Talk:2024 New Caledonia unrest

Participants in the infobox

Would someone be kind enough to tell me why is it that Azerbaijan and Turkey whose only proof of involvement are allegations by French government officials are included in the infobox? I thought that per the discussion in the Ukraina-Russia War infobox countries were only to be added if they were fighting alongside the main actors? Why the double standards here? There's no Azerbaijani/Turkish soldiers in New Caledonia and no actual proof of direct involvement in the protests.

189.193.79.120 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin and French radio station Europe 1 have made allegations about Azerbaijan and Turkey covertly supporting the Kanak separatists. These allegations were covered in a EuroNews and Middle East Eye report. So far the allegations have come from French political figures and media. The Azeri and Turkish governments have denied responsibility. Hope this answers your question. Andykatib (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

All these French allegations of foreign involvement make it seem like it was entirely engineered from abroad, while there is only speculative indication that it could be the case. The French government would prefer people to focus on this, in order to neglect the inequality and power dynamic between the ethnic groups. Azerbaijan gave a platform to independence activists in Baku, but so far there is no conclusive evidence that they bought every single Kanak to rise up whereas their discontent has been documented since the French stepped foot on their archipelago.

An IP up here made a valid point, that on the page Russo-Ukrainian War there isn't (and I don't recall ever seeing) a list of the – many – actual backers of Ukraine, who gave billions upon billions of aid, munitions, military advisers. Or Israel–Hamas war ; despite the 1 billion dollar in military aid recently given by America to Israel. There are absolutely double standards on Wikipedia when it comes to non-Western sides of a conflict.--Shoshin000 (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit by @Kasperquickly: listing China and Russia as participants in the infobox. The French language source, when Google translated, speculates about Chinese and Russian involvement in light of their geopolitical interests and antagonism with France. Unless credible sources about Chinese and Russian involvement come up, I think we should avoid speculation. Andykatib (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Both countries are already mentioned in the actual body of the article. With sources. One does not need to cite anything at all for inclusion into the infobox, if the same information is already mentioned somewhere in the body of the article where it is sourced

2024 New Caledonia unrest#Alleged interference Kasperquickly (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kasperquickly:, those sources for China and Russia so not explicitly state that the two countries are supporting the pro-independence camp. The French language source merely speculates about their involvement. The Columbia University source only talks about Russian active measures up to 2021. Until we have actual statements from Russia and China supporting the pro-independence camp, we should exercise caution and avoid doing original research since that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Speculation about Russian and Chinese involvement should go in the alleged foreign interference section. Let's avoid violating the 3 revert rule. Thanks. Andykatib (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am going to remove 'supported by' Azerbaijan and Armenia from the infobox. I understand there is a separate discussion of whether this should be discussed within the article body, but nobody seems to have presented a clear argument for why they are included in the infobox when it is a) extremely spurious whether these countries have been involved at all and b) the 'support' they are alleged to have given is far below the level of support or involvement of other actors not included in analogous situations (the absence of arms suppliers and political supporters on the Israel-Hamas War and Russia-Ukraine War pages have already been noted; I also looked through the pages of the various Colour Revolutions and we aren't mentioning alleged support in those infoboxes, nor in the ongoing Myanmar Civil War page or really any analogous protest/civil conflict page). I think it may be worth discussing allegations of foreign involvement in the page, but it certainly does not belong in the infobox. GeorgmentO (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

While we're on this, I'm not sure its appropriate to list the melanesian Spearhead Group in the infobox. They've issued a statement saying they support the decolonisation process and oppose violence. They're not a participant, or a funder, or a "backer" in a conflict sense.--IdiotSavant (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point @IdiotSavant:, we really need clear criteria for what goes into the infobox or who qualifies as a participant. This warrants further discussion. Andykatib (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

They should just be removed. It seems misleading to even have FLNKS there, the article states their official position was to not have riots, yet the infobox says they were a party to the riots. Should general riots have "Parties" at all? CMD (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the MSG so far. We'll see if anyone objects. I also note that the "supported by" parameter is deprecated, so we probably shouldn't be using it. Also, Template:Infobox civil conflict recommends against long participant lists, and suggests "only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article". So it may be better simply to say "pro-independence protestors" vs GIGN and Mobile Gendarmerie, and skip the long lists of political parties. How do people feel about this? -- IdiotSavant (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

An improvement, although I think that is obvious (rioters vs police) and not needed. Other articles don't seem to include this, 2024 Papua New Guinean unrest, 2024 Bishkek riots. 2024 Ecuadorian conflict uses it because the riots were apparently organized by actual crime groups. CMD (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at those other articles, I agree - we don't need "participants" here at all. I'd suggest deleting it when @SashiRolls' 48 hours for citations expires. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

FLNKS is a participant as it's acting as the representative of the demonstrators furthermore Caledonian Union and National Union for Independence should be removed from infobox as they are themselves part of FLNKS. Moreover Kanak Socialist Liberation is not a part of these demonstrations as they are pro-Noumea accords Waleed (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Source please that the organisation of FLNKS is participating in the riots. CMD (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-caledonia-protesters-police-play-cat-mouse-before-macron-arrives-2024-05-22/

Waleed (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That quotes an FLNKS spokesperson describing the riots, and notes that "The pro-independence FLNKS had called for protesters to remove roadblocks". So I wouldn't regard that as a source for "participating". IdiotSavant (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've clearly stated that it's acting as a. "representative" Waleed (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Reuters source does not say that, it says the protests are run by the "Field Action Coordination Cell (CCAT)". All FLNKS does in that source is provide commentary. CMD (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

So ig it should be removed as well Waleed (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think so, yes. And I've just removed Australia as a government "supporter", since the source cited is about them preparing to evacuate their civilians, not intervene militarily. IdiotSavant (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: I reverted the bold addition of the Rassemblement National's logo in the "counterprotestors" part of the infobox. We don't add one flag for one party and leave the rest without their logos, as it makes it look like we're advertising for that party. In my opinion all of this long list of parties should be removed as per the above. In an effort to see whether there is anything worth keeping here, I've added "citation needed" tags for all the parties (rather than simply delete them pending proper sourcing). In 48 hours, we can go through and delete all those for which no references have been provided. If someone prefers to just delete the unsourced claims that's fine with me too. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Date of the European Court's statement?

I do not have access to the full Le Monde article (I canceled my subscription recently.) What is publicly visible suggests that the European Court statement was on 11 January 2005, before the Constitutional amendment in 2007. Also can we really say that Jacques Chirac amended the constitution all by himself @Aréat:?

Moving Azerbaijan from international responses to a separate 'Alleged interference/ingerence' category?

It seems to me less of a response to the unrest and more of a separate topic entirely. We could possibly add Turkey as well which was mentioned in the infobox, with sources [1] and [2] but did not get mentioned directly in the article. Yvan Part (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yvan Part:, I second the motion. Given that the charges of Azeri and Turkish intervention are at the moment allegations made by French politicians and media, it would be best to place them in an alleged interference section. I sense the French politicians and media are looking for a foreign scapegoat but will wait for further information. Andykatib (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. See also [3]. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@SashiRolls, I am curious to know why you keep removing mentions of the French government supporting secessionism in Azerbaijan when the quoted source itself mentions it as among the primary reasons for Azerbaijan's worsened relations with France and subsequent alleged involvement in the New Caledonian unrest. Granted, the details of the 2020 development may not relevant to this article, which is why I did not insist on adding them back when you removed them [4] citing "no mention of New Caledonia" in the sources. However, the 2024 source does mention secessionism in both Nagorno-Karabakh and New Caledonia, and when I added that part in the article, you removing it with the comment "This was removed for good reason" is more than perplexing to me because "no mention of New Caledonia in the 2020 sources" cannot possibly be that "good reason".

Another thing I noticed was you adding "a useful wikilink" to the article Armenian diaspora [5] with the comment "and why is that?", as if the history of the Armenian diaspora had anything to do with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This would not have caught my attention if the edit had not come from someone who is referring me to WP:COATRACK.

If we bother to quote the French Foreign Minister, the least we can do is to present an NPOV regard on the events leading to the stance assumed by Azerbaijan vis-a-vis New Caledonia, which does not boil down to "France selling arms to Armenia". Personally I find that the paragraph would make much sense if it mentioned France's support for a secessionist movement in Azerbaijan for the reader to understand why Azerbaijan likewise seems to support a secessionist movement in France. This is not a tangential subject; it constitutes legitimate context for the whole section and only takes one short sentence to be mentioned. Parishan (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If this were a page on the historical diplomatic relationship between Armenia, France, and Azerbaijan it would be due. It is not. It is a page about a conflict 13,793 kilometers from Baku. Moreover, I checked... the text you cite does not mention the word "secession". Nobody really cares why Mr. Aliyev has a bone to pick with the French. Now I suppose if he flew to Nouméa in a helicopter all that might change... As for adding four bytes to your text to transform your "Armenian diaspora" to Armenian diaspora, it is hardly shocking, that's what folks do when there is more to be learned about the reason there is a large Armenian diaspora in France. As it happens, I live in a region with lots of Turks and Armenians, and indeed they are frequently at loggerheads (sometimes violently: the Grey Wolves were only recently banned here...) However, unless you have a source saying there is an Azerbaijani diaspora bein' oppressed in New Caledonia, I don't think we need to go off on a tangent to sing all the world's problems. We'll see if there is consensus to do so. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely completely false to claim that France "sided with" or otherwise supported Armenia in any way, when Macron has constantly said sanctioning Azerbaijan would be "counter productive".[6] On the contrary, Strasbourg was one of the capitals of the Azerbaijani laundromat.[7] Azerbaijan has repeatedly tried to create an illusion of France being pro-Armenia, while simultaneously bribing many French politicians with caviar diplomacy to promote Azerbaijani interests. Claiming that a large Armenian diaspora in France is somehow the cause of an alleged pro-Armenia stance, despite there being an even larger Turkish diaspora in France, is a recurring propaganda tactic. Wikipedia does not exist to promote a government's propaganda, and no reliable source will claim France supported Armenia in the conflict. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh Hey, I've just joined the discussion and don't know much about the diplomatic relationship between France, Armenia and Azerbaijan but it seems to be well beyond the scope of this article.

I agree with @SashiRolls that the reasons Azerbaijan is allegedly helping the separatists is superfluous information in this article.

Taking a glance at your contributions, I do understand that Armenia and Azerbaijan are sensitive topics to you, but please, do not let those emotions seep into every article that vaguely mention either. Thank you. Yvan Part (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Yvan Part, please read what I said more carefully. I was agreeing with SashiRolls and further trimmed the "Alleged interference" section. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid none of this is relevant to the issue being discussed. Besides, the source I was quoting (which you have removed without discussing) literally says "sided with Armenia" and lists the presence of a sizeable Armenian diaspora in France as the reason [8]. Parishan (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is also a very dubious source that promotes genocide denial.[9] And that claim is obviously very undue, which is why the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article does not include France. What exactly is meant by "sided with"? France never recognized Artsakh or sent military support, and even Azeri sources confirm France has an officially neutral stance.[10] --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I went back and reread the source when you removed the line about "sided with Azerbaijan" because it had seemed strange to me when I first read it. Indeed, the link that the anonymous "explainer" provides to another Al Jazeera article (§) refutes the position taken: The Azeri foreign ministry said the French Senate resolution, which has no legal force, had tainted France’s reputation as a fair mediator and cast doubt on its neutrality. and France’s foreign minister on Wednesday dismissed the senate resolution, saying it would contradict France’s neutral position and pointing out that even Armenia itself had not recognised Nagorno-Karabakh. So the opinion is not supported by the source cited in the article, leading me to believe the article is not a reliable source. I think it would be wisest to remove the strong claim "sided with Armenia" and take up the issue at RS/N, unless someone can find reliable sources that indicate there was an official French policy of "supporting Armenia" in the conflict and that this was somehow relevant to New Caledonia.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not mind removing the word "secessionist" but I still believe a word or two on France's support for the independentist movement in Nagorno-Karabakh is useful background information, all the more so that it is acknowledged by a reliable source reporting on the unrest. Otherwise the reader does not understand why of all countries Azerbaijan, which is located 13,793 kilometres away from New Caledonia, is accused of meddling in this conflict. In any case, I believe this is much more relevant than reasons why there is such a big Armenian community in France, which has nothing to do with either New Caledonia or the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (I did not quite understand the part of your response about the Grey Wolves operating in your area but this beside the point). This said, I would, too, be interested to hear opinions from uninvolved users. Parishan (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Any reader who wishes to learn more about diplomatic relationship between the two coutries can look into the Azerbaijan–France relations article (which could use some updating). The problem with mentioning this single instance of tensions between them is that it could mistakenly imply that this is the sole reason interference is happening and obviously citing multiple instances would be worse.

Instead, I would suggest inserting somewhere in the paragraph "amidst lingering tensions between the two countries" linking back to the aforementioned France-Azerbaijan relations article. Yvan Part (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is the appropriate level of detail for this entry per WP:WEIGHT.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Gun ownership

The section on gun ownership was recently removed without discussion. I do not think this was a good decision as this is an issue widely covered in secondary sources. (One example that was not cited in that section, but could have been)

Is there consensus for this removal or was it a lone wolf action? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @SashiRolls: for raising the topic. I was concerned that @Oktayey: removed the gun ownership section without discussing it with other users first. I think that section will be relevant to international readers who would want to know why New Caledonia has such a high rate of guns and how that has helped fanned the 2024 unrest. Another alternative would be to spin off the gun ownership section into a new Wikipedia article called Gun ownership in New Caledonia. It will need a great deal work using French and Kanak language sources. I am from New Zealand so my knowledge of the territory would be limited to media reports by NZ, Australian and international media. Andykatib (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I had removed the section because it implied that guns were a cause of, or had a significant effect on the outcome of, the unrest, and from a quick scan of the article I couldn't find any similar claim or any reference in the section that suggested such. Oktayey (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Restored. This source notes that there are more than twice as many arms per capita in New Caledonia (one for every two people) as there are in the Hexagon (one for every five people).-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I overlooked that reference because the source is paywalled. Does a single source justify including an entire section implying gun ownership was a major contributing factor in the unrest? Is that not WP:UNDUEWEIGHT? Oktayey (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely not the only source. However, many are paywalled (e.g. §, §, §) The weapons aren't the main cause of the uprising, but are obviously one of the main causes of mortality during the disorder... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there are a lot of riffles (not hand guns) in New Caledonia. However that is completely different from saying that they are the source of the trouble. The source is obviously Kanak nationalism. I would suggest that guns are a very minor side note. Tuntable (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

Under Responses: REPLACE (Under Australia) "An estimated 3,200 tourists and other travellers including Australians remain stranded in New Caledonia." with: "An estimated 3,200 tourists and other travelers including 300 Australians remain stranded in New Caledonia.[65][74]" ADD (Under Australia) On May 20th, Wong announced the Australian government had received approval from french authorites for two evacuation flights.[74] ADD (Under New Zealand) On May 20th New Zealand announced a flight on May 21st to evacuate 50 New Zealand nationals from the capital of Noumea.[74] ADD SOURCES: [74]https://apnews.com/article/australia-new-zealand-new-caledonia-australia-8fb1ad85f675720ed77c03b718533bd2 ExiaMesa (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Andykatib (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect link for "demographic replacement"

I don't have an account and can't fix this myself as the page is protected. The phrase "demographic replacement" in the article incorrectly links to "Great Replacement", an unrelated white nationalist theory. 31.94.4.214 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Done, have changed the link to replacement migration. Andykatib (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Racial tensions / socioeconomic conditions in the infobox

I don't see a discussion above about the removal of racial tensions and economic inequalities from the infobox. Was it @Aréat: who removed it again? It looks like it was: not only was the material removed but the source was not moved elsewhere, which is certainly not an NPOV treatment. I noticed over at fr.wp that something was said about the racial tensions going both ways, which is obviously mentioned in the sources for this entry (cf. ). Any comments on this unilateral removal? It obviously shouldn't have been done without discussion, but should it have been done at all? Should we also add the uncertainty concerning the nickel industry to the infobox based on the sources we have in the socio-economic section? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Why "again"? I hadn't removed it before. Please keep it civil. You can go look through the history of the page : I mentioned when I removed it that the source doesn't say it was a cause of the unrest. The sources mention it as context, just like the Noumea Accord is context. We don't include it in the causes.--Aréat (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please search for your revert #6 above. You removed the mention of racial discrimination once before, and did not engage in the discussion I opened about the question. Would racial tensions suit you better? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this specific part had been readded, my bad, you were right. The point stand that it's not sourced as a cause, as far as I can see.--Aréat (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

So would I understand you correctly that you read the above sources and still do not think that racial tensions have contributed to the conflict? (The France Info source you deleted makes the case that economic inequality and racial discrimination in housing are contextual factors contributing to the conflict.) As a gesture of good faith please restore that source either to the infobox or to the socioeconomics section. I don't know if you saw the news of the fires that were set or if you read that President Macron said that "social inequalities are feeding the re-emerging racism" (§)... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What does "racial tensions" actually mean? In practice, to most people, it only means white people discriminating against black people. The trouble in New Caledonia is absolutely about race, the Kanaks want to have authority over the island, it is their stated goal. "Kanak" is (essentially) a race.

So strictly, it is all about racial tensions, but I would propose that the term "racial tension" is grossly misleading, and it would be better to just say it is conflict between the Kanaks and other races on the islands (which includes the may non-Kanak Polynesians). Tuntable (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It is an attempt to describe the sources which say: 1) Europeans discriminate against Kanaks in the housing market (source #1) 2) Kanaks discriminate against Europeans by saying things like "there are too many Europeans on the island". (source #2 & #3) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You should also self-revert your erroneous reversion here. The source says "mostly French" which is a synonym of "predominantly French". Your change misrepresents the source. This is quite clear cut.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I've done it for you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The infobox currently lists four causes, the modification to the constitution, social/racial inequalities, the collapse of the nickel industry, and gun ownership. Only the first is the actual trigger of the event. The others are all true, but they are true as part of the wider fabric of the situation, they did not suddenly emerge to cause this unrest. If the causes go broad you could talk about immigration, colonialism, the 2021 independence referendum, etc., and I'm not sure it makes sense to pick and choose which broad existing societal issues is put in the infobox when there is a clear and well-defined immediate cause. CMD (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to second-guess the sources. The article "Nickel, guns and foreign powers: How France’s New Caledonia reached the brink of ‘civil war’" does seem pretty unambiguous... Using the logic of the initial spark that lit the fire, the cause of the yellow vests movement would have been radars and changed speed limits, which amusingly isn't even mentioned in the infobox... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This can't be second guessing the sources, none of them have an infobox. But even taking that source in question, it doesn't support the current infobox usage. The source describes "political tensions combined with economic misery" as "likely" fueling the protests, and says clearly what the protests are: "Protests against a proposed reform of the territory’s electoral body". Guns aren't even described as a background issue in the source, they're described as a reason the situation is dangerous, an entirely different point! The source also mentions colonialism, the independence movement, and immigration! CMD (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reading the article on Politico, I would argue that the causes listed there are mostly the constitutional reform and the failing economy. Guns are mentioned only once as having "made the situation even more critical" but could hardly be understood as a direct or even indirect trigger for the protests, as you have said yourself in the "Gun ownership" section of the talk page "The weapons aren't the main cause of the uprising, but are obviously one of the main causes of mortality during the disorder". Meanwhile for the nickel industry, it's more about the economic impact it's had on the region rather the nickel industry itself. Its inclusion as a cause doesn't really make sense without the context of the economy of New Caledonia being so largely based on nickel production and quoting the article "political tensions combined with economic misery is a more likely explanation", we can see that's it's the general opinion expressed even if they go into details about the nickel industry, again, because it's such an inextricable part of the economy of New Caledonia. I recommend changing "Nickel industry collapse" to "Economic turmoil due to nickel industry collapse" to give a better context to that part of the infobox.

As for second-guessing the source, I would say it's more about summarizing how an average reader would understand an article. If we listed everything mentioned in every article, we would also add the "nickel pact", high energy costs and less investments in the region, which are all in the Politico article, as causes of the unrest.

Lastly, the yellow vests movement was also a very different context. Not only did it last a remarkably long time but multiple groups joined at different times for different reasons, in what the medias used to like calling the "Convergence des luttes" so it's difficult to use that very unique case to justify your reasoning. Most articles about riots tend to have a fairly limited number of causes listed in the infobox. Yvan Part (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've removed "gun ownership". The rest is very well sourced and should remain. If someone really feels it necessary to add words to the infobox concerning the nickel industry, I wouldn't object strenuously to a less concise formulation (if words are added it should be to highlight that the collapse disproportionately affects the Kanak -- cf. §). It's true that Macron does indeed blame the referenda for polarizing the society as well in his speech... but he primarily focuses on social inequalities and racial tensions: Force est de constater que le rééquilibrage n'a pas permis de réduire les inégalités économiques et sociales, elles se sont même accrues, et que les discussions que j'ai pu avoir avec les responsables politiques, économiques, comme la société civile, disent clairement que les inégalités ont continué de s'accroître et que pour partie, sans en rien justifier, elles nourissent aussi une part du racisme qui a réémergé depuis onze jours en quelque sorte d'une manière inédite dans son caractère désinhibé et assumé. transcription rapide -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with social inequalities/racial tensions being listed as a cause with the current sources provided. As for the nickel industry, highlighting that the collapse affects Kanaks more would be difficult if the infobox aims to be concise. Unless someone finds a particularly succinct way of describing this imbalance, I still believe the economic decline should be listed as a more general cause, leaving details about the nickel industry for the article. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize—and not supplant—key facts that appear in the article. That is, an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

I will also add that while references are useful for settling content disputes about what should or should not appear in the infobox and for specific information that require regular updates like the casualties, once the situation settles down, which could be weeks or months away, most references should be removed from the infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXREF

References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material needs a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. But editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.

Yvan Part (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of InfoboxPurpose and InfoboxRef, the phrases "social inequalities" and "racial tensions" do not appear once in the article. "racial inequalities" appears in a quote once, sort of combining the two, but in essence a reader trying to do a quick search for information will not find it. As for what is in the article, the Background section sort of alludes to it, but only as part of 20th century history. It then has a section on the frozen electorate covering immigration, an extensive section on independence referendums, nickel, and an odd bit on firearms that includes mostly sources from prior to this year (and therefore potentially WP:SYNTH here). The infobox does not appear to be summarizing the article at all. CMD (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on WP:JUSTDOIT, it is done. (§)-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

Are there independent sources to corroborate the claims of 79 dead in the intro? Borgenland (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a good call, because the article does not say that there are 79 deaths due directly or indirectly to the riots. It does suggest that the 79 deaths are abnormally high and that some cases may be related to the difficulties in access to medicine and health care. Below is what I removed:

As of 30 May 2024, there have been 79 direct and indirect deaths in total.

References

I do think something could be said about this (other sources mention difficulties related to access to medicine), but the figure does not belong in the lede as it is conjecture for the moment. Other opinions? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Frozen electorate, again

While it is clear that the ruling by the European Court was based on the "incomplete and transitory" nature of the measures in place at the time the appellant complained about not being allowed to vote, this was years prior to the Constitutional amendment. The primary document @Aréat: added does include the words "inevitably transitory" but with regards to all of Title XIII of the French Constitution, not just the frozen electorate. Though the primary source does not mention "universal suffrage" in the section concerned in exactly those words, it is not a stretch (at all) to infer this is what is meant by "universality". My edit summary was too hasty and reflects what is (not) in the secondary document. The primary document, which seems to have a strange "official but not official" status (as it is said not to represent the political opinion of the government) includes the following: Parmi les restrictions admises à titre temporaire, le corps électoral restreint et figé notamment ne saurait être pérenne dans sa configuration actuelle / Among the restrictions accepted on a temporary basis, the restricted and frozen electorate cannot be sustained in its current configuration, which is the key phrase (cf. §). My apologies to Aréat for limiting my reading to the secondary source which didn't support the points he added... the government source does indeed make all of the points Aréat added, in addition to stating that *nothing* would be automatic... and so (it would seem) any future changes to the law will be the result of political action. The discussion of the political decisions made in May/June 2021 suggests that future actions were sketched out (and are now overdue based on that sketch). (cf. p.50-51).-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)