Talk:Deportation of Roma migrants from France

Origin

Just though I'd ask about this - User:Alcea setosa removed part of the "background" section as containing "inaccurate synthesis regarding initial rioting", but according to the BBC, the riot was one of the incidents which led to the measure. I agree it's all a bit BBC-source heavy at the moment, but it is in the news quite a bit. Can anyone clarify whether this is accurate? (European politics not really my area of expertise, to be honest) Bob talk 20:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit looks fine and doesn't appear to me to be WP:SYNTH. User:Alcea setosa says at edit summary to see this page, but has not elaborated his/her concerns. RashersTierney (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read that particular bbc article but where does it say that the Grenoble incident involved Roma? And that the Saint Aignan incident was "retaliation" for the Grenoble incident?--Alcea setosa (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragraphs one and two of the BBC article state: "In July, dozens of French Roma armed with hatchets and iron bars attacked a police station, hacked down trees and burned cars in the small Loire Valley town of Saint Aignan...The riot erupted after a gendarme shot and killed a French Roma, 22-year-old Luigi Duquenet." Bob talk 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence could do with a tweak. Youths are mentioned, but no mention of their ethnicity in source nor that of the person shot by the police. Not a major fix. RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed re-wording : On the night of 16 July 2010, local youths rioted after French police shot and killed a 22-year-old local man accused of robbing a casino; the armed group, later identified as 'travellers' attacked and pillaged the village of Saint-Aignan.The local mayor described the disturbances as " a settling of scores between the travellers and the gendarmerie."

Looks good, but I'm a bit out of my depth with this article anyway. Bob talk 22:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot better but you should understand that there are 2 men that have been killed one in Grenoble and one in Saint-Aignan, Loir-et-Cher.--Alcea setosa (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10679297 Alcea setosa (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BBC in above article: " which appears to have no connection with rioting in the eastern city of Grenoble over the weekend"--Alcea setosa (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise the killing by police at almost the same time of 2 individuals had sparked 2 unrelated riots. I still think the killing of the north African man is relevant to the issue, in that there was no equivalent reaction against that community, but wording will have to be clarified. BTW, thanks to both of you for efforts on this article. RashersTierney (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have read the Q and A I am not at all opposed to include the Grenoble incident in some form, but on this particular minor point the wiki as of now is not correct. I too want to thank Bob Castle, the original creator of this article as well as you RashersTierney. --Alcea setosa (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes to clarify issues. Feel free to alter. RashersTierney (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused what "On the night of 16 July 2010, local "Muslim' youths rioted after French police shot and killed Karim Boudouda, a 27-year-old man involved in an attempted robbery at the Uriage-les-Bains casino, Grenoble, near the border with Switzerland." has to do with the Roma thing. Can anyone clarify? Bob talk 14:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it the incidents are unrelated, but politically they have been conflated. They both led to the 'law and order' backlash, leading to the apparent targeting of unauthorised Roma camps. On the question of the use of the term 'Muslim' youths, the rioters in the Grenoble incident were described as "hundreds of Muslim youths (went) on the rampage". See . As a collective, that is how they are specifically described. They were not , for instance described as Roma, travellers, North African immigrants or otherwise. The terminology is significant because of the similar wording used to describe those that participated in the 2005 incidents viz. "the majority of the rioters were Muslim immigrant youth". If you feel the quote marks should be removed, thats fine by me. RashersTierney (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, I only removed it because it had been questioned, and I wasn't quite sure of the significance. Is there any way that the political connections you describe could be worded in the article? - I'm guessing there might be something in a French newspaper somewhere, but my French is weak to say the least! (do revert my last edit as well) Bob talk 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

When I have a little more time, I'll draw the political link more directly, with refs, and restore the edit. Glad we are getting this sorted out. RashersTierney (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need to point to "Muslims" re the Grenoble riots. This religious fallacy is hardly current in France, even if English-language media do continue to carry it (and likewise for the parallel with the 2005 riots). It is obvious that the Roma and the Grenoble rioters are not the same group. The point of Sarkozy's speech, instead, was that both the Saint-Aignan destruction and the Grenoble riots followed instances where the police shot only after being willingly endangered by people in the act of committing a crime, and that the rioters in both cases failed to acknowledge this and instead went on to further threaten the police. That is the starting point for Sarkozy's and subsequent reactions.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi to RashersTierney and all. Am new to contributing to Wikipedia, so am learning the protocol on the fly. Albertino1212 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Title

A better title for this article might be, "Expulsion of Roma from France", since "French Roma" implies French citizenship, when this article clearly indicates that the Roma are Romanian and Bulgarian. It would also clarify the country which is doing the expelling and from which the Roma are expelled. Shrigley (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that switching "French" to "from France" is a good idea for the purpose of clarity. It would also be wise to switch "Roma" to "Romani people", in keeping with Romani people, the main article on the subject. Neelix (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Neelix switched from "French" to "from France", which was a wise move, but also from "Expulsion" to "Deportation", not only in the title but in all other occurences in the article, a significant move that was NOT discussed in the Talk page. I suggest that those changes by Neeflix are reverted, since "Deportation" is a controversial term and is not NPOV. It conjurs a historical comparison that is part of the controversy that the article refers to.Tocquevil (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I made the changes I suggested above.Tocquevil (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The article title is problematic. It implies that Romani people overall were expelled from France. In fact, Romanian and Bulgarian (EU) Romani [im]migrants were evicted/deported/expelled. I suggest a partial move revert, as "Deportation of Roma migrants from France".--Zoupan 04:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Good article

I got nothing. Good work! - Richfife (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deportation of Roma migrants from France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122161439/http://worldcrunch.com/france-s-immigration-chief-revisits-roma-expulsion-issue-romania/3921 to http://www.worldcrunch.com/france-s-immigration-chief-revisits-roma-expulsion-issue-romania/3921
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130115122043/http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/2010/10/the-romani-people-and-the-free-movement-directive/ to http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/2010/10/the-romani-people-and-the-free-movement-directive/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Category

Hi @Drmies: re your edit summary yes you are right, i agree the explicit mention of squatting by Sarkozy is inflammatory, but in the first sentence of the article it is stated that there was a "crackdown on allegedly illegal camps" which to me indicates the existence of land squats, as discussed for example in Mary Manjikian's book Securitization of Property Squatting in Europe (review mentioning Roma squatter camps and the moral panic). That's my rationale, interested to hear what you think but obviously it's just a category and not that big a deal :) Mujinga (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hey Mujinga, thanks for the note. I took my cue from that wording by Sarkozy, but also from the "allegedly" in that sentence. I think it's all too easy to put something down as "squatting", an illegal act, to justify (in this case) removal, and the whole thing remains controversial of course. (I'm reminded of vagrancy laws and sunshine laws, or more generally Black Codes (United States).) Categorizing it as "squatting" is kind of like whitewashing, like giving a stamp of approval. The other side of the coin might say Category:Deportations from France or Category:Ethnic cleansing in Western Europe... When I have the time I'd love to read that text you linked. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

oh ok i thought you disagreed with the fact that they were squatting, but that wasn't your point. as for adding a squatting category being a value judgement, i don't think that has much to do with it, surely it's more whether squatting is a defining characteristic of the article or not? in my opinion it is, but i can see its debatable Mujinga (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

i've expanded the article a bit and re-added the category Mujinga (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)