Talk:2010 French pension reform strikes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was browsing this page to get some historic context on the current French pension strikes. This article is badly written. I don't know much about French politics, so I couldn't do this myself, but it lacks a lot of information. Take the 'reason for the strikes' part. These are strikes about raising the pension age from 60 to 62, but it doesn't explain why the government at the time wanted to this beyond a single line 'This may allow a reduction in public spending', how the pension reform would take place, what workers wouldn't and would be effected. There is a link to 'French General Review of Public Policies', but if you click on it you get zero extra information on the pension reform. The section below, citing the reason for the strikes, is a mess. It mixes the actual critique of the pension reforms (young people that already dealt with high unemployment, according to this section), with other reasons why people joined the strike' (anger at tax-cuts for the rich). It's also strange not to see any mention here of people that simply don't want to retire at later age. (Once again, I'm not that familiair with French politics, but was the main reason for opposition against pension-reform, really youth unemployment an anger about taxes for the rich? I doubt it, but that's what you learn from reading this article. It also seems quite an opinionated way and unclear way of writing. Take this sentence. "In recent years, and despite the financial crisis, the government has maintained tax cuts for the richest households and companies." I'll break it down. In recent years? What does that mean, when where these tax cuts put in place? Despite the financial crisis. Why is it relevant that this happened during the financial crisis? (If it was the critique by protesters, than it should be mentioned that they where angry. Now it is presented as an objective fact. I'm fairly sure that the goverment at the time wouldn't have framed it that way). "For the richest households and companies" : should be more clearly defined if it is an objective sentence. Alternative: Activist where angry that the pension reform took place, while taxes on househoulds earning more than x and companies earning more than y where not increased (or 'where lowered' depending on what the sentence 'in recent years entails) Then it lacks any information on the politics, leading up to the strikes. When where the votes for the retirement age increase. Where the protest in response to the vote, or to prevent a vote. It's just a a collection of strike days now, without any information. Which would be fine if there was a seperate article on the French pension reforms of 2010, but that one doesn't exist. This article lacked so much information. Take the one sentence regarding the response of the government: "As a result of the strike action there have been minor concessions and amendments made to the pension proposals. President Nicolas Sarkozy said some mothers would be able to receive a full pension even if they had taken years out of work to look after children. However, the government maintains that the core of the proposed reform will not be changed.[4]" Since it lacks any information on the reforms themselves, it is quite unclear to see what changed here. What happened to mothers in the earlier reform? Did they lose their pension? Or was this a new government benefit, to sell the other pension reforms? It's completely unclear since the article only mentions the increase from 60 to 62. Was there more to this? Maybe that should be in the article. It lacks a decent time-line. It mentions a review by the government in 2007 and the next date mentioned is a strike in 2010. Why did they wait three years? Did something happen to trigger them? Finally: where is the conclusion. I know the pension age is 62 now, in 2023. So clearly they went through. But that isn't mentioned in this article either. Apologies for this long comment on this talk page. But I'm shocked how badly and uniformative this article about a fairly important subject is on wikipedia. It badly needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44A:999C:1:B415:2985:1D85:FA26 (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current pension age?[edit]

What is the current pension age and what has the government propose the age should be??? I would have though these were obviously items to include in the article. 124.254.78.121 (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to sky news from 60 to 62. Seems a bit of an over reaction doesn't it. Stupidstudent (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A major over-reaction, especially considering people are living longer. Peter Greenwell (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, seems quite commendable to me. In the U.S., we let government get away with that stuff all the time without saying a word.--Frankjohnson123 (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's 60 → 62 for women; it's 65 → 67 for men. This has since been added to the article. TFOWR 00:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the 65-67 value from? All news sources cite 60-62, the 65-67 value is clearly incorrect and I have removed it. Polyamorph (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's 60-62 for the retirement age and 65-67 for the pension age. I've tried to clarify this a bit better in the text. Polyamorph (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got it from the article, but I was too trusting - it sounded likely as the UK has those ages for men and women (but is considering making them equal). That'll teach me to trust Wikipedia! ;-) TFOWR 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) Polyamorph (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

The article needs a lot more organisation and clarification. What about the background to the strikes, as opposed to just the strikes. Right now there is absolutely no mention of the historical context.Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


2010 strikes in France → 2010 French pension reform strikes — Greater clarity. While these strikes are clearly receiving most media attention, they are of course not the only strikes that have occured this year in the country; consider the disadvantages of 2010 strikes in the United Kingdom or 2010 strikes in the United States as titles. The Celestial City (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: do we have articles about any other French strikes in 2010, i.e. is disambiguation necessary? TFOWR 22:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily a relevant question: as there is no official name for the strikes, it is open to us to pick the most appropriate name we can. I would say the proposed new name, being more precise and descriptive, is probably better.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was getting at, though re-reading my question it's in no way clear (sorry!), was that this is a series of strikes (general strikes as well), and that that's pretty unique. If the article was called "2010 French strike" I'd have no problem with a move, but "strikes" rfeduces the need. That said, the article deals with more than just a series of strikes, and the lead currently refers to "2010 civil unrest in France" - I'd suggest that that would be a better title. I'm unconvinced by the need to have "pension reform" in the title, as it seems less likely a reader would search for "pension reform" when wanting to read about the strikes. My preferred titles would be for either 2010 civil unrest in France or 2010 general strikes in France, with a preference for the former. TFOWR 10:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree that a user won't have "pension reform" in a search term. For example, it is unlikely that a user will use the search term "1990 UK civil unrest" or something similar to search for the article on Poll Tax Riots. I think this is the same, most people will know that workers are striking over pension reforms and so I think that will be a more likely search term than "2010 civil unrest in france". Polyamorph (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NAME says our goal here should be: "Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency". In terms of precision, this article is about more than just pension reform: it's about the retirement age as well. It's about more than just strikes: it's about demonstrations as well. The most precise and concise way to reflect that is with 2010 civil unrest in France. That title is also recognisable (though I'd obviously defer to a more common name if one emerged), natural and consistent with other articles (though I acknowledge that your proposal is also recognisable, natural and consistent). TFOWR 11:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "civil unrest" is the best way to describe these events, as it seems to imply the events in France are more unstable than is currently the case. Given that pension reform is at the heart of the protests, it would seem sensible to include that in the article title. We don't currently have any similar articles about other strikes taking place in France this year, but that doesn't mean ordinary strikes on other issues aren't also taking place. The Celestial City (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Balance : French people ARE ready to change[edit]

As French, I can say that people here understand the need of change, and the need to expand the number of active years. But the key point in these events is the unfair action of the government, which systematically attack social right, retirements, national health insurance, mismanage them, while... they waste money (hight parliamentarian indemnity, public 300m² apartment in Paris rent to the leaders for 1/20 of the price), offer taxes cuts to the richests, are involve in corruption scandal, don't reduce military budget, etc.

This movement is STRONGLY link to the people untrust into the government, with the feeling that this government is mismanaging public resources and use the global crisis to the benefit of the elite's interest. Yug (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment but this page is for discussing the article and any improvements that can be made, it is not a public forum. If you would like your views to be included, then you are welcome to edit the article but you will need to find reliable sources to back up any claims made and ensure that any content added has a neutral point of view without bias. Thanks and best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was also doing so (see new section "Reasons"). I wanted first state this, to rise awareness about the more complex situation. Further expansion welcome. Yug (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But your views are clearly biased and I am not convinced that the content you have added adheres to WP:NPOV. Besides it seems to be mostly unreferenced. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary "restore well know facts. Don't have ref DON'T means that well know fact are to delete." is worrying. All facts in wikipedia must be cited. There is no compromise in this rule. In the same way that there is no compromise when it comes to WP:NPOV. We'll see what the article looks like when your done editing but any information that does not contain a valid citation or is perceived to be biased will be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. 1. All very doubtful and aggressive facts should be cited, otherwise deleted. 2. Others may either wait citation if not convincing. Or 3. be accepted as common sense or common knowledge. This have been state by Jimbo Wales: the need of citations still ask users to accept common sense and common knowledge. In the case of corruption: l'fr:affaire Bettencourt, and in the case of taxes cuts : le fr:bouclier fiscal are two well know facts when we talk about French politics -like this article-. The rules as "don't destroy the house while it is in construction" is an other rules that encourage to be patient.
"All facts in wikipedia must be cited" if use strictly make the use of {cn} (template citation need) useless since you ask to 'delete' all unsourced statements.
Summarizing, citation is better, yes. But stay calm: One put the reasonable statement (1st stone), you can add [citation needed] if you are not convinced (2nd stone), and someone who have more time than us will add a source (3rd stone) is still good. And better than delete interesting and appropriate content. Yug (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you cannot use the defence that the article is a work in progress and so therefore does not need to adhere to wikipedia policy. It is better to write it correctly in the first place. The policies WP:NPOV and WP:RS are quite clear on these matters. Sure there are cases where information can be classed as commonsense but you are adding information on the political situation in France. Where I see unsourced and dubious information added I will delete it. Polyamorph (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main contentious issue that I have with the section "Reasons for the strikes" is that it seems to be based on your personal interpretation of the reasons. It might be true that government policy has been unpopular but where is the evidence that anything other than the issue of pension reform has any influence on the workers stiking? I'm talking about sources. Provide sources that state this underlying impetus for the strikes and your contributions will be welcome. But until then it is your personal interpretation and violates WP:OR. How are we to know that your interpretation of commonsense and the political "truth" is correct? The only way is to find a reliable citation for everything you write BEFORE you add it to the article. Polyamorph (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will also see that I have not removed the entire section (the tax part remains) I only removed the information that was clearly dubious POV. I have actually used the {{citation needed}} template where suitable, and even introduced sources, if you actually review the edit history you will see this is the case. Finally, policy isn't decided on random things Jimbo says! ;) Polyamorph (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are actually getting closer, toward what I explain as "2. Others [seeming reasonable statements] may [...] wait citation if not convincing."
My point was mainly that all unsourced statements should not systematically be deleted. My statements are, yes, awaiting sources to confirm them [better]. In the French context, they are almost common sense, look at those summarizing recent French day by day hot news.You will see several occurrences of jobless worries, richest taxes payers tax cuts worries, untrust into the government, mismanagement of public resources, and general understanding of this reform economical need. We, French, see it frequently on TV and press. This canalplus.fr page is sadly not static, and not suitable as a sources.
I added some facts to make a reasonable global view : French people are not dumbly and uniquely opposing this retirement reform [which is economically need], but are fueled by a general mistrust and confusing context.
Afterwhat : 1. I'm also busy in real life, so I quickly included a larger view. 2. I feel inconfortable to pick up FRENCH sources -that I don't have the time to read- from the French article to here, while it should be some good English article somewhere (hear that the NYtimes made a nice article).
Finally, yes, Jimbo is not law. But he help to reduce the strict application of rules, and its comments was making sense.
PS: by the way, thanks for your contribution on this article. :) Yug (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue and have already clearly made my points above but it is not correct to assume that uncited information is permitted in wikipedia. Just because the {{citation needed}} tag exists does not make it a get-out clause for not citing sources. I know what your trying to do, and it is an improvement, but please all I am asking is that you provide a source (NYtimes, France24, BBC would all be fine) for everything you do. I personally do not add any information to wikipedia without ensuring I have read an external source and cite it accordingly. I completely understand the commonsense argument but that applies to things like saying "the sky is blue" or "a knife is a sharp object" you know really obvious everyday knowledge. It does not apply in this case where we need verifiable information to explain why the strikes are happen etc. Hope that clarifies things. In the meantime, we do appreciate your contributions, just bear in mind the policies that are there purely to help us write a better and accurate encyclopedia. Best regards Polyamorph (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say though, that the section is looking ok now, if you need any help with finding appropriate sources in english then feel free to ask here. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_French_pension_reform_strikes&oldid=1196566847"