Talk:Racism in France

Radical Expansion of The Racism In France Article

Hi all! My name is Sessama7 and I have decided to take on the radical expansion and revision of this article for my Human Development class project. Being from France, I am very aware of the racism that prevails and from reading your posts, I can tell that you also have a lot to say about this topic. I would thus love to hear from you and get some insight on how you think that I should proceed. Because the topic is so widespread, I have unfortunately also decided to focus on certain ethnic groups. Although I am very aware that many ethnic groups in France face racism, I have chosen to focus on five ethnic groups for the scope of my project: blacks, jews, arabs, the romani and the chinese. However, I would like to take on a different approach:

1. I plan to give an overview of what racism entails. Furthermore, I plan to more generally describe the ethnic groups that are confronted with racism in France. Finally, I plan to paint a brief picture of the current racial landscape in France as it pertains to opinions and policies. I would greatly appreciate your help in this section in identifying major ethnic groups confronted with racism in France so that I can at least mention them in this introductory passage.

2.I plan to provide information about each of France’s major ethnic populations. I will dive into some of France’s colonial, economical and political history, thus explaining why each population represents a key group in France’s society and why these groups are confronted with racism. If any of you any good sources pertaining to France's colonial history please feel free to post on this page. It is in this section that I will describe some of the discrimination faced by distinct ethnic groups. Providing a historical context, I believe allows the tone of the article to be more informative and neutral.

3. I plan to describe the consequences of racism seen in the media and in politics. After having given a general overview and some historical context in the previous sections, I want to provide some contemporary cases and news events that depict the influence of racism on France’s modern day society. Please feel free to post any news articles or documents that you think would add to this section.

4.I plan to discuss the Antiracism movement that has been present in France since the 19th century.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this post and I hope that you will feel free to comment so that we can work together to improve this article.

Sessama7 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Basing an article about such a sensitive, complex issue on a single mass-media (i.e. non-peer-reviewed) magazine article is, by definition, not neutral (see WP:Neutral Point of View and WP:Verifiability). I removed the original intro text, which, for reference, was:

In an elaboreted account in the Time, it reports that racism against blacks, Arabs and Jews is a wide phenomenon in France.

It explains: "If the problem of racism in American discourse is typified by the N-word outburst of comedian Michael Richards followed by his abject apology, the French variant is altogether more toxic."

This is an unsourced statement of opinion (the journalist's) and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Furthermore, this entire Wikipedia article needs proper citations and editing for a neutral viewpoint. (Normally I would edit it myself, but I do not have the time currently.) -- fraise (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Girl on the Train Movie

The story of the girl attack in the train in 2004 was a fake... Funny to find that fake story here, as it was true... 85.170.16.25 (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

This article is nonsense. It needs to be either rewritten or deleted. There is no information regarding institutional racism in France. All it has is cited a few newspaper articles outlining certain individuals acts of violence committed by usually arabs on jewish people. No figures or statistics are given. There was even a paragraph regarding ante-native racism, based purely on statements made by right-wing fascists on how white people are being discriminated against. Here too there was no encyclopedic content. If I didn't know better, I would say this article is the product of racism. I hope it is deleted or completely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.243.167 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I second that; this article is hugely biased and is itself racist. Even the (very selective, narrow, all arab-vs-jew) cases it presents are unsubstantiated. It's like a party political broadcast for Le Pen. This article should be deleted immediately.Amazingtessa (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this is probably one of the more short-sighted articles about racism in a developed Western country still on wiki. Someone ith some knowledge on this subject please rewrite soon!

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

anti-White Racism in France

Hey Glaucus, I've moved to this page, pardon I'm a noob at this.

Of course it's a subsection under the broad definition of racism in France, just like the Romani.

I would not consider Cope, who contesting leadership of the major conservative party in France as a minor figure, nor Le Pen, who is leader of the 3rd largest party and received 18 percent of the vote in the recent presidential election.

The issue is significant as it is contentious and increasingly so.

Le Figaro is the leading centre right journal of record in France.

Thanks

Herbertheever (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)HH

They don't have to be a minor figure to hold WP:FRINGE views. It's a contentious political talking point, but I don't see any reliable sources that consider it a phenomena outside of right-wing talking points. WP:NPOV requires us to put weight upon different viewpoints in proportion to the weight that reliable sources put upon them. I see no reliable sources that put weight upon this "anti-French" racism when discussing racism in France. It's only when specific politicians or parties are discussed that it comes up, meaning it's significant for that topic, but not this one.

I'm familiar with Le Figaro, but I don't see any citations to Le Figaro, just Le Monde and a blog from France 24. And the citations are all to articles pointing out the extreme fringe nature of the "anti-White racism" claims. That suggests that WP:RS give these claims extremely low weight when they are considered at all. Thus, they are not suitable for inclusion in this article. Glaucus (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that two leading politicians with more combined vote than the parties of the left can discuss the issue moves it beyond fringe in the context of France. Having been to France recently and being a Francophone I can assure it is a considerable issue. Of course I will develop more references, but I am unsure how eligible articles in French for an English language wiki. Perhaps you can help here?

There are only a few small paragraphs covering the issue. Someone with expertise on other types of racism in France - French vs Arab or Black for example, or Arab vs Jew needs to deal with those sections as I know little about it. Just because no one has bothered there does not mean this subsection is not relevant.

Even if it was only the FN talking about the issue it would still be considerable as they are the third largest party, and now that the UMP are discussing the issue it makes it more relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbertheever (talk • contribs) 03:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Copé's view was widely covered and discussed in France, both by the public and in the media, so it is relevant for WP. The cited newspapers, Libération and Le Figaro are among the leading national newspapers, therefore clearly reliable. If need arises more reliable source could be added, although I don't see quite the point in having three, four, five sources reproducing pretty much the same contents. Some people may believe that racism is a thing which cannot be directed against white people, but please remember Wikipedia's core policy is cover all significant viewpoints, not just particular ones. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No one is claiming that these figures do not hold these views, nor am I claiming that the newspapers are not generally WP:RS. The issue is that they're clearly reporting a fringe viewpoint as a fringe viewpoint. Le Figaro is just publishing excerpts from Copé's book: hardly a neutral source of opinion on the subject and not evidence of viewpoint weight. Similarly, even the Liberation article makes it clear that these claims are very controversial. Any inclusion of these claims MUST, per WP:NPOV make clear their controversial, fringe and disputed nature. Unless the other sections are expanded, any mention of these views is very likely a violation of the principle of due weight. Glaucus (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Then please go to the fringe board and ask there whether the reference to Mr Copé's views and the ensuing public debate can be equated to the inclusion of flat earth theories or visits by aliens. The fact that these claims are controversial, as about any views concerning racism by its very controversial nature are, has no bearing whatsover on their relevance. You are confusing things big time here: while Copé's views themselves are certainly controversial, their inclusion is emphatically not because they created so much of stir in France and they were so widely publiziced that they are easily notable. Disagreeing with this, means you refuse to acknowledge the fact that national newspapers from the right, center and left have reported on Copé's comment.

If anything this paragraph can be further expanded to give people more background information on the discussion.

By the way nobody minded that for two years the only paragraph was on the Romani. Therefore, I find your sudden concern about the relative weight of the paragraphs quite surprising actually (I know you have come to this place only via the SPLC page by backtracking my contributions and that you have, probably, no prior connection to,and, therefore, no knowledge of the topic). Even more, the quality of the source, some unknown Indian (!) website, in this paragraph is much much poorer. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:UNDUE. The issue is not whether it is widely believed Cope et all hold these views, but whether or not the views themselves are widely held and supported by reliable sources. That's the difference between this article and an article on Cope. His views are controversial and a minority viewpoint, not prominent in WP:RS on racism in France. We have news reports that right-wing politicians (controversially) claim that white French are being discriminated against. Compare that with a UN report on racism in France that makes no mention of the "anti-White racism". It is clear that these views should be given lower weight than the other section. That means NOT giving them space detailed descriptions and background. That's the very opposite of what WP:DUE says.

Quite frankly, even without WP:UNDUE concerns, the version of text you just reverted to is unacceptable. Going into political bickering by right-wing parties about we was the first to point out "anti-white racism" is clearly not appropriate for the article. It's also ridiculous to focus on singular statements by individual politicians, especially if you claim that these views are widely enough held to warrant inclusion. Glaucus (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Given you have expanded the article yourself in the meantime with further sections on "racism against Jews" and "racism against Arabs", together two or three times as long, we can consider this dispute based on your own premises solved. In fact, your own examples given there are themselves mostly a list of particular incidents, more fitting to a "list of racist incidences in France", and thus much more susceptible to WP:Undue. In any case, the section on "anti-white racism", by citing Le Monde, Liberation and Le Figaro, the three widest read newspapers of the country, remains the most reliably sourced. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. You mockingly claim (falsely) that for two years the only paragraph and use that to accuse me of impropriety. In fact, this article has been consistently vandalized for the past two years to the point that that was the only section NOT blanked. If you are so concerned about this article, why did you not revert that yourself? Then, when I restore the vandalized text, you use it as an excuse to ignore the substance of the WP:UNDUE issues with the section under dispute. The relative size of the sections was part, but not all of the issue. The fact of the matter is that the section on "anti-white racism" is representing a clearly minority point of view, a fact borne out by every WP:RS reporting on it. WP:UNDUE requires that we treat it as such. That includes NOT giving detailed description or background.

Let me put it this way. If you truly believe that the section represents a widely held viewpoint in WP:RS, then describing it in terms of a specific politician's statements would be WP:UNDUE. Or, if you believe it is in fact only notable in light of those politician's statements, then the POV is itself WP:UNDUE. Either way, your unexplained revert of my WP:DUE compromise text is wrong. And do I really have to explain how moving the most fringe POV section to the top on account of it "affecting the most people" is blatantly POV? Glaucus (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Glaucus. The article looks incredibly unserious the way it is now, starting right off with racism against white people, the majority and dominant group in France. I also think there should be some kind of introduction/own section that focused on racism/discrimination in France more generally before discussing rascism against specific minorities (and possibly white people). w/r Iselilja (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, because white people are the "majority and dominant group in France" starting the article with them is the natural choice. I also agree about the lack of an introduction. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The most logical choice is according to the prominence in the literature. That would be the spirit of WP:DUE. Putting a minority viewpoint section that arguably shouldn't even be included is clearly WP:UNDUE. Glaucus (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So why have you been so persistent in including your minority view that antisemtism = racism in this article, even though there already exists antisemitism in France? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Everyone single other editor editing here, commenting here and commenting at the NPOV board appears to disagree with you re your exclusion of antisemitism and re your putting "racism" against white French at the top of this page. Yet you continue to try to restore variations on your preferred upside-down and undue-weighted version of the page – which runs contrary to every standard way this kind of issue is commonly covered in the real world – while accusing others of edit-warring and bizarrely suggesting, eg in your "Exactly" response above, that people commenting here agree with you when they are saying the very opposite. Wake up to yourself; this is a problem across multiple pages with your behaviour here. N-HH talk/edits 08:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Racism towards Jews

These are, in my understanding, rather cases of antisemitism. Just to get this straight: this article could be as long as it can and it can refer to any ethnicity living in France, including whites, but it needs to stay on topic all the while: racism. The fact that the victim has another religion or race alone, does not make a crime per se racist – we need the sources discussing and/or making a case this, otherwise it becomes original research based on the editor's preconceptions.

I have thus removed all those instances which don't even use the term "racism" and go under the term "antisemitism" instead; plus those where the links are dead. This applies, in fact, to every single example cited in this section!

I'd also suggest that further expansion of the article should be more along the lines of the Arab section, with general information provided, rather than a mere collection of individual acts of interracial or interreligious crime. This, unfortunately, gives the article rather a touch of yellow press review. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: As an aside, Glaucus, you could improve your source quality by using (also) French sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Referring to articles which don't even use the term racism once or articles which use the term antisemitism instead in connection with the crime is WP:POV and WP:OR. Plain and simple. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted as you decline to address the issue. These cited articles don't qualify these crimes neither as "ethnic discrimination" nor as "racism". Even if they do, which they don't, the question would remain whether such acts aren't more cases of antisemitism. You are far in WP:OR and WP:POV lands, basically you are making it up. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. From the lede of Antisemitism: "Social scientists consider it a form of racism". It doesn't matter if the specific articles use the word racism, because anti-semitism is generally identified as a form of racism by reliable sources on racism and anti-semitism. And removing information because the citation link is dead is completely contrary to wiki policy. We don't even require a link as long as it is correctly cited. Glaucus (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For the fourth time: You are citing articles which don't even use the term "racism" or which go under the term "antisemitism" instead. Plus you are edit-warring for a number of references whose links are dead. One or the other condition applies, in fact, to every single example cited in this section. Therefore I removed the entire section. Please stop the mindless reverting now or it is ANI for you. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do bring this to ANI. I'm too busy today to write a report, or else I'd do it myself. Glaucus (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You have still presented no argument against the overwhelming evidence that anti-semitism is widely considered a form of racism in reliable sources, nor the fact that there was a previous consensus for the inclusion of this section. In fact, you yourself argued the same thing below when opposing the article renaming. Therefore, articles about anti-semitism can be included in articles about racism even if they do not directly mention the word "racism". Glaucus (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Referring to articles which don't even use the term racism once or articles which use the term antisemitism instead in connection with the crime is classic WP:POV and WP:OR. So what is your point, the WP:burden of evidence rests on you, you know this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. 84.44.230.14 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Racism and ethnic discrimination in France → ? – Move back to Racism in France. The move to the current title was done unilaterally by Glaucus without consensus or even discussion, apparently to make the article fit his preconceptions of what constitutes racism against Jews. However, a look at the underlying category Racism by country makes it 100% clear that the almost exclusive standard naming scheme for these articles in the Wikipedia is Racism in <country>, not "Racism and ethnic discrimination in <country>". There is no reason why we should abandon this naming scheme in the case of France. Moreover, "ethnic discrimination" is an originally researched, undefined term in the article, what does it mean anyhow? Besides, racism against Jews most commonly goes by the term antisemitism, so there is a case to be made that relevant material should be included rather there, if adequate. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The move was modeled after Racism and ethnic discrimination in the United States‎, for the same reason that article was moved. I honestly thought that it was a clear and obvious solution to a silly problem: a perfectly reasonable widening of scope of a small article that could alleviate most of the dispute. At any rate, you should be supporting the move: discrimination against White French citizens because they were born in France is not racism. Even if certain French politicians describe it as such, it is still a WP:FRINGE theory. Furthermore, you need to make up your mind on whether Antisemitism is a form of racism or not: you can't have it both ways. Not to mention that 100% of the content in that section was previously in the article, uncontroversially until it was blanked out by an anonymous IP many months ago and ignored. So it's a bit of a stretch to claim it's based solely upon my own "preconceptions".

And that category listing is clearly incomplete. Not to mention it includes a number of articles about antisemitism. Apparently the concept that antisemitism is racism is only controversial in France. Glaucus (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy restore - assuming good faith on all parts but still, evidently not an uncontroversial move per WP:MOVE. Therefore could have been (and can still be) reverted by WP:BRD, a check indicates no sign of redirect history causing locking. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• I restored the page to the previous name. Thanks, In ictu oculi. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clean-up

1. Antisemitism should not be easily equated with racism against Jews. There are overlaps but it is not the same phenomenon. Racism is discrimination based on the colour of skin, while antisemitism can also include a religious dimension. Therefore, it is best to keep Antisemitism in France in the See also section as related, but not identical topic.
2. Instead of flagging empty chapters with templates these should be filled with contents or removed until contents are added. Listing only a few ethnicities is selective bias as there are several hundred of them in France who could all be potential objects of racism. We don't single out some of them selectively until we have reason to do so.
3. Anti-Italianism and all the other Anti-isms against France's immediate neighbours is not racism, particularly not that of the 19th century which was rather fed by the widespread sentiment of nationalism. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your point 1 sound convincing. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Listing only a few ethnicities is selective bias as there are several hundred of them in France who could all be potential objects of racism. We don't single out some of them selectively until we have reason to do so." I agree. I decresead this selective bias by adding other "ethnicities". How do you plan to solve WP:UNDUE selective bias? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An other way would be to hide all sub-sections until a reliable source is used to write each of them with due weight. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Step by step: 561109734

The first change that you reverted yesterday is 561109734. Why did you revert it? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Step by step: 561109906

Why did you revert 561109906? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You mixed an opinion commentary right into the midst of sentence which relies on the Figaro and Libération sources. This is at the very least WP:SYN and not entirely free of WP:POV, either. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I added your qualifier "according to him". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Step by step: 561110024

Why did you revert 561110024? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it is centre-right. Cf. Magstadt, Thomas M. (2011), Understanding Politics (9th ed.), Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, p. 183. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how a 2011 book can say that Jean-François Copé was centre-right in 2012. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Step by step: 561110084

Why did you revert 561110084? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You mixed an opinion commentary right into the midst of sentence which relies on the Figaro and Libération sources. This is at the very least WP:SYN and not entirely free of WP:POV, either. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how adding references violate WP:SYN or WP:POV. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Step by step: 561110172

Why did you revert 561110172? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not a big deal but why should this be relevant? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant because it is sourced. The sources say that Jean-François Copé's claims about racism against whites were part of his reelection campaign. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey Sarah. My main recommendation to you would be to add more information on the current state of racism in France in addition to the history of it. Also, ensure to review the article for minor mistakes in grammar, sentence structure, etc.Brodgers15 (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, I think you did a great job with this contribution. I think readers will find this historical context very useful in constructing their own ideas about French racism. I do think that finding and incorporating information from a couple more scholarly sources will be vital for your last revision to this contribution. It will really help generate a more comprehensive contribution that gains credibility because of the diversity of information you will provide. Also, if you have time, I think it would also be helpful if you could include a sub-section for each racial group and discuss how this historically racial context affects these populations today. What kinds of disparities in opportunities exist because of this historical context? Has there been development in different aspects of society (social, economic, political, etc.) that has helped these groups gain upwards mobility in recent decades? Dmillar23 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Distinction between Xenophobia and racism

This article makes several references to nationality, which is distinct from the concept of race.

Also, this page seems to go more into a history of various racially motivated political policies rather than an overview of the way racism operates in France. Hza a 9 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

History has its importance because it explains the roots of the things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment of Hza a 9. This article needs a revision so it could simply offer a survey of racism in France. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 17:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

First line: cause and effect

The first line of this article now reads: "Racism is defined as the 'poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race" and "the belief that some races of people are better than others.'" I suggest to write it in reverse. In other words, showing that the "belief" produces the "poor treatment." In the present form, it implies as if they are together by chance. If there is no opposition, I will move to make the change.

Moreover, I think the introduction should do away with dictionary quotations as they are as transient and incomplete as an encyclopedia. To better wikify this article, it should simply refer to the racism in the same manner as the Wiki article on race and racism does, but much shorter. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 17:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Can somebody explain to me why the "unbalanced" tag is still on this page? I don't see any sign why it should stay as the page is clear about which subject it's talking about. BM Tornado (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Add Dieudonné

Any discussion about racism in France needs to talk about Dieudonné. Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Racism against white people?

The "Racism against white people" section was a wholesale repetition of other text found in under § In politics, so I've removed it. Even the existing material seems out of proportion to the broader topic as described in reliable, mainstream scholarship. Why do we care what Marine Le Pen, Jean-François Copé, and Claude Guéant think anyway? Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of accepted knowledge, not a compendium of (self-serving) political soundbites. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)