Talk:2005 Cronulla riots/Archive 4

message: Why is there no refrence to the peace talks that followed days after the riots? With the bike gang and the Bra Boys shaking hands?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.150.160 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace Talks 

message: Some of the recent comments (now archived) have been incivil. Can everybody please take a step back and try to discuss the article without name-calling? Thanks, Andjam 19:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for calm 

message: User:Headmess created an article for this guy who got sentenced to 9 months for his part in the issue - which he had already served. Given his relatively minor role, I suggest his article should be merged into this one.
Garrie 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - Yahya Jamal Serhan is not worth a mention in a standalone article. Merge anything useful here then redirect to this article. -- Longhair\talk 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree - Also, on the Yahya Jamal Serhan page it says "between White youths and ethnic Arabs". I'm not a linguist, but 'ethnic arabs' doesn't sound right. After all, everyone has some sort of ethnicity, white or olive or black. Pretty ambiguous language is all. But yeah, merge. Rothery 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree - Makes sense. I think the term ethnic is meant in the Australian context where it is used often for people who are not from British or Irish origin. Maybe it should be changed given the words meaning internationally, but it does sum up some facts about the nature of the riots. 144.132.216.253 17:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree - there is too much in the article already to merge it. it should be linked to as a seperate page as it is significant - it was one of the most violent incidents - a knife was snapped off in a man's back because he was an "Aussie dog", now imagine that... also, the term 'white' is racist, it should be 'Australian' no matter what colour, but the term 'leb" would be apt also no matter what colour because they are SELF IDENTIFIED as 'leb' which makes them by their own free liberal preference not 'Australian' - the article can state, "between Australians of many colours (as islanders were present) and self identified 'lebs'" - that would be completely accurate... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.123.180 (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yahya Jamal Serhan]] 

message: I'm going to move this infobox from this page. The riots as I understand were ethinically rather than religiously based. Recurring dreams 23:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were placards saying "f*** Allah, save Nulla", lots of writing in the transcripts there about how moslems supposedly treat women, tension in the lead up by the gang rapes. I think it should stay imo. 144.132.216.253 12:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree it should STAY - there were reports of Middle Eastern youths shouting "DO IT FOR ALLAH" also CHURCHES WERE BURNT TO THE ASHES - there was a CLEAR religious element to the retaliation violence - it may even be stated that it is the violent religion and its position on immodestly dressed women that resulted in the initial intimidation and threats of rape to Australian girls in bikinis at the beach that then led to Middle Eastern youhts standing out amongst all the other ethnic minorites to protest against - NO ASIANS WERE TARGETED - WHY - BECAUSE THEY DIDNT THREATEN WOMEN WITH RAPE FOR WEARING BIKINIS AT THE BEACH - islam teaches that women who dress immodestly attract "street cats" and rape Jacksyfoxy 08:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: the article may state that, but the article can state whatever the editors want it to - i think the above EVIDENCE is what is important - "do it for Allah" and churches burnt shows that those involved recognised religion - it wqs a clear element even if not the main point - a RECENT addition and source from BBC states muslim men asking white women to "cover up" is the not reminiscent of the "uncovereed meat" and "street cat" prechings from the mosque - islamic culture about women's dress clashing with australian beach and bikini culture maybe leads to riots... oh and tell me NO MOSQUE WAS BURNT TO THE GROUND WAS IT RECURRING DREAMS?Jacksyfoxy 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary motivation of the riots was not religion, though religion may have indeed played a part in it. I think everyone agrees that ethnicity was the main focal-point. Thus I think if we are to mention religion as being a contributing factor we shouldn't do so in the introduction; put it in the body of the text, with appropriate sources cited of course. Cheers, Rothery 20:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies related to Islam and Muslims 

message: *Support Garrie 09:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Ali Osman (criminal)]] 

message: I suggest that the merges above be incorporated into a Prosecutions section. A brief outline of proceedings for each person can be easily included, with full references.Garrie 11:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prosecutions 

message: The woman showing the "Aussies Fighting Back" / PYL pamphlet needs to have fair-use rationale added to it otherwise it may be removed or deleted.
The other thing is, I think it has the wrong template on it. SMH don't usually offer free press kits, and I doubt that the SMH would use this image to promote the SMH.Garrie 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to tag the image as incorrectly licenced.Garrie 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:PYLsydneyraceriots.jpg]] 

message: Yet again I have had to remove four usages of "Australian" where "white" was meant. Similarly, I have altered "Middle Eastern" to "...of Middle Eastern appearance" (though I acknowledge that this usage is not as tendentious, it implies that "Middle Eastern" men or youths belong in the Middle East, not Australia). 
Users must stop trying to associate the civic term "Australian" with notions of "race" or ethnicity. All those involved in the riots and violence, regardless of their ancestry, were likely Australian citizens. 
I am well aware that some persistent editors of this article believe they are undertaking a public service by using the term "Australian" as a synonym for "white" because of violence against "Aussies" quoted in the article, but I must remind them that Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopaedia, not a noticeboard for popularising or settling communal scores.193.61.177.147 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you state above that the term "Australian" was used where "white" was meant - this interpretation is in itself racist - the term "Australian" refers to Australian peoples some of whom were not white at all - for example many Islanders and Asians are refered to when the term "Australian" is used - so you cannot just turn the term into white Australian because that is racist and exclusive to other minoriteis - namely the islanders and asians who were present - its funny - in attempting not to be racist to Middle Esatern Aussies you were infact racist towards Asian and Islander Aussies = please stop it! 220.101.181.196 13:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been persistently revised by tendentious contributors so that "Australian" is used as a synonym for "white" — for example, Jake Schofield is described as "Australian" whilst his attackers are described as "Middle Eastern". So Mr Schofield is an Australian — Why? Because he's white? — but his attackers, also Australians, forfeit that term and become "un-Australian"? Why? Because they're not white, Anglo-Australians? Likewise, I don't see how stating (fact) that Australia is a multi-ethnic country and that "Australian" can only be used in a civic sense is racism, either. It is not an ethnicity, and must be qualified if usages relating to ethnicity are intended (e.g., Irish Australian, Chinese Australian, Lebanese Australian, Greek Australian). Your assertion that "Australian" (as it is used in the article to describe whites only) somehow also takes in Asian Australians and Australians of Polynesian background is baffling: there is no mention of any Asian Australians in the article at all, and precious little mention of Pacific Islanders Australians. Also, I would like you to explain why the term "Middle Eastern" is preferable but "Middle Eastern Australian" (civic fact) is not. That, I think most people will agree, is not only racist, but utterly unencyclopaedic. Please go to a dictionary and look up the terms "civic" and "ethnic" and then you might start to understand what you're editing about. 193.61.176.108 15:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So, please tell me: how do you interpret the description of J Schofield as "[an] Australian man" but his attackers — in all likelihood also Australian citizens — as "if Middle Eastern appearance"? Hpw do you think the term "Australian" is being used there? 193.61.176.28 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's you referring to the Sydney gang rapes again. Considering this is your obsession on Wikipedia Talk pages, I think it is you who should "settle down". And, in the meantime, please consult Australian nationality law so you can use the term "Australian" in a factually accurate way (and not "get confused"), rather than copying the way it was used by Bilal Skaf. The only way you can forfeit the term "Australian" is by renouncing your citizenship. Any else is just public opinion. And Wikipedia deals with fact. Thanks.193.61.176.28 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I want to enter into this argument, but in Southern Sydney, Australian or Aussie is generally a synomyn for being of Brittanic origin and more than first or second generation Australian as opposed to being a wog, leb, pommy, Asian, Islander. However, though this piece of information may be relevant in describing the ethnic tensions leading to the fracas, I hardly think that Southern Sydney slang is how ethnicity should be presented in a wikipedia article. --Ficklejudge 04:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Australian" is not a synonym for "white" 

message: I have reverted the article yet again after a user yet again changed all references of white to Australian and all references to Middle Eastern Australian or ...of Middle Eastern appearance to Middle Eastern only a day after it was last rectified. I advise anyone who believes Australian to be an exclusive term only applicable to whites to visit citizenship.gov.au or Australian nationality law. 
The White Australia Policy was abolished in 1975. Australians come from hundreds — thousands — of different backgrounds these days. Those who wish to use Wikipedia as a platform for ethnically exclusivist armchair score-settling need to be reminded that it is an encyclopaedia, not a noticeboard for race hate.193.61.177.147 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you continue to assume that the term "Australian" is used exclusively for "white" - you refer to the "white Australia policy" - but let me remind you that there were many Australians who took part in the violence against ME Australians who were not white at all, namely islanders and asians... i know because im an asian - so please stop the exclusive meaning and interpretation as "white" - that is racist... its surprising - you yourself state that Australians come from "hundreds — thousands — of different backgrounds these days" but you continue to revert the umbrella term "Australian" which captures the diversity into an exclusive term "white Australian" which is racist... take a step back and you'll realise that you are so against racists that you yourself have become one - the term Australian is for everyone!! 220.101.181.196 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not the case at all that "many" of the Australians who took part in the violence were "not white at all". A quick look at any picture or footage relating to any of the riot confirms that nearly all (well over ninety-five per cent) present were white. There has been some discussion that Pacific Islander Australians were involved, but there is no evidence — unless, of course, you can find us some — that any Asian Australians of any background were involved. Your own personal point of view is just that — personal and point of view — and irrelevant to Wikipedia. Calling someone a racist because you believe that Middle Eastern Australians shouldn't be called "Australian", but that white Australians should, is also completely illogical. I await a detailed explanation. As for sources, yes, they do use "Middle Eastern appearance" and I don't have a problem with that usage. However, please note that newspapers also use sensationalist, unencyclopaedic terms (e.g., "sicko", "pervert") and these cannot always be transferred to Wikipedia content. 193.61.176.108 15:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can find references to Asian Australians involved in the riot, drop them in. That's what responsible Wikipedia editors do. Likewise, any references to Australians of Pacific Islander appearance should also be added. I have no problem with you adding any of that. What I have a problem with — because it's factually incorrect as well as based on personal vendetta — is your determination to try and reserve the term "Australian" for persons not of Middle Eastern heritage only. Which you have done many, many times. Your mention of Asian Australians and Pacific Islander Australians is a furphy, that's why you haven't found many or any references to their involvement in the riots but trumpet their presence here on the Talk page where it doesn't matter. The reality is, when you edit this article, you do so with a view to excoriating Australians of Middle Eastern background. No matter how much you spruik mention of Pacific Islander Australians and Asian Australians — yet you never get round to adding any new references that would confirm their involvement in the riots — you are more interested in advancing an antagonistic point of view in which "Australian" means "European / white / Anglo / non-Middle Eastern" (i.e., native or nativised) and where Middle Eastern Australians are insinuated to be foreigners or malcontents (i.e., alien or unwelcome).193.61.176.28 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No. You have stated on a number of occasions that Australians of Middle Eastern appearance are anti-Australian (by which you mean anti-Anglo or anti-white or anti-European or anti-whatever bloody term is acceptable to you this week) because Australians of Middle Eastern appearance instigated the Sydney gang rapes.193.61.176.28 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not all of them i did not - i stated that it is the minority who hate Australians, but it is the same minority refered to in the article - the majority are socialable and cultured people who dont snap knives off in the backs of "aussie dog" like dan at Wolloware golfcourse - antiAustralian means you hate Australians - they stated "get the aussie dogs... get the aussie sluts" i dont even know what they meant by that term - maybe they meant white, anglo or mayeb everyone who is non-Middle Eastern background  - i dont draw that conclusion, i merely observe the hatred for "aussie dogs" - you ask them what they meant by that, because i dont know - you seem to think it means anglo - i think it means everyone who is not muslim, including asians and isnalders and anglos - i think aussie dog refers to all coliurs of Australians220.101.123.184 11:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a problem with "...of Middle Eastern appearance" when it is used as an antonym to "Australian" meant as "white". But then you know that. I give up. Write whatever you like, and turn the Cronulla Riots article into a publicity drive for your visceral hatred of Lebanese Australians. You're the one who'll look the fool.193.61.176.28 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You are free to have whatever personal definition of 'Australian' that you like. However, your personal definition shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia article. Articles require standard, precise definitions and the standard definition of 'Australian' when referring to a person is someone who holds Australian citizenship. Ashmoo 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wholly agree. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to pursue racial or personal vendettas against other peoples, and nor should it be used to determine who is and isn't an Australian. Just because someone commits horrendous crimes does not mean they forfeit their Australian identity. That is the law and it is the standard to which this article must be held. --Rcandelori 15:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Australian 'identity'? Australia ceased to have a coherent, distinct identity the moment it adopted state-sanctioned multiculturalism. Australian citizenship has long ceased to be an organic bond that binds people together and is nothing more than a bureaucratic detail these days.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.141.145 (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Australian" is ''still'' not a synonym for "white" 

message: The above comment makes me really wonder where this world is heading.It reminded me of the lynch mobs of the Southern US after the abolishment of slavery until the late 1960's. An African American man would be accused to have raped a white woman and then be lynched by a white mob.He may have only looked at her.....or addressed her verbally in some way.As I am of Middle Eastern Ancestry myself I feel worried about my kids future. Where is this going to end? Where are we heading? The dark ages? Progroms?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.221.41 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder where this is heading