Talk:2005 Cronulla riots/Archive 3

Which is it?

An ethnic man had been yelling anti-white comments at the crowd and had threatened to "blow youse all up"[7] before she was surrounded by the crowd and attacked by two white women.

Man or woman? Jarwulf 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If that was what was shown on the news, then it was a woman. However I'm not sure it is is the same event. --203.4.253.48 07:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

reason behind actions

Muslim Gang Rapes and the Aussie Riots

That argument depends on illegal behaviour being overlooked becaue of cultural relativism. Apart from a recent case in the NT involving an aboriginal man, I can't think of anything like that happening? I believe the leader of the gang rapes being discussed is currently serving a record 55 year sentance? In other words, he recieved a harsher than normal sentance, not a softer one. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In the introduction there is a little bit about the possible reasons for the riots. I think the part about what was "widely seen" as a tipping point needs to be changed to state that this is what four corners (or thier source) was saying was the tipping point. I think the following quote from the age warrants inclusion to give perspective about what the "tipping point" might also have been. Thoughts, anyone?

"The riot was still three days away and Sydney's highest-rating breakfast radio host had a heap of anonymous emails to whip his 2GB listeners along. "Alan, it's not just a few Middle Eastern bastards at the weekend, it's thousands. Cronulla is a very long beach and it's been taken over by this scum. It's not a few causing trouble. It's all of them."Fyntan 11:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Tim Priest

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." [1]

Hi BTL,

You've said that this quote gives the reasons "behind the actions". Can you explain what you mean by that?

Thanks, Ben Aveling 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's why the Aussies are so annoyed. It's why they rioted. It gives reason for their actions. You don't just have 5000 people go and parade around after a few beach incidents. To any international reader - they'll go "what the, racist idiots!" after reading about all the 'race riots'. Giving reasoning behind the actions will make readers think, will give a more balanced view and all in all support a more NPOV article. It's hypocrisy and point-of-view to include "Lebanese are angry because they're not seen as Australian, they're angry because they're poor, etc" and not include this. - G^t 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the bit about Leb's being angry is inapropriate. Back to this bit. If I understand you, you are saying that random people of more or less lebanese appearance were assaulted because the crowd was angry that other lebanese people have committed crimes elsewhere in Sydney? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not quite sure I understand this reasoning. The way it looks to me is that the rioters pretty much assaulted anyone who looked middle-eastern, and not specifically the individuals who had committed these terrible crimes (rapes etc). - Quirk 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry - are you trying to imply that I am defending the attacks on people? I'm against violence of any kind mate, it should be exposed and dealt with. Hence why information giving reason to why people are angry is relevant. Tim Priest's information on 'Lebanese Gangs' gives the other side of the coin in relation to all this "racism" and stops the assumption that it's only whites who are racist. - G^t 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you ask, yes, you do give me the impression that you think the attacks were justified. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we do need to cover externally supposed (ie, by other sources) motivations for the attack. These, I think, include racial tensions (which means covering such issues as gangs, multiculturalism, etc), alcohol (which was certainly abundantly present on the day, and yet barely mentioned here), and racism/right-wing incitement (talk-back, white supremacists). Any of this requires sources (ie, no weasel words).--cj | talk 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with cj, although the "right-wing" incitement is a bit harsh. You can't simply chuck white supremacism, etc in that bag. I'm very conservative, probably "right-wing". That shouldn't go hand in hand with racism/etc. - G^t 03:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Claims by police and politicians that White supremicists were involved have been reported in the press. The fact that white supremescists are considered right-wing doesn't make all centre right Liberal Democrats white supreniscists> Nobody is suggesting that you (or even the Liberal party) are white supremescist (just like most left leaning peope aren't rabid communists), so don't take it personally.

On the point of Tim Preist's comment, I'm inclined to say that his comment is simply an opinion. The fact that he is quoted as a detective suggests that he is an authoritative figure. His comment however is very POV and, I would argue, not entirely valid, and therefore should not be included. (The fact that Melbourne drug gangs have been involved in murders hasn't created riots against drug dealers. The fact that some of them were Italian hasn't meant that people have rioted in Lygon Street. The issue is far more complex and involves perceptions created by the media along with other factors). Including Tim Priest's comments aren't a valid explanatiopn of the reason the sentiments exist, but is simply another example of the sentiments/perception (ie symptom) that is the result of the more complex phenomenon. If you want to explain it, you should say that there is a perception, among some people, within a certain demographic, that people of certain ethnicities behave in certain ways. This phenomenon is the result of (media's portrayal of recent events, include other factors..... ). Others in the broader community do not hold this view and have challenged it (give examples). A bit long winded, I know, but it is complex and shouldn't be presented in such simple terms. -- Adz 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinion it may be, but so is every single newspaper peice in this article. It's biased, judgemental - all of that. The beauty of wikipedia on the other hand is it's is collabarative (spl?) - I believe his comments offer background relating to Lebanese Gangs in an appropriate manner that nothing else on this page does. There is no other peice which explains, gives "reasons behind actions", of why 5000 Aussies turned out to protest. "Racism" is a pathetic excuse. 5000 people don't rock up because of a few incidents on one beach. Tim Priest's article goes some way to explain why it happened. Leave it. - G^t 06:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What is interesting is that when groups of people of non-Anglo-Saxon appearance commit crimes or behave anti-socially, the media consistently draw attention to their ethnicity. However, when do we ever see reports in our media saying that a gang of Anglo-Saxon or white appearance committed a crime? Almost never. Our media draws far more attention to ethnicity when anti-social behaviour is being conducted by people from cultural backgrounds that are not acceptable to the dominant culture.

Here is one example. At roughly the same time as the media was in uproar about gang rapes being committed by people of Middle Eastern origin (from memory, about 2-3 years ago), there was a particularly horrific rape that took place in Newington. However, this did not attract anywhere close to the same level of media attention, days of front-page headlines and inflammatory radio talkback as other similar crimes. I can only conclude that this was because the perpetrators happened to be white. It seems to me that this imbalance in the media does lead to the propagation of negative stereotypes and racism, particularly against Lebanese people and others of a middle-eastern background.

So I don't doubt the factual correctness of the statements by Priest. What I draw attention to is the way that Lebanese gangs are treated by the media compared to their treatment of gangs such as the Bra-Boys. G, maybe you should think of putting the boot on the other foot. If a white gang was responsible for similar crimes, surely this would not justify a crowd of people gathering with racist slogans on their T-shirts, looking for trouble and attacking anyone who looked white, regardless of what country they came from.

I don't even mind the Priest quote being included in this article. It is part of the background to what took place. However, I think it does not even go close to providing the full reasons behind the actions of the crowd that day. These are not simple questions we're dealing with so we should try not to provide simplistic explanations. --Alexxx1 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well said, Alexxx1! I agree. misanthrope 10:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To me, there seem to be two issues. The protest, and the assaults. While both may or may not have the same motivations, one is a legitimate expression of an opinion, the other is not. It's fine for people to be angry because of bad behaviour by some individuals, it's not OK for them to take the law into their own hands, or to strike out randomly at people for being of the same appearance as other people. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Attitudes to race

Cultural integration

• Some Australian-born individuals with Middle Eastern ancestry report that they are not consistently accepted as "Australian" because of their ethnicity.[2] Such sentiments, reflected in the sloganeering of the protesters at the December 11 riots, have been fanned by political developments since the late 1990's, such as the temporary rise of One Nation. [3]

As suggested by BTL, this is a pretty incomplete view of the whole picture. I suggest we expand it later maybe, depending on what happens at Australian conceptions of race and ethnicity. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Some Australian-born individuals with Middle Eastern ancestry report that they are not consistently accepted as "Australian" because of their ethnicity." That is also my point. How on earth can ethnic group "A" constantly remind ethnic group "B" that they are not Australian and that they will never be "Aussies" because of their ethnic background, and then complain that group B doesn't integrate and assimilate. It's hypocrisy. Then they can't understand why ethnic group B become more prone to criminality. Of course this would be the outcome if you are alienated as the rejects of society. Furthermore, if you expect the worst of people, that's often what you get. People live up to those low expectations. And then to riot against these people for their activities places the blame solely on them.

Take a look at other countries around the world that have absorbed Arab and other Middle Eastern migrants, whether Muslim, Christian, or of another religion. There are an estimated 20 million Arab and other Middle Eastern descendants (of all religions) throughout Latin America, while Australia has 200,000. In places like South America, those immigrants were embraced by those society, and they integrated and assimilated. Look how many countries in Latin America have had ethnic Arab (both Muslim and Christian) presidents, and how successfully integrated into those societies they have become; Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc. See Arab diaspora to observe the different outcomes of the one same people immigrating to different countries where their reception has been vastly different. Let's not deceive ourselves that racism isn't prevalent in Australian society, and that it is not partly responsible for this outcome. Al-Andalus 05:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC).

I wasn't stating my opposition to it. I was just saying it isn't balanced to have one side and not the other. Now it's the other way around! It's the other side of the coin, so include it. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but the other side is still required for npov and balance. - G^t 05:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Great! both sides explained and NPOV obtained! so, when will this appear in the main page? 143.238.160.236 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between Christian and Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. Muslim immigrants cause trouble wherever they have settled. In North and South America, tiny numbers of mostly Arab Christian immigrants have settled and assimilated into local society. But Muslim immigrants separate themselves and, when their numbers grow, react with hostility, hatred, and violence against the host society. Muslim bigotry against non-Muslims needs to be highlighted here. It's too big a phenomenon to ignore.

Sources need to be found for this' inclusion. Wikipedia outlines facts, readers make up their own minds. - G^t 14:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with G. Unless sources are found, such an inclusion is just a POV. misanthrope 10:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Role of Pacific islanders

The following contribution was removed:

Most of those rioting against the Lebanese were Caucasian, but Pacific Islanders are also members of the "Bra boys" ("Nasty reality surfs in as ugly tribes collide", Sydney Morning Herald 11 December 2005).

I think the role of Pacific islanders in the fighting is relevant, as some people (not necessarily wikipedians!) think that the anti-Lebanese side are all white supremacists.

As well as the SMH mention by Sheehan, I recall an article in Monday's Daily Telegraph about Tongans being on the anti-Lebanese side.

If anyone still objects to a mention of this information, can they please say so on the talk page? Thanks, Andjam 09:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't object outright, so long as it's inserted cleanly. Someone else (maybe on the radio) made the claim that some Bra boys are Lebanese. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bra Boys didn't have anything to do with it. It was Da Shire Boys. - Randwicked 14:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As reported in The Age, Alan Jones incited Pacific islanders to go down to Cronulla in the week before the riots. I can hunt down the article if anyone wants it... Benvenuto 05:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Last Thursday Charlie rang to suggest all junior footballers in the Shire gather on the beach to support the lifesavers. "Good stuff, good stuff," said Jones."I tell you who we want to encourage, Charlie, all the Pacific Island people because, you want to know something, they don't take any nonsense. They are proud to be here — all those Samoans and Fijians. They love being here. And they say, 'Uh huh, uh huh. You step out of line, look out.' And, of course, cowards always run, don't they?" http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/alan-jones-im-the-person-thats-led-this-charge/2005/12/12/1134236003153.html Benvenuto 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The article, like most texts on the "riots" (in 90% of countries on this planet they wouldn't have even been newsworthy) is rife with errors relating to the concept of "race" as well as the notion that they riots were in any way religiously-motivated. This article will never, ever be factually accurate because most of the spineless fools who make up the general public of this country made their minds up on the issue, either to the tune of the moronic right-wing attitude if blaming Islam, or the moronic left-wing attitude of blaming this mythological "aussie" ethnic group, way before they ever made any effort to understand what was happening. C'est la vie, this will be forgotten within a few years.

Title topic incorrect

I disagree with the title 2005 Sydney race riots. Reasons:

• 1. This is not the case because "Lebanese" is not a race, nor are the attacks inspired by a white supremist ideology. It could however be considered ethnic violence.
• 2. Furthermore, the riots in France weren't called race riots, though if you would follow the logic of this topic title it could be applied there as well, because the rioters were mostly immigrants and most of their attacks were pointed to what they perceived as Caucasian-French or Caucasian-French property. Nevertheless it was called in Wikipedia "urban violence" or "civil unrest" as these were considered the most neutral terms (see discussions 2005 French civil unrest). Therefore I think this topic should be renamed "2005 Australian civil unrest" or "2005 Sydney civil unrest". This would be more NPOV and more consistent. Mjolnir1984 10:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I still like the suggestion from earlier: 2005 Drunken yobs beating up other people because they can. Ethnic is no good, because ethnic basically means non-anglo saxon, and mostly anglo's were involved here, even if there was a small number of non-whites as well. Race riot pretty much covers what happened, one group attacking people because of their race. Civil unrest is no good either, because civil unrest is actually stronger than riots, despite the mild sound of it.

The French riots weren't especially aimed at people. Most of the damage was to property. That was more about class, or underclass. Here, the riots are not obviously about class, but race. And in both countries, there were not a large number of migrants involved, the french rioters and westies being mostly 2nd generation and the surfies probably 3rd, 4th or 5th generation, at a rough guess.

As discussed earlier, there really has only been one real riot. And as discussed earlier, the other titles, as with the current title in fact, cover a lot more territory than just the events of recent days.

Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And you have got to remember people are going to coming here from overseas and it is being reported as "race riots" in the international media. Therefore the title should stay as it currently stands as moving it to something like "culture riots" really is pointless.

Sorry I forgot to sign that comment Bsfairman 10:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I say we should call it "2005 Aussies throw a hissy-fit" :P (In other words, keep it what it is.) Kyaa the Catlord 12:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Another reason why race riots may be dodgy is that some may argue religion, as opposed to ethnicity played a role. Andjam 12:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How about 2005 Sydney beach riots? Andjam 12:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The rioting didn't happen exclusively on beaches, did it? - Quirk 13:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed how they solved it in the topic 1992 Los Angeles riots. That's the main topic name, and Los Angeles Race Riots is the #redirect. Anyway, I think that LA riots were a lot more 'race' oriented (in the true meaning of the word 'race', because it was 'black' Americans vs. 'white' Americans) than the Sydney riots (where 'race' is applied as (mostly) Anglo-Saxon Australians vs. Lebanese Australians). So I would prefer to do the same with this topic. 2005 Sydney riots as main topic title and 2005 Sydney race riots as a #redirect. Would be at least more consistent. Mjolnir1984 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As the person who argued for the title of the French events, I do not believe the same argument applies here. Civil unrest implies a much larger and more comprehensive situation than that which has occured in a few suburbs of Sydney over the past three days. I don't necessarily think the present title is the best, but it is so far the best suggested.--cj | talk 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

***UPDATE: Latest Developements and Controlling the Violence...

Hey, I just added these two new sections, to make it easier to manage and sort information about currently happening violence, attacks, trouble and so on, and another section to document what has been said and done to prevent more racial tensions. The emphasis is on "LATEST DEVELOPEMENTS", not on the past two nights of rioting as they are mostly being grouped into the general topic of the Cronulla or Sydney Riots, and the large-scale mob violence and retaliation that followed for 2 nights. Latest Developements is for just that, and documents any small events that have unfolded since then, seeing as this story has fallen out of most mainstream media coverage now, as the violence died down.

Feel free to edit up my information, it could use a grammar check I think. I cited all my sources, and have placed all relative links, information and so on in the sections. If you do want to rephrase, edit out, and essentially chop up my sections, at least make some sort of notification of it. I would appreciate it, as every time I try to edit and crosscheck information or relate to previous events, things seem mixed up, changed and sometimes deleted. So at least notify me.

Thankyou.

211.26.41.76 17:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Perth

Why the change?

For discribing the original events it says "men of middle eastern appearence were attacked". It also mentioned medterranean people in a previous edit. Has that source been discredited? I think its important and not me just being pedantic coz attacking mediterranean people would suggest indiscrimite racial vioence rather than targetted revenge against the lebanese gangs. There was a picture of a man wearing "wog free zone" this suggests it wasnt just a protest against lebonese.Hyperfeedback 20:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you interviewed all 5000 people involved you would get 5000 different opinions as to what they were there for. But I think the spirit of the protest-cum-riot was in specific response to obnoxious behaviour of Lebanese males over the past few weeks and years, not against Greeks or other south Europeans. Having said that you will always get an element of drunken yobbos with their own axes to grind, who don't care who they are bashing and are too stupid to know the difference between "Lebs" and "wogs". --Jquarry 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's important to keep in. What's the point in removing it? Earlier edits said the Greek and Jew had been attacked by accident - that they'd been mistaken for being Lebanese. By attacking those two non-Middle Easterners, it provess that the crowd was so rabidly focused on targeting innocents and was no longer an innocent protest. misanthrope 09:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd doubt there was anything innocent at all about it. It was well known before hand that the rally was being refered to as "wog bashing day". Footage of the rally reveals large numbers of nazi skinheads, who where clearly there for just bashing anyone not white. Lets not mince words about this. It was premeditated racist violence, and anyone there who didnt know that was an idiot. This is why the 100 arrests was a shocking failure of police to round up the participants of the rally. This should of resulted in *thousands* of arrests and man... Im sermonising again. I'll stop now. Duckmonster 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Structural revision proposal

Proposal 1

With these incidents now showing every sign of abating, the article will soon hopefully become stable enough to think about imposing a more formal, encyclopaedic and retrospective kind of structure. I was thinking something along the lines of, after a brief opening sentence or two:

1. Initial confrontation —(description of the actual events of last Sunday)
2. Reactions and retaliations
   1. Community reactions — (initial reactions from community figures, etc)
   2. Retaliative actions — (immediate retaliative actions)
   3. Preventative responses — (community and police measures to forestall further incidents)
3. Continuation and aftermath
   1. Further incidents — (description of related following incidents over the succeeding days)
   2. Aftermath and controlling measures — (slowdown, détente, legislation, outlook, etc)
4. Background and analyses
   1. Lead-up to the confrontation — (the earlier Dec4 incident, coverage of apparent provocation/incitement leading to the major clash)
   2. Participants — (explanatory discussion on the groups/cultures taking part)
   3. Analyses of contributary factors — (cited, notable commentary on the possible causes and factors, future implications, etc)
   4. Background and historical contexts — (give some of the wider context, similar events, etc for those unfamiliar with the background)

Then the usual References, See also and Ext. links sections. Any comments or other ideas...?--cjllw | TALK 02:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• good rational idea. I still think that '2005, Cronulla race riots' would be best heading as 10 years from now that will be what historians will refer to. Lentisco 03:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me, although being out of chronological order seems a bit odd. Ambi 03:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Start with the event itself, then the analysis of it. Chronological order will seem less important in a year's time. I also think that the main riot (singular, at least so far) will be what people remember, and the rest will be seen as add-ons to that, not notable in their own right. I also agree that having Cronulla in the name is probably better than Sydney, but I'd rather not change it for at least a few more days. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good suggestions. Hopefully they'll be put in place.--cj | talk 07:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Chronological Order)

1. Background
   1. Provocation
   2. Leadup
   3. Ethnic and Beach Violence
2. Chronology
   1. 11 December
   2. 12 December
   3. 13 December
   4. 14 December
   5. 15 December (and any further dates of violence)
3. Response
   1. 6.1 Police
   2. 6.2 Political and Community Leaders
   3. 6.3 SMS Messages, Emails
4. 7 References
5. 8 See also
6. 9 External links

Would I be able to get some assistance to reorganise the article in chronological order, by date, without the sensationalist headlines? It would make it a lot easier to read and interpret. - G^t 12:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support (obviously) - G^t 12:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support abakharev 12:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - this is roughly the structure used in 1992 Los Angeles riots as well. —Quirk 13:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Though it could be possibly more structured to place all these dates under "2.Chronology". Mjolnir1984 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to make minor changes! - G^t 14:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral The problem with the article as it stands is that you need to read quite a long way into it to get an overall sense of what happened. I would support if that problem can be rectified with this restructuring, perhaps with a longer lead section. --Alexxx1 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose The riot has all but vanished from the page. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Ben, the main event (which is why this article exists at all) is lost in this current re-presentation. The major confrontation has (so far) not been equalled in intensity by the other disturbances which ensued, or the (really quite minor) skirmish of the preceding weekend whose widespread publicity provided the initial spark. The "Ethnic and Beach Violence" section has us pontificating about causes and influences before we've introduced the reader to the actual event which they have in all likelyhood come here to read about. I still prefer my earlier proposal above, or some variation to it. The "day-by-day" chronology can still be maintained for the continuing disturbances, if you prefer. Much of the article is still in too-breathless a narrative, although that can be corrected as we go along.--cjllw | TALK 01:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Ben and cjllw, all the stuff about background, ongoing tension etc is relevant, but makes it cluttered and confusing. Perhaps they could be put into a seperate entry or something? The riot(s) is the specific issue at hand - as made obvious by the title. misanthrope 09:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So are you people opposing the structure proposition or the current content? I think we need to agree on the structure first, then we can start weeding out unnecessary information. —Quirk 13:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

opposing the current structure, as per above comments. Simply put, we need to follow a plain narrative: the spark (Dec4)—the buildup—the main event (Dec11)—the initial impact/reaction—the follow-on—the denouement—the sober analysis—any further background explanations warranted—the references etc. A slight modification on proposal 1 above (ie, putting brief factual coverage of Dec4 fracas and the subsequent week of hype before the main description).--cjllw | TALK 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tim Priest

Please leave his comments. Opinion it may be, but so is every single newspaper peice in this article. It's biased, judgemental - all of that. The beauty of wikipedia on the other hand is it's is collabarative (spl?) - I believe his comments offer background relating to Lebanese Gangs in an appropriate manner that nothing else on this page does. There is no other peice which explains, gives "reasons behind actions", of why 5000 Aussies turned out to protest. "Racism" is a pathetic excuse. 5000 people don't rock up because of a few incidents on one beach. Tim Priest's article goes some way to explain why it happened. Leave it. - G^t 06:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But they weren't protesting against Leb gangs. They were protesting against Lebanese and Muslims in general (eg Fuck Allah, save Nulla). They probably didn't beat up a single Leb gang member, just random people who looked middle eastern, or greek, or jewish, or just plain 'woggy'. Plus the throwing bottles at policemen, and policewomen, and ambos. We don't have to use the word racist. We just have to present the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for proving my point. "We just have to present the facts and let the facts speak for themselves." So people will believe that five-thousand Aussies showed up to protest against beach incidents over two years? They showed up because of something more - in protest of Lebanese Gangs "Lebs". Disregarding their [the 'rioters] completely inappropriate, violent, etc action undertaken there - give the reasons why they were there. - - G^t 07:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't simply 'present facts and let them speak for themselves'. Inserting quotes without giving them a context implies that they are validly related to an argument. If they aren't validly related to an article, why are they there? IF you are going to include the quote, you need to say that some people have claimed, that the people who engaged in the violence, did so as retaliation for a perception that members of the Middle Eastern community were engaging in violence against Anglos.

If you simply put up a quote that essentially says (or implies) "they've been beating us up and nobody's has done anything about it so we can beat them up in return", you're firstly giving the impression that the person making the quote is authoritative, and secondly, that it is a valid viewpoint. Of course the viewpoint isn't valid (it is akin to 'a few purple people beat up some green people, therefore all purple people deserve to be beaten up in return), but the fact that the viewpoint exists is a fact. Therefore it needs to be presented in the context of being a belief held my some, but shouldn't be just put into the article to float there 'to speak for itself' as if it was a valid reason for the violence to have occurred. It needs to be given a context and that context needs to be explained. .... it can be done as simply as: some commentators have attributed the violence as being spurred by a belief among the rioters that white Sydneysiders had been the victims of ongoing crime perpetrated by Middle Eastern Sydneysiders. This view was articulated by Tim Priest in the Australian. (provide link).

-- Adz 07:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Very reasonable suggestion. Change made. - G^t 07:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

They may have been protesting about 'gangs' of Lebs, but they were beating up on anyone who was available. No? And Priest was not talking about the current situation, but about the previous 10 or 20 years, unless he has made a more recent statement? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see them "protesting" about white or Vietnamese gangs, do you? And regardless if it started out as a genuine protest it ended up in maniacal rampages assaulting innocent bystanders, paramedics and cops. It's antisocial and immoral behaviour. misanthrope 09:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

December 13

• As of December 13 (AEST), the violence mob clashes have rocked Sydney suburbs for a second continous night. See this link for more information. REUTERS

"Gangs of youths, mainly of Middle Eastern background, attacked several people with baseball bats, vandalised cars and were involved in rock-throwing skirmishes with police on Monday night, officials said.

At Maroubra Beach, police said they found 30 Molotov cocktails and crates of rocks stockpiled on rooftops, as hundreds of local surfers gathered."

someone want to copyedit that to something? - G^t 12:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Something else to work in properly, I guess.

According to this mornings news, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at Police in Cronulla. Ben Aveling 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Structure

It seems to me that there are a couple of different strands to the story. In order of appearance, not importance:

1. Bad behaviour by young men, including at least one criminal incident (The assault on the lifesavers)
2. Mass protest by 5000 people
3. Mob violence by some percentage of those 5000 people - the Cronulla Beach race riot (and may it remain singular)
4. Sporadic violence and property damage
5. Official response

Side issues that some people want to raise

• Justifying the violence

• Some Leb's are members of criminal gangs - if not those actually involved in the initial bad behavour, the assault or the riot.
• Muslims commited 9/11 - if not those actually involved in the initial bad behavour, the assault or the riot, and also noting that many Lebanese are Christians.
• Some young muslim men, not lebanese from memory (ICBW) raped some women because they were white. These men are all behind bars for a record length of time and were not those involved in bad behavour at the beach, the assault or the riot.

I'm not particularly sympathethic to the above, because it's being used to justify the violence. I would be sympathetic to using the above to explain the initial protest, if we can avoid OR.

• Racism in Australia

I'm in two minds about this, because while racist statements seems to have been used as an excuse for the violence, I have a strong suspicion that it is only an excuse and the actual causes are more complicated. So I am prepared to be sympathetic to a discussion of racism, but a very specific discussion, and again, respecting the need to avoid OR.

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben I disagree with one of your jsutifactions of the violence. You're saying because the muslims commited 9/22 people have the world away can justify what they did becasue of that. Using that justifaction you cna justify everything America has done and its completly racist. Might as well say that the muslims commited 9/11 because of the crusades and what they (templars, hospitalars and all the other christians) did in the middle east. That also means I have the right to assult whites since some white gang memebrs are bad? Every heard of a stero-type? Read the definition thats one of your justifactions, a sterotype.

Sorry, what I wrote wasn't very clear. Justification is a point of view. Two people may disagree about whether an particular act justifies a specific response, or not. My point was that that some people seem to be saying that muslim crimes do justify the violence, not that I agree with that viewpoint. Thanks for asking me to clarify. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest we rename this page

The race riot has been reduced to about 3 paragraphs buried in the middle of "11 December". If this is the way we want to go then I suggest we rename the page to make it clear that this page is not about the riot but is actually about how evil all lebanese are? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Auburn

the author of this article writes "The Uniting Church hall in Auburn, one of Sydney's more calm and tolerant suburbs...." so is the author is implying that cronulla is less calm and less tolerant? isnt that a POV, even before the riots Auburn wouldn't be a safe place at night for anyone especially young anglo-saxon women, also didnt Auburn make headlines recently when middle eastern youths firebombed a police car [4] and when a group of middle eastern men attacked Iraqi immigrants who were trying to vote in the Iraqi elections.[5]It might be not be a big deal but it is not NPOV nonethelesss.

I agree. It is POV. It should be changed. -- Adz 05:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've taken this out. It's POV and it's basically meaningless anyway. --Alexxx1 05:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the introduction should have the word lebanese in stead of middle eastern as in the current climate they have very different connotations.

Media instructed to downplay events

Hmmm. There's a rather curious paragraph that has just been put into the article as follows

There is also speculation that the media has been instructed to downplay coverage of events, and in specific, to not include the ethnic background of perpetrators. This suspicion is brought about by the heavy coverage the events received until approximately 13th December; after this point however, despite continuing racially motivated events occurring, far less coverage and detail was given to events.

I don't think this can be left in as it is. I mean it seems to me that the media stopped reporting so heavily on these events because there basically wasn't anything left to report. This paragraph sounds rather like a conspiracy theory. Who is meant to have 'instructed' the media? And which media are being referred to? talkback radio, Sydney Morning Herald? SBS evening news? The claim is pretty vague as it stands. --Alexxx1 09:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - delete it. I haven't heard anything of the sort - and I wouldn't believe it if I did. If the media are under-reporting, it'd be to prevent others from joining in. People often copy-cat or join in just for the sake of trouble, and therefore the media has to be careful. Besides, Sunday and Monday were most definitely the worst days of the rioting. misanthrope 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The government has a formal D-note system dating to around 1915 that they can activate at will, significantly the media does not report when they have been instructed by D-note-ing. Additionally, of course, the media have a variety of informal links with government. But, on top of this, you should observe that the leftist media (GLW, 2SER, Indymedia) don't actually have the resources to seriously cover Cronulla, so there's no way to objectively evaluate if the media have been under-reporting except for a letter to the minister or FOI against the Police. Good luck getting either of those producing meaningful results. Fifelfoo 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Leftist media? Appropriate thing to mention in regards to conspiracy theories, I suppose. misanthrope 10:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne anti-racism rallies

at 5pm at bourke st mall (friday 16th) there was a large antiracism rally to protest against the race riots. Although Organisers alsoused it as an opportunity to protest the "war on terror" and "immigration detention" issues. this should either be linked to or included within the main article.

Kuro5hin article that says it all

This article, Sydney Race Riots, from Driptray, posted to Kuro5hin, says it best. Brilliant article, doesn't muck about and tells it like it is. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Arab" not "Arabic"

Just so that everyone knows, people are "Arab", not "Arabic" - which is why we don't call them "Arabics". Arabic is the language. It's a common mistake, but something to look out for and correct if you see it. Thanks. misanthrope 11:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

why oh why

is the picture of the lifesavers' house at the top of the article, while the pictures of the article's subject (race riots) are below? Dsol 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, it's part of the bg section. I guess we could use a map showing areas of unrest, though. Dsol 00:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

We should move the bg section after the section about the riot. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Provocation

I really don't like the section title Provocation because it implies intent. And whatever the motivation behind the assault, I don't see any evidence it was done to provoke anything. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempts to diminish the rapes

I've noticed this has been added:

"Although to put this into context in 2000 alone 15,630 rapes where reported in australia by all sections of the community, which did not received the same level of publicity[17]."

This text is inserting a highly subjective personal interpretation of the importance of the rapes (or the lack thereof). Many people see the rapes as highly significant because they were allegedly racially aggravated assaults, where racist taunts were used during the attacks, putting them in the category of a racist hate crime. These rapes can not just be lumped in with wider rape statistics, and to do so is to push a highly subjective opinion that they didn't deserve to be covered in the media as something significant. Such an OPINION has no place in the entry which should deal with FACTS only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.52.137 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that the comment is inapropriate, and I've removed it. However, I'm still not sure that mentioning the rapes is appropriate either. I'm still waiting for someone to explain what they had to do with anyone at Cronulla. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The rapes should definitely be mentioned as they are some key defining events that have helped to shape the mounting community tensions and resentments that lead up to the riots. The rapes almost certainly fed into the fear and anger felt by Anglo women after allegedly recieving racist and sexist abuse ("Aussie sluts") on the beach from Lebanese men.

The Australian media has its own racist agenda and makes a huge display of crimes commited by non-anglos, and say little or nothing about crimes commited by what they call "caucasians". Rapes are very normal in Australia to the point that there are TV campaigns paid by the government where it constantly reminds Aussies with a high level of detail of what sort of behaviour constitutes sexual assault. The reality is that in Australia a rape carried out by a "Leb" generates more outrage than a "rape" committed by a "caucasian". Its like being raped by a "white man" is something less degrading.--tequendamia 13:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that 40% of all sexual assaults are committed by family members, and a further 35% are committed by "known others" (friends, partners). Even if all "stranger" rapes were committed by non-white people, a white victim would still be many times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a white perpetrator. --bainer (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Australian media has its own racist agenda" - that's your highly subjective POV. As is this: "and say little or nothing about crimes commited by what they call "caucasians". Where are you sources to back this up? You have completely ignored the point that the gang rapes in question were allegedly racially motivated hate crimes. According to the victims, they were targetted for assault according to race and this was verbalised during the attacks. The issue is these rapes were allegedly racist hate crimes and the fact you are ignoring this and trying to "reduce" them to "just" rapes and bury them in wider statistics, speaks volumes. We are discussing a racially charged conflict in Cronulla. To pretend that the background of racist attitudes or well known hate crimes perpetrated by one side or another did not play into the mentality of all the participants is absurd. I note you are not objecting to the citation of (white) racism as an underlying issue, why object to this other underlying issue? I want both factors cited, but unlike you I don't have a biased ideological agenda to push here. All views need to be on the table. --—the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.164.52.171 (talk • contribs)

Also note that during the "retaliatory" rampage the next night, some Anglo women alleged being threatened with gang rape by Middle Eastern males, implying to me that some Lebanese rioters were deliberately playing on the stereoptypes and fears about them. The shadows of the gang rapes hang over the whole thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.52.137 (talk • contribs) .

It's not enough to just mention them in passing. They need to be explained. But we're getting very close to original research here - guessing at what might have motivated people. We can be confident that the protest was a response to the assault of the week before, and to ongoing disputes between locals and westies over things like playing soccer, or treating local women with 'respect'. 9/11 or the rapes, is there evidence that they were connected, or is that just a logical conclusion on our part? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To me the evidence that the rapes still loom big in peoples' minds and are being implicitly linked to the troubles this week, comes from the fact that the rapes have so often been mentioned, not just in the press, but in my personal conversations with people this week. --—the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.164.52.13 (talk • contribs)

Your personal conversations with people are not verifiable, and are even original research. If there was a media source which quoted someone involved in the riot as saying that the rapes motivated them to participate in the violence, then that would be a verifiable source. Simple assertions that so-and-so was a motivating factor, without a reliable source, is nothing more than speculation. --bainer (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my god! Someone is seriously suggesting that their personal conversations with people this week have some kind of research validity. I don't want to be too harsh, but that is just laughable!

Many people see the rapes as highly significant. A classic weasel word statement. Trying citing some evidence. And no, it can't be a personal conversation.

These rapes can not just be lumped in with wider rape statistics, and to do so is to push a highly subjective opinion that they didn't deserve to be covered in the media as something significant. Such an OPINION has no place in the entry which should deal with FACTS only. Are you saying that including references to rapes by Lebanese gangs in the article is not at all subjective? It should be obvious that it flavours the discussion. The subtext is that all young Lebanese men are rapists and they had it coming. Why don't you read this article and have a think about why the media spent months covering rapes by Lebanese gangs while something like this is quickly forgotten.

No, the point is that in a racially charged conflict, the hate crimes coloured peoples' attitudes and perceptions. And the case you provide a link to was heavily covered in the media here. You may have "forgotten" that case but I certainly haven't. --—the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.164.52.171 (talk • contribs)

The rapes should definitely be mentioned as they are some key defining events that have helped to shape the mounting community tensions and resentments that lead up to the riots. That is your point of view. Can you cite any evidence for it?

The rapes almost certainly fed into the fear and anger felt by Anglo women after allegedly recieving racist and sexist abuse ("Aussie sluts") on the beach from Lebanese men. Almost certainly? So that's about 90% certain? Or maybe 95%? Or is this information 99% certain? Once again, this is a personal opinion.

If rape is going to be discussed in this article, I don't know why this comment was taken out -

"Although to put this into context in 2000 alone 15,630 rapes where reported in australia by all sections of the community, which did not received the same level of publicity[17]."

This is statistical fact. It actually does put things into a little bit of perspective and adds some balance to the inclusion of information about gang-rapes in the first place. Rape is utterly reprehensible, no matter who is doing it. Just because the media shows little interest in it unless Lebanese gangs happen to be the perpetrators doesn't mean we should reproduce the same bias on Wikipedia. --Alexxx1 23:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, you are (deliberately?) ignoring the fact these rapes were allegedly racist hate crimes, by trying to bury them in wider rape stats. --—the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.164.52.171 (talk • contribs)

For me it seems clear: 1. There were racial motivated gang rapes 2. On many websites and in some newspapers it is claimed that these hate crimes are one of the reasons of the riot violence. Conclusion: Wikipedia should mention these crimes as one of the perceived causes in (some of) the media, as it is relevant to understand either the cause of the riot, or the interpretation in some media of the (cause of the) riot. Other perceived reasons should be mentioned as well of course. Some articles in large media centers:

• CNN: "Anger towards groups of young Lebanese men in Sydney that erupted Sunday has been simmering for years, particularly since a horrific gang rape case in 2002."

December 13, 2005

• Al-Jazeera: "Anger towards groups of young Lebanese men in Sydney has been simmering for years. A gang rape case in 2002 exacerbated tensions. Members of a Lebanese gang hurled racial abuse at their rape victims, all of whom were white." December 14, 2005: Mjolnir1984 11:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For me, things are not quite so clear. However, I'm not in total disagreement with what you're saying. I appreciate the fact that you have tried to explain your position very clearly and honestly. Let me attempt to do the same. I am happier than I was with how the article now stands.

1. My previous comments were a complaint about the lack of source citation in this section of the article. Given that several news sources are now cited, that is already an improvement. (Having said that, I do wonder how these news sources can be so confident in making a direct and explicit link between the gang rapes and the riot in Cronulla. I noticed that they also throw in the September 11 attacks in the United States and the Bali bombings as reasons for the tension. Just how do they know the motivations of the rioters? I don't know. It's all very speculative. At least the Aljazeera article acknowledges that at least some members of the crowd were neo-Nazis.) However, as I said, the NPOV way this has now been worked into the article is a definite improvement.

2. Whether or not the gang rapes were racist, I would hate to think that these crimes serve as a justification for what occured in Cronulla. Bilal Skaf, for example, is serving a very long jail sentence for his crimes. An appropriate community response. The way the article previously stated that 'random violence was a delayed response to crime perpetrated by other middle easterners' was getting awfully close to a justification. Again, this has now been expressed in a much more neutral way and is a clear improvement.

3. Finally, yes I still think that wider rape statistics could (and probably should) be included. No, such an inclusion does not ignore the fact these gang rapes had a racial element to them. The racial aspect has already been explicitly stated in the article. No, I'm not asking for it to be hidden. What the statistics would do is to provide some balance and perspective. I cited the Newington case to show that all rapes are repugnant. Yes, the fact that they have a explicit racial element to them adds somewhat to their repugnance and hurtfulness. But it does not, in my opinion, take them into some new dimension beyond any other rapes that have taken place. It is all disgusting behaviour. --Alexxx1 12:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re. point 3, I take it then by your 'logic' that if men in KKK uniforms seriously bashed a black man on a Sydney street, you would have no problem with a similar qualifying statement "for balance and perspective" being placed after the entry on this, about general statistics for street assaults in Sydney? Or do you think that you'd object to that, because it is a blatant attempt to downplay the seriousness and uniqueness of racist hate crimes?

Please don't put absurd lines of argument into my mouth. What I object to is the fact that a specific rape case is being cited by the media as having somehow, years later, provoked riots in Cronulla.

The fact that this discussion has been framed by the title Attempts to diminish the rapes is an attempt to put anyone calling for balance and neutrality on the defensive. Whoever came up with it should remember that the sword cuts both ways. Mentioning the rapes at all could be seen as an attempt to downplay the ugly racism that was on display. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to keep changing your line of argument to get the rape reference excised. It seems removing it is a fundamental priority to help preserve your world view, and the reasoning for removing it is either very fluid or basically irrelevant.

Your subjective views on the importance or lack thereof of the rapes, both as racist hate crimes and as factors in provoking the racial tensions and the riots, is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT because the rapes HAVE been cited in varifiable media reports on the riots as percieved contributing factors, and therefore need to be acknowledged. Censoring these media reports and editorials from the Entry is unacceptable. The purpose of this Wiki Entry is not to promote your views of how the world should be, what people's racial attitudes should ideally be, and how we should ideally think of and treat each other. The purpose of this entry is to record the events as they happened, including the attitudes of the participents and Sydney society and the media reaction as they actually existed. The media reporting has cited the rapes. Whether or not you personally think they actually did play into the riots, or whether they should or should not have played into the riots COUNTS FOR NOTHING. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.164.52.95 (talk • contribs)

Could you please list some of the sources here? The only sources I have found have been journalists noting that there has been racial tension in Sydney, or from politicians, or other commentators mentioning them. Those sources are useful and can be included, but only to the extent that they illustrate the fact that journalists have noted racial tension, or politicians or other commentators have mentioned them. I'm yet to find a source quoting someone involved in the violence saying that the rapes motivated them to participate, and until a source is provided, we can't mention it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --bainer (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The media reports I refer to are cited above (CNN, Al Jazeera etc) and are presumably the ones you have also seen. Let me clarrify, I agree the place for a mention of the rapes in this Wiki entry would most naturally fall into media reporting and media analysis of pereived contributing root causes of the event. That's what I'm talking about.

The "Puberty Blues" factor of alleged historical conflict on the beach, and claims of inherent racism, also fall into the same category of percieved root causes covered in the media. But I note these two factors haven't upset the same people who object to a mention of the rapes, nor have there been attempts to censor, downplay or remove them from the Entry. Please let us be consistant with what we allow, and not let ideological biases and agendas play into this Entry. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.164.52.95 (talk • contribs)

Ok, this thread's getting a little long and it's becoming complicated to trace who is saying what. Remember also to sign your posts on talk pages. --bainer (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there could be some misunderstanding here. I'm not insisting that the rape reference be removed from the article. Nor have I made any edits to remove it.

Yes, I initially suggested that the section should be removed. This was because I objected to the version of 19 December, which drew its own conclusions based on one editorial in The Australian. Someone then defended this version, based on their own personal discussions. No other sources had been cited. It's rather unfair to call my stong criticism of this version 'censorship', particularly in view of the fact that subsequently, (look at my comment of 12:57, 20 December), I stated several times that I thought the next edited version was a clear improvement on what had been there before and that I was happier with it. It actually included some sources. So clearly, I was not insisting that the reference to be removed.

Yes, I have reservations about the way the discussion about rape is framed and how much importance they are given within the article. However, I'm prepared to discuss (or debate) the wording of the section to try and come up with a formulation that satisfies all parties. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The case is that there is a very profound racism in Australia, and Aussies grab anything they can to justify it. The case of the gang rape in 2002, the government of Bob Carr changed the law due to the pressure made by the media to be able to incarcerate the rapers. Again, you should expect a racist media to make that sort of pressure. Why? Because the media in Australia is racist. Radio stations are own by "White supremacists" or by Christian fundamentalists who both have their agenda against muslims.--tequendamia 14:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The mentioning of these rapes on the page does not have the intention to justify the violent acts in any way. The reference however is relevant to understand either the causes of this violence, or the interpretation of the causes by some media. 2. This is not the place to make such biased comments. Though it is possible that Australian media covered these rapes more than on other rapes (gang rapes are more sensational = more watchers), I doubt it that Australian media is inherently racist. 3. Furthermore, many Lebanese are christian, and I doubt that you could call the (often anti-Western biased) Al Jazeera a white supremacist or christian fundamentalist news center. Mjolnir1984 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic Violence

I think the following paragraph should be removed from the article -

It has been suggested that the random violence was a delayed response to crime perpetrated by other middle easterners, such as gang rapes that occured in 2000 and 2002.[6]...

My main problem with it is that the claim being put forward is totally unsourced and unsupported. Yes, whoever put it in has provided an article from the Australian as a source. However, if you actually read this article, it doesn't say anything of the sort about the violence being some kind of delayed response to events in 2000 and 2002. In fact, it only mentions rape once. Here is the relevant section of the article -

In an article on this page nearly two years ago ("Don't turn a blind eye to terror in our midst," January 12, 2004), I argued that the increasing frequency of racially motivated attacks on young Australian men and women - including murders, gang rapes and serious assaults by young men of Lebanese Muslim descent - would rise dramatically throughout Australia. These problems remain widespread and have been documented in the ensuing two years.

So no mention of any kind of delayed response. Therefore, the idea is completely the POV of whoever wrote it, hiding behind a misrepresented source. It should go. --Alexxx1 03:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

ASIO and neo-nazis

Hey, any word out there about ASIO actions, or lack thereof, targeting white suppremacist groups leading up to and following the Dec11 protests? There have been raids on houses of suspected neo-nazis, but no mention of how the intelligence about the location of these weapon caches was derived. The case here [7] the cache was found as a result of random car searches of people entering the beachside suburbs, but there was a report on channel 7 news that mentioned houses being raided as well...

Has all the focus on islamic extremism meant that the intelligence community has been unwilling or unable to follow up other threats? 143.238.175.69 09:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

update: two items on ninemsn here [8] and [9] about white supremacist raids and activity. 143.238.175.69 12:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

another update: comments by Ruddock in the australian [10], and by Iemma [11].143.238.175.69 11:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Excised text

I have removed the following sections from the article because they are poorly written and incorrectly sourced:

Perceived causes of ethnic tensions

Hate crimes

It has been suggested by some media that the anger towards groups of young Lebanese men, caused by the crimes perpetrated by young Lebanese and other Middle Easterners, has been simmering for years, particularly since the gang rape case in 2002. Media coverage on similar racially motivated gang rapes in Sydney could have gradually increased this tension. According to these media, this anger was merely triggered by the beach incident and erupted in the random violence. CNN Al Jazeera The Australian - Opinion

Discrimination

Others have pointed to racism within the sections of the Australian community. [12][13][14]

These points surely belong in the article, but not in this state. Hopefully, somebody will be willing to rewrite/expand them and return them to the article (beneath "Beach violence").--cj | talk 05:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you admit these items belong in the Entry, but don't like the way they are written, shouldn't you rewrite them yourelf to conform with standards, rather than simply excise them from the text? It seems a bit like censorship by stealth, otherwise.

I note reference to the rapes has yet again been removed from the Entry without justification here. Who is policing this vandalism? Because discussion here has clearly determined that the rapes deserve a reference. To remove the reference without discussion is censorship and vandalism.

Name of the article

I believe we should try to keep POV statements out of the names of our articles. We have 7 July 2005 London bombings, September 11, 2001 attacks, 2002 Bali bombing, 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, 2005 civil unrest in France - not Islamist London bombing or Terrorist September 11, 2001 attacks or 2005 racial unrest in France, etc.

Race was certainly a factor in 2005 Sydney riots, but was it the only factor? Was it the factor for the brown Pacific Islanders who took part in the Cronoola mob? Was it the factor when Lebanese Christian Churches were attacked by presumably Lebanese Islamic Thugs? When we speak about the aftermath of the 11 December it appears that the faith is similar or even more important factor than the race. Thus, I think the race is a POV word in the title of the article. It should be renamed 2005 Sydney riots or December 2005 Sydney riot to be in-line with the other article names. abakharev 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these were not race riots, but what does google say? We should name the article the most common term people use. Sam Spade 01:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There was one race riot. The press have and continue to refered to it as the Sydney race riot, so I think race riot (not riots) is the correct title. I accept that the title doesn't really capture all the other violence, so may there is a better title, but I don't know what it would be. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

References to rape cases in the media

I've reworked the controversial section referring to rape. Here is a draft. If others find this reasonable, perhaps it can be moved to the article and further improved:

Some media reports have suggested that the rioting was at least partly the expression of what they describe as simmering "anger towards groups of young Lebanese men"[15]. A December 13 article from CNN claims that although the assault on volunteer surf life savers was what triggered the violence, there was already anger over a gang rape in 2002. It says that the details of the case emerged were particularly responsible for this anger, noting,

At a trial in Sydney, prosecutors and witnesses said members of a Lebanese gang hurled racial abuse at their rape victims, all of whom were white. The ring leader, Bilal Skaf, was sentenced to 55 years, an unusually severe sentence in Australia.[16]

A news report making very similar claims was run by Al Jazeera on December 14, stating that the "gang rape case in 2002 exacerbated tensions"[17]. Both of these articles also mention the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the 2002 Bali bombing as another source of tension "...between youths of Arabic and Middle Eastern descent and white Australians..."[18].

The Australian published an article on December 16, attempting to trace the origin of the violence. The article notes that there "...is no doubt anti-Arab feeling in the shire also can be traced to the violent rapes of young Anglo-Saxon girls by gangs of Lebanese boys in 2002, which culminated in the sentencing of Bilal Skaf to a maximum of 55 years in jail."[19]

Other commentators have also mentioned rape in connection to the violence in Sutherland Shire. For example, Bruce Baird, a member of parliament, stated:

There has been high-profile rape cases in Sydney, and of course the Sutherland Shire itself is very much an Anglo-Celtic enclave... I can understand at one level people's frustration because they all feel that the beaches belong to them and it is a Sutherland Shire thing and when anybody disturbs the equilibrium, given all the events that have happened since September 11, I just think that's the match that sets alight the fuel.[20]

Five days prior to the riot in Cronulla, 2GB radio broadcaster Alan Jones referred to gang rape during his broadcast. Some news reports have raised the role the media has played in stirring up anger against Lebanese Australians. For example, The Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Sunday's trouble did not come out of the blue. It was brewing all week on talkback radio - particularly on 2GB". The article cites the following comment from Alan Jones to a caller:

Let's not get too carried away, Berta. We don't have Anglo-Saxon kids out there raping women in western Sydney.[21]

--Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Play cricket not soccer

I always see youngsters playing cricket on the beach, so I wonder what is wrong about playing with a soccer ball, why isn't this allowed? Is it because cricket is played by anglos and soccer by wogs?--tequendamia 22:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of sydney beaches now have signs that say "no ball games" soccer, aussie rules, volleyball, cricket all included. How this is being enforced I wouldn't know Benvenuto 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I always see youngsters playing soccer on the beach. [shrug] It's a big beach?

The only game that should be played at the beach is Rugby League. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Licinius (talk • contribs) .

How about golf?  :( Jachin 02:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Disageeing by deleting

I am not the original author of the neo nazi section. I do not agree with the comments, and have said so. But I do not believe that deleting the section is the best response, and therefore I have restored it. If you disagree with it, which is your right, please explain why; don't just delete it. Talk pages are not article pages - they are allowed to contain stuff which is wrong. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read the deletion message you will find I am the author and I am the one deleting it. It was deleted within minutes of writing it except someone didn't pay attention to the history and notice such. I've deleted it again, this time let it stay dead. 211.30.80.121 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this situation above, the user is obviously the author in question as it is a static IP address. The author retracted his statement immediately on posting it. It is in my judgement and common sense that we allow such retractment due to the fact there are at present over three hundred people facing criminal charges all based on circumstantial evidence related to this subject, most of which had no involvement with the riots other than being the wrong colour in the wrong suburb. Jachin 02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rugby League Hero

I believe the references to Ahmed were both POV and also irrelevant. I saw no mention to the Anglo Australians who helped save many of the victims of the mob violence in the earlier piece. It was also un-encyclopedic as it was based entirely on his own testimony.

Licinius

Well, I've restored it. Although it (and much more in the article) could easily be better written, I really don't see how it is POV. What's more it has a cited reference, was widely reported and I'm not aware of any challenges to the accounts of this incident. If you think it lacks balance because similar exploits by Anglo Australians are lacking, well go and find some references and reports and add them in, if there are any.--cjllw | TALK 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Queries

Does anybody have the actual figures for the amount of people assaulted at Cronulla on December 11?

It seems odd that I cannot find them anywhere in the media as a round-up and can only assume that there was between 5-9 persons assaulted.

From the media articles I have been reading through I have concluded that there were five people assaulted. No figures have been released on the subject, nor are there any going to be released in the foreseeable future. Jachin 02:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Hi RoLeoVers, firstly, if you are going to link to a topic it would be better to use the title of the actual article concerned. Secondly, as per your invitation here are the reasons why I maintain that mention of the above in the context of the present article is irrelevant:

• There is no causal, or even casual, link between the two incidents, despite happening within months of each other;
• The Jyllands-Posten issue originates from half a world away, and what is / is not published in Denmark and the reactions to it give no insight into the situation in Sydney; although there has been global outcry to the cartoons, reaction in AU has thus far been somewhat muted;
• Unlike the Jyllands-Posten incident, the religous affinities and interpretations of the participants is not at the fore in the events and analysis of the Cronulla incidents; in the former case religous perceptions are heavily implicated, in the latter case they are not, and are as much to do with the territorial behaviour of young males (on either side) as anything else;
• Claiming Huntingdon as a connection between the two is highly tenuous, or at the very least arguable. To say that Clash of Civilizations or any of his other works 'predicted' either of these incidents, or that either represent some inexorable 'increase' in clashes between Islamic/non-Islamic forces is contestable; unless he himself has made a statement to the effect "a-ha! Cronulla! Told you so!", connecting his ideas with this is pure speculation. Even were he to do so, it would seem that just about any random event of intercultural-conflict since he wrote his book could be marshalled as 'evidence' for his prescience.

Since at least one other editor is in agreement, I believe it should be removed, unless a consensus to keep can be demonstrated.--cjllw | TALK 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just having a link with no comment seems odd. If someone in the media has drawn a comparison between the two I would support its inclusion. That is reporting the comparison, not making a comparison via 'some people have linked...' style wiki-editorialising. Ashmoo

Straw poll to the inclusion of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Support inclusion of the link:

1. Sign here

Against inclusion of the link:

1. abakharev 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. even should some quote from somewhere linking these two come to light, I'd likely still be unconvinced re its relevance here.--cjllw | TALK 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. The link is too distant- in time and conceptually.Lentisco 05:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. That is the silliest idea ever. These were internal Sydney problems and had nothing to do with Denmark etc. This should not even be spoken of in the same sentence because they had nothing to do with each other. 10:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61
5. cj | talk 13:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
6. michael ^talk 07:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Ben Aveling 08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Al-Andalus 03:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Greasysteve13 news of the Muhammad cartoons reached australia much later.--Greasysteve13 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Sign here

Neutral to inclusion of the link:

1. Sign here

Australian Muslim Lebanese Ethnos?

The newest additions to the articlr refer to the Australian Muslim Lebanese Ethnos. Does such an ethnos exist? There are certainly important differences between the Lebanese Christians and the Lebanese Muslims and the later seems to be much more involved, but is it right to refer Lebanese Muslims as a separate ethnos? abakharev 11:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

They are all of the one same people. They share the same history, culture, but not religion. Before the Lebanese Muslims were Muslims, guess what they were. That's right, they were Lebanese Christians, thoufh many don't like to acknowledging anything of their non-Islamic past. And guess what else, before that, some of those Christians' ancestors (who later either became Muslim or stayed Christian) were originally Jews. Al-Andalus 17:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

Another thing, in the intro of the article is specifies that those that retaliated were "people of Lebanese Muslim ethnicity". I can tell you right now that there were Lebanese Christians among them, though they were outnumbered by the Muslims. Al-Andalus 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

Then probably the Muslim word should go from the Lebanese Muslim ethnicity clause? abakharev 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The word Lebanese should also be replaced with Middle Eastern. As already stated, in the reprisals there were also Lebanese Christians present, although in a smaller proportion. Then there is the fact that not all of the Muslims in the reprisals were Lebanese anyway. There were Syrians, Egytptians, etc. Furthermoe, those that went to "defend" the mosque at Lakemba included Muslims of non-Middle Eastern descent (ie. Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, black Africans) that lived around the mosque. Additionally, even among those "ddefending" the mosque at Lakemba, there were a few Lebanese Christians. On the ABC's Insight programme, Lebanese Christians addmitted to heading to "defend" the mosque after the mobile calls and messages calling Muslims and Lebaneese (Muslim or Christian) to do so. However, the Lebanese Christians went not specifically to defenf the mosque, but as support to fellow Lebanese. At Cronulla, Arabs and Middle Easterners (or those percieved to be Arab or Middle Eastern) were attacked by the White supremacist segment of the White rioters/protestors due to their ancestry, not their religion. I didn't see any of the attackers asking the Middle Easterners if they were Muslim or Christian before their attack, nor do I know of any non-Middle Eastern Muslim (Indonesians, Pakistanis, etc.) being targetted. The attacks were puerly base on the Middle Eastern factor, and was entirely race-based, not religion-based. Al-Andalus 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a good time to remind all editors that muslims ARE NOT a race, hence removal of the label or it being replaced with "Middle Eastern."--Rcandelori 04:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Two images

It seems that we have a low intensity edit war between images Image:Cronulla riots 2 - no lebs.jpg and Image:Cronulla riots 2 -- no lebs.jpg with one and two dashes. The article is long and we can easily accomodate both images. abakharev 13:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and since those who seem intent on replacing the original img with the (misnamed) alternative one have not provided their reasons for doing so, one can only guess at their motives. Perhaps out of some concern to present a more innocuous view of the crowd that day--who knows? Anyway, per the suggestion both imgs have now been included, let us see if the original still gets deleted. It would help matters if those who seem to object to that img were to provide their reasons for doing so, rather than unilaterally removing it time and again.--cjllw | TALK 23:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Additions of Photos

I think that the picture from the revenge attacks should also be included in this article. However I am unsure how to do upload them. There is a link to them at the bottom of the main page if "better"(more knowledgeable) people think they should be included. All the best. --Licinius 06:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Response from Rioters

I've added this section following the comments made on the recent Four Corners episode transcript. Several Australian Anglo-youths have attempted to explain their behaviour during the riots, which clealry highlight the increasing xenophobia in the area. Posting this to let everyone know, seeing as how conetntious this page is. >BuffySlayer 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)<

Calling it xenophobia on a page acknowledged as contentious? haha, I watched a bit of that show so the opinion of the Lebanese, I also think are worth including as well. That should hopefully just about round the article up and leave it in history. --Licinius 07:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Cronulla riots

I think this article should be moved to the above title. Sam Spade 14:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve Price

There is a major mistake with the article, in the part mentioning Steve Price. It links to the wikipedia article on the Rugby League player Steve Price, not the radio presenter. Unless I am very mistaken, the Rugby League player is now in New Zealand, and was in NZ at the time of the riots. Not in Sydney on talk radio. This link associates him with the riots, and the racist comments, which he was not a part of. They are 2 different people210.211.110.155 11:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

External links: Andrew Fraser and other

The external link entitled "Macquarie University Professor Andrew Fraser on the 2005 Sydney race riots" is: a) wrong, and b) inappropriate, and so should be deleted

It is merely a link to a chat page on which someone has cut up and posted the article by Associate Professor Andrew Fraser entitled "Rethinking the White Australia Policy". Which was published on the internet, at latest, in September 2005.

The insertion of the link was clearly just an opportunity taken by someone who agrees with Andrew Fraser's POV, to give him a free advertisement. The fact that Andrew Fraser, prior to December 2005, expressed the view that the white Australia policy was (and is) a good policy, is not a relevant link from a page on the Cronulla riots. This page is not on that topic.

I would also (less dogmatically) suggest that the links to FrontPage Mag not be the first 2 links under the heading 'External Links'. Unlike Fraser's piece, the FrontPage Mag links are to pieces that have the riots as their subject. However, I doubt whether it's appropriate for the first two links to be to FrontPage Mag, though, as its unambiguous goal is to produce one-sided POV (i.e. given its clear political agenda, it would not publish a piece that argued that the race riots were the fault of intolerant Anglo-Celtics and didn't point any blame at 'Lebanese Muslims'). One would have thought that the first links would be to the most comprehensive/reliable/NPOV sources, and then to partial and opinion pieces, and pieces of more marginal relevance, at the end.211.30.154.175 05:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

 I agree with you. That article by Fraser is very biased and inappropriate for this topic. 

It doesn't offer any valuable information on the topic it's listed under. It should go. As for the FrontPage Mag links, the site is one-sided but it does relate to the Cronulla riots. You're right, it can stay but should be pushed down after the neutral articles. Tina A. 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Tina A.

The case for renaming

It's been noted above that talking about "race riots" may not meet WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, but some have argued that "race riots" is more common. But "Sydney race riots" gets 17.2k google hits, whereas "Cronulla riots" gets 50k google hits. Andjam 04:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The irony of white Austrlians being racist is not lost upon me. After stealing the country off the aborigines they even have the cheek to be racist towards them! Perhaps all these white racist scum should deport themselves from Australia to the bottom of the ocean where that sort of mentality belongs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.244.250 (talk • contribs).

Biased Throughout

The style of writing in this article reminds me very much of the skewed reporting on sectarian killings in Northern Ireland where many murders / attacks of catholics were reported as "revenge" or "retaliatory", but murders of protestants were always "sectarian" or "terrorist" attacks. This article is disgraceful in that it describes all attacks following the riots as retalliation when it is not even known if that is the case.

Also, if these attacks - such as the stabbing of a white man and the threat of a sexual assault on two women he was with by Lebanese males - can be considered "revenge" attacks then why were the attacks of the Lebanese men at the beach not "revenge attacks" in retalliation for the assault on the lifeguards?? At least one Australian media report I read had described the riots / attacks on the beach in those terms. The article also gives a misrepresentation of the chronology of events building upto the riots. The protest did not begin with ethnically motivated mob confrontations. It began with a protest by many people who did not attack innocent people. There is no way this article is even close to neutral. GSickness 00:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, most of the people attacked by the Lebanese were not responsible for the anti-Lebanese assaults, and many were not even present at the Dec. 11 Cronulla protest - such as a Thai woman who had her restaurant windows smashed, assaults in North Ryde (a long way from the beaches) or the torching of a Tongan Chrisitan Church. The term "revenge" insinuates that the people who were attacked following the Cronulla protest had "deserved it". I would suggest a more objective term in place, such as "response/responsive attacks". 211.31.21.138 07:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Andrew777

No one should expect any Australian political / current events article to be neutral. I stopped editing this article ages ago. michael ^talk 08:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is precisely the kind of attitude that lets bias prevail. Also, Andrew, if any of the Lebanese attacks were "responsive" then couldn't the original attacks on the day of the riots also be labelled responsive?? Whatever word you choose still gives a level of motivation for Lebanese attacks, which we don't know existed, and fails to give the same motivation for the attacks against Lebanese men on the beach. Again, I go back to the situation in Northern Ireland. A murder is a murder, but when you choose to put your own slant on the logic of the criminals - on the assumption that there is a distinction to be made - you are basically engaging in mind reading: assuming one act to be a brutal, hate filled crime, while giving a rationale to any crime that follows on the basis of what you believe was going on in the minds of the attackers. Again, this article is full of bias. GSickness 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish you good luck to go through the article and try to make it neutral. I'd be glad to help, but you'll find enormous opposition soon enough. michael ^talk 14:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In fairness to michael and other responsible editors, it's been a rather exhausting process trying to keep the article in balance, particularly in all the initial excitement, and the article is probably much less biased than it otherwise might have been. But, it seems that interest and participation has tailed off now considerably, apart from the occasional drive-by anon seeking to insert "Lebanese" and other ethnic descriptors into every second sentence. So, GSickness, feel free to go ahead and give it your best shot- if there's anything potentially contentious, just outline your proposed changes on the talk page here first, and if no-one pipes up, then consider that a green light. That's no guarantee against any further reversions or disputes, but no guarantees are really to be expected anyway.--cjllw | TALK 02:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read through the entire article and have found mass deficiencies in objectivity. At the risk of removing entire sections, I simply toned down specific divisive references such as Lebanese and Muslim and replaced them with the more apt "Middle Eastern" term. Many people have forgotten that Muslims are NOT an ethnic group, as the article implies. Referencing is also a MAJOR issue in this article - I have liberally applied 'citation needed' flags to encourage some accuracy. Please feel free to edit where you think I've gone wrong.

I agree. This article just seems to be the result of some reasonable authors having to try to compromise with another group of contributors with quite vitriolic "nationalist" opinions. It mirrors the way issues of race are dealt with in the Australian tabloid press. spiralhighway

Hear, hear. Below, I'm being criticised for not using Lebanese, when the only suggestion of "Lebanese" originates from a racist tabloid press who haven't any proof at all of their true origins.

Rename

I think this article should be renamed "Cronulla race riots" because this is its most common name, and indeed, for the moment "Cronulla" is synonymous with the event. —cj | talk 12:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would have to disagree and say that while they began in Cronulla they soon spread to many other parts of Sydney in the days that followed. I would argue that Sydney is the more appropriate term. If you had said the "Cronulla race riot" as singular with an article about just that day then I would agree but to encompass all that happened over the proceeding week I believe that Sydney is the more appropriate term.--Looper5920 12:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • By similar logic, should Lambing Flat riots have been called the "Burrangong region riots"? Or even "Burrangong region race riots"? Identifying where it started and where much of it took place is more informative than identifying the city as a whole. The word "race" should be dropped too, as it wasn't just about race - it was also about Muslims vs non-Muslims and locals versus non-locals. If Lambing Flat riots doesn't have the word "race", why should this article? Andjam 13:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with your argument, "2005 Cronulla riots" maybe the correct solution. Interested to hear others opinions--Looper5920 13:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "2005 Cronulla riots" or "Cronulla race riots (2005)" look good to me. Agree with Andjam though, definately needs to be Cronulla rather than Sydney. Redirect Sydney riots etc.? --james °o 08:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Is the 2005 needed? Is anyone likely to write an article entitled "1963 Cronulla riots", or is someone anticipating a 2007 riot? Andjam 09:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Dunno, I just think 2005 gives a little more context in the title. "Cronulla race riots" works just as well for me though. --james °o 09:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • It isn't even technically a riot, and violence was across several areas of Sydney. So the whole title is misleading. michael ^talk 09:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Did you read my comments above about why Sydney shouldn't be part of the title? Andjam 10:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I read them. I fought a one-man battle against concentrating almost solely on Cronulla when editing was intense just after the 'riots' had happened and I have no intention to renew it. This does not mean I am content with the article or its title, I am very dissatisfied with what it has become. michael ^talk 10:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Ok, let me rephrase my question. What is your response to my arguments which, while acknowledging that the violence was not just in Cronulla, argued that Cronulla should be part of the title name? Thanks, Andjam 12:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • I understand your argument but I do not agree with it. Centering on Cronulla is just a joke, in all honesty. The media frenzy was on Cronulla. The majority of attacks, violence, etc was elsewhere. I do not have it in me to bother fighting what you say (especially when your words most likely represent consensus). Do as you wish. michael ^talk 12:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

YES, I definitely think this page should be renamed as "Cronulla race riots, 2005" Very soon this event will become history and willed be named and remmebered as the 'Cronulla' riots. Using Sydney as an adjectival describer is far too broad-and most importantly not accurate. Lentisco 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should rename this to Cronulla riots. It's become the common usage. No need to specify the year as part of the title. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it would be wise to keep it. I agree that the misnomer "Cronulla riots" has entered common usage, but the year should be kept in front, otherwise in a few short months a second rename could be needed to distinguish it from the 2006 Cronulla Riots. Think for example about "the" Bali bombing that is now known as the "2002 Bali bombing". --Russell E 09:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say misnomer? Not that it matters if common usage is 'wrong', common usage is what we follow. If there is a 2007 Cronulla Riot that is worth its own page, as opposed to a mention here, then we create Cronulla Riots (disambig) and move Cronulla Riots back here. Regards,

Edits by User:Rcandelori

There was recently a major changes to the article by User:Rcandelori [22]. Many are certainly to the good, some should be discussed, some IMHO should go. I have removed the POV tag as it is not explained on talk. I think mass changes from Lebanese to Middle-Easterns should be reversed - Lebanese have strong cultural identity in Australia (especially in Sydney), changes them to the nebulous Middles Easterners is akin to changing Irish to the Western-Europeans or Italian to Mediterraneens. abakharev 20:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I found Rcandelori's message it is in [23]. Still do not see his grievances explained. I am second that Muslims should not be used as an ethnic term as they are not (although Lebanese - certainly are). It is already fixed anyway. BTW I would think that it is fair to name the crowd assembled at Lakemba Mosque to be named as Muslims. abakharev 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• 'tis me, rcandelori - I am sorry but as we do not know for sure that these groups were Lebanese (it is only presumed by the media), we cannot label them so. If their true ethnicity was verified, then it is fine to use Lebanese. Also, the article implies that Muslims are an ethnic group of which they certainly are not, hence the removal of the term.

The people targeted were not mere Middle Eastern, but definitively and unequivocally Lebanese Muslims. The people running around buring Australian RSL flags, buring churches, stabbing random people because they were white, asking, "are you Asutralian", then jumping out of cars and slamming lump of concrete on a mans head while he lay on the ground... this is un-Australian activity... and it was not just anyone doing the activities, it was not the chinese, or taongans, it was the lebanese... rcandelori, you do you suggest it was out there... the jews? LOOK it was lebanese targeted by white Australians at the riot, and as expected it was labanese targeting white Australians after in the retaliatory attacks, it wasn's the chinese retaliating on behalf of the lebanese,,, you fool for suggesting that anyone other than the lebanese would retaliate to attacks on lebanese!! DUHHHHHHHHHHH

If you can unequivocally prove that these people were of lebanese descent, then the term is legitimate in its use. Your comments only support the inherent racism of Anglo-Celtic Australians - its what led to the bashings of those people on the train that same day because the drunken crowd thought they looked "Lebanese". And since you can't provide any proof other than assumptions made in the media, the term "Lebanese" is inappropriate.--Rcandelori 08:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"your comments only support the inherent racism of Anglo-Celtic Australians"... I stated that lebanese were targeted and, hence, it was lebanese who retaliated... ie, no one retaliates on beahlf of some other group--- at Punchbowl park where NSW Police observed the "conveys" which raided society, on the road graffiti on the road stated "LIONS OF LEBANON" --- THERE"S YOU"RE EVIDENCE -- - if reason and logic are "racism" then it explians why you Leftists cannot think at all --- where were your comments when a young Australian girl was raped because she was Australian... you were silent, so don't know say one word now...

WP:NPA. Cool it off for a minute. I know this is a controversial topic. If you want to call them "Lebanese" in the article, you need to find a verifiable reference saying that they were Lebanese. Your own original research doesn't count. Media isn't very reliable. Something like a police report is. Until you can find a source like this (see WP:V), I agree with the wording "Middle Eastern". --james_{(lets talk)} 09:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

to say that there is an "inherent racism of Anglo-Celtic Australians" is racist in itself, or at least a personal attack - and if I respond to that racist statement, then I am refered to a "no personal attack policy" --- its always the same with the Leftists... people are terrorised in society, hassled, intimidatd, threatened, hated, raped all because of an underlying racism for infidels and Australians, and no one says a word, but then some people respond and throw some bottles, and all the Leftists come out of the wood work --- Anglo saxons are not raping on racial lines... are not stabbing people in the back at 16th birthday parties, not dirve by shooting in the West etc I have a SOURCE for you... it comes form the article itself... ""they encountered carloads of men with Lebanese flags hanging out the windows and heard one man screaming, "Do it for Allah!"" I don't suppose that sounds like the vietnamese, italians, or jews - all of which have managed to 'fit; into Australian society, keeping their beautiful cultures strong for a multicultural Australia, but have not raped an "Aussie slut" because she "deserves it because she is Asutralian" to date... ;) 220.101.181.207 01:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing edits to the article, not for determining the moral character of editors. Please keep discussions related to specific edits. see WP:TPG. Thanks, Ashmoo 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting back on track, there is ample verifiable evidence that the "people of middle eastern appearance" were Lebanese: numerous media articles, including those interviewing those who identify themselves as Lebanese (not Leb-Aus or Aus-Leb but that's another issue...) and acknowledge that the perpertrators are also Lebanese. There is also quite a lot of evidence that they are Lebanese Muslims, for example in newspaper articles about the gathering at the Lakemba Mosque, where most (but not all!) attendees were identified as people who were muslim but not necessarily regular mosque attendees. We should not tolerate attempts by certain parties to obfuscate the fact that the retribution attacks were carried out by people who identify themselves as Lebanese, against those they considered to be "Australian" (i.e. white Australian), just because it's not fashionable to think in such discriminatory terms. --Russell E 05:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC

Unfortunately, we can't just put "multiple media sources" in the references section. If you've got specific links, we can use those and then we can say that the people targeted/doing the targeting were Lebanese. Same goes for calling the Muslim. Cite some sources, then we can decide whether it's appropriate to use the term in the article. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 06:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to characterise them using the same words as the attached cite. If there is any dispute we should quote the article. ie. ' the SMH said that three Lebanese men attacked... '. Ashmoo 06:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While on other topics the media is very reliable, in this case, they cannot be wholly trusted given the backlash against Arabic/Middle Eastern people in the aftermath of the riots. It is not at all acceptable to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for vitriolic vendettas against others because you deem their cultures to be "abhorrent" or "asocial." Unless we have verified evidence from a number of sources (not merely the media) that can unequivocally state the racial heritage of these criminals, the term lebanese is inappropriate. Many of the responses to my earlier comments merely prove the inherent racism of many. I am not advocating "leftist" political correctness, all I am arguing is that we should only attach labels if they are indeed factually correct. This is an encyclopaedia - a forum of academic integrity, not one of personal vendetta.--Rcandelori 04:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1: Rcanderlori, I am against the term 'Middle Eastern' because there is no "evidence" that these people were 'Middle Eastern'... I am also against the term 'Australian' as there is no "evidence" that the people at the beach were Australian... STATE YOUR EVIDENCE (NOT MERELY THE MEDIA), RCANDERLORI, THAT THE PEOPLE AT THE BEACH WERE UNEQUIVOCALLY AUSTRALIAN - (ie, a CONSISTENT, NON-RACIST-TOWARD-AUSTRALIANS application of Rcanderlori's reasoning that newspapers cannot be "trusted")... then we can refer to Rcanderlori's standard of methodology to state who the people targeted were and, hence, who the people that retaliated against that targeting were... [AmonTheMerciful]

With respect, your arguments are fuelled by anger and stupidity. I never said that some people were or were not Australian. I think the article clearly implies that some people involved in the violence were of Anglo-Celtic heritage and of Middle Eastern heritage, but it does not say they were not Australian. --Rcandelori 08:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that... You suggested that there is no evidence that the people who retaliated were 'Lebanese' as the media cannot be "trusted"... I am saying that to be consitent and not racist, then you cannot "trust" the media that the people at the beach were 'Asutralian' either...

2: Rcanderlori "trusts" the media that the people at the beach were Australian, but for some reason does not "trust" the media that the people targeted at the beach did retaliate, ie the Lebanese, - Rcanderlori argues above that some other unrelated people retaliated on behalf of the Lebanese... ie, that Australians targeted the Lebanese at the beach, but that some other unrelated people retaliated on behalf of the Lebanese - (it is an unbeleivable attempt by Rcanderlori to cover up for them no doubt).

This continuing trend to label these people Lebanese is simply absurd. It is merely an attempt to find scapegoats for the riots for which both groups were equally responsible. Get over it. --Rcandelori 08:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

please re-read the above. NOTE - if you are saying that it is not the 'Lebanese' who retaliated, the you are saying nothing more than that Australians targeted the Lebanese at the beach, but that some other unrelated people retaliated on behalf of the Lebanese... (It seems more absurd to suggest that someone else took it upon themselves to retalite on the Lebanese behalf... don;t you think?) If you merely do not want to label people as Lebanese even though you see the logis that it was no one other than the Lebanese who retaliated, then neither should you want to label the people at the beach as 'Australians' lest you be inconsistent and racist...

3: Rcanderlori, the term 'Australian' is racist to the people who are 'Australian' and it is also racist to people who are not 'Australian... (a consistnet application of Rcanderlori's reasoning above that the term 'Lebanese' is racist)... Rcanderlori's leftist backwardsthink is clear - it is not racist to say it is Australians at the beach who targeted Lebanese, but it is racist to say it is Lebanese who retaliated to such targeting --- it represents an INCONSISTENT and RACIST reasoning, ie to name one people and not the other --- Rcanderlori plays the 'racist' card when Rcanderlori herself is racist in either naming 'Australians' or not naming 'Lebanese'... it is inconsistent and it is a known Islamofascist tactic [AmonTheMerciful]

Again you are clearly out of line. You are inciting unnecessary divisive comments for no reason at all. You seem adamant in having one nice, identifiable group of "Australians" and one other separate group of "Lebanese" people. I think it is you that is being racist. Again, just because someone has Middle Eastern/Arabic or whichever heritage, does not mean that they can't be Australians. I think it is safe to assume that all people invovled were Australians - merely of varying ethnic origins. Also, I am not a woman. So don't refer to me as her or she or some other female appendage. --Rcandelori 08:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I incite nothing that you in an inconsistent and racist one-sidedness application of your own principles does not... It is clear when in court NSW Police stated that retaliatory attackers yelled, "get the Aussie dogs... get the Aussie sluts" that NOT all people identify themselves as "Aussie", least Rcanderlori suggest that the attackers were inciting attacks against themselves they aslo being "Aussies"...? No, no I don;t think so... NOTE - if you don;t want to use the label 'Lebanese' because it is 'racist' then also is the label 'Australian'...

4: Rcandelori, the people at the beach carried Australian flags AND many who retaliated carried Lebanese flags... if the later is not "evidence" that the people who retaliated were 'Lebanese', THEN to be consistent, fair, and not racist to Australians, then neither is the former "evidence" that the people at the beach were Australian... you think its ok to be racist against a majority or something, I don't know...

Just because a few people carry flags of their countries of heritage does not automatically categorise them as non-Australians. Does that mean people who carry the Aboriginal flag are non-Australian or racist to other Australians? Does that mean Australians who carry Italian or Argentinian flags to support Italy or Argentina in the World Cup are racist to other Australians? If you think that such acts are indeed racist, then you are simply a racist, white supremacist; afraid of other cultures. That does not mean I condone racially fuelled violence betweene ethnic groups - I just think that we should be absolutely sure before we label everyone. You have not provided a scintilla of evidence suggesting your claims.--Rcandelori 08:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that - I am saying that you deny that the people who retaliated were 'Lebanese' even theough they carried Lebanese flags... to be consitent and not racist, I would like you to deny that the people at the beach were 'Australian' even though they carried Austrlaian flags... It is just representive of your racist flexible logic and reason were you can apply principles inconsistently in a racist fashion without noting the contradictions - please stick to the facts - I never condoned acts of violence on this thread... I merely hold your racist one-sided contradicitons to account.

Ok, you can bitch and scream all you like, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of the editors agree with the changes made. They change the tone of the article to a far more encyclopaedic one and exude far more balance than what existed before. --Rcandelori 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor have you provided evidence that the people at the beach were 'Australian', apart from media which you yourself argue "cannot be trusted" (suprising double-standard, and racist)... Retaliatory attackers scralled on the streets at Punchbowl park were they organised, "LIONS OF LEBANON WILL KILL AUSSIE DOGS"... I can provide a source if it pleases you...

Rcandelori - as your repsonse does NOT attempt to adress the content of my posts as a reasonable person may be expected to so reply, I take it that you realise that you are inconsitent and racist toward 'Australians' - in naming 'Australinas' but not 'Lebanese' - the reasons you presented for such inconsistent use of 'labels' were shown above to be completely inconsitent and racist. Rcanderlori, you are a racist!! Rcanderlori, to be so passionate that it is not the 'Lebanese' who retalited against the targeting at the beach, THEN IT IS ONLY EXPEDIENT FOR YOU TO TELL US, Rcandelori, WHO RETALIATED ON BAHELF OF THE 'LEBANESE'... I suggest that you do not contribute to the article if you do not tell us show us, lest it be a personal interest and racist coverup for the 'Lebanese' that you attempt... islamofacsist Rancadelori? [AmonTheMerciful]

It seems perfectly clear to me that you are intent on continuing some personal vendetta against a group of people of whom you do not like. That's fine. You're free to think as you wish. But, an encyclopaedia is certainly not the arena to sprout unneccessarily antagonistic point of views. Instead of labelling me as racist, perhaps take some time and reflect upon your own comments. In the end, if you don't like what is written, vote with your mouse and go elsewhere.--Rcandelori 10:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rcandelori, the other people on the thread will vote in the end, and I`ll say it once more so that the people can see that you have no reasoned basis for your point at all - Racanderlori, WHO RETALIATED ON BEHALF OF THE 'LEBANESE'... the Jews? Your continued `side step` reveals that you yourself acknowledge that it was the Lebanese who retaliated against being targeted earlier at the beach - makes sense to most people here... Your denial of reality and reason is the result of some racist self interest and islamofacsist ideology - clearly the only `antagonistic point of veiw` on the thread belongs to you... [AmonTheMerciful]

HOW CAN YOU BE SURE THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE "LEBANESE"?? If you want to be completely sure to call them anything at all, call them "AUSTRALIANS". It is a FACT that these people were all "AUSTRALIANS". I know for a FACT that a lot of these people who participated in the revenge attacks on Syndey were NOT of Lebanese descent. Some of these people were given names by the media - their real names. Google their names. You will find that the last names of these people are VERY common in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. I'm not saying that none of these people are Lebanese, but it's VERY UNFAIR to the innocent Australian-Lebanese (Christian AND Muslim) citizens that people of OTHER races have been labeled as "Lebanese" when in fact, a lot of them are not. Leave it as "Middle-Eastern". Don't change it to "Lebanese".

12 December identikit photo

I removed this photo for the following reasons. It is too large. It is not a photo of any events, but simply a composite made by the police based on one of the many violent incidents. It doesn't add anything that the text doesn't. Ashmoo 03:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Ashmoo, it is expedient for you to discuss such editing before you take yourself off on a frolic of your own.

Mr Ashmoo you will have to be able to show two things to remove the image (1) that it is wikipedia policy that where an image does not add something that the text doesn't it is to be removed, (2) that the particular image does not add something that the text doesn't.

The particular image invokes a sense of the event to complement the text - the NSW police beleive such otherwsie they would have merely released a text statement. All the images on the page are unnecessary according to your reasoning as none of them, "add anything that the text doesn't." The image shows three Middle Eastern attackers who stabbed a man for no other reason than he was a white-Australian - the racists used a knife and car as shown in the image - the image invokes a sense of realism to complement the text. AMONTHEMERCIFUL

I agree with Ashmoo, and that identikit image is out of place here. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not Crimestoppers or Vigilante Watch. Would you be equally blasé if the article also had a "rogues' gallery" of the 16-odd Anglo individuals wanted in connection with the events, whose photos were widely circulated for much the same reason (ie, encouraging the public to make them known to authorities)? Likewise, these individuals (according to the accounts, leastways) are alleged (many now I believe have now been charged/convicted) to have participated in violent affray and assault 'for no other reason' than the victims appeared to be of Lebanese or Middle Eastern descent.--cjllw | TALK 00:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well now that it is reduced in size, I don't have to much problem with it. Ashmoo 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

cjllw, you are morally deficient if you compare 'affray' with grevious bodily harm, attempted muder etc... it is one thing to throw a bottle and punch someone, and it another thing to stab someone in the BACK 5 times. It is highly symbolic, people come to Australia and then stab us in the BACK. If people like you did not protect cultural tolerance, but said, "hey, its not ok to propogate a culture where girls dressed like sluts (and yes, maybe they do) are "targets for rape"". That kind of 'tolerance' leads to violence from people who have had enough. not all cultures are equal - i refer you to ogrish.com, a culture where its fine to behead an infidel is not equal to a peaceful culture such as chinese Taoists... if you want to 'tolerate' other cultures so much, then invite the gangs to your daughter's bedroom... then we'll see wich cultures "fit" into Australian society and whcih ones do not ;)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.181.207 (talk • contribs) date.

your interpretation of the above words does not make it a "personal attack" it is what is in you that makes you interpret it in that way... I am the author of it, and, hence, i know what i meant... ""Take any action allow=d to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but >tis the object of feeling, not of reason."" HUME ---

for example, if i were to say that you are "defficient in the immoral" then to you it is not a personl attack as you consider that to be good, but if i menat it to be an attack, then it is... it is your inner setiment that dictates the way you interpret it as good or as bad... but it is not in the thing itself, or what i menat it to be... open your eyes to reality and wake up from your conditioned sleep ;) read above, what is it to be moral anyway? you fool - maybe it is good to be a fool, but if you think it is not, then that is youre propblem ;) i cant be held accountable for your inner interpretatons and psychology ;) unsigned comment was added by 220.101.181.207 (talk • contribs) date.

220.101.181.207, please sign your comments by adding four tidles (~) to the end. It makes easier to see who is saying what. Thanks, Ashmoo 22:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Police response

User:RussellE, this article is already 45kb long, much longer than the suggested 32kb limit. I'm wondering whether a news article on police tactics on an individual incident is notable enough to increase the article size further? What do you think? Ashmoo 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the length, I do think the article could do with a complete re-write to make it more concise and coherent. However I defend my inclusion and would argue that in fact there should be a paragraph or so devoted to the police response, and support or criticism of it from politicians and others in the media. This, after all, was a significant issue at the time. The incident in question is one of the most important of the so-called "riots": offences committed that night by those convoys were much more numerous and more violent than the couple of incidents on the beach that give the article its name. For the police to have allowed this to happened unopposed is surely worth mentioning?! There is in fact already a section on the police response but it somehow manages to say virtually nothing. My addition could go there instead, but it would look silly without some further information of the type I suggested in my second sentence above. --Russell E 05:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

McDonalds Stabbing

An anonymous user added this to the Peter Debnam section:

A day after Peter Debnam`s statement that Middle Eastern thugs had terrorised people for "the last ten years" the SMH stated that an Australian teen is in hospital with a 10 centimetre cut to the throat after being slashed with a knife in Sydney's east by a man of Middle Eastern appearance. The Australian man was walking down Middle Lane near the Kingsford McDonald's restaurant. Police stated "[a] van stopped and two [Middle Eastern] men got out - the passenger produced a folding-type knife and opened it." "The victim went into the McDonald's where he realised he'd been slashed across the [throat]." [24]

I've removed it for a fairly obvious reason: A crime which occurs in July of 2006 has nothing to do with crimes committed in December 2005. Drett 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"A crime which occurs in July of 2006 has" everything to do with the comments of Peter Debnam in relation to the underlying causes of the "crimes committed in December 2005" - he stated that people had been terrorised in society by Middle Eastern thugs and that is what led to the riot... well, well, well, one day later open up the newspaper and look... Peter Debnam knws what he is talking about - an Aussie Dog had his throat slashed!!

~~ WAKE UP ~~

WAKE UP PEOPLE!! THE MIDDLE EASTERNS HATE YOU - I REFER YOU TO ALI AL HIRSRI, a muslims womens statements which elucidates the upbringing of hate toward white infidels - she was a muslim dutch MP who broke free of Islam and spoke out agaisnt Islam and wrote a film - the director of that film was shot and beheaded in a crowded Dutch street for discussing the treatment of women in Islam - and you want to tolerate what does not tolerate you, and does not tolerate your liberal position on women`s　rights!! DO NOT TOLERATE FACISTS --- its not racist, it is about idealogy and not genetics -　(were we racist to Northen Anglo`s for fighting the Nazis... no, it was a battle for ideology, not race, we face the same battle against Islam

"Hizbollah is protecting Lebanon, they are freedom fighters, not terrorists,” (Leb man at Perth Hizbollah rally)

Free from what? Having Israeli neighbors?

Hizb wasnt protecting Lebanon, they were ATTACKING Israel.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.146.155.168 (talk • contribs).

Please refrain from excessive quotation in articles, and remember to write material with a neutral point of view. Thanks, Andjam 03:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Police say up to 10 people, whom they described as "MIDDLE EASTERN MEN", threw concrete blocks at a residence attached to a synagogue in Parramatta on Sunday night, smashing the windows of two parked cars. (not surprised anymore...) LEBS ARE COWARDS (preaching jihad and death to Isreal, but then flee to Australia - lucky we took them back after they burned that Aussie flag at the RSL!!)

Hi, this page is for discussing changes to the 2005 Cronulla riots article. Don't feel that you have to use it to mention every single crime in which it is alleged men of middle eastern appearance were involved. Drett 13:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs wholesale edits...

...desperately. For a start, it's too long, and there are bits that are at best unnecessary and at worst rather biased.

Some things that spring to mind immediately:

• "Response from rioters" section - presenting the views of a couple of Four Corners interviewees as exemplifying the views of a wide cross-section of rioters isn't especially helpful. Given the paucity of material, this section should probably go entirely.
• "Violence and harassment by Middle Eastern youths" section - this seems pretty POV to me. There's no discussion of any alternative POVs here - the over-riding impression is of the author using selected quotes to push his own ideas.
• "Beach violence" - the history of beach violence in general could do with expansion, as it clearly plays some sort of part in what happened in 2005.
• "Political and community leaders" - is Brian Wilshire's racist drivel worth a mention here? Surely he's neither a political nor a community leader?
• "NSW opposition" - I'm a bit worried by the pride of place given to Debnam's views. Can this be merged into the "Political and community leaders" section?
• "Reaction and retaliation" - this section is waaaaaay too long. Surely an itemised list of tit-for-tat violence isn't really necessary. This should be condensed into an overview of reaction from the parties involved and the wider community, along with a summary of the retaliatory violence perpetrated by both sides.

I'm loath to wade in and make wholesale edits to what's been a controversial topic, but something needs to be done. What do others think? Tpth 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tpth, to say , "Brian Wilshire's racist drivel" itself reflects a POV, namely your POV.

Yes, fair enough. I'm comfortable with admitting that I consider "Many of them have parents who are first cousins whose parents were first cousins. The result of this is inbreeding – the result of which is uneducationable (sic) people...and very low IQ." to be racist drivel. Do you not? Tpth 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• :The "Violence and harassment by Middle Eastern youths" section - it is completely sourced - it is not helpful or proper to say it is POV - it happened and it is documented by respectable sources - you may not like that it happened, but it happened nonetheless. In particular, paragraph one is sourced from a SMH article which explicitly outlines the "Violence and harassment by Middle Eastern youths" - there is NO POV - the ideas "pushed" in the section are the ideas published by the SMH.

(you may contribute to the section from other sources, but the particular paragraphs are not misleading or deceptive at all).

I'm not denying that it's sourced, only pointing out that the sources cited present a rather one-sided view of the picture. As they say in the clichés, it takes two to tango, so to be even-handed, the article should present a similarly sourced summary of events leading up to the riots on both sides, rather than focussing exclusively on harassment carried out by Middle Eastern yoths - but given that it's too long already, I think an overview of events leading up to the riots would be more useful. Tpth 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• :"Reaction and retaliation" - it is not informative to make a "summary" of retaliatory racist violence - the effect of a summary is to misstate what happened - the article does not present an 'itemised list', but outlines the more serious violent, racist retaliatory attacks by ME men in retaliation to other, and noteably less violent, racist attacks at the beach earlier against ME people ---- it is by outlining individual attacks that the article presents a "true and fair" picture of the seriousness of the retaliatory attacks compared to the racist violence at the beach earlier - once more, you may not like that it happened and that the retaliatory attacks were more serious, but it happened nonetheless - the purpose of the article is to outline a "true and fair" picture which is not acheived in a "summary" or helped by emotive and personal positions taken by contributors. [AmonTheMerciful].

I'm not denying that these events took place - I just don't think trying to list every single act of violence perpetrated by Middle Eastern youths is particularly helpful, especially when, as has already pointed out, the article is already clearly too long by Wikipedia's standards. I can't see how summarising events will by definition "mis-state what happened". If anything, it might give a clearer picture to readers disinclined to wade through an interminable list of incidents. Bear in mind that readers of an encyclopedia are likely to be unfamiliar with the topic and are looking for a general explanation of what took place, not a blow-by-blow account listing every single incident that may or may not have contributed to the riots, or transpired as a result of them. Tpth 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits are completely unacceptable!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

User Tpth, you have not discussed the content of edits with other users on the discussion page before implementing. It is clear that you have edited that article incorrectly and taken away form the articles relevance and reliability, sometimes making factualy incorrect statements: for just one example out of many (take your pick), you wrote, "... assaults, including one in which a 26 year old man was stabbed after being assaulted by a group of 10 assailants." Nowhere does it say that a man was stabbed in an assault of ten assailants.

Fair point - my mistake. It was a group of four assailants, apparently. I'll alter that in my next edit. Tpth 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You have damaged the article's reliability in a reckless and swift extreme edit. You cannot change the problems with the article overnight which are the result of months of edits and conflict.

Please refer to WP:BOLD.

Please do not add to the conflict by making edits without consulting others and please provide time for non-regular users to contribute. Thank you.Redducky 12:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Without consulting others..." - er, what's this talk page then?

You have not explicitly discussed specific changes to the articles here, you have merely stated that you will make a summary and edit it, but the details were not disucussed. Redducky 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits

As per my previous message, I've reworked the article. I've tried to leave as much substance in there as possible, while cutting down on repetition (for example, Iemma's statement on new laws was repeated three times in various forms), unnecessary or unhelpful information (the Melbourne rally and the Four Corners quotes) and summarising some of the exhaustive lists of incidents into a more general commentary on events. I haven't done anything with the "Violence and harassment by Middle Eastern youths" bit yet - I'll get onto that tomorrow. Tpth 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick, mate, but it doesn't appear as if you've actually done anything to the article, besides this change: [25] Technical glitch, maybe??? Drett 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just been proof-reading them. I made the mistake of saving the talk page before saving the article itself :) Tpth 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Two things I think should be put back in though: 1. Anti-racism rallies. There were large rallies in Melbourne and Sydney (and other states too maybe?) regarding the violence the week after the riots. I think that's relevant as far as giving the reader a bigger picture of the reaction of the public. 2. Text message things. Looking at the bit you've taken out, it's not worded fantastically, but in the wake of the events there were other text messages going around "meet up at brissy beach for whatever" etc. which attracted a fair bit of police/media attention. What do others think? (I have to dash now) Drett 07:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this once I've restore my edits, which have predictably been unilaterally reverted by the anonymous user who seems to think that this page is his personal fiefdom. Tpth 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tpth - DO NOT TAKE YOURSELF OFF ON A FROLIC OF YOUR OWN --- you have completely misstated the retaliatory attacks and not presented a 'true and fair' picture whatsoever - for example one paragraph refered to a religious element to the retaliatory attack "do it for Allah" as documented... you CANNOT merely make a summary - if you want to edit it because of length then it must be done without trading of the content - i suggest you do not make any more edits at all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

I can and I will. This article presents one side of the picture in excruciatingly tedious detail at the moment, and my edits to summarise it were long overdue. If you've any constructive suggestions to make, please make them here. In the meantime, I'm reverting your edit. Tpth 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Background and analysis

As noted above, I'm not entirely happy with this section - as with the rest of the article, it seems to present one side of the story only. Let me make something clear - I am NOT denying that violence and harassment was carried out, nor that it was reprehensible, nor that a reaction to it was inevitable. I am only pointing out that this article seems to discuss it to the exclusion of all other factors, making it appear one-sided. I hope that this is clear to RedDucky?

Yes, Tpth, it is clear that it is not balanced, therofore, it is up to you to contribute other sources to make it so. It is not up to you to 'delete' sourced paragraphs to the effect of a balanced article, but to contribute other sourced paragraphs which balance it out, otherwsie you are whitewahsing the article and damaging the reliability of it. Redducky 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, but the problem with this approach is that we'll end up with an interminable list of reports that say "they did this" and "ah, but they did this". Condensing a series of reports into a summary is not "whitewashing" - it's presenting the information in a concise and user-friendly manner. Tpth 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Violence and harassment by Middle Eastern youths

There's stuff here that isn't directly related (or, indeed, relevant) to the riot of 11 December. Why, for example, is there a link to an article about a gatecrashing that took place 6 months after the riot? This can hardly be considered "background", and thus should be removed. I think that whoever added this section also rather betrays his own biases by referring to an "Australian" birthday party, but we'll let that go for now.

There's also stuff that seems to contradict what was said above - "The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the riot was not about the attack at the beach on two Australian life-savers by young Middle Eastern men on the Sunday, but a response to an attack on two white Australians walking at the beach on the preceding Wednesday" seems to go against everything that's been said before.

Thoughts? Tpth 23:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tpth, what had been said beofre was clearly incorrect, and with time the truth came out and is soruced in that paragraph. It is therofre expedient for a proper edit to alter what was said before and not to delte facts form the article. If you want to balance it, then add sourced paragraphs, but do not delete others which take away form the article and what happened. Redducky 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

See my points above. You've also not addressed the fact that one of these paragraphs contradicts the rest of the article, and the other is entirely irrelevant Tpth 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did exactly adress the fact that the paragraphs copntradict eachother - one was written before all the onformation came out ... read the above, idiot...Redducky

Well, in that case, the article should contain the correct information, no? And take note of WP:No personal attacks Tpth 02:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the whole I think that your (Tpth's) edits have done much to improve and clean up the article, dissenting voices above notwithstanding. I agree that formerly there was rather too much repetitious detailing of individual incidents, which taken together gave those portions of the article a slant in a particular direction.

Re the particular points you raise, I'd also agree that mention of incidents post-dating the riot by six months is not warranted, and can be removed. The article's focus should be confined to describing the events and surrounding circumstances themselves, I don't see how this much later incident is usefully related. As for what the SMH did or did not report about the causes of the riots, I think the above-quoted attribution fails to distinguish between reportage of actual events and op-ed speculation by an individual writer in the paper. I don't think that the views of any of the SMH's opinion writers -whether Sheehan, Devine, Duffy, Carlton or Ramsey- should be given as that of the paper itself.--cjllw | TALK 01:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad that someone appreciates what I'm trying to do with this article. I'll get onto the rest of it this arvo. Tpth 01:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re the particular passage, "The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the riot was not about the attack at the beach on two Australian life-savers by young Middle Eastern men on the Sunday, but a response to an attack on two white Australians walking at the beach on the preceding Wednesday", which Redducky defends above on the basis that (quote)"what had been said beofre was clearly incorrect, and with time the truth came out and is soruced in that paragraph"(unquote)-

• Far from being an established fact, in the sourced SMH article (by opinion writer Paul Sheehan) this view is attributed to only a single unnamed local teacher, who although one of the (very many other) participants in the event, can hardly be said to be in any position to conclusively know what initiated the whole thing, or to be any authority on the causes of the conflict. Saying that her single viewpoint (as presented by Sheehan) in some way now makes the earlier cited opinions (on what initial incident led to the gathering on the beach) "clearly incorrect" is not supportable.
• At most, it could be given as an alternative explanation, but it is certainly no "fact", and is uncorroborated - it might be a fact that Sheehan wrote an article mentioning what this unnamed source had to say about things, but that does not make what that source said a factual statement, it's merely one person's take on the matter.
• Lastly, trying to be too specific about which single incident led to the assembly of people at the beach that day is probably a lost cause anyway, since (from the earlier cited comments of participants) those assembled did so from a variety of motivations, including wanting to "make a stand" against perceived or reported ill-behaviour at the beach in general.--cjllw | TALK 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The voice of reason! Yay :) Tpth 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTE - the paragraph does not say that the incident is what led to the riot - it merely says that the SMH stated that, and the SMH indeed did state that, notwithstanding which particular journalist's name it was printed under... By your argument that it was mutiple reasons for the gathering at the beach and as the article attempts to says that it was a result of two life savers assaulted at beach, then the section is complete speculation, then delete it all... the first paragraph does state what the SMH stated and is an insight into an event "leading up to the riot" whether it was the exclusive cause or not - it is relevant to the section which is not "the cause of the riot" but violence and harrassment by Middle Eastern youths which it no doubt is. Redducky

RedDucky

After lambasting me for allegedly not discussing edits, you've reverted my changes twice with little to no explanation. This is irritating and unnecesary. If you have constructive suggestions to make, make them here - otherwise, this has "tedious edit war" written all over it.

Re your quote from WP:Bold - this is a bit rich, considering that you're a brand-new editor... unless, of course, you're the same person responsible for the various incoherent rants above under the name of "AmonTheMerciful". In either case, I'm reverting your changes again, and will get on with trying to make something useful out of this dog's breakfast of an article. Please don't revert my changes again without discussion. Tpth 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Waiting until you make your changes before I revert - hoping they'll be in some way helpful. We'll see, I suppose. Tpth 02:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - well, given that you've not done anything (and that your entire Wikipedia career to date consists of reverting my edits), I'm putting back what I did earlier, and will continue to edit this page in due course. As I've said before, I'm perfectly happy to discuss any of these edits on this talk page. Tpth 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

...and surprise, surprise - you've contributed nothing, and reverted my edits again. Do you have nothing better to do?

Oh, and if you want to talk to me, do it here or on my talk page, not on my user page. Tpth 04:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits by user Tpth

Tpth has noted that the article is not 'balanced' and, theofore, has deleted and butchered much of the article. It is expedient for user Tpth to contribute sourced paragraphs to make it balanced and not whitewhash content of the article in the name of length.

A distinction must be made between the 'balance' of the article and the 'length' of the article - a proper edit will realise that the two are not related and must be adressed seperately. The user Tpth must contribute materail to the article to make it balanced AND edit other sections properly without butchering content and whitewashing facts to make the length acceptable.

I will continue to revert user Tpth's improper and unhelpful edits ---- I will now edit the particular paragrpahs and condense the article for the purposes of length. User Tpth, PLEASE, adress the balance issue and contribute sourced information to balance it BUT do not not delete large sections of the article just because you are too laZZZy to research other information.

I will not let you destory the article or burry its contents for your own policitcal agenda - the article may not be balanced, but a balance is not achieved by delting facts, but by contributing other facts to it. Redducky

• sigh* - you're clearly not listening to what I'm say. It has nothing to do with my "political agenda" - the fact that you're so ready to throw around such accusations probably reveals more about you than it does about me. I'm trying to make this article more balanced, encyclopedic and readable, because at the moment it is none of those things. I'll watch your edits with interest. Tpth 02:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be revised - for balance and length - but it is NOT acheived through deleting factual information - i am unhappy with your edits becasue they have butchered serious content. You say churches were attacked - well the burining of one to the ground is more serious than a mere 'attack' - you misstate the event (it is one of many examples, and take your pick, of where your so-called summary is improper and unhelpful).

If it please you, then spend your time on editing the 'riot' section because you may contribute additional information to balance it as you like - but do not touch the content of the retaliatory attacks because you have been shown to butcher it and misstate it. Redducky

Discussion?

Let's give it a try, shall we? I am attempting to edit this article to make it more balanced and more concise. Redducky has vowed to unilaterally revert these "inproper (sic) and unhelpful edits" because he doesn't like them.

My view on this is as follows:

• The article is too long. Wikipedia articles aim to be informative, but this is not the same as being exhaustive. Redducky seems to want this article to list, in excruciating detail, every single incident of violence, vandalism or otherwise criminal behaviour that may or may not have occurred as a result of the riot. This is not helpful, as the same information is repeated again and again, adding nothing to the overall worth of the article.

I want the article to present some notable and serious retaliatory attacks, BUT NOT all of them - as stated above, it is by outlining individual attacks that the article presents a "true and fair" picture of the seriousness of the retaliatory attacks compared to the racist violence at the beach earlier - can you PLEASE state what it is about the point that you do not comprehend. I will refine the section for the purposes of length - I have not btoday because I want to discuss with other users out of respect and to limit conflict... Redducky

Fine - then you agree that some of the exhaustive detail here needs to go, then?

I comprehend the point you're making, I just don't agree with it. They're two different things, you know. I don't agree that it is necessary to provide report after report of the retaliatory attacks in order to present a true and fair picture of their seriousness. I think that a better-edited summary of events, highlighting significant attacks, does a perfectly adequate job of that. This is not POV-pushing or promoting a political agenda - it is editing. Tpth 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

YEs, but to edit three to four paragraphs down to one sentence is reckless editing where the effect of the edit is to misstate what happened - the repetitiveness can be removed without trashing the points - If you compare the article, before you took to it, which presents the retaliatroy attacks in detail to your one line 'summary', it is clear that the 'summary' misstates and misleads - it needs to be repaired, yes, but not in this way. Redducky 06:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

YEs, lets "highlight significant attacks" and edit out report after report - but thats not to say trash it down to one meaningless and misleading sentence. Redducky

• The article lists exclusively retaliatory violence carried out by Middle Eastern youths against white Australians. This gives the impression of a one-sided article - the casual reader will wonder "Well, did the other side do anything in the wake of the violence?" Redducky suggests that to be even-handed, I research similar acts of violence carried out by white Australians and add sourced material to the article as appropriate. This is fair enough, but I believe that this tit-for-tat approach will produce an article that is no more informative or easier to read than an article that summarised events on both sides (not to mention an article that stretches from here to the moon). A better approach would be to give a detailed but concise, well-researched and well-sourced overview of violence carried out by both sides.

The riot section "lists exclusively... violence" carried out by white Australians against Middle Eastern youths... the retaliatory violence is the "flip side" of the riot because that is what happened - it was people "retaliating" who were targeted earlier in racist violence at the beach by white Australians... the article cannot balance this because the reality of the event - white Australian DID NOT retaliate because they were the ones who initiated the racist attacks at the beach for OTHERS to retaliate against Hence, white Australians are not featured in the section - it is not non-balanced, but it is what happened - can someone PLEASE explain this to user Tpth.

Redducky

You're doing fine explaining it yourself. I understand your point. I agree that the retaliatory violence was a significant part of the story, and that the initial retaliations were by definition not carried out by white Australians, given that it was they who were retaliated against. However, I think this section needs to cover subsequent racial violence perpetrated both by and against Lebanese or Middle Eastern Australians. This is not the case at present. Tpth 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tpth, I completely agree that it is not the case at present - then please contribute to the article to present the, ""subsequent racial violence perpetrated both by and against Lebanese or Middle Eastern Australians."" It will not be acheived by deleting sections of the artcile away altogether, or by whitewahsing content, but by contributing to those sections. Redducky

• Redducky claims to oppose my edits because they remove information. This is not my aim - my aim is to present such information in a more useful and user-friendly manner. As I've pointed out above, prior to my edits, the article was at various points repetitive, badly written and self-contradictory. I've attempted to address this. Constructive suggestions as to how to do so would be appreciated, but unilateral reversion is immature and immensely irritating.
• Redducky suggests that my edits attempt to "burry (sic) its contents for your own polictical (sic) agenda". This is an unjustified slur, and one that I'd appreciate being withdrawn immediately.

The repetitive sections need to be refined - not deleted away altogether. Redducky

So refine them, instead of reverting edits again, and again, and again, and... Tpth 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, Redducky, are we going to talk about this, or are you going to sit here and keep reverting my edits until one of us gets into trouble under the three revert rule? Thoughts from other users are, of course, both welcome and appreciated. Tpth 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will discuss it with you - please discuss before you edit it - this is not to say you are to merely say you will edit it and then do as you please. Redducky

Good, then we're getting somewhere. Now if you'll just refrain from referring to me as a "dickhead" and accusing me of being "not Australian" on my talk page, we might be able to come to some sort of consensus on how this page can be improved. Tpth 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

lol. Tpth, I accept your challenge. Redducky

Excellent :) Unfortunately, I'm kinda busy today, but I'll probably be back on air on Monday. Tpth 04:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Defending their actions?

Why does the article page spend so much time trying to justify the attacks themselves? It seems people are bending over backwards in anyway they can to rationalise and justify a self-declared racist lynch mob? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.64.214 (talk • contribs) . 06:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

please be explicit... what part of the article... what does it say in particular?

please be explicit in where the article attempts to 'rationalise' racist attacks at the beach on Middle Eastern, or to 'rationalise' racist 'revenge' attacks on Anglo Australians... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.158.206 (talk • contribs) .

203.87.64.214, the article is still rather POV in line with what the media and government declaration of the original protests were. It wasn't a self-declared racist lynch mob, it was, in many parts, families and people from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds protesting against organised middle eastern violent gang (or self styled 'wogs', which I have disdain for the use of given my Italian heritage). There were legitimate issues raised that motivated people to flock to one location to make a stand for the government to take action, many of the protestors were organised and almost all were peaceful. But, there was a rearing of a fair few ugly (aka: thugly) heads on the day which made things turn sour, although I must admit, having been standing next to the man who was 'chased into the hotel', had he not grabbed for a bullhorn from a man who was addressing a crowd and screamed "You're all fucking racists!" repeatedly, I don't think that situation would have occured.

As the evening progressed and alcohol became involved, many older folk moved on leaving the younger folk with their beer and sun, possibly not a good combination as things did get out of hand. I think most of the 'riot' footage of the first day of the protests was more folks running to see what the hell was going on. I was there hobbling along to see myself running with the crowd, the word was spread through the masses that "A huge group of gang members have just shown up and are beating people." which naturally spurned everyone to check it out and see what the hell was going on.

Either way, I'm not defending the actions of those who used violence to speak, but I am defending the actions of those who used solidarity and making a stand on a beach to protest, those who are scared to leave their homes or go out on weekends due to running the risk of getting bashed because you 'looked at' someone wrong, or heaven forbid let us go into the way many Australian women feel in light of all the rapes and the general 'hollaring' (as Americans call it I believe?) they face just walking down a street if they're attractive.

To cut a long story short, I disagree with you, I believe that you're focusing your POV on the article and not remaining neutral and further I believe your understanding of the events is based purely on hearsay and the media and not on evidenciary conclusions nor on actually seeing any of it. 211.30.71.59 11:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. So your saying this was a good thing? The reality is, every single person who attended in support of it was a disgusting racist and I truly believe you all should of been locked up as the shameful failed humans you are. Duckmonster 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with duckmonster, although not every person that day was violent, all were unified in lumping all "middle-easterners" in one block. The SMS proved that "bash leb and wog day" remoevs any doubt of the true motivation. The article sets out to rationalise and justify racial violence. The "it wasn't racism" rhetoric is moot, given that it is reported that both ISRAELIES and GREEKS were attacked that day after being mistaken for middle-easterners. 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

where were you when the young Australian girl was raped - where Middle Easterns stated 'you deserve to be raped because you are Australian'... HAD YOU been there to shout at THOSE MIDDLE EASTERN RACISTS then Cronulla would not have happened - you remain SILENT for 10-15 years while white Australians suffer "Aussie Bashings" and when we retaliate then you come out of the woodwork and call us 'racists' - i put it to you that this INCONSISTENCY is racist in itself

let me ask you - if BLACK AMERICANS held a RALLY AGAINST the KKK would you also come onto wiki and say that the BLACKS were racist towards the KKK!!! you IDIOT!!!

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! --James Bond 08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath?

• There have been a couple of new stories out about the prosecution of some of those involved in the riots, as well as some residual racist crimes following 2005, including this:

"About 13 Vietnamese men and women were preparing a barbecue at Maroubra on Friday night when they were approached by a gang of up to 20 young men who tried to steal items from their cars.

When they resisted they were set upon. The car windows were smashed with a gas bottle and racist abuse was hurled."

[26]

"fallout..."

Pointless linking of dates

Hi there, I'd like to suggest that dates in the article not be linked to pointless sites e.g. December 12 linking to the the wiki page on December 12. Cheers.

Numbers: The Cronulla Report

The ensuing melee soon became widespread; in the course of it a number of police, ambulance officers and individual members of the public perceived to be Middle Easterners were assaulted.

How many people were assaulted? Were the assaults random? Was there a casusal point? The first person assaulted and chased into a hotel had, according to camcorder footage of the first punch thrown, been abusing members of the crowd for being 'fucking racist skips'. As a member of the middle eastern community I feel it is a social obligation that to cover this shameful day for all Australians that we at least cover it accurately. You paint us as saints, when we are all equal in the guilt of that day whether we were there or not. 211.30.71.59 21:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Usage of terms "Caucasian", "White" and "Australian"

This is the second time I have had to remove references (five this time) to "Caucasian" as a synonym for white or European. "Caucasian" refers to the Caucasus mountains in Eurasia (or to language groups originating there), and its usage as a "racial" identifier is confined solely to American English, and even there it is archaic and phrenological. Given that this article relates to Australia, the terms "white" or "European" should be substituted, particularly given that other contributors show no hesitation in using similar antonyms like "Middle Eastern" and "Arab".

Similarly, editors should be extremely careful not to use the term "Australian" as a synonym for "white" or "non-Arab". I had to remove two uses to this effect today. The men of Arab and Middle Eastern descent described in the article were just as "Australian" as their "white" opponents. "Australian" cannot and should not be used as a "racial" term anywhere, much less in an encyclopaedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.61.177.95 (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

above you state, "The Middle Eastern men described in the article were just as "Australian" as their "white" opponents". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! THE MIDDLE EASTERNS CLEARLY DO NOT IDENTIFY THEMSLEVES AS AUSTRALIAN - "you deserve [to be raped for 5 hours] because you are an Australian" AND "get the Aussie dogs... get the Aussie sluts" TO DESCRIBE SUCH PEOPLE AS AUSTRALIAN IS A JOKE!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.123.23 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I would therefore assume that according to your twisted logic, if a "white" person committed a similarly vicious crime - we should not refer to him or her as Australian.

As unfortunate as the case may be, we cannot use wikipedia as an arena to determine who should and should not be an Australian. I would gather that anyone with an Australian citizenship or anyone born in Australia is therefore Australian. People can and will commit crimes; this does not mean they forefeit their Australian identity as a result. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcandelori (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

IT IS NOT MERELY A VICIOUS CRIME BUT A VICIOUS CRIME IN THE CONTEXT OF AN EXPLICIT RACIST HATRED FOR AUSTRALIANS - YOU IMPLIES THAT MIDDLE EASTERN AUSTRALAINS ARE SELF-HATING AUSTRALAINS... INTERESTING, BUT I THINK NOT...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.122.33 (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

above you state, "anyone with an Australian citizenship or anyone born in Australia is therefore Australian"... it is interesting that the Middle Eastern youths in Australain who have Australian citizenships hold that it is their blood that matters and not a piece of paper - Middle Eastern youths in Australain clearly identify themselves as LEBS and not AUSTRALIANS... UNLESS they are self-hating Australaisn who rape and attack other Australians stating that they deserve it 'because they are Australian' it is clear that they MUST identify themselves as non-Australian... I do not think it is racist to merely state what Middle Eastern youths themselves hold to be true... think about it... EITHER THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS NON-AUSTRALIANS OR THEY ARE SELF-HATING AUSTRALAINS - If it is racist to say they are not Australain then they are themselves racist against themselves - now that is some leftist backwards-think!! it is not merely about a normal vicious crime - victimes were SELECTED based on being Australian... "Lebanese Muslim gang rapists from south-western Sydney hunted their victims on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected them to hours of degrading, dehumanising torture" - think about that - wither they hate themselves as Australains, or they are not Australian at all - what is more likely!!

TAKE A LOOK AT THE LiNKS AND EDUCATE YOURSELF!! http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/13/1026185124700.html AND http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DHlDztjPzvSM

If you want us to accept your judgement on who is and who isn't Australian, then please, please learn to spell the name of our country and it's people. We are A-u-s-t-r-a-l-i-a-n-s and we live in A-u-s-t-r-a-l-i-a. I think not knowing how to spell the word Australia is a clear indication of someone who is un-Australian. And sign your name, coward. --Mdhowe 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

THAT IS A TU QUOQUE FALLACY YOU FUCKEN IDIOT - YOU CANNOT COUNTER THE CONTENT SO YOU ATTACK THE SPELLING - IT IMPLIES YOU KNOW THE CONTENT TO BE CORRECT ONCE YOU TAKE TO USING A TU TU QUOQUE FALLACY!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.122.33 (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

YOU ARE IN EFFECT STATING THAT AS I CAN NOT SPELL 'AUSTRALIAN' THAT I AM NOT 'AUSTRALIAN' AND THAT AS I AM NOT 'AUSTRALIAN' I MUST BE INCORRECT THAT THE MIDDLE EASTERN RACISTS ARE NOT 'AUSTRALIAN' - IF I AM AUSTRALIAN OR NOT, IT DOES NOT MAKE MIDDLE EASTERN RACISTS MORE OR LESS AUSTRALIAN - IT IS NOT INTERRALATED - THE REASON YOU EMPLOY IS 'TU QUOQUE'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.122.33 (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I didn't say that you weren't an Australian, I said that you were un-Australian. There is a big difference. Besides that, it was a joke that you clearly didn't get. Do you even know that you are a racist? --Mdhowe 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

...islam is a racist and intolerant religion - it is anti-semetic and is oppressive to women everywhere - in effect you state that I am racist for not tolerating a racist and intolerant religion... interesting leftist thinking... Middle Eastern LEADERS have stated that Australain women deserve to be raped by 'street cats' - cleary stating Middle Eastern men like animals who rape - in that context Middle Eastern men raped a young Australian girl and stated, 'you deserve to be raped because you are an Australian'... think about that... in Islam an infidel may be killed because he is an infidel... If Hitler were a prophet of a religion, would it also be racist to hate Nazism... just because islam is a religion makes it no less racist and violent than Nazism.

I am no more racist than a black man in southern US who hates the KKK...you don't even know that you have no sense - islam and the Middle Eastern animals on the streets of our society hate you - you fucken idiot - every Australian infidel is like a black man in the southern US who is hated by the KKK... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.122.33 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

wow boys take a breather

Attention! Newspapers!

Subtle Australian bias? (...hey i dunno)

iv just realised that the picture of the papers front page is the one for the cronulla riots on almost every major Australia papers wiki page including

The Courier-Mail, The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph, The Sydney Morning Herald & The West Australian

and that's just out of the ones I checked

WHAT IS GOING ON its not like this is the most defining moment in Australian history... (if anyones thinking of saying "well actually i think it IS the most..", Dont even start, iv seen how you guys argue above and it aint pritty) Viva43 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it ... you're absolutely right. I can't believe I didn't notice that before. I think they should be changed, I don't think it's a bias, I think that's been done on purpose to get people to argue about it. Some smart ...alec is stiring the ...pot, so to speak. Who agrees? --SAS87 00:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

i think SAS87 is correct. i also think Viva43 is a complete idiot. the title of the paper reads 'our shame'. it is a non-australian bias

inappropriate edit

Inadvertently removed text from the article; immediately restored it. Apologies. Bpdx 06:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)bpdx