Talk:2007 Villiers-le-Bel riots

message: in Le Figaro here. Cliché Online (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is said that 39 people were arrested on the third night. Kromsson (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 8 scums busted

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

text: 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)
replies: text: «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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  newspaper 

message: I added this :
However, the scene of the accident was kept untouched by the crowd .
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So I will restore what was deleted. Kromsson 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rue89.com not reliable?

message: The first sentence needs to be updated; we are now well past the "second night". Writtenright (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The riots seem to have more or less stopped after the second night. Rama (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Riots continue for a second night..."?