Talk:2005 Cronulla riots/Archive 4

(header missing)

 * Just changed the quote to do with the outbreak of the beach violence. It was placed after the talk of further attacks, whereas it was specific to the actual outbreak according to the source, which misplaces it cronologically. -Unknown.

I've been using the internet since the mid-90s and this is probably the clearest piece of BS I've seen to date: According to one local, who was interviewed by SMH columnist, Paul Sheehan: [3]“It all started when this guy outside Northies shouted, 'I'm going to blow youse all up.'[9] No word yet on whether the ambulance drivers and their 6 injured passengers who were also targetted on "leb bashing day" also threated to blow people up before being assaulted by this drunken mob ? Not even plausible one necessary, just another account from one of the other 4999 people that would support this one guy's lame excuse would do. No ? Then let's delete this till there is.

Alternatively we could also quote Scott, Mark and Mick's statements to another reporter about the 3 different, and also BS, accounts of the lifeguards getting attacked. Either the idea is to document what happened or it is to provide "both sides of the story" no matter how dubious and clearly invented. I would imagine the Kristallnacht entry is missing a lot of quotes relating to provocation if this is the case.Attriti0n 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * AttritiOn, you are a fucken idiot - its not an 'excuse' but it is the point at which the pissed and violent crowd lashed out at that individual when he threatened to 'blow them up'... so the crowd was pissed and they threw some bottles at an ambulance and punched some Middle Eastern looking people, (some who were and others who were not Middle Eastern at all) Lets look at the revenge attacks - people were stabbed and had knives snapped off in their backs, women were threatened with rape, cars were smashed and torcehd, woemn were HIT OVER THE HEAD WITH BASEBALL BATS for fucks sake - LETS KEEP IT IN PROPORTION you fucking idiot - if the article is one-sided that is because it is a fact that the middle eastern animals embarked on a spate of disproportionate revenge attacks - the article does document what happened - it is just that the factual "'both sides of the story'" to whcih you refer is not to your liking... i suggest you take a travel to lakemba and come and report the 'both sides of the story' as to what happened when you were bashed for being a 'Fucken Aussie'... Thepolitik 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite illustrative that you support this fable without offering any logical reason as to why it should be supported, let alone any concurring account that would suggest it isn't complete bullshit. So on "wog and leb bashing day" where any and all dark-skinned people laid eyes on by this drunken, neo-nazi supported mob got attacked, all was going swell until a some lone darkie decided to pick a fight with 5000 eh? Fancy that. Fancy buying the Sydney Harbour Bridge on ebay while you're at it? Attriti0n 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It should go in. It states that a reporter mentions a primary witness for the provocation. The bias of both of you is obvious.


 * My bias is that I'm not gullible enough to believe that 5000 people who came to a rally to bash lebs and spent several hours chanting about getting rid of lebs were provoked into doing anything. I don't believe you are that stupid either which is why you won't even put your name down as someone who believes something this transparent. Apparently still no word yet either on what the asian girls and anglo abulance drivers provoked this peaceful mob with in order for them to be attacked. Updates from gullible racist sympathisers as they come to hand. Attriti0n 11:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

i think it is a minor point - what is more compelling is the Australians who had knives snapped off in them and were almost murdered by racist Middle Easterns who hate Australains but somehow hold citizenships because of a liberalist thinking which makes a person Australian if they were born in the demarcatins of the state, even if they hate the state and its people and identify themselves as non-Australain (also, if Middle Eastern racists identify themselves as 'lebs' and you thinking about calling me racist because I also identify them as 'lebs', then to be consistent, they must also be racist towards themselves and be self-hating - one more example of the problems with liberalist thinking - try to reconcile that one)... it is also immaterial who did or who did not support the crowd - it is a fallacy of logic and reason to suggest that because Ronald McDonald, Jesus, or Hitler were in attendance that the crowd was somehow misguided to retaliate after years of social terror waged by racist Middle Easterns who have inflicted racial rapes "you deserve to be raped because you are Australian" and assaults, intimidation and terror onto Australian society... if you are truly against racism, then i ask you to be consistent, go back in time 10 to 15 years ago, and protest at the racist Middle Easter assaults on young Anglo Australians so fondly referred to as 'Aussie Bashings' in that racist Islamic culture - otherwise, please shut up...
 * I think the only requirement for Australian citizenship should be the ability to spell the word AUSTRALIAN. --Mdhowe 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mdhowe, you state, "I think the only requirement for Australian citizenship should be the ability to spell the word AUSTRALIAN" - well, if i am Middle Eastern, and if i rape your daughter and state 'she deserves to be raped because she is Australian', if i express a clear racist hatred for Australians and identify myself as non-Australian, you are telling me that as long as I can spell 'Australian' then i am Australian... Mdhowe, that is the most crazy leftist statement to date, anywhere...

I have also posted an example from the archives below where you attack the spelling but cannot counter the content;

''"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 - 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!! 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'."''
 * Get a sense of humour. And while you're at it, learn to spell. --Mdhowe 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mdhowe... if the racist Middle Easterns were referring to the Australians who are leftists, the same leftists who do not even realise that the racist Middle Eastern hate them and do not hold the same cultural tolerances, and who want to murder them as infidels, etc, then it may be that the racist Middle Easterns were correct to some extent - ie, that you, Mdhowe, "deserve to be raped because you are Australian" - is that funny enough for you?
 * Hilarious. --Mdhowe 03:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a report in today's herald that the kid driving the getaway car for the lebo that stabbed the dude at Nulla has been convicted and fr 13 months, 9 of which had already been served at the time of conviction and so was paroled immediately. He refused to divulge information about who the attacer was. 

Peace Talks
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)

Call for calm
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)

Yahya Jamal Serhan
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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).

My appologies but the article has been merged and made into a redirect here.Garrie 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversies related to Islam and Muslims
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

The very point you make about "Middle Eastern youths" quite rightly demonstrates that the main motivation was ethnic, not religous. Article's introduction: The 2005 Cronulla riots were a series of ethnically motivated mob confrontations which originated in and around Cronulla, a beachfront suburb of Sydney, Australia. Soon after the riot, ethnically motivated violent incidents occurred in several other Sydney suburbs. Recurring dreams 09:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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).

Merge of Ali Osman (criminal)

 * Support Garrie 09:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge has been completed into the Prosecutions section.Garrie 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Prosecutions
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)

Unacceptable Racist Propaganda
This article is an absolutely disgusting example of racist nationalist filth masquerading as 'neutral facts'. It is an extremely vile indictment on the 'Australian' national character that this article hasn't been rejected out of hand and completely re-edited by people who actually see wikipedia as a source of promoting communal knowledge, rather than merely another means of reproducing revolting white supremicist 'Australian' racist ideology. If we wanted that, we could turn on the news and listen to John Howard. There are (very unfortunately) plenty of pseudo-fascist forums on the internet you can use to air your 'views', without infecting Wikipedia with your racist filth. Please show a little bit of decency, and stick to them, and while you are at it, maybe even a little bit of honesty about your own hate-preaching ideological agenda. Thank you for your consideration, and I sincerely hope I never see such abbhorent articles posted by you (or anyone else)on Wikipedia ever again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.250.6.246 (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC).


 * It is fair enough that you believe that, but it makes it alot easier to see where you are coming from if you give specific examples, especially incase what you are referring to has been deleted/changed between you writing the comment and somebody, me in this case, reading it. I'm about to read over the article now and will change anything I see that isn't NPOV, but if you still see problems then please change them yourself or tell us what problems you have here on the talk page. Also, please sign your comment by writing four ~ symbols at the end of it (it will automatically sign the message that way). Cheers, Rothery 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree this article comes across very very biased - many mentions of specific attacks/violence by Australians of middle eastern background and very little mention of violence on the part of white Australians, which there obviously was. Nothing specific mentioned. Also, please don't use the term 'Australian' to mean white Australian, and 'middle eastern' to mean Australian of middle eastern descent. 192.88.190.2 04:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * is it just me, or does it seem onesided because the events were one sided??? both groups were racist and attacked people because of colour - but one group went a little further and almost murdered several people who they stabbed - the article says that - its the facts - its not extremist - extremist is snapping a knife off in someone because they're white - isnt it??? sure the other group threw bottles and were racist, but almost murdereing someone... well, thats just what happened - im asian, so i dont have a side, but the article doesnt seem biased to me, it seems the events were biased in the levels of violence and the article reports that as fact - whats wrong with that?


 * if you want to balance it then make an effort and do some research to detail attacks on middle eastern aussies - i dont think you will find anything as violent as stabbings because that simply is not what happened... people were hit with beer bottles because they had dark skin and other people were stabbed and almost murdered because they had white skin - both were racist but one group was more violent than the other - thats fact - thats simply what happened - i cannot believe anyone would say its racist to report the facts - im asian and even i can see that - i think its people with an opposite agenda of covering the facts Jacksyfoxy 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no balance of violence at all - yes, bottles were thrown and punches were landed on a few people from the local residents on that specific day (not mentioning the precursor of violence), but the revenge attacks was quite chaotic. I don't have the specific sources, but a local resident was stabbed at Woolooware by a car full of non-locals -- so much so they had to leave the knife lodged in his back until he got to hospital (it was a substantially sized knife) along with various other revenge attacks that were either not-reported by the media, or swept aside by the Police as to not be shown to be racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.58.61 (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

These "Revenge attacks not reported by the media" cannot be verified, and therefore should not be part of the article. The article is incredibly biased and racist against Australians of middle eastern appearance, and is obviously written and/or edited by those who believe the riots were good for "nulla". This article should be completely re-written and the "Pro-Local" slant taken out of it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JumboCactuar (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Repetition?
As far as I can tell, the section below reports the same incident 3 times as if it were separate incidents. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. I would have a go at fixing it now but I'm trying to write an assignment heh. Should perhaps be combined into one or two better connected paragraphs. Nzbassist 11:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Sydney Morning Herald reported a retaliatory attack in which a 26-year-old man and two females were approached by two carloads of young men of Middle Eastern appearance who threatened the females with sexual assault at a golf club at the nearby Sydney suburb of Woolooware. The man was stabbed five times after four men leapt from a car outside Woolooware Golf Club. The man stated to The Herald, "I was knocked to the ground - there was one on either side of my head kicking my head. It wasn't until I stood up and felt blood running down my back that I knew something was wrong. I felt up my back and I knew something was in there - I asked my friend if it was a knife or glass and he said it was a knife." Police said the 9.8 centimetre blade had snapped off after the man had been stabbed three times in the back and twice in the thigh.[20]

The Sydney Morning Herald stated that on 29 June 2006, Yahya Jamal Serhan, appeared in Bankstown Local Court charged with affray and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon a man known only as "Dan", who was walking from Woolooware Golf Club with a mate and two women. In court, New South Wales Police said Dan stopped to protect the women when the men ran shouting: "Get the Aussie dogs … get the Aussie sluts". Sergeant Eurell in court said: "This was a joint criminal enterprise by members of a group of males who engaged in an unprovoked, racially motivated, premeditated attack".[21]

An AAP report carried in The Herald stated that a 17-year-old youth of Middle Eastern appearance was arrested on 12 July 2006 over the retaliatory attack in which a man was, "pushed to the ground, kicked and punched, and stabbed three times in the back and twice in the left thigh - one knife wound was just two millimetres from his lung - the attack ended when the 9.8 centimetre blade snapped in the [victim]'s back".[22]"


 * The first paragraph discusses the attack.
 * The second paragraph discusses Yahya Jamal Serhan appearing in court. He must be over 18 because he is named and minors would not be.
 * The third paragraph discusses an un-named minor appearing in court.
 * I think the court appearances are for people involved in the attack mentioned in the first paragraph. But I could be wrong. I would suggest going back to the cited references if you are going to re-write the paragraphs, not just rephrasing your own interpretation of my rather poor summarising of those references.
 * Note, one of the paragraphs is the result of a merge from Yahya Jamal Serhan, mentioned above. As he was one of the people named in the media as having been directly convicted as a result of involvement in the "riots" (internationally it would have been called a "disturbance" because, well, nobody died), he is worth naming here.Garrie 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support something along the lines of
 * A 26 year old male, identified in the press only as "Dan", was among the most serious attacks. His attack ended with a 10-cm knife being broken in his back.[20] Court appearances lead to Yahya Jamal Serhan and at least one minor being convicted over the incident.[21][22]
 * But I think that summarises it too much.Garrie 00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree - that summarises it too much - the females were threatened with sexual assualt, reminisent of the sydney gang rapes commited by lebanese australians - and the sentence "Get the Aussie dogs … get the Aussie sluts" AND "...unprovoked, racially motivated, premeditated attack" is important because it shows that the attackers were racist - it balances the article with facts - it shows that its not just anglo australians who were racist that day - and it also shows that some of the anglos had a point - look at the level of violence in the retaliation - a man was almost murdered -

it shows the nature of the people that were being protested against in the first place - it shows the riot was about a protest of a violent middle eastern culutre and not just about colour - im asian and no one attacked me that day - i was considered aussie because i dont go about and threaten women with rape and stab people - that is what the riot was about - and the riot let everyone see the nautre of the middle easrern people in the way they responded - the retalition let everyone see what the anglos (and some asians) were protesting in the first place - a racist and violent middle eastern minority... - dont you understand it yet? Jacksyfoxy 10:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bashing phrasing
Boxerhorse removed the word 'bashing' from the part of the article describing the initial riot at the beach, claiming that it is unfair because the bashings of white Australians aren't mentioned. I would like to draw his attention to THE ENTIRE ARTICLE! It clearly states all hostilities by all sides. Be bold in editing, but try and be sensible. Cheers, Rothery 21:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC).


 * you sent me an message about the comment posted below:


 * "its OK to state that Middle Easterns were bashed but not white Australians??? AGENDA?? R U MIDDLE EASTERN?"


 * can you please explain where that comment is "hostile and uncivil"... the article at present in the introduction states that Middle Easterns were "bashed" but when i attempted to balance the introduction and wrote that Australians were also "bashed" it was reverted - a clear antogonistic revert which unbalances the article - hence, i deleted the phrase "bashed" from the introduction.


 * also, i have no non-neutral sentiments toward Middle Eastern people - therefore, i asked if the revert editor was Middle Eastern as that may be the source of the agenda - if you think asking someone if they are Middle Eastern is "hostile and uncivil" then you are RACIST because clearly you see being Middle Eastern as a negative and insluting thing, otherweise you wouldnt interpret it as "hostile and uncivil"...


 * Note: Anything in the introduction is given prominence - therefore - if the term 'bashed' is used in one part of the introduction it must be used in the other part to 'balance' the introduction... I maintain that if you don't want the term 'bashed' removed from the introduction, then it must be included in the third paragraph - the introduction must present a balanced summary - Australains were bashed too, so stop reverting the edit that Australians were bashed, or remove the term 'bashed' Altogether - it's that simple - and it's reasonable and fair - Please state why you don't like the term 'bashed' in one part of the introduction but promote it in another? That is clear bias on your behalf - regardless of what the rest of the article states, the introduction is given prominence and must present a balanced summary. Boxerhorse 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you may already be aware, I did not post that on your talk page- it was posted by another user. That is quite clear. However I did see that comment you left when you edited the page and it does contravene Wikipedia policy. You should assume good faith, and don't just start accusing people of having some agenda just because you don't agree with an edit. Your comments were clearly not civil. The person who left the message on your talk page was not racist as you tried to imply. Your comment was crude and suggested that the editor being middle-eastern would explain their agenda and edit. Since you based these actions on the assumption they may be middle-eastern you are pretty much following the exact definition of racist- I would like to be able to make a different causal relationship between the comment and your actions but none is readily identifiable. :( Let's just ignore this now but and try and find a solution. Also, please sign each comment with four ~ symbols properly. Cheers, Rothery 06:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

rothery - you reason that because the article states that Australians were bashed it is not necessary to include it in the intorodctuon - hence - i would like to draw your attention to the entire article also, which states that Middle Easterns were bashed - henbce - to be CONSISTENT and NEUTRAL, to include that Middle Easterns were bashed in the introduction is also not necessary - Rothery, you have different standards for different groups - EMPLOY YOUR OWN REASONING IN A CONSISTENT MANNER and remove the term bashed from the introduction because YOU YOURSELF clamim that if its in the entire article its not necessary to include it in the introduction/// Boxerhorse


 * I think the sentence in the last paragraph
 * The following nights saw incidents of retaliation by people of Middle Eastern descent in Cronulla and surrounding suburbs in which several Australians were stabbed or bashed...
 * doesn't need to say Australians as highlighted. "people" would be sufficient. In fact it could be changed to say
 * The following nights saw incidents of retaliation in Cronulla and surrounding suburbs in which several people were stabbed or bashed...
 * The attacks after the initial incident, attacks occurred or were planned by both sides of the confrontation.Garrie 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I reverted Boxerhorse's edits was because he removed the fact that some ME-looking Australians were bashed in the initial riots, and made it sound like they were just chased or something. I have no problem mentioning white Australians were bashed/stabbed too. What I did have a problem was was removing important detail, as opposed to adding detail which should have been the case, ergo the current version seems fine. Cheers, Rothery 06:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent). Rothery, what is served by highlighting the race of any of the individuals a) engaging in retaliation and b) being the target of retaliation? Retaliation was an each way thing once the first person assaulted, struck back. ie, both "white" and "ME" people a) engaging in retaliation and b) were the target of retaliation.

The lead section would be stronger if it was a race generic overview of the facts of the incident. The first paragraph already clearly establishes that the whole series of violent attacks were ethnically motivated. The most significant issue that the final paragraph of the lead section mentions, is the police lock-down. Garrie 22:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Garrie, the police lock down is not the most significant thing of the last pragraph of the introduction - the most significant thing is the retaliation - the level of vioilenece and the terror that hit sydneys streets for nights - ME people retaliated against being targeted by Anglo racists earlier - not the other way round - one cannot retaliate against nothing - what were the Anglos retaliating against if the retatliotn occurred on both sides as you claim? - please provide sourced accounts of Anglos retalitiong against what? the riot was not trageted against them but perpetrated by them, hence, they could not retaliate against the riot by definition of the word 'retaliate'... Boxerhorse 08:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's like this: say I hit you. When you punch me back, you are retaliating against me. Now, any further attack by my friends against you, is in retaliation of your retaliatory assault on me. So: after the first "target" was sworn at, everything else was in a series of escalating retaliation, why do you think people end up driving tanks all over the Gaza Strip when the protestors have nothing but rocks? NO, I'm not middle eastern, I'm just trying to make the article NPOV.Garrie 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In this context 'retaliation' refers to retaliation of the violent protest - the usage of the term 'retaliation' is clear - at the time the media used the term to refer to retaliation or "revenge attacks" in revenge to the riots...

the violent protest is itself retaliation for the assault on two lifeguards, i agree, but the usuage refers to ME "revenge attacks" in response to the riot... if you are claiming that white Australians further retaliated against the "revenge attacks" then please provide sources supporting your claim.

"retaliation" or "revenge attacks" are SPECIFIC TERMS that refer to ME violence in revenge for the riot - it is important not to blur generic usage of a term with the specific usage in an event, and in any event it must be sourced - the article presents outlines of "revenge attacks" about ME because it is sourced and that is what happened - its fact - if you want NON POV then please source other incidents where white Australains further retaliated as you claim, but still be mindeful not to blur the specific and exclusive usage of the term in the event as used by media and the generic usage of a generic term... thank youBoxerhorse 02:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:PYLsydneyraceriots.jpg
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)
 * I'm going to tag the image as incorrectly licenced.Garrie 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Australian" is not a synonym for "white"
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)


 * 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)


 * The article has been persistently revised by tendentious contributors so that "Australian" is used as a synonym for "white" &mdash; for example, Jake Schofield is described as "Australian" whilst his attackers are described as "Middle Eastern". So Mr Schofield is an Australian &mdash; Why? Because he's white? &mdash; 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)

'''you have drawn the conclusion that J Schofield is described as Australian because he is 'white' - the article does not draw that conclusion nor does the source - infact no where does it tell us what colour J Schofield is - this is indicative of your POV - you are out to balance it but you are drawing POV conclusions that are nowhere to be seen... the source uses the term "of Middle Eastern appearance" it does not refer to Schofield as "white" ANYWHERE!!...'''


 * So, please tell me: how do you interpret the description of J Schofield as "[an] Australian man" but his attackers &mdash; in all likelihood also Australian citizens &mdash; 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)

first you tell us that Australian has nothing to do with ethnicity because its civic, then when i agree and state that the term encompasses asians and islander ethnicity as well as anglo and every other ethnicity you tell me you are "baffled"... and im arguing that the term is not used to refer to "whites" only, that is YOUR POV assumption the the article does not state at all, im arguing that the term refers to all ethnicities so you cannot then change it to white whcih is exclusive to the other people that were included before you changed it. - the term "of Middle Eastern appearance" is preferable because that is the term used in the soucre...

i think some would tell you that the attackers forfeit the term Australian not because of their colour (i happen to share their colour) but because they attacked people and stated "fucking Aussie" - does that sound like they identified themselves as Australian to you, well unless they were self-hating Australains who hate and then attack themselves which would be racist to themselves - but its not up to you or i to even think about that - we are using the source to state what happened - thats all - and the source uses the term "of Middle Eastern appearance" - the source uses an ethnic usgae not civic so stop reverting it - and to state im asian is not racist towards me - i merely am asian ethnicity and i am also an asian Australian - dont lose yourself - they are not mutally exclusive - i look in the mirror i see an asian ethnicity - that doesnt mean im racist towards me - and the source is not racist towards the people invloved - it states their 'appearance' it doesnt even say that they werent Australian as you POV conclude - settle down and dont get confused 220.101.181.196 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

i still seem to be talking past you - you cannot know what passport the people "of Middle Eastern appearance" held so you cannot write Middle Eastern Australians - all we know is what the source tells us - that is their appearance - maybe they hold Australian passports and maybe they dont - we do not know, but, lets try to work it out!! - if they hate Australians and state "get the aussie dogs... get the aussie sluts" then it is likely that they are not Australian passport holders, otherwise they would be self-hating Australians and racist towards themselves - whilst that is possible, it is not likely... and you must source everything - until you know that they hold Australian passports and that they hate themselves as Australians, you must use the terminology in the source which is appearance otherwise its POV...220.101.123.184 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Australian" is still not a synonym for "white"
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 &mdash; thousands &mdash; 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)


 * 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 &mdash; thousands &mdash; 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)

also Middle Eastern appearance is the term used in the sources - it is POV to change it to anything else


 * 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 &mdash; unless, of course, you can find us some &mdash; that any Asian Australians of any background were involved. Your own personal point of view is just that &mdash; personal and point of view &mdash; 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)

thank you - above you state that not "all" Australians were 'white', therefore it would be racist to use an exclusive term and ommit the presence of 'black' islanders and asians from the event... it is not POV the same footage evidences the presence of islanders and asians (i also think the term "white" is racist to Anglo Australians because colour has nothing to do with it at all - you cannot label people by colour it is racist and offensive - eg its called Anglo Australians not white Australians, and its called African Americans not black Americans - origin is fine, but colour is racist)
 * 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 &mdash; because it's factually incorrect as well as based on personal vendetta &mdash; 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 &mdash; yet you never get round to adding any new references that would confirm their involvement in the riots &mdash; 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)

I did not state that Middle Eastern Australians should not be called Australian as you alledge - i merely stated that the people invloved should be called "of Middle Eastern appearance" as that is the term in the source (dont put words into my mouth)- you aslo aknowledge that the sources use the term "of Middle Eastern appearance" - you cannot take yourself off on a frolic and insert your own terms - it must be sourced - all we know from the source is that the people were "of Middle Eastern appearance" we do not know if they are Middle Eastern Australian or not... source it or stop reverting it... that is the policy that everything must be sourced and not POV...


 * 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)


 * 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)

but as above you state you "dont have a problem with that usage" then please stop reverting it 220.101.181.196 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

i use the term Australian to refer to everyone of all colours and cultures who doesnt hate Australians and "aussie dogs" - if a chinese guy hates Australians then he's not Australian, and i cannot be racist to him by definition because i share his race and genetic traits...he is not Australian, but thats not because of his race, but because if he were he would be self-hating, and thats absurd!! doesnt matter what the law says, laws are artificial construsts that change with time and are never what is termed "absolute truths" - but that may be beyong your insight -think about it - you dont even know what racism means, if they are Australian then the only explanation of why they would shout "fucking aussie" is because they hate thmeselves, whcih doesnt make sense at all. 220.101.123.184


 * 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)

OK... YES, to avoid stating the parodox of self-hating Australians who are apparently Australian but shout "fucking aussie" when attacking another Australian (which doesnt make sense and you know it), but to stop arguing i will agree with you compleltely, an Australian is someone who holds Australian citizenship!! ...though, we cannot know that the racists who initiated the revenge attacks hold Australian citizenship or not because the source does not tell us - you cannot speculate in an encyclopedia article - it requires standards - and the source states "of Middle Eastern appearance" so you cannot state they are Australian because that is speculatation and POV and not precise - (unless the racist attackers had a knife in one hand and an Australian passport in the other how do you know they were even Australian citizens? thats right, you dont, all we know is that the racist were "of Middle Eastern appearance") and the fact that lebanese flags were held out of car windows and flags were draw on the street and authors identified themselves as "lebs" makes it likely that these people DID NOT even have citizenship... GET IT YET??!!220.101.123.184 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An Australian is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia. Australian is NOT an ethnicity, and is NOT synonymous with white/European people only. And even if an Australian is a so-called self-hating Australian, it doesn't change the fact that they are Australian citizens under the law. xero-7 23:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Reference and urban myth-proofing required
I am concerned by the following unreferenced paragraph: "In the area there had been incidents of what were taken to be Muslim men coming onto beaches and ordering bikini-dressed white women to "cover up", and harassment such as spitting in food. This prompted retaliation by white men."

Firstly, can anyone find any reports where identified Muslim men "ordered" "white women" to "cover up" or spat in food? Secondly, the paragraph seems to come dangerously close to justifying racist violence on the grounds that it was just "retaliation" for an "earlier" insult. I suspect this paragraph has its basis in a back-dated urban myth used to find some justification for the mob violence. But I would be pleased to be proved/proven wrong if someone can come up with an appropriate reference.193.61.176.108 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * firstly i will find you a report to make you happy so you can sleep at night ;)


 * secondly the article does not "justify" racist violence it merely states the facts which resulted in the violent protest whether it be justifed or not - its not the point - the encyclopedia must state the facts - we cannot simply exclude the facts that happened before the riot because they seem to justify the riot - if that is your naturalistic sentiment that the article conveys a 'justification' to you, then maybe it was justified, maybe the problem is that upon hearing of what went on in the harrassemnt and intimidation you realised that maybe those racists had a point - then you want it taken out because you have POV against the racists - but alass, fact is fact and it cannot be taken out - that you "suspect" anything is immediate alarm for POV and preconceptions about what did or did not happen... please source everything factual. 220.101.181.196 13:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have completely lost me, now. Racist violence is justifiable and if people don't agree with you then they're racists? I'm pleased that you agree that "everything" should be "sourced factual", too &mdash; it means you will take a look at Australian nationality law and accept that Middle Eastern Australians are Australian as well. Presently you seem to be on a one-person campaign against them on Wikipedia. I don't know why, but it should stop because your edits and reverts make almost no sense. References and sources in relation to reports of "Muslim men" "spitting in food" and "white retaliation" at Cronulla will not help me sleep at night, but it might go some way to making this article more encyclopaedic. Thanks. 193.61.176.108 15:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

yes yes yes... sighhhhh.... but the source refers to people "of Middle Eastern appearance" (please see above) 220.101.181.196 14:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * it is interesting that some Middle Eastern people identifiy themselves as 'lebs', but if someone other than Middle Eastern is liberal and tolerant towards them and lets them call themselves whatever they please, then they are called racist - explain that to me - if its racist to call them "lebs" then they are racist towards themselves because they call themselves "lebs" all the time - think about it - and if they are Australian then to rape a young girl and state "you deserve it because you are Australian" means that they must hate themselves so much ie self-hating racists, and its also in the revenge attacks 'fucking aussie'... that doesnt make a lot of sense but thats what you are arguing because you are lokced in your "civic" definitions which completely lack an explanation for what i brought up in the last sentence - think about it, your civic definition will not overcome that paradox that they are either not Australian or they are self-hating Australians - but i didnt put that forward as my opinion - i merely stated that the source tell us that they are "of Middle Eastern appearance" - my opinion doesnt matter, neither does yours, its the source that matters, so source it or stop reverting it, the source deosnt use civic it uses 'appearance' 220.101.181.196 14:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. So you admit that your bizarre hate campaign against Lebanese Australians on Wikipedia &mdash; which has been played out on this Talk page for some time now using a number of names and IPs but always the same illogic and vitriol &mdash; and your perniciously anti-Lebanese Australian edits are some sort of bizarre public service revenge against the Lebanese Australian community for the roles of five or six of their young men in the Sydney gang rapes? And anyone who takes a stand that doesn't denigrate Lebanese Australians and who accepts them as Australians is a racist? Your theory of pervasive "anti-Australianism" rests on nothing but your own prejudice. Well done. Also, since you write, "...your civic definition will not overcome that paradox that they are either not Australian or they are self-hating Australians..." I am tired of guiding you to Australian nationality law but I will offer it up one more time. Australian law defines who an Australian is: it's a citizen of Australia. Hence, no matter your frustrations, if they're entitled to an Australian passport it doesn't matter what they call themselves. You can't change that, no matter how much you would like to. The issue remains: you simply can't accept the legal fact that the term "Australian" is defined by law, not your prejudices. I wouldn't mind, but you then try and push these prejudices as edits on Wikipedia in a self-defeating attemtpt to make them "fact". Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself, Wikipedia and Australians of all ethnic backgrounds and attitudes.193.61.176.28 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to all of the EVIDENCE in the article - there is a lot of racist people "of Middle Eastern appearance" - i think the majority of people "of Middle Eastern appearance" are model Australian citizens - but there are some who may or may not hold Australian passports who clearly hate Australians because that is what their conduct and words have shown us - and its not just the gang rapes at all - and i think to deny the problem out there is reckless - the primeminister himself has recognised that there is a small section of people in that community who are racist and hate other Australians - i am against people who would tell us that a gang rape victim is racist because she identified her attackers as "of Middle Eastern appearance" - you are telling us that the term "of Middle Eastern appearance" is racist and you are campaigning against it - but you dont campaingn against the rape or violence itself or and the terms 'aussie dogs' 'aussie sluts' 'convict dogs' 'aussie pigs' etc... people had knives snapped off in their backs and were called 'aussie dogs' but somehow in your mind that conduct is not as racist as the term "of Middle Eastern appearance" - that is what is inconsistent - that makes you racist to non-Middle Eastern background peoples the ones who are victims of a racist minority because you are not balanced in your mind - you want to protect minorites but neglect victims in general - you should be fighting for everyone no matter what colour because that is fair - and i happen to think the majority of Midle Eastern background Australians are upstanding!! 220.101.123.184 08:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

remember, the source didnt say that they werent Australian in a civic definition at all, it merely stated their appearance - so it is still factual - you are assuming that they were Australian in a civic sense (and they may well be i agree), but you must source it - you think its ok to use the appearance of people as "white" (apparantely you didnt think that was racist), but then the source uses appearance as ME and you think its racist, you are inconsistent - and Middle Eastern refers to origin as does Anglo, ie you cannot say black american but you can say African american, one is origin, the other is colour which is offensive and racist... dont use the term "white" for Anglo origin or brown/balck for Middle Eastern origin, its racist - and dont get confused about appearance of origin and civic status...220.101.181.196 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your illogic is as baffling as it is audacious and vigilante. I'm neither inconsistent nor racist. (In fact, I am tiresomely consistent and anti-racist.) I use the civic term "Australian" for all ethnic groups in Australia (them being Australian citizens and all), but make sure that I caveat it with an ethnic identifier where this is accurate and known (i.e., Irish Australian, Korean Australian, Lebanese Australian). The riots involved, primarily, youths of an indeterminate European background attacking persons of perceived but indeterminate Middle Eastern background, and vice versa. All were Australians. Not knowing the individual ethnicities of those involved, we fall back on the terms "white Australian" and "Middle Eastern Australian". Perfectly acceptable, perfectly unbiased, perfectly consistent and not at all racist. You seem to have a particular problem accepting this. Why? Oh, because you want to exclude Lebanese Australians and others from the term "Australian" because, in your eyes, the actions of six rapists means that they have forfeited the term. That, my mysterious but tendentious friend, is bias, prejudice and, why, very close to outright racism. But I forget! According to your edits and screeds on here, the only racists in Australian society are persons of Middle Eastern appearance or heritage.193.61.176.28 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the section on the retaliatory violence in which men of "Middle Esatern appearance" ran shouting 'get the Aussie dogs... get the aussie sluts'" If these people of 'Middle Eastern appearance" were Australian then to attack someone and state that ant-Australian abuse would make them self-hating Australians and racist towards themselves, the other conclusion is that these people are not Australian - you tell me what is more reasonable - and the article uses ethnis origin, it doesnt even say that they are not Australian in a civic sense - the term Australian is for all ethnicities - but God made different races, he wasnt racist in making them, and neither is the article racist in acknowledging that fact - whats wrong with you - im dark skinned, and its ok to say so, its not necessarily racist, its just fact... i dont exclude anyone from the term Australian, but to ask someone "are you Australian" and them attack them when they say yes, means that you have excluded yourself - the magistrate himself concluded that the attack was feulled by a hatred for Australians, but you want to tell us that he was self-hating and racist towards himself because he too was Australian because of a piece of paper - it matters not about colour (im also dark skinned) it matters about sentiment and conduct - that is what excludes someone they make that choice to hate the rest of us of all colours - and you cannot reconcile that - tell us how you can be Australian and then shout "get the aussie dogs... get the aussie sluts" - if you were Australian would you not turn on yourself and attack yourself you aslo being Australian - that doesnt make sense and you know it - please explain it and its not about gang rapes, there is a widespread anti-Australian sentiment amongst lebanese in sydney - its not isolated 220.101.123.184 08:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

'AUSSI TO DIE', 'INTIFADA', 'IT'S WAR', 'NEVER REST ASSIE DOG', 'YOUS CAME BY CHAINS U CONVICT DOGS', 'WE FEAR NO OZY PIGS' - call me nieve and innocent, but that doesnt sound like Australian passport holders to me - it sounds like people who were not Australian wrote that - otherwsie they would be self-hating Australians and racist towards themselves 220.101.123.184 08:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Though it has been enjoyable watching 193.61.176.28 annihilate 220.101.123.184's illogical and racist arguments, it appears to now have very little to do with any practical measures to improve the article so maybe you two could take it elsewhere. Cheers, Rothery 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah! 193.61.176.28 definitely ran circles around 220.101.123.184! I can't believe the latter still wanted to push it some more! I think he may have some personal issues in his life that he may have to deal with that are causing him to think in the logic that he has presented here in this talk page. Either that or he's extremely thick-headed! WikiphyteMk1 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rothery THINK MAN THINK if im chinese and i attack a chinese man and state "get the chinese dogs... get the chinese sluts" then it is clear that i hate chinese, otherwsie why would i state that in a violent attack??? (that is logical = i must hate chinese to attack one and say that) - and as i am also chinese (i hold a piece of paper called citizenship that tells me im chinese) then i must be a self-hating chinese - (that is logical = i hate chinese and i am chinese at the same time ie self-hating)... but what if that piece of paper meant nothing to me and i saw myself as english and i just happened to be born in Hong Kong (now part of china) but my whole ancestory is english - then, its more likely than not that im not a self-hating chinese afterall, its more likely that im actually English and not chinese - i now call myself englsih, but would anyone reasonably say that if a chinese man also called me englsih that he is racist for not recognising my piece of paper - infact if he is racist towards me, theni must be raacist towards myself because i said the same thing about me as he did = im english and not chinese - it would be double standard to say i can call myself englsih but he is not allowed to... that is LOGICAL (you confuse emotion and logic)... that doesnt rely on emotive reasoning where thinking is stopped out of fear of being racist... if you can break down this example to show me where it is illogical be my guest, but i know you cannot because you will come back at me with a emotive accusation that im racist and not even attmpt it because you cannot, you confuse what you want and what is - the point is that the self identity problem is resolved when chinese becomes an ethnic descriptiuon and not one of law - then it turns out the english guy is not self-hating afterall - we live in a world where people are different, that you may not like but there are different ethnic groups - and most of those ethnic grouos live together in harmony in Australia, but some of them hate the majority with a violent passion and apparently its racist to say that that english guy is not chinese at all no matter what piece of paper he holds, but a lot of anglos share that english guys heritage so share his race and thus cannot be racist towards him (same race = cannot be racist) its not about race, its about a philosophy that if you identify yourself as X and hate Y so much then chances are no matter what artificla peices of law written on paper state you are not Y at all 220.101.145.76 14:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pogrom?
Can we label this event a pogrom?I elliot 06:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Source that has labelled it that way. Ashmoo 13:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

the wikipedia article states a pogrom is "characterized by destruction of their homes, businesses and religious centres" - the only religious centres targeted were 4 christian churches, one was burnt to the ground, and a christian school hall where children lining up to sing christmas carols were told they were "fucking aussies" and spat on and then the hall was sprayed with bullets in a drive-by shooting - and you leftists call these people Australian - thats messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.145.137 (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * don't delete other's comments Rothery - please show us where the "abusive inslut" is... thats right you cant, but you are all too pleased to delete facts of Racist Muslims who attacked christins and who hate australians - and the comment is more than helpful - you using the wikipedia definition of pogrom but then it was muslims who did the religious attacks, not the other way around, shows how distorted your perspective is - its all sourced Rothery...220.101.145.137


 * You made an irrelevant and unhelpful comment about "the left", and have continued to insult me in your most recent comment- which isn't what Wikipedia talk pages are for; talking about improving the article. If you want to bitch then get a blog. Rothery 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

i am outlining that you use a definition of pogrom but do not use it in a consistent manner - it shows your bias, you never attmpt to counter the content of what i post - it was muslims who burned the church to the gorund, hence, religious attack, ehcne pogrom, but you wont use it to describe the retaliation but just the initial riot, why> it must be becaus eyoure biased, and you wont even explain to us why, or counter the content, its like you know youre biased and just hope we wont notice. 220.101.122.73 10:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find an 'abusive inslut'? Is she hot? 124.188.169.50 (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Please note that as a french reader (neutral observer?) feel that this article is not balanced, especially i noticed that the introduction presents this event as a normal reaction of citizens against some reprehensible acts commited by delinquants. Reading down the article it is clear that the violent mob had racist motivations and there is NO justification for such a reprehensible behavior and leitmotivs. By publishing this tendentious text Wikipedia is supporting the message of hatery presenting 'offended locals and parasit non locals'. Note that a jew boy was attacked. Can someone agree PARTIALLY with Nazism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.52.47 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment
What an absolute joke of an article this has become. A small tiny and petty little bit at the top "alleging" some attacks by the ME's, and then I-don't-know-how-much talking about the nasty A-C's. Balance, what, where? Michael talk 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been that way since the day of the riots, I've had a keen interest in the subject and wanted to see how the truth gets twisted in a wikipedia article for a dissertation I'm writing on the unreliability of online wiki based media. To be honest, it's scary.  Given that there were ongoing assaults and gang rapes in the lead up of tensions, and that 10,000, not 5,000 people attended what was originally a protest that got out of hand .. a lot has changed in the article.  The mob certainly did bash a few people, well no, about ten people out of the 10,000 were idiots and bashed a few people.  The mob did, however, throw a lot of crap at police cars ferrying them away.  However interesting to note, having been there on the ground as a journo at the time, every 'ME' who got bashed mouthed off at the crowd beforehand, which was dumb.  There was also a massive mix of all ethnicities present, including a large contingent of asians, and a heap of 'middle easterners' too.


 * One interesting and ommitted fact was the 600 middle easterners pulling up at Lakemba mosque handing out illegal handguns to their associates. 2GB, 2UE and an ABC camera man questioned them on it, police standing literally 10 meters away turning a blind eye, the media guys were chased (the 2gb reporter still feeding audio, which was hillarious to listen to in retrospect) off for being white.


 * I think the underlying issue that isn't addressed is Islam and it's inability to cohere with the Australian people over the last twenty odd years, it's escalating by the year, yet pointing out that this constant 'problem religion' is again at the heart of a violent youth culture that literally claim they have more rights in Australia than Australian's is idiocy IMO. 124.188.169.50 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A pack of thugs misappropriate the flag as their personal symbol of hate and yet you think this article is too much in favour of the pack of thugs on the other side of these events. Thanks for showing where your loyalties lay and the extent of your capacity to critique this matter intelligently. The behaviour of the latter was as abhorent and criminal as that of the former but that of the former also insulted our national symbol and those who have fought under it.


 * The people who fought under that flag would have clapped the Australians who fought 15-20 years of Middle Eastern harrassment, intimidation, anti-social violent racist assualts, rapes etc... i suppose the people who fought under that flag were evil by your thinking because they killed people - but they had to kill to preserve the ideals - and a riot had to take place to preserve the ideal of Australian society free from OPPRESSIVE MIDDLE EASTERN RACISTS - infact the people that fought under the flag would have been disgusted if we had not attempted to right the injustice and stop these racist thugs who hate Australia and its culutre - that is threaten rape if women dont cover, for example... the ANZACS would not have sat back while their wives, sisters, daughters were threatened with rape for not covering as in Middle Eastern culutre - WOULD THEY HAVE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.158.153 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where this is heading
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)