Talk:2005 Cronulla riots/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

John Howard's influence

Surely at some point john howards prime-ministership has to be mentioned. There is a clear link between his rightist viewpoints: "We will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come" and the riots by young people. --Mjspe1 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with that statement? Do you believe that Australia is a mini-United Nations, whereby everyone has the 'right' to immigrate here? --User:MichaelPotts

What a stupid thing to say anyway, "Australia does decide who comes here & how they come" These Lebanese where invited, came here legally & we were glad to have (most of) them here. And John Howard supported the immigration of them when they came during the civil war in their home country.(Khan 04:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

When were the Lebanese 'invited' to come here? When has any nationality / race / religion been specifically 'invited' here post 'White Australia' Policy? --User:MichaelPotts

When? When Australia agreed to its UN quota in the 70s & 80s, i never said specifically. As for your second question "When has any nationality / race / religion been specifically 'invited' here post 'White Australia' Policy? " How would I know? I never said that as the case. (Khan 09:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

- a quick mention of this in the australian online [1], and even al jazeera [2]... --23:11, 13 December 2005 (AET)

Rightist viewpoints? Easy on. Just because you have "leftist viewpoints" doesn't mean his are wrong or lead to violence. He's voiced for an end to the violence. I'm sure you'll find them a lot more prominent. - G^t 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

yes but we have a heading "a volatile environment". I assume that this section is to outline the culture in cronulla and wider australia at the time of the riots. Certainly you cannot deny that John Howard's rhetoric (whether right or left) has contributed to a "volatile environment". This rhetoric has contributed whether he meant it to or not. The simple fact that he condemed the violence doesn't mean that he didn't inadvertantly contribute to it... --Mjspe1 02:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

These would have happened even if Howard had been run over by a bus in 1996. Blaming him is just partisan hijacking. --RaiderAspect 12:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews?

I'm sure I'll be ignored here, but... isn't this Wikinews material? There's far too much detail for an encyclopedia article, and some of the phrasing is blatantly breaking-news style, not encyclopedic. Why don't you all go work on the Wikinews article about the riots? It's shorter than the Wikipedia article, and that's just wrong. Isomorphic 01:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't say it's too much detail for an encyclopedia article, and besides it can always be sub-divided into multiple articles. If there is some badly phrased stuff then please either correct it, or tell us which particular bits you think can be improved so that we can reword it. As for Wikinews, the wikipedia and wikinews are under the same license I think, so this content can be copied to wikinews anytime someone cares to do it. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

You people are making this article impossible to edit! IThere were two separate pages just a minute ago with people editing both version.

Al-Andalus, why did you remove the CNN link in the reference section. Now there is an orphan cite {{ref|cnn1}}. --Elliskev 01:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't. I reverted back to the version which included your edits. I'm trying to keep out the unrelated sexual assults and the attempt to remove the foto of rioters attacking a middle easterner and police aiding him. Al-Andalus 01:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

This is crazy. I'll go work on something else... --Elliskev 01:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As a Cronulla resident I think that would be best. Clearly you have no knowledge of this event and are at best vandalising attempts by real writers to do justice to this article. Bye bye. unsigned by user:Flying fox

What are you talking about? I haven't added any new content to this article. I'm linking sources that already exist to the reference section to clean it up and provide a reliable referncing system. I don't care where you live, don't go throwing around accusations that you can't back up. --Elliskev 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, you've convinced me to stay. :) --Elliskev 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Flying fox is reported for 3RR. --Elliskev 03:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro Revert War

There are currently two intros that are being reverted. One focuses on the riots themselves and the other focuses on the causes of the riot. If we look at other articles on historic events such as the 2005 Paris Riots or even World War I, we see that what actually took place is in the intro and the root and even immediate causes are outlined later on. I think this article should follow this precedent.

Could we please have some dicussion about it? A revert war is just wasting our time. Regards to all. Ashmoo 02:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let the background of the riots be addressed in the background, not the intro.

To the user who keeps alleging sexual assults on white Australian women by Middle Eastern Australians; there is absolutely nothing in those 3 sources that mentions any such sexual assualt.

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]

If you wanna add an alleged sexual assualt (and to go as far as linking it to the riots), then provide sources where said assualt is mentioned. And if such a source exists and you can provide it, then put it in the "backgroud" section mentioning the possible connections to the riots, not in the intro. Directly quote (" ") the parts of your source when you have it.

Additionally, the photo of white Australian rioters assulting police and a Middle Eastern Australian is being removed. Al-Andalus.

Agreed. Please stick to stuff which is verifiable. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The gang-rapes of young white Aussie girls by Muslim men has been verified. Please include this most important detail, as it goes some way to explaining the horrific violence of the Muslim community.William

Confirmation needed

• There were also unconfirmed reports a person having been shot; reporters said they heard gunshots near the Northie's Hotel, and that various youths had been seen carrying and threatening local residents with shotguns, automatic firearms and small submachine guns.

Can anyone confirm? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I heard more than one shot while listening to the Sydney Cop Radio last night, and I think there's a mention of gunshots in a SMH article. - G^t 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I heard it from a restaurant but have no idea whether local gangs or police fired the shot. There may have been a couple of other shots later in the evening but I can't confirm this.

---

Yup I just checked the SMH source I got the information from, it's been confirmed by the police that youths armed with shotguns fired several shots around the Northie's Hotel area. I'm not sure about them having automatic firearms and sub-machineguns, but again thats what I gathered from the article, I'll try to confirm that too. 211.27.205.41 06:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

indiscriminently "assautling" people of Arab

To whomever keeps posting crap on this very serious issue PLEASE at the very least try and get the spelling of this one word right. You've posted it like a thousand times you vandal.

Calm down , it was a typo.--CltFn 03:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Title question

Why are "Race" and "Riots" capitalised? It just looks odd. --Merovingian 03:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's incorrect, but I think we're just waiting for the article title to stop changing completely before being too concerned about the capitalisation. mordemur 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there's simply too much haggling over the wording right now? I can understand that, although I think the current version is fine, and the closest wording to what I've heard in news stories and such. --Merovingian 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, eight titles so far and we'll probably see more. As irritating as those capital Rs are, I know that if I correct it now, the article title's going to get re-worded yet again and then maybe reverted back to this one. Let's just try and let it settle for a while... mordemur 04:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay then. The dust will have to settle. --Merovingian 04:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, it's done now. Let's hope it stays for a while. mordemur 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

'Isn;t this supposed to be neutral. The first parapgraph is biaised agaisnt Arabs, the qutoe of the policeman that is. It makes a reader who only reads to that point think the Arabs are causing everything by their orgainized crime and random attacks. That foliceman is proabalby not the best source to go to considering policemen where in the fight. It is not fair to lay blame like that. PLEASE REMOVE OR EDIT or include how the normal austrailians helped cause it. It was not completly unprovoked attacked by arabs agaisnt the poor innocent white austrailians.!!!!!

There's heaps of crap relating to both 'sides' in the article. Keep reading. Much of "outbreak of riots" is the other way around. - G^t 06:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's odd how the moslem or Arab groups, or groups of any kind willtalk about racial discrimination against people of middle eastern descent. I would love for someone to inform me of one Arab or moslem country that is tolerant towards anyone from the outside. Sure their is racism - no society is totally perfect, but the moselm and Arab immigrants flock to the West because they know that the freedom found in the west is absent at home. Oh, I forgot, their is one place, though not perfect, but where people of different religions can practice - Israel; but that is a dirty word so sorry I mentioned it. (LL)

The above comment is a flame and poorly written. What's the process for removal or editing? (MG)

Oh, I forgot, their is one place, though not perfect, but where people of different religions can practice - Israel; but that is a dirty word so sorry I mentioned it. (LL)

And it's inaccurate. Not that I want to get into such a discussion here, but only orthodox Jewish weddings count as official, recorded marriages in Israel, so they're not a magic beacon of religious freedom. They're not evil, but they're not magical freedom for others either.

User Flying Fox

Vandalism by this user has not stopped for the last couple of hours. He constantly introduces his unsourced commentary on an alleged sexual assault, then goes further and links the unsourced assualt as the trigger for the riots. He then vandalises and threatents more vandalism "STOP FRIGGIN CHANGING MY WORK YOU RETARDS!!!!!! I CAN PLAY ALL DAY!!!!!" The he blanks the article. Will someone please black his username and IP. Thanks. Al-Andalus 03:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

While you're at it, Al-Andalus - how about not deleting my sourced, relvant information regarding Lebanese gang activites? Practice what you preach. - G^t 03:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

POV forks

Please keep an eye on 2005 Sydney Civil Unrest; some users have been creating a Wikipedia:POV fork of this article there. That article should redirect to this one. Rhobite 03:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Middle Eastern and Lebanese"?

I thought Lebanon was in the Middle East. Can someone fix this.--Greasysteve13 03:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

- lebanese people are the main targets of this riot due to their utter rudeness and violent thug behaivour in a peacefull suburb(for further research, browse the methods of their retaliation. ninemsn.com.au/ news.com.au. attacking single people in groups, attacking then running away in cars like "blitz" attacks. attacking people of any race, attacking numerous shops&cars even if they belong to the people they are suppossedly trying to defend) middle east is used as a term for the rest of the people who look ethnic

Look ethnic? I am sick to death of this incorrect or incompleate use of the word "ethnic". However, I presume this was a more formal way of saying "wog".--Greasysteve13 03:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

un-australian. gang violence not race riots

there should be an emphasis somewhere in this article on the view that the behaviour on both sides was "un-australian" and that the majority of australians view these events with disgust. im sick of hearing from yanks and poms about "oh your so racist down under..." etc. to reaffirm this, the majority of australians of every ethnicity, race, culture, religion have publicly condemned the events. as john howard said, these riots don't demonstrate and ingrained racism in australia, it just shows that theres a problem with gangs in sydney. ethnic gangs of white and middle eastern backgrounds fighting "turf wars".

Mass chanting of "No more Lebs", and bashing anyone with dark skin, isn't racist? 203.122.226.161 07:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that these riots are clearly not un-Australian. Since when was Australia an intellectual hothouse of art and culture. Never, we've always been a cultural dead end. Just these sort of things are likely to happen --Mjspe1 08:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. Touche, Mjspe1. misanthrope 14:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's race riots, but it's very, very isolated. This is happening in one single shire, which happens to be about the most racist spot in the country. This riot is not an example of "Australians are racist", it's "Southerland Shire is a racism hotspot". Google for '"sutherland shire" racism' (without the single quotes) if you don't believe me 203.22.236.14 09:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop using the word "racist" to score political points against white Australians. The term has no meaning, as 100% of human beings are "racist" to some degree.

Decade leading up to December 2005

I'm not about to delete the information contained in the section "Decade leading up to December 2005" as it can't be denied.

Violence in relation to the Lebanese Gangs is widespread, according to the former Sydney Detective Tim Priest. He states that 1995-1996 saw their emergence from petty activites to things much greater:

"...from these insurance scams, a generation of young criminals emerged to become engaged in more sophisticated crimes, such as extortion, armed robbery, organised narcotics importation and supply, gun running, organised factory and warehouse break-ins, car theft and conversion on a massive scale including the exporting of stolen luxury vehicles to Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries..."

"They and their associates have been involved in numerous murders over the past five years, many of them unprovoked fatal attacks on young Australian men for no other reason than that they are “Skips”, as they call Australians." [6] [7] [8]

However, if we are going to include this, the other face of the coin must also be mentioned to counter it. White Australian racism towards Middle Easterners, which has intensified in the last years, led to a sense of alianation. This further compounded by the loss of identity for subsequent generations. These are all contributing factors. One cannot blame just one side or the other. If a segment of society is discriminated against (subliminal or in your face) and are made sure that they know they do not belong and are not welcome, then by all means the society in which they live in is also responsible for fostering the element of criminality among Middle Eastern Australians and for the lack of "Aussie" identity. Al-Andalus 04:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

Perhaps it cannot be denied that Tim Priest has said these things, but it can be denied that he is anything of an authority on inter-ethnic relations, and it can also be denied that this particular quote was made in the context of these current events (made over a year ago, and for a different purpose), and that it has any relevance to the matter at hand. Also, what is the specific evidence that the "Criminal Gangs" of which he writes are involved here (as opposed to, for example, just general members of the public community having a go)? I find this passage's inclusion problematic (and the linking to the 'jihadwatch' blogsite is right out of order).--cjllw | TALK 04:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There are newspaper reports around stating the increase in hostility after 9/11. Use that. - G^t 04:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The attacks were not by Leb gangs. The attacks were not on Leb gang members. Maybe the Leb gangs are going to get involved now, but even if they are, they aren't the same people who were involved in 1995-95. You might as well mention the 'baby in the jacket bashing' [9]

Why should events 10 years ago and on different continents involving different people be mentioned in this article? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a nice bit of balance, and it'd be a huge missing peice of background to remove it. Doing so is just removing information that aids NPOV. - G^t 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is the existance of Leb gangs relevant to this piece at this time? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

G, I agree with Ben, above, . Unless you can find sources which demonstrate (ie, to a standard beyond idle speculation bandied about by commentators with no actual access to fact) that "Lebanese criminal gangs" are behind or substantially involved in the onset of these recent events, then I don't see how mentioning this particular quote by Priest helps to "aid NPOV". On the contrary, I think it rather contributes to a misleading, or at least presently-unsubstantiated, impression that these particular gangs are the inciters of these riots. Who knows, maybe after subsequent police investigation it will transpire that it was all carefully planned months in advance by organised criminal gang members in their flashy clubhouses, but until and unless this evidence shows up, it is pure speculation that the increase in "sophistication" of Lebanese criminal gangs has inevitably led to this situation, and that Priest is thus some kind of seer. In fact, it really is rather too soon to go about ascribing root causes; no doubt each wikipedia editor here has his/her own idea on causes, but putting such speculations into the article amounts to Original Research. This is particularly so if quotes like the above are taken from a completely different context, and juxtaposed so as to make it look like it has relevance here. If you really must mention organised criminal gangs, find a quote from someone notable which mentions these in the particular context of the events at Cronulla.--cjllw | TALK 05:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Can we keep it unbiased free of blame and simple? Leave it alone. - G^t 04:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop reinserting reverted edits without good reason!

Hey, 203.109.224.206, listen up! Calling the "Bra Boys" "wannabes" is fine with your mates, but is not appropriate for Wikipedia. We are reverting your edits because they are inflammatory and biased. Stop wasting our time. Incidentally, it seems you are using a New Zealand ISP, so I don't see what the big deal is for you. DaveSymonds 04:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

backwards article

Whatever we put in the background, it's just background. It should come near the end of the article. Before the references, but after pretty much everything else. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that- surely the most critical thing is to actually start describing the events to hand, and any supplementary material by way of background which may be needed can appear afterwards, for reference.--cjllw | TALK 05:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on Intro

• On December 11, 2005, a series of violent race riots between European-Australians and Arab-Australians occurred in several suburbs of Sydney, Australia on December 11, 12 and 13. The violence was first reported in Cronulla and later spread to other suburbs throughout the Sydney Metropolitan Area.

5000 people beating up on random passer-bys is not a riot between two "between European-Australians and Arab-Australians". Nor is 5000 people throwing stuff at Cops and Ambos. Nor is the rampaging vandalism a riot between groups.

Regards, Ben Aveling 05:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a pretty narrow minded view to take, as you are disregarding the precending and following violence that has occured against white Australians. The title is simple, unbiased, and show that both groups contributed to violence. I can't think of a better way to put it. - G^t 05:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

CJ's latest edit seems okay. - G^t 05:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: A riot cannot be between two groups. Two different groups may riot, but a riot is a rampage not a adversarial conflict.--cj | talk 05:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Then the whole article is mis-named! The 5000 Aussies didn't "trash" stuff, they beat up a whole bunch of Middle Easterners. Then, the Middle-Easterners came back the second night and trashed cars and beat people up. Does either of those qualify as 'riot'? - G^t 05:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The first qualifies as a riot. The 2nd probably doesn't. Riots are usually more static than that. Riots are about mob protest and confrontation, not just about a small number of people doing damage. There's no hard and fast rule of course. If we don't get another 'real' riot by the end of this we can rename the page, but let's not move it for now.

If anyone does insist on moving the page, then 1) please don't. 2) please update the redirects. Thanks, Ben Aveling 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... how about "racist mob violence"? Seems to sum it up. ～J.K. 05:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep 'race' out of it. Like ol' Johnny said, it gets thrown around way too much. - G^t 05:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

(After three edit conflicts) After writing that, I realised I should have said per se. I'm not sure if the article is aptly named either. Surely, there has been riotous behaviour. But neither does it qualify as "civil unrest", as the French incidents did. I did call it mob violence on the Main Page. It might be adequate.--cj | talk 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Such a shame we can't call it "bunch of dickheads beating people up and breaking stuff". Kind of like with Socceroos, the most appropriate title for the article just isn't encyclopaedic enough... ～J.K. 06:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Knowing just a little about the bra boys, I suspect the racism's just an useful excuse for many of them. Lots of them, they just like a fight and it doesn't matter much with who. That said, people are being beat up because of their race which is racism. You have to watch the fine print with 'we will decide who comes to this beachcountry' John. He never said that it was or wasn't racism, just that it wasn't useful to talk about. Regards, Ben Aveling

What about, Brouhaha at the 'Bra? ;-) Whether "race" or "riot" are ideal words to use in the title, can be worked out later. I'd argue that this is as much about a young male territorial pissing contest as it is about racial tension, although clearly these unedifying spectacles feed off one another. But since we have "riot" in the title, is not "violent race riots" in the lead something of a tautology? Are there non-violent riots?--cjllw | TALK 06:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that would be a great title. It makes it sound like a pro-wrestling event! :P Maybe "civil unrest" like the French stuff was titled? Kyaa the Catlord 10:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Beach-related violence is less speculative than race-related or religion-related. Andjam 10:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism...

Some user has just deleted my "Continued Violence" section and written stupid statements. Could anyone please revert this?

I'll try to add more to the Continued Violence tonight.

Thankyou...

211.27.205.41 07:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

Should we lock the page for the time being perhaps? I have noticed quite alot of vandalism, mainly by people just inserting random jibbersh and non-sense.

Pornographic Images/More Vandalism?

OK, I've noticed about 7 edits in the past 2 hours from several users simply inserting pornographic images into the article, blanking it and typing stupid "obscenities." Doesn't this qualify for a lock for the time being? I mean, it's getting kind of hard to legitimately help when idiots keep editing every 5 minutes and mess up your work.

211.27.205.254 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

Continued violence

This section is in need of a cleanup as it is hard to read. Breaking this section up some with subsections may help considerably. Just a suggestion -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 07:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

BRA BOYS, White-Feathers

The Bra Boys Surf Club are White Feather cowards.

Girls hand out white feathers to cowards that aren't willing to defend Australian way of life.

In case you werent already aware, this page is for discussing the actual article itself. Remy B 09:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Rem, I'd suggest using : for commenting :) Jeoh 14:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have wondered about that. Point taken :) Remy B 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The subject is relative to the story as the Bra-Boys have done a deal with the Lebanese and a prominent sydney motorcycle gang to stem the riots at their end, today. The Bra-Boys surf club is a bunch of drug smoking thugs in my opinion, equivalent to the gangs they do deals with. They're probably selling drugs too. Those that protested are heroes though. Druidictus 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but I dont see how you calling them cowards adds anything to the debate over the structuring of the article itself. Remy B 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that a debate can included a rating of the subject matter? 16:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Druidictus 16:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Puberty Blues

I feel Puberty Blues should be mentioned in the "See also" section. Recent newspaper articles describe it as not just as a book about surfing, but also about the violence of the surfing culture. The way the article currently reads, people could be forgiven for thinking there was no history of beach-related violence before September 11. Andjam 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to, if you find it relevant. Was the film any good? :P Kyaa the Catlord 10:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw the film Puberty Blues a year ago. There is a very strong description of the demarcation on the beach on which much of the film's key scenes take place - and I believe this is Cronulla beach. The main narrator talks of different groups occupying different sections of beach: Westies in one section, families in another, the cool kids up the end. It is clear there is much resentment if someone strays into the "wrong" section: something the lead characters themselves do to try and infiltrate the gang of cool kids. I would not be surprised if her VO also mentioned at least one racial group but I can't recall exactly what she said. Asa01 20:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The film was shite. Still, it was better than The Year My Voice Broke. --Jquarry 21:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

someone wrote "wog-related event" at the top and a very racist comment...I deleted it. 130.126.33.111 15:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Maria

Can someone explain the friction between the westies and the surfies and who these two groups were. Y control 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Surfies", as name suggests, are members of the subculture revolving around surfing and beach-going. The "Westies" (also called Bogans, Bevins, and various other names) are so-called because they live in the west of Sydney, mostly Anglo in ethnicity and generally a depressed socio-economic group. Think "white trailor-park trash", although of course that is an over-generalisation. They would come to the beach on weekends, as many Aussies do, and clashes with the Surfies would be inevitable. It should be noted that in many ways immigrants have replaced the "Westies" in terms of both geography and socio-economic status, although Westies still abound. --Jquarry 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"No Lebs"

Americans would have no idea what "No Lebs" means. The caption should be explained more. Perhaps Wikipedia needs an article on Leb that does not refer to airports. MPS 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Leb" is slang for Lebanese, I'm sure that's easy enough to figure out when ready an article like this. I guess you put a little notice somewhere on the page, defining the term "Leb" if you wanted to, but I don't think it's that important. It's a stupid racist chant, like many others that don't make much sense to ordinary people. 211.27.205.254 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

I added the caption anyways for ADD people like me who just read the pictures. MPS 18:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, sure. Meh, it's not really important though, most people get the jist that it's a derogatory racial slur or something bad. Anyway, who cares? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:211.27.205.254 (talk • contribs) .

I care. . :) I think it's important because it aids in understanding Australian culture. I had never heard of Wogs either, and reading the Wob article gave me insight into the tension between the Indians and the brits. I think I am going to create an article for Leb MPS 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? You guys have never heard of Wog either? Well I'm sure Americans know what Dago, or " Wop" means so its sort of the same thing, referring to Italians, Greeks, etc. And by the way, I'm not sure saying that Racial Slurs are a big part of Aussie Culture is going to do any good. Everybody has racism, so do you Americans, why even bother explaining Racial Slurs, "Leb" is abbreaviated from "Lebanese" simple as that. Unless you want people to go out and use stupid terms like that, don't bother, I'm sure they get the message quite easily, that it's something "taboo", "offensive" and racial, so it's not for general use. Honestly, must we explain Racial Slurs now?

We're trying to NOT to promote racism!

211.27.205.254 09:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

Heard of Wop, but not Dago. I think racism and ignorance are going to be out there regardless of whether Wikipedia lists ethnic slurs. IOW, hiding the truth about what some people say won't stop people from saying things. Putting them in an encyclopedia doesn't approve of their words, but documents them. OTOH, if some racist person wants to come to wikipedia to learn how to creatively cuss out various people-groups, I suppose we are helping that person, but the same thing could be said for documenting school shootings. Yes, the crazies could use this information, but so can sociologists and historians. MPS 15:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't want to aruge, and I don't care. If you have the time to go through and replace every word "Leb" with Lebanese be my guest. As I said before, just add a little side note somewhere or a text box, explaining the racial slurs if you want, I think that would be more appropriate and less confusing.

211.26.41.76 16:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

You don't need to do anything. There is content developing in the Leb article that will likely get moved to Lebenese-Australian. Since it's wikified in the caption, curious people like me can learn more about Lebs by clicking the link. Carry on, then. MPS 18:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

***UPDATE: Continued Violence....

Hey again, I just added some information about the ongoing violence in Sydney that has occured for a Second Night to my "Continued Violence" section. Also, I appreciate the help guys, but it seems someone has chopped a fair bit out my article just a while ago, and condensed everything a little too much. It all seems too general and not enough details to me. I think it needs to be a little less vague. I will try to edit it without adding any new information, just a bit more detail if thats OK?

Try to at least notify when you have made some corrections/changes.

Any problems post some replies...

Thankyou.

211.27.205.254 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

I didnt cut the article down, but I agreed with it in principle. The article was going too in depth, the level of detail was unnecessary, the inclusion of a large number of minor nuances was more detracting than purposeful. At least thats how I thought of it. Remy B 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

--- Alright that's fine be me, I was just wondering thats all. I guess it was too long. Oh and by the way, I'm not a member, so could some on who is a Wiki Member please upload this picture, here @ http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-12-13T034715Z_01_SPI301866_RTRUKOC_0_US-AUSTRALIA-BEACH.xml just underneath "Related Articles", as I do not know Wikipedia's Image Copyright and correct formatting and uploading rules, and am not a member. If anyone has the time please put this somewhere in the "Continued Violence" section, as it is a great addition and it would help break it up and make it easier to read.

Thanks.

211.27.205.254 15:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

Are you aware you can sign up quite easily with the Sign Up link at the top right corner of each Wikipedia page? Here is a good reference. Also, you can indent your comments by using the : symbol (or :: for double intention, etc.), it just makes it neater and consistent with most other users. Remy B 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency

If foreigners in France riot, it's civil unrest, if natives in Australia riot, it's "race riots". Let's try to stay in the same country as NPOV. 148.104.5.2 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We had a huge clash over the very same thing over at the France riots article. But are the circumstances the same? --16:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If natives in Australia riot? I didn't see any native Australians (ie. Aboriginal Australians) doing any of the rioting, assaulting or heralding cries of white supremcacy during the recent riots throughout Sydney. In any case, it's not about what ethnic group was doing the rioting, but about the nature of the riot. In this case, it was of a racial nature.

Had the rioters been Aborigines specifically targetting white people, or Middle Easterners, or Asians, or whatever, it would've still been a race riot. Unlike the Redfern rioters (in this case they were indeed Aboriginal Australians), they were rioting against the police, not a specific race of people. Al-Andalus 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Spot on. Agnte 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

sigh... The problem is with the "riot" characterization, not race. If what happened in Sydney is a "riot" or "mob violence", then what happened in France was definitely a riot. Plus, note the far more frequent use of "violence" in this article than the one on the French "civil unrest". You know what, forget it. I don't even know why I bother to fight the tide of POV on Wikipedia. First, it's the non-existence of poor people criticizing Hugo Chavez, then it's the non-existence of right-wing anti-imperialism, then it's "ethical coffee" being a kind of coffee bean, then it's opposition to prisons being portrayed as far more widespread than it really is, then it's the Singaporean death penalty being portrayed as unjust, then it's wikipedia promoting sustainable energy development (yes, that's a POV) and finally, we have a bunch of angry white guys who "riot" unlike angry Muslims who engage in "civil unrest". You just need to quit pretending like NPOV was ever a part of Wikipedia. It's not. 148.104.5.2 18:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice attitude you have there. I suppose you do know better than the community. - Quirk 18:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

He's got a point in that there were definitely riots in france. He'd have more of a point if the civil unrest page didn't start with "The 2005 civil unrest in France and neighboring countries was a series of riots and other forms of violent clashes"... the fact that the words 'civil unrest' are used to include riots shoots this down fast, if you ask me. --Kizor 19:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

***UPDATE: Fears of Further Violence...

I just added another section called "Fears of Further Violence" after continued violence as I felt it would be very appropriate to mention the long-term ethnic "stand-off" and tension between Anglo's and Middle Easterners and the fact that there's many signs of more trouble to come (SMS's, weapons, so on), so it is likely this will continue and fears of more violence should be asserted as a likely possibility.

Again, if anyone wants to check my grammar/structure go ahead. You may condense the section if you wish, but try to leave a level of detail in there, as it is a complex racial issue that cannot be explained to some average-joe with no knowledge of Australia, in 25 words or less. So I feel it requires a fair amount of text.

Again, if anyone wants to insert pictures in Continued Violence and Fears of Further Violence, it would be greatly appreciated and please do so. I am aware I can sign up as well, I will soon.

Thankyou.

211.27.205.254 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

Some good images are located on BBC News for anyone interested in uploading more photos and images into the article. Try here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4523996.stm

Except that, it is in the main simply not permissable under licensing terms to simply go about grabbing photos published by news agencies and inserting them into wikipedia articles- you would likely be in copyright violation if you did so. Care needs to be taken about the source and licensing info for any inserted image.--cjllw | TALK 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Colorblind Media

Sunday's riots were certainly not white racism. Didn't the cameras pick up any Aboriginal or Black Aussies participating against the Lebaneses thugs who have been terrorizing Aussie beach-goers? This is one of the many riots that is telling the world that Austrialia is tired of being politically correct. But the cameras do not show that. They are showing the world, espeically back here in the United States, that this is a mob of white people picking on Arab-Aussies.

Back here in the United States, they are telling us that it is white racism against Arab-Aussies and Islamic Aussies. I don't believe that one bit. I am white, but I am not a racists. I have many friends of many races and creeds, some of Arab decent and practice the Muslim faith. While we agree that the violence has escalated to a breaking point, it is wrong for the media to tell the world that this is white racism.

A few days ago, I found this link to a Aussie newspaper describing how blindly the Aussie courts and the Aussie media downplayed race durring a case three years ago when Lebanese thugs assaulted several Aussie women. (Racist rapes: Finally the truth comes out by Sun-Herald columist Miranda Devine, July 14, 2002) The courts looked at it as if these woman were looking for another Emmett Till to lynch.

The media is forgetting to tell the world that the Lebanese thugs assaulted white Aussie lifeguards in Austrailia NOT in Lebanon! They have no right to come to Austrailia to tell the Aussie's how they should live.

Your comment assumes the "Lebanese thugs" are recent immigrants. Is this known? I hypothesise that some of the people from Lebanese backgrounds will have been born in Australia. I think you're taking a line of argument used by racist groups across the world. Please also spell Australia correctly. (MG)

When people come to Austrailia, they must live by the Austrailia laws. When people come to France, they must live by the French laws. When people come to Singapore, Indonesia, China, the Philipines, India, Germany, the United States, or whatever country, you must live by the local laws! The laws of Islam that are applied to the laws of countries such as Lebanon and other Arab Nations DO NOT apply to countries like Austrailia. If a person commits a crime in Austrailia, then they should be treated like an Austrailan criminal. There should be no special cases for foreigners. It is like having a sane person get away with a crime by using an insanity plea.

If foreigners have a problem with the justice systems of other countries they should just deal with it! Stop using race and religion to get away with henious crimes!

--Bushido Hacks 18:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

One problem with your argument is that in the first 'riot' in Carulla, it wasn't the Lebanese rioting, it was the Aussies. They escalated the problem in a racist manner. It isn't the "savage moslems" coming to civilization that acted out, it was the impatient white Aussies who demanded a pound of flesh from the first middle easterners they found, regardless of guilt or innocence of those victims. This in no way justifies the gang-bangers counter-rioting, but you're so off base with your spiel... Kyaa the Catlord 18:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you would do your homework, you would have seen that this fight goes farther back than Cronulla. These people are not savages as you have so frankly called them, but they do not show any respect for the Aussies. They know what they are doing and they do not feel sorry for what they do. When will people stand up and be accountable for their actions, I mean TRULY accountable and not whitewash what is really going on here? These people are not savages, but it is time for them to stop treating everyone else as inferior or hateful. Austrailia is one of the most tolerant and respectful countries in the world. Austrailians have literally bent over backwards to be respecful and tolerant to other people and cultures, but people come to Austrailia to take advantage of the Aussies by tearing holes and exceptions into the laws of the land, then they have no right to be in Austrailia.

"All animals are equal--except some are more equal than others." --Animal Farm by George Orwell

--Bushido Hacks 20:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The word 'respect' seems to be being used a lot lately. May I ask what the word means in this case? Regards, Ben

Indeed, slogans such as "No Lebs", "Wog Free Zone" and "Ethnic Cleansing Unit" sure do make Australia seem like a haven of tolerance and respect for other cultures. - Quirk 23:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem isn't that Aussies are intolerant; it's that some immigrants from the Middle East refuse to adapt to their new home. The way that some "Lebs" have been bullying "Anglos" at Cronulla, not to mention the racist rapes perpetrated by Middle Easterners on white Australians, are hardly what I would call examples of "tolerance and respect." It looks like the "Anglos" have had enough of that, and are, in a sense, taking their country back (with apologies to the Aborigines). Squidley 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Lebanese gangs may have been bullying "Anglos", but what does anyone think they will achieve with counter-racism? Since when have two wrongs made a right? Had these protests been targeted at gang activity all would have been well, but they seemed to transform into racist rioting. And until all Lebanese-Australians are to blame for crimes committed by gangs, there is no justification for such racism. - Quirk 02:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of what has been written above seems to imply a whole group of people should be in some way held responsible for the actions of a few and that a response directed at a whole group for the actions of some is in some way a valid response. Using the same line of logic, general negative sentiments among all women towards all men would be a valid response arising from some men assaulting women. Of course, that isn't a valid response. Similarly, the whole of society turning on all white men would not be a valid response arising from incidents of white men commiting certain offences. Let's not forget that Anglos (or whites, or Europeans, or whatever term you want to use) commit all sorts of crimes every day. Why is it then that a mass riot directed at 'youth of middle eastern appearance' generally - regardless or conviction or involvement in any incidents - is seen as a valid response. The article does not answer that question at all, yet some edits (which keep being edited in and out - such as the Tim Priest quote) seem to imply (not argue, but imply) that this was somehow cause for the riots. Simply stating the viewpoint is POV and if such views are to be included then they need to be explained adequately explained. To date, they haven't been. -- Adz 07:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As a person of middle-eastern background, i can tell you that there are elements of the "white community" who display discriminatory attitudes towards those they view as being "muslim". I'm australian-born, and have studied journalism at university in australia, only to get told that my application had been rejected because I "had not provided proof of english proficiency. Is the journalism degree not enough proof? I even have a mate who had to put up with anti-islamic taunts, despite being baha'i.

My point is that both the rhetoric AND the actions of both "groups" is steeped in the language of race, be they groups of people who want to keep australia "white", and youth of middle-eastern background lashing out at what they perceive to the the cause of the discrimination they face.

One more thing - how come the aboriginal community in redfern haven't tried to "reclaim their beach" from the 'Bra Boys et al.? 143.238.175.192 07:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, the fact of the matter is that Australia is a white-majority country. Current immigration policies aside, is there something intrinsically wrong with the majority wanting to keep it that way? Are the people of a country somehow wrong if they don't want their country to be overcome by immigrants? This is not meant to excuse or condone racism, but to draw attention to a larger social issue. This issue is not, of course, directly relevant to the article, but it provides further background for understanding what's going on. (As an aside, I'd like to point out that the majority of problems with immigrants in Australia are with culturally-Muslim immigrants, and not with Asians or Europeans--but that's another issue.) However, "bainer" and some other posters seem to believe that anything that provides background for understanding the causes of the rioting is inappropriate for this article. Somebody else can fight them over that point. Squidley 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be argued that such a suspicious attitude towards immigrants contributes to them being excluded from the mainstream society, prompting them to group within their community, building social barriers between them and the "indigenous" people of the country. The sad reality seems to be that these kinds of attitudes perpetuate a vicious circle — immigrants fail to integrate, which causes the mainstream society to have suspicion towards them, which in turn hinder integration even more. - Quirk 23:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

um, white people are immigrants to AU too. it's the big difference between neo-nazis in Australia and, say, the BNP in the UK 143.238.160.236 01:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

True, that's why I put "indigenous" in quotation marks... - Quirk 13:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Non-European immigration and the ideology of multiculturalism"

"Other commentators have critiqued the unprecedented waves of non-European immigration and the ideology of multiculturalism, both of which have created a climate conducive to anti-Australian violence and terrorism." — Just what exactly is this supposed to mean? What is it based on? Where are the sources indicating that multiculturalism and non-European immigration are responsible for creating "a climate conducive to anti-Australian violence and terrorism"? - Quirk 19:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph as it was unsourced and POV. If someone wants to put it back please provide sources. - Quirk 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

One source is the ABC mentioning Australia First [10], and at least one "media commentator" has explicitly blamed multiculturalism, but I forget where I heard/saw them. Someone else on ABC TV (Prof. David Flint?) blamed soft policing. Anyone else got a pet cause? --Zigger «º» 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Pet cause" it may be for some, but sourced comments on this topic are relevant--but only if you believe that understanding the context that the rioting came out of is relevant (which I believe it is, regardless of one's view on multiculturalism). Squidley 18:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How many people do we have working on this?

I'm just curious, how many people do we have actively working on the article at the moment. I feel this article could really be in much better shape and perhaps even suggested for a Feature Article, if it wasn't so "understaffed" I should say. I mean there's alot of vandalism, we take quite a while to add the latest news and updates about unfolding events, and it just appears to be of a lower standard.

Sorry if I sound like I'm whining for help, just curious as to the fact if we still have a "team" here, I've noticed the Australian User G or Gt isn't around as much and not much has been added to the article in last day. I mean this thing is going out of media coverage abit, and as a story loses coverage, it generally loses interest. But I think it's important and we should continue to keep this story upto scratch.

Replies welcome...

Thankyou.

211.27.205.254 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Perth***

Yeah, it's a mess now. But big events can only be covered properly with the benefit of hindsight. Once it vanishes from the news, most of the vandals will vanish, and most of the disagreements as well. That's when we can whip it into shape, merge in the wikinews article, and start building a good explaination of the issues behind the events. In the meantime, it's more a matter of trying to keep the best article we can. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

this is the trend in wikipedia. I like to refer to it as Wikipedia:Recentism MPS 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

These kids weren't even born in 1975.

We still need to establish why this might be relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

By contrast, the Lebanese Civil War, which brought significant Lebanese Muslim immigration into Australia, did not start until 1975. Violence in relation to the Lebanese gangs is widespread, according to the former Sydney detective Tim Priest. He states that 1995-1996 saw their emergence from petty activities to things much greater:

"...from these insurance scams, a generation of young criminals emerged to become engaged in more sophisticated crimes, such as extortion, armed robbery, organised narcotics importation and supply, gun running, organised factory and warehouse break-ins, car theft and conversion on a massive scale including the exporting of stolen luxury vehicles to Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries...

"They and their associates have been involved in numerous murders over the past five years, many of them unprovoked fatal attacks on young Australian men for no other reason than that they are “Skips”, as they call Australians." [11]

Claims needing support and relevance

• A perception also exists amongst young Australians of Middle Eastern background that any crimes committed by "people of Middle Eastern appearance" are attributed by sections of the media to the perpetrator’s ethnic and/or geographical background, or their upbringing in a community which generally practises Islam. [12]

I could be wrong but I don't see support for this claim in that article, unless it's intended as an example of media attributing responsibility? Nor do I see why we are talking about the attitudes of the victims in isolation from the attitudes of the perpetrators?

• Overseas commentators have noted the relative disparity in economic and social-cultural status of Australians of Middle Eastern background and its possible role in community sentiment. [13]

The linked article is January, last year. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the statement it should be supporting. Again, I don't see why the economic status of the victims is interesting, especially when presented in isolation from the perpetrators?

We are still waiting for any evidence of involvement in Leb gangs in this. However, the existance of Leb gangs seems to be being used as justification for arbitrary violence against anyone who looks Middle Eastern to a Cronulla surfie. (A greek friend of a friend is avoiding central Cronulla for the next few days because "these guys can't tell the difference".)

I have no objection to adding a discussion of anything that is sourced and relevant. Why is stuff relevant? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Trad denies circulating messages

Mr Trad said he did not know who was responsible for circulating new text messages, including one declaring war between Sydney's youths of Middle Eastern ethnicity and Australians.

The new messages follow a round of similar ones sent last week, calling for retaliation after an attack on surf lifesavers at Cronulla on December 3.

"People who make messages like that are not helping the situation, in fact, they are the ones who are the real criminals in this," Mr Trad said.

From AAP via Yahoo! [14]

If he says he didn't send any messages to encourage the violence, then who did? --Bushido Hacks 20:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

and your point is...? No doubt, Police Commissioner Ken Moroney, Prime Minister John Howard, and Gabonese President Omar Bongo would also deny circulating these messages, if asked. Why do you seek to impute that Mr Trad ought to know the source of these messages, or that he has some Svengali-like influence over the Australian Muslim community? He is but one community figure among many. --cjllw | TALK 00:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What does Omar Bongo have to do with this incident? This sounds like an inside job or something the CIA would do. --Bushido Hacks 05:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sedition

This is just a heads up for potential future developments. It appears at least theoretically possible that sedition charges could be laid against people involved in promoting these riots.

80.2 Sedition. Urging violence within the community

(5) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished); and

(b) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.

(6) Recklessness applies to the element of the offence under subsection (5) that it is a group or groups that are distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion that the first-mentioned person urges the other person to use force or violence against.

—the preceding unsigned comment is by BenAveling (talk • contribs)

People like Alan Jones? [15] Anyway, the bill has passed the Parliament, but it hasn't recieved Royal Assent yet, and so those laws can't apply to this (AFAIK they didn't make it retrospective). --bainer (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

They didn't, but AFAICT the new laws don't change much as regards inciting violence. From memory, class becomes group, and in 5b "or" is replaced by "and". With lawyers involved, who knows if that makes it stronger or weaker. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sydney gang rapes

Someone is convinced that the Sydney gang rapes link is relevant. If it is, it needs to be explained in the main article. If not, it's shouldn't be here. Either way, it would help if you please explain the connection here? Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Alan Jones made the link on the radio during the week: [16] (near the end, when he's responding to caller "Berta"). If this is at all relevant, it's to illustrate the way Jones was stirring up the issue. --bainer (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I have several times removed it, I can only suppose that they believe it is relevant because the specific cases to which the article refers mentions some statements by the perpetrators which could indicate that the rapes were at least in part racially-motivated (against "skips"). They may see this as some demonstration of general hostility from this community sector. However, unless some citeable commentator has also been making this link, I agree its inclusion is not warranted- particularly not as a bald, non-descriptive link.--cjllw | TALK 23:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems Gloria really does want to explore the boundaries of the new sedition laws. I think we should discuss the motivation for the assaults, however illogical, but no way does that link stay in without an explaination. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear Alan - "it's not like there are Anglo-Australians out there raping women in Western Sydney" - what, has he forgotten Anita Cobby?

I agree that it would be worthwhile to further explore the background urgings and incitements such as Gloria's in the week leading up to last weekend; it's certainly not as if Sunday's events came out of the blue, given that they were presaged by the first reported incidents the weekend prior. I also think that a dimension which warrants further coverage is the "young male territorial" aspect, to complement the "ethnic division" aspect which has to date received the most coverage. I heard a Western Sydney academic make some pertinent remarks re this, I'll see if I can track them down.--cjllw | TALK 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The connection is simple: the Sydney gang rapes provide further background for the reaction of "Anglos" to the "Lebs." It provides context beyond the problems at the beach, and is essential for understanding the continuing frustration of the Anglos about the Lebs and the lawless behaviour that some of them engage in. It has to stay! Squidley 01:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The connection is simplistic: rapes are perpetrated by males from all ethnic backgrounds, including particularly the "Anglos", so one might better ask instead why such crimes are taken to reflect badly on some ethnic communities, but not others, as indicative of their general attitudes, alleged propensity for lawlessness, and refusal to be assimilated? In any event, as has already been discussed above, if it must be mentioned, it needs to be in the context of some citeable source making this connection- and not in a way which implies a direct causal link between the two.--cjllw | TALK 02:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The sydeney gang rapes had racial motivations. It is not meant to refelect badly on any community, but are relevant understand simmering ethnic tension. As is harrasment of other australian females by lebanese youths.

This (and a lot of other bits and pieces that are deemed POV and irrelevant to the story) are significant because they explain the state of mind that produced the violence. 5000 people do not congregate on a beach and start attacking passers-by for no reason (although it needn't be a good reason). The Sydney gang rapes made national headlines for quite some time, and a lot of anger was felt in Australian society at the perceived sexual predation of ethnic minorities on caucasian women. There was also quite a bit of resentment at perceived leniency by courts on the offenders when they were charged. Although not a Sydney-sider (and other parts of Australia are quite different), I see this as part of a long-standing pattern that has lead to this violence. It is naive to discuss the present violence without also mentioning the general culture of racial tension that already existed, and the Sydney gang rapes were a significant flash-point in that fabric of tension. GoldenRing 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone can find a reliable source that indicates that the 5000 people, or some of them, were thinking about the rapes at the time they rioted, then it can go in the article. If someone can find a reliable source that shows that the people involved in the rapes were also involved in the gang violence, then it can go in the article. Until that happens, it is speculation, and must not be in the article. We don't make the commentary ourselves, we merely report it in a way that is consistent with WP policies. --bainer (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Immigration to Australia

Someone believes that the Immigration to Australia link is obviously relevant. It's not obvious to me that it is. The perpetrators were not immigrants. The victims were not targeted because they were immigrants, and most were not. What have I missed? Why is this link relevant? Thanks in anticipation of your explaination. Ben Aveling 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

didnt put the link in but its useful for someone to understand for someone not australian the background. For example knowing about the "White only immigration policy" i think is important in understanding what is going on over there. How italians and spainish people are not seen as white is confusing for me and folks in ukHyperfeedback 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A good point, Hyperfeedback. I think that the Immigration to Australia link can stand as a pointer to secondary material which might help those otherwise not familiar with the broader situation here.--cjllw | TALK 01:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The perpetrators were not mostly imigrants, the victims were not mostly imigrants. It may have something to do with perceptions of imigrants, but it has nothing to do with imigration. In what way is immigration relevant? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the majority of participants in these events are most likely to have been locally-born, not immigrants (although I am like everyone else including the media making assumptions about the crowd's composition, since AFAIK no-one has actually and factually surveyed this), and would reject any imputation that immigrants are substantively involved or responsible. However, folks from beyond these shores may not have a good handle on the ethnic terminology and history of multiculturalism here, and so I'd say that it might be useful to include the link in the "see also" as background reference- what do you think?--cjllw | TALK 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To further clarify, if you know of an alternative article which better describes the background to multiculturalism here, then that can be used instead.--cjllw | TALK 03:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fairfax photo

Someone keeps re-inserting the photo of a police officer protecting some individual from the larger crowd. This particular photo has no source or licensing information, and given that its description indicates it was taken from a Fairfax website, it is unlikely to be released for use here. Please refrain from adding photos which do not meet wikipedia's licensing restrictions.--cjllw | TALK 23:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Clean up tag

I believe this article no longer needs to be tagged for clean up. Any views before removal?--A Y Arktos 00:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it can be removed for now. It's not like this is a neglected article that needs to advertise for folks to come along and help fix it up.--cjllw | TALK 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. It was added by an anon user with this edit who also added the comment "This article currently uses an uneven combination of footnotes and simple external links, resulting in completely disorganized footnote numbering. Please fix it." --A Y Arktos 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it still needs clean up. But agreed, it doesn't need a clean up tag to attract attention - we're aware of the problems and we're working on them. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Suitable?

"These combined underlying causes suggest that these types of conflict may escalate to another scale or may continue for prolonged periods, until immigration policy is reformed and Muslim settlers repatriated." New to this wikipedia stuff so dont know what stuffs suitable to delete n stuff Does anyone agree with me that this is not suitable. If its a ainsteam view I think I wont leave the country ill leave the planet!Hyperfeedback 00:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hyperfeedback, you've done the right thing by bringing it here, but if you see something like the above, which is unsubstantiated, unattributed to any citeable source, and obviously reads like some passing editor's personal opinion on the matter, then by all means be bold and get rid of it (which I have done), in the process explaining why you did so, of course. The onus is on the contributors of such dubious statements to provide the references and argue for its inclusion, not the other way around. At least that is one view around here, you will find other views of course as you stick around. In theory at least, the nett outcome of these competing views should gradually settle at some consensus version- in theory, mind!--cjllw | TALK 00:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated quote.

• Violence in relation to the Lebanese gangs is race-based and widespread, according to the former Sydney detective Tim Priest:

"They and their associates have been involved in numerous murders over the past five years, many of them unprovoked fatal attacks on young Australian men for no other reason than that they are “Skips”, as they call Australians." [17]

Hi Beneaththelandslide,

you keep adding this in without explaining why this is relevant. There were no leb gangs involved in the riot. They didn't commit the violence and they weren't the target of it.

I acknowledge that the existance of Leb gangs might have been used as an excuse to assault anyone who vaguely looked Lebanese. So, yes, we need something. We could make the language a bit more encyclopedic.

Violence by Lebanese gangs is race-based and widespread, according to the former Sydney detective Tim Priest:

"They and their associates have been involved in numerous murders over the past five years, many of them unprovoked fatal attacks on young Australian men for no other reason than that they are “Skips”, as they call Australians." [18]

But we don't normally quote people by name, without a reason. And without knowing how many murders there actually have been - probably not large numbers, or if any of them are related to Cronulla - again probably not, the quote seems off tangent to me.

There is plenty in the press at the moment about recent bad blood between locals and visitors. Could you have a look through it and see if you can find something we'll both agree is appropriate?

Thanks, Ben Aveling 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Headings

The section headings in this article are quite un-encyclopædic - more tabloid-esque, if you ask me. Though this is a current event, we have to remember we are an encyclopædia, not WikiNews. Any suggestions for replacements?--cj | talk 02:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)