with stones. (emphasis mine). there are no details of the incident in the article and i'm not too sure if "stoning" is what happened. (unfort., i can't read French). the article also says "Muslim classmates", how many? all muslim classmates? can we hold off publication while we get some clarity on all this? —Doldrums (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Use the translation luke. :) She ain't dead. Principle said it was a minor incident. I'll add the source for that. Nyarlathotep 17:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- there're a heck of a lot of qualifiers in the first source, something that our article altogether lacks. for some reason, google refuses altogether to translate the second source - is Primo europe really all that bad? —Doldrums (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- fyi, Google translates the secnd source just fine, but it messes up the colors.
And I now see why I didn't add the link the first time around, its a racist blog with bits copied from Le Progress. i'd prefer to think of Le Progress as the source & only use these guys because I'm not at the library. fyi, I live in Lyon. Nyarlathotep 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- any possibility of OR then? i see a Lyon prosecutor's office "confirming" the incident, which makes me a little less sceptical about this. my concern is that, if we dont really have clear info about what happened, then we shldn't be makng categorical statements. especially if all we have to back it up are the first two sources, which dont appear to be particularly reliable to me. added to that, there doesnt appear to be any coverage of the incident in the mainstream news sources - if the incident was as categorical as depicted by our headline, i wld be very surprised by the lack of coverage. —Doldrums (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I could go to the library to read Le Progress in French if you want, but you can see bits of their articles on their archives site if you search.
As to the story, Le Progress says the Lyon prosecutor's office confirmed it to them, and called the principle who said it was no big deal, and commented on the ducation communities reaction.. seems like the whole story to me.
Frankly this wouldn't even be covered by a hate crimes law. So the only real issue I see here is the whole "boys beating up on a girl" thing. And that is always the reason when the French education community gets interested in French Muslim issues. Nyarlathotep 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
cool, I didn't know there was a beta google news in French. Go ahead if you want to chagne the sources. I don't care, I'm hungery, and I must go flirt with French girls at the bar. Nyarlathotep 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- i think this article needs to be improved considerably, the google search sources have quite a feww details that should, imo, be added. and i'll be pleased to see primo europe and its pal off wikinews list of sources...
- ok, I'll see about it eventually, primo europe can go. And I ended up talking to a Dutch girls last night. :) Nyarlathotep 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
fyi, here is a more intersting story.
I am shocked to see this incident reported in this way.
First of all, the blogs cited as "sources" are clearly not only biased, but seem to actively encourage religious hatred - to consider these impartial sources is simply unacceptable. That such websites should pick up on such a report seems quite logical, they however seem to have vastly exaggerated the supposed events.
From what I can tell from the press articles, the details of the events are completely unclear - where the actions perpetrated by one or several individuals, what exactly was thrown at the girl, did the girl suffer any physical harm ? This incident may be nothing more than a boy throwing a stone at a classmate, something that happens daily in french schools. 22.214.171.124 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- True its not very serious. But we've also got right wing blog reporting that she was killed. Best just to say it happened & point out that its no big deal. Which is exactly what we do by quoting the principle first.
- Insert an editorial comment into the article that right wing blogs are inflaming this situation. PlasticDoor 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)PlasticDoor
Blogs? The cited sources are newspapers and comment-page redirects from the source newspaper itself, not blogs. I respectfully contend that you are inserting your own bias and opinion, and also a seeming misunderstanding of blog vs. online newspaper publication difference into your reasoning here. PlasticDoor 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)PlasticDoor
The girl apparently did suffer harm, according to the originating newspaper report. She suffered a bleeding wound to the head. And what about emotional harm? The allegation is that it was caused by a stone, or by gravel large enough and thrown forcefully enough to cause a bleeding wound; the girl's parents filed formal complaints that involved the prosecutor. That would indicate a legal court proceeding. PlasticDoor 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)PlasticDoor
Please see my edits. Article cleaned up, if even a bit, toward NPOV.
I've cleaned up the article substantially, including expanded information regarding the incident, copy from a Le Progres update (avail online), and a more careful explication of the events as reported by Le Progres itself.
It is deplorable that right wingers in the US are hailing and distorting severely this event. Utterly deplorable. If I might add a personal comment, this is the current "nature" of tactics of rhetoric the US right wing is known to engage in.
I had to leave the linking code unfinished. Someone please fix that code properly.
PlasticDoor 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)PlasticDoor
- Why keep on lying gravillons have nothing in common with stones. 126.96.36.199 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed; by gravillon, would that be to understand that fine granulation, i.e. semantic hair-splitting, is what is ocurring? I can accept that, if that is what is happening. I did not grasp from the reporting that gravel was the problem, but an actual stone, large enough to draw blood from the young girl's head. Kindly amend the article to reflect gravel if indeed the reports are indicating that is the case. There is no interest on my part to distort fact nor implication.PlasticDoor 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)PlasticDoor
Distortion by selective reporting
I think this it is shameful that this incedent should be reported. Children throw gravel at one another in french playgrounds many times dayly (I know, I was once a child in a french school). To report one incedent out of thousands, simply because the presumed reason for the incedent was a muslim law is simply racist. 188.8.131.52 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. Charges of racism, if that is the case, must be directed at the source, not Wikinews. There are wiki templates to indicate/alert that an article may possibly be biased. It is up to the reader to decide if it is racist or not.
- This incident calls attention to itself because of the context in world affairs in which it occurs. It is faulty reasoning and indeed a real bias to dismiss an event such as this as merely common. I cannot agree that it is common; it is a special case.
- There is not a presumed reason, there is an alleged reason. Please read the original article again; I purposely located the exact link for that very reason. Two of the boys allegedly admitted to their motivations: religious orthodoxy. It is on record. That is, in my view, simply fact, not presumption. If that can be disproven, very well; then that should be recorded as well in the article.
- Editorializing is very different than editing. What you are prosposing is editorializing--interpretation and opinion. Editing is accuracy and transcription. PlasticDoor 16:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)PlasticDoor
I'm pretty sure Islam has 5. 184.108.40.206 07:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Very well; kindly cite a reference, and feel free to make the appropriate change.PlasticDoor 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)PlasticDoor
comment remove from main article
I remove that comment from the article, as it's abvious that all child in the world send gravel to other. The case is special as reference to ramadan is done, officialy. and this is a rare thing is France. here the text of a contributor i moved: "It should be noted that such an event - schoolboys throwing gravel at others in the playground - happens daily in France, and hardly ever entails legal proceedings, let alone media coverage. It would seem probable that this event has been reported only because a reference was made to the Muslim religion." Jacques Divol 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then kindly comment the article clearly explaining the linguistic differences. It is fairly clear and transparent that the very reason for the article being reported in the first place is due to the context of religion, intolerance, current world affairs, etc. ad nauseam. For that reason, I modestly offered that NPOV was a prime motivator of my clean-up and editorial addition. I of course take no offense if I need to be corrected insofar as an appropriate writing contribution. By my reading of the original source articles--not the derivative interpretations--the tone conveyed was not "anti-Muslim," merely that this act occurred in a specific context which in turn made the event special precisely because schoolyard "gravel throwing" is a common occurence in general. I feel that this article must be edited NPOV very assiduously and carefully here on Wikipedia precisely because extremists will use this for their distorting agendas. If Wikipedia is going to engage in news dissemination, it seems to me that the rigorous Wikipedia standards in this *type* of case demand utmost ethics. I personally believe that Wikinews must not be allowed to become a tabloid, publish trivialities as "news," nor trivialize legitimate news because it seems rhetorical or "granular." Clear and dispassionate accuracy is mandatory, in my view. Humbly, PlasticDoor 15:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)PlasticDoor
Page Redirected and Article Title changed to remove inflammatory language
I have removed "for not observing Ramadan" from the title in order that the incident and headline is not immediately attractive to inflammatory rhetorical usage or cross-link referencing.
The article itself clearly is a developing story. I do not choose nor wish to publish the article until the TalkPage reflects a wikiCommunity consensus that the reporting is accurate.
I have noted on the TalkPage my comments to the various objections, etc., and try to make myself clearly understood. All responses welcomed.
Respectfully, --PlasticDoor 16:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)PlasticDoor