Talk:2006 youth protests in France

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour B‑class High‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expansion edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Clearly, a lot more can be said here. joturner 21:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

But what is the law now? edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OK, we have heard from multiple sources that the new law would allow those under 26 to be fired without notice for any reason. But what is the current law? -- Cecropia 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

As far as I understand, it would be those under 26 who have signed this type of contract. Not all who are under 26, they can try to get another contract too. I guess the guys with high level diplomas will keep getting standard contracts...

Reasons For Protest edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

20% of French youth between the ages of 18 and 25-years old are unemployed, twice as high as the national average unemployment rate of France. Many youth in France find it difficult to find work, and many believed that the First Employment Contract would make finding jobs more difficult for young people.

I moved this here because it is unsourced and doesn't make sense. Under currrent laws 20% of French youth are unemployed. Presumably the inability to fire youth makes employers reluctant to hire (if they have a slacker who doesn't have a work record, they're stuck). So how could the new law make it harder for youth to find work? -- Cecropia 21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It won't. But it will also mean that youth who do find work have no job security, or at least very little. As for you slacker comment: They wouldn't be stuck if they check the kid out, first. Canaen 04:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The 20% figure has been disputed, amongst other places in an English language interview with Florence Lefresne here: http://libcom.org/blog/interview-with-florence-lefresne/

"Saying that one young person out of four is unemployed is completely wrong and can be seen as a kind of public opinion manipulation. The unemployment rate indicator (23%) is just as significant for those young people actually in the labour market. The proportion of young people unemployed is in fact 8% (0,23*0,38)." -- Catch 02-04

Isn't it ironic that anarchists are lining up to protest for job security. :P Kyaa the Catlord 10:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, not really. Anarchists have been part of the radical labor movement throughout Europe for a century and a half or more now.Canaen 04:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have found the popularity of Anarchism on college campuses more than a little amusing. No one has more invested in a stable society than university students do, and it is a double irony when, in many societies, these radical students graduate into the ruling class. -- Cecropia 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

A lot of anarchists see the current society as unstable, and think that a society made up of many intentional communities driven by mutual aid would be a lot more stable than Capitalism-driven congregations of people who happen to live in the same region. Go read up on Anarchism; you might learn something. Canaen 04:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Protests?" edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Cars burning, shops set on fire, clashes with riot police...sounds a lot like a riot to me! Jackbauer24 11:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

These have been riots. Unfortunately, it isn't PC to call them what they are. Kyaa the Catlord 12:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Seems that way...but then we've got...the "2005 civil unrest in France"..."2006 labor protests in France"...and then the "2005 Sydney race riots?" In Sydney maybe a dozen or so cars got smashed up and a few buildings burnt...yet they were NOWHERE near on the scale of or lasted as long as these two did, with thousands of cars being burnt etc...can we get the name changed here? Jackbauer24 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd say go for it, but the huge warnings frighten me when I click the "move" button. Kyaa the Catlord 04:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thousands of car burnt ? Really ? Maybe you're mistaking at all with the november unrests. Can you give a source for March 2006 ? Xibe 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

He was referring to the "2005 civil unrest in France" being 'civil unrest' while Sydney was 'race riots'. There is a lack of uniformity when labelling these sort of events in Wikipedia which should be, in the very least, noted. Kyaa the Catlord 11:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mass participation events must be described in some accordance with the way most participate. If hundreds of thousands demonstrated against immigrants, called off work, etc. while a few attacked immigrants in Sydney, they would be "protests" or "protests and civil unrest," just as the case here. Plus, clashes with riot police does not equal a riot. Why not use riot, mass strike, marches, etc. when appropriate in different parts of the article. See also Battle of Seattle ("civil unrest"), Anti-WEF protests in Switzerland, January 2003 ("demonstrations quickly degenerated into full-scale riots") etc. If you still want to move, call for a vote. --Carwil 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ditto. These are pacific demonstrations, whichrioters with nothing in common with the student have decided to follow in order to have fun. These are no riots, just protests with overly mediatized rioters. Please don't rename. I'm French, and am going to try to add sources to my saying within a few hours. Thank you. Xibe 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed on everything but the voting: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and in general, we try to use consensus decision making. Canaen

Violence? edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure how fair it is to label the protests as "violent." While violence can be defined as "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing" it can also be defined as "abusive or unjust exercise of power." If we use the latter definition, the French Government could be seen as violent as well. And unless this article provides that POV as well, then maybe we should consider changing the word "violence" to "sabotage" since people were not the target of destruction.

The article is using the more common usage of the word 'violent'. You may be interpreting too much into this, since the actions by the police are also noted in the article. Remember, assume good faith. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The clashes with the police did not start on March 18th, they started at least as early as March 9th. Mainstream media coverage of the protests did however start on this date due to the occupation of the Sorbonne. I will edit article to reflect this.Catch02/04/06

Fact/Opinion conflict edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(it should be noted that police statistics are always purposely heavily under-estimated in France)

This is an opinion-based generalisation - I think it should at least be rephrased. --Joseph Crowe 14:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not to me. I see it as perfectly neutral. I think it is a a generally-accepted rule of thumb. Canaen 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

How did it end? edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have seen much discussion of the unrest and strikes, but how did they end? Here in the States, the press had a few reports and then just stopped. Did they petter out due to the school recess period, or did organizers declare victory and send the protestors home? --Amcalabrese 04:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Chirac (the french president) first said he kept the law and made it effective with some small modifications. This didn't stop the protests and university occupations, so one week after they finally removed the law. The whole movement seems to have put an end for now to Prime Minister De Villepin's presidential ambitions : during the whole events he said he wouldn't give up on this law, and he finally did after letting Paris, Rennes and some other major cities riot for several weeks. This article is really incomplete as it doesn't tell the end of the story... I hope someone could modify it based on these infos... -- Lucas 17 july 2006 (sorry i don't know the way to answer normally on these talk pages)

I've added a big chunk on the end, and changed the tense throughout (since it all finished in April 2006, a good 8 months ago). My referencing style may be a bit patchy though... In the small amount of time I looked, I wasn't able to find a cite for the fact that university exams were delayed. I know they were because I was one of the students affected, but short of my own blog - which probably still counts as original research, I couldn't find a cite (hence I've "citation needed"-ed my own edit). Pfainuk 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply