Talk:Anti-austerity movement in the United Kingdom

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

Merge 2011 anti-cuts protest in London into here[edit]

very strong support - this would be a substantial article in itself, recommend that a short piece is kept here, with a seperate article detailing all of the events 212.219.242.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Very strong support - as 2011 United Kingdom protests covers the London protests PLUS all the other protests, AND was created BEFORE this one (around 12 hours before), so 2011 anti-cuts protest in London is a duplicate of this. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong oppose The biggest event since the antiwar demo eight years ago needs its own article. For goodness sake, coaches started leaving at 6.00 pm so some marcher wouldn be home till midnight- factor in a little sleep and this artricle has had 5 hours to be written. All you do is put a {{main}} tag on the other page and write a short synopsis there. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong oppose A demonstration involving over a quarter of a million people deserves more than being squashed into a list of all the protests in 2011. Sylosin (T/C) 11:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Notable in itself due to size and both articles can exist. --TBM10 (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are certain to be more protests in 2011, it would be useful to have an overall view in one article that cross references to more detailed articles on specific events. If unified, the article will become very long and unreadable. IainWallace (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Oppose This is not just about the London protests. Obviously this is a major strike in its own right. There can be certainly a link to this article from other articles. 94.175.93.243 (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - the large numbers alone are no justification to separate out this incident, which is an integral part of the 2011 UK Protests. In the same way, the Tahrir Square demonstrations (involving equally huge numbers) were taken as part of the 2011 Egyptian revolution article and not given a separate article. Future readers researching the 2011 UK Protests will expect to find this one day's events contained in context of the ongoing campaign. Otherwise, if there are further one-pay protest marches involving similar numbers, is each one to justify a separate article? Rif Winfield (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the 26 March events is notable in its own right, it should be mentioned here in summary style. This article has a potential problem of synthesis, associating many smaller actions organised by various groups with a large centrally organised one off event.--Salix (talk): 11:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not notable in its own right and only one in a series of protests. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is cleary notable enough for a stand-alone article. Lugnuts (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Squashing this important event into a wider page will just prove impractical, and sooner or later will have to hive off to form its own page again, rendering the whole merger pointless. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose As has already been said, this article can be expected to grow and soon there will be complaints that the article is getting too long and needs to be split. Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The 26 march protest was a big event in the United Kingdom, and the largest such event since the Iraq war protest in 2003. It was notable enough for a standalone article. Coolug (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - clear wiki notability independent of all the other protests that have occurred and will occur in 2011. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Off2riorob --Snowded TALK 18:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportPer all other supports — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpxpress (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Already a fairly long article, subject is notable in its own right, no reason why it can't be summarised in this article. Grim23★ 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Demonstration stretched back one and a half miles from Embankment tube station to St Paul's Cathedral'[edit]

Would it be possible to see that in a map of London? It would be helpful in someone had an image that conveyed the protest length. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Responses'[edit]

Would it also be possible to add some balance by quoting people outside the protests who are in support? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no discussion - I shall remove the tag. Gandydancer (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start Date[edit]

Given there was an NCAFC march in January, and the article is about 2011 protests, not march protests, is it not wrong to suggest the protests started on march 11th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.242.75 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a source and the date of the protests, and then I'll add them in. 86.185.130.57 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've found one anyway. I'm putting it in. Thanks for telling me! GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham binmen struck on January 4th.Wipsenade (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Uncut actions[edit]

UK Uncut have a rather large list of over 100 actions which have been held so far [1], should some of these be included?--Salix (talk): 15:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, is it true that UK Uncut has a 'violence is acceptable' policy? Because some of the news stories state that UK Uncut members were among those threatening shop attendants, breaking windows, smacking people with flagpoles, etc? I always thought they were a non-violence only group. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll add them.
No it isn't, judging from their tone of voice on their website, but I might be wrong there. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Uncut are a non violent group and everything they did on the 26th was non-violent. As you can see in this video from the guardian the police officer describes the Fortnum and Mason protest as non-violent so this article is wrong about what it says on UK Uncut and Fortnum and Mason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allie cabab (talk • contribs) 00:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps you and I have a different definition of "violence". It would seem to be clearly that breaking into someone else's property and then destroying parts of it as well as physically threatening anyone who would dare stop you (or even is merely just in the area) is "violence".
I suppose you might disagree, but- really- if I were to enter the room you're in right now and take your computer from your hands and smash it into a million pieces I doubt you'd call it "not violent". Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Neutrality, POV, WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability and WP:SOAP Issues[edit]

Is this article merely far left, conspiratorial propaganda and wishful thinking by the same 4 or 5 editors, rather than having any real basis in objective reality?

It certainly seems that way to me as a mature UK citizen who follows the news almost hourly. The protests this year are no different to the many other protests that take place here, on multiple issues, any other year. {{Multiple issues|date=April 2011}} {{POV|date=April 2011}} {{POV-check|date=April 2011}} {{POV-lead|date=April 2011}} {{NPOV language|date=April 2011}} {{Undue|date=April 2011}} {{newsrelease|date=April 2011}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.108.76 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2011

I would tend to agree, the article seems to have severe Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:SOAP issues and appeared to read as some sort of promotional propaganda piece written mostly by biased "UK Uncut" supporters to advance some sort of anti-capitalist/anarchist agenda. I have tried my best so far to sort out and address these issues. It also appears that some of these editors (the same group of 3 or 4 people) are rather naively trying to insist on some sort of link with the 2011 MENA protests. 79.69.107.104 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two IPs with the same geolocate data agreeing with each other and using the same language? Do you really think other editors are that naive? --Snowded TALK 19:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And while I think of it, there are no arguments by either IP above, just an accusation and an assertion. --Snowded TALK 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to remove that tag. It would be easy enough to just run through Wikipedia slapping tags on everything you don't agree with, but fortunately Wikipedia does not work like that. If this editor is too lazy to explain exactly what and where his/her problems with the article are, it is not up to the rest of us to waste our time with him/her. I also note that there is a "citations needed" tag, but no citations needed mentioned in the article. I shall remove that as well. Gandydancer (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stress in the strongest possible terms that I would like to see constructive criticism of this article, as it has been dominated by a few editors focused on a few narrow parts of this issue. I don't see such criticism above from the anons, just invective. My 2 cents. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, such sock-puppetry really should be punished by administrators.

It should remaineder neutal due to the political ovatures in the UK's Cameron Ministry/Credit crunch.82.18.193.240 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising infobox[edit]

Is an "uprising" infobox detailing "Deaths" etc. (which is generally used by articles on the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests) really appropriate for an article on anti-austerity protests in the UK?

Protests against spending cuts are hardly the same as an armed mass uprising against the government, and a few idiotic teenagers smashing shop windows are hardly "riots".Toady Jug (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox doesn't actually display the word "uprising". Can you suggest a suitable replacement infobox that would more closely reflect this event? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have reinstated the "Uprising" infobox, replacing the "Civil conflict" infobox. So is this now the prefered infobox? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Civil conflict" infobox seemed even less appropriate and more the sort of thing one would use for the current situations in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire.
Toady Jug (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

The 2 most recent edits by User:Sugar-Baby-Love seem particularly biased and the edit warring that has recently taken place to constantly reinstate such opinionated POV and inaccurate statements would appear to suggest a deeper motive.

For example, his/her constant reinstatement of the claim that, "the United Kingdom general election resulted in no political party achieving sufficient support to form a government on their own. For this reason, the centre-right Conservative Party and centrist Liberal Democratic Party entered into a coalition government together", is patently false.

As already stated numerous times in various edit summaries of the article (each undone without valid reason), the Conservative Party actually won the popular vote and could have formed a minority government if they so chose.

The sentence, "The government planned to put into action spending cuts, stating that they were necessary to address the UK's record peacetime deficit", was also again restored to the opinionated, subjective and emotive version that now reads, "The government planned to put into action drastic spending cuts, claiming that it was necessary to fill the deficit. The cuts that they planned proved to be the toughest in the United Kingdom since the Second World War."

As quite rightly pointed out by previous editors (all of who's edits have since been undone), subjective and emotive language such as "drastic", "claiming", and "toughest" (by what measure?) are not in the spirit of WP:NPOV.

User:Sugar-Baby-Love has also constantly restored unsourced and unverified claims removed by previous editors such as, "300,000 public service jobs ending" and in the same paragraph constantly restored the word "strong" in front of the mention of the word "criticism" whilst at the same time removing the qualifier, "from political opponents".

I could go on, but my time is limited, and the edit history is there for all to see.

I would also recommend that all editors (and activists) engaging with this article familiarise themselves with WP:SOAP. Toady Jug (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "opinionated, subjective and emotive versions" of content you appear concerned with are actually conveyed by reliable sources. Reliable sources have called the cuts "big", "drastic", "sharp", "massive", etc., and have indeed called them the toughest since WWII. You describe as unsourced the "300,000 public service jobs" text, when it too is directly conveyed by reliable sources. I could go on, but my time is limited -- but never too limited to actually read the sources before editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it appears that you have missed the point of WP:NPOV, just because a "reliable" source takes a particular stance/viewpoint in line with its own political affiliations and the expectance of its target audience it does not mean that Wikipedia should replicate its descriptions and use of adjectives. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
For example, Fox News might give a very different account of a news story to say, Al Jazeera.
Secondly, it appears that you have intentionally changed the title of this section and ignored the primary issue of the same 3 or 4 users constantly reverting and undoing perfectly constructive and valid edits in a very blatant way that a simple look through the recent edit history clearly demonstrates.
I am also confused why the following factually inaccurate statement has been maintained:
"the United Kingdom general election resulted in no political party achieving sufficient support to form a government on their own. For this reason, the centre-right Conservative Party and centrist Liberal Democratic Party entered into a coalition government together."
As I have already stated here and as others have pointed out in various edit summaries of the article (each undone without valid reason), the Conservative Party actually won the popular vote and could have formed a minority government if they so chose.
Finally, your use of sarcasm here is unnecessary and unhelpful to the cause of ensuring that balance is maintained within this article and that it is written from a neutral point of view. Toady Jug (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing your assertions in order: 1) I am quite well versed in WP:NPOV, thanks. You haven't explained the "stance/viewpoint in line with its own political affiliations and the expectance of its target audience" of the Associated Press, BBC/Reuters, ABC News and the New York Times to which much of the content is attributed. If two different reliable sources give very different accounts, we use the accurate one, obviously, and wait for the correction/retraction from the other. So can you enlighten us as to two such conflicting reliable sources? I'm hearing lots of complaining, yet not a single example has been produced. 2) Yes, I have changed the header of this talk-page section to be more succinct, and yes, I have indeed ignored your commentary as to the motivations of other editors (per WP:AGF, you would be wise to do the same.) 3) As for the results of the UK General Election in May, 2010, I followed the Wikilink to the article (and also reviewed the cited sources there), and I fail to see a "factual inaccuracy" in the text. If you feel additional text on "popular votes" and "minority parties" is necessary, then why not dig up the sources and propose the text? 4) I haven't seen any "others" making the deletions and edits that you have, assuming you are the editor using numerous IPs from (Eskmeals/TISCALI UK LTD/TALKTALK.CO.UK) and have now created your registered account. 5) My use of sarcasm has no bearing whatsoever on the NPOV status of any articles; glad I could clear that up for you. Toodles, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I shall address your statements in the order that you have numbered them:
1) It is a false dichotomy to assume that just because different news sources take different political stances, say pro-Labour versus pro-Conservative, one is necessarily inaccurate and the other is "the accurate one". All Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, ALL significant views. Emotive language such as the given example of adjectives like "drastic" should be avoided. It was also wrong of the editor(s) (User:Sugar-Baby-Love and another in the edit history who previously made the exact same unnecessary reversion) to remove the balance in the sentence in question by deleting the phrase "the UK's record peacetime deficit" whilst only mentioning that the cuts "proved to be the toughest in the United Kingdom since the Second World War". All statements should be put into their proper context and it is not in the spirit of WP:NPOV to downplay the fact that the deficit itself was at a record high and required record high cuts, and then only mention the magnitude of the cuts without some qualifying statement that puts them in proportion to the actual deficit size.
  • "Emotive language should be avoided..." - Actually, confusing descriptive language with emotive language should be avoided. If in your personal opinion an adjective or adverb is too strong, then make your case by citing other equally reliable sources, instead of imposing changes to reliably sourced content based solely on your opinion -- which, as you have experienced, usually results in your edits being quickly reverted. I see you have neatly sidestepped my request that you provide an example of a source supporting your prefered text. A quick wordsearch of the sources for "peacetime deficit" comes up empty. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2) Are you suggesting that when multiple editors make a concerted attempt to constantly undo perfectly valid and constructive edits to the article we should just ignore such action? Alongside the examples I have outlined above in the "Background" section of the article, other destructive edits include unnecessarily removing the wiki link from the word deficit and the reversion of minor grammar corrections, always to restore whatever was there before.
  • No. My suggestion is still there if you need to review it. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3) You claim that you “fail to see a factual inaccuracy” despite the fact that above I have already twice stated the exact factually incorrect statement and twice explained why that statement is wrong. Perhaps I need to be more specific and spelt it out more, the claim that “no political party achieving sufficient support to form a government on their own” is just flat out wrong because of the word “sufficient”, the Conservative Party made a CHOICE to enter into a coalition government rather than by necessity. It would have been perfectly legal for the Conservative Party to form a minority government on their own.
  • You do realize number 3 was a question, do you not? And your quoted text above seems to be easily clarified by simply adding the word "majority" before the word government. I'll continue to await your response to that sidestepped question as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4) You claim that you “haven't seen any others making the deletions” despite the fact that the entire edit history of the article is merely a click away. Several entirely constructive edits were undone in “one fell swoop” by User:JMS Old Al at 16:44, 7 April 2011, by User:Ghmyrtle at 16:53, 7 April 2011, by User:Snowded at 17:36, 7 April 2011 and 19:55, 7 April 2011, by yourself at 20:10, 7 April 2011, and by User:Sugar-Baby-Love at 07:17, 8 April 2011.
  • I see that you have misquoted me. What I really said was: I haven't seen any "others" making the deletions and edits that you have, -- and I haven't. Despite being from numerous different IPs, they have all been your edits. I never addressed the edits made by those other folks you mentioned. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I won't have to repeat the same self explanatory explanation for a fourth time and spell this out all again in even more obvious detail. Ta-Ta! Toady Jug (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argument from repetition doesn't really work around here, and I have considerable patience. Folks eventually realize that repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see what we can do one step at a time. Would you both find the word "severe" acceptable rather than "drastic" (though that is the word that the source uses). If there is not agreement, I feel we need to go with the word the news outlet used. What about, "the UK's record peacetime deficit"? Is there any good reason for not putting that back? Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already changed the word from drastic to "sharp" (from the cited source), but I have no problem with "severe". I've also seen "deep" used in the cited sources. As for describing the deficit, I haven't seen the "peacetime" modifier used in sources, but I have seen simply "record budget deficit". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing a couple of Xenophrenic's worthwhile responses in the order that he has set forth:
1) Well silly me, I was sat here under the impression that the whole idea when editing a Wikipedia article is to be bold (WP:Be bold) when one believes that one can improve an article by changing the sentence structure and wording/adjectives to ensure that it is factually accurate and sounds less partial and more neutral to the casual reader.
I have hardly “imposed” anything on anyone, only those with the ability to lock an article from others wanting to make constructive edits (whilst still being able to edit the article themselves) can do that.
I borrowed the phrase “the UK's record peacetime deficit" from the almost identical Wikipedia article, 2011 anti-cuts protest in London, and thought that it would be appropriate as it's a fact that I've heard mentioned frequently in the news media here. A quick Google search for the phrase returns 187,000 results, with reputable news sources such as the The Guardian, Yahoo Finance (taken from Reuters), The Financial Times , and The Independent all using that exact phrase.
3) Correct. Adding the word "majority" before the word “government” would turn a factually incorrect statement into a factually valid statement, irrespective of the fact that I had already tried to correct the article twice previously and my edits were undone for no valid reason. Toady Jug (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, silly you; citing reliable sources is still required, and the deletion of reliable sources is frowned upon. No, this article has never been "locked from others". And yes, the valid reason given was your lack of additional cited sources to support your edits and lack of discussion & consensus here. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could this information be added to the Background section?
LONDON | Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41pm BST "LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's interest rates would rise almost immediately if the government were to ease fiscal policies aimed at reducing a record peacetime budget deficit, Chancellor George Osborne said on Tuesday." http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/uk-britain-osborne-idUKTRE72S4PZ20110329 Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before reading Gandydancer's comment here I made the following contextual improvement/clarification at 16:07, 11 April 2011:
"The government planned to put into action sharp spending cuts, stating that they were necessary to address the UK's record peacetime deficit with the UK finance minister, George Osborne, saying that Britain risks suffering a debt crisis like those seen in Greece, Ireland and Portugal if it fails to reduce the budget deficit.[1]” Toady Jug (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here, although the wording seems a little clunky to me. It almost sounds as if there is a "record peacetime deficit with the UK minister". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So Xenophrenic, you believe that the website of the organisation arranging these protests (UK Uncut) is an impartial and unbiased "reliable source" (the source of the comments that I deleted), whilst my addition of a well-used and popular media phrase that has frequently appeared in reputable national news publications was worthy of deletion? Toady Jug (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've said nothing of the sort; perhaps you've confused me with another editor? I was the editor that noted your deletion of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and NY Times source citations, and I noted your lack of citations to support "peacetime" verbiage (and no, it is not presently in the 2011 anti-cuts protest in London article either). Now that you have included a proper citation with your contribution, I have no objection to it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My initial rationale for deleting the part sourced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was that I felt that the incident “when students attacked the automobile in which Charles, Prince of Wales and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall were riding” in 2010 was irrelevant to this article on the 2011 anti-austerity protests.
My rationale for deleting the New York Times cited comment was that I found the sentence to be largely meaningless and in dire need of further clarification (i.e. “toughest” to whom and by what meaningful measure?). Toady Jug (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel something needs more clarification, deleting it isn't the way to get it. Try tagging it. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if this article has never been locked from others wanting to make constructive edits, then what happened here when a padlock icon appeared on the article and I was unable to make any edits myself? Toady Jug (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What happened there was the implementation of semi-protection against edit warring by an IP-hopping editor. Constructive edits are still allowed by auto-confirmed registered users. I presume this was done so that the WP:3RR policy could be properly enforced. Most of this is explained at WP:User access levels. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/UPDATE-1-Osborne-Euro-zone-targetukfocus-1207082316.html?x=0

Title[edit]

The title "2011 United Kingdom protests" seems to me overly vague and does not adequately reflect the contents of this article. In any given year in the UK there are hundreds of protests that take place about a wide range of diverse issues. I propose the more apt and descriptive title: "2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests" Toady Jug (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your observation regarding the vagueness of the present article title. Your proposed change seems reasonable to me, but I am not well versed enough on those protests to have a critical opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my own perspective, knowing more about these specific anti-austerity protests is irrelevant to the objective fact that the article title is not specific enough and is inherently ambiguous. For example, let's say protests also take place this spring in the UK on the separate issues of animal rights and military intervention in Libya. Obviously such events would not be included in this article despite the inherent vagueness of the title. Therefore, I see no justification against a change to the more descriptive, meaningful and useful title: "2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests". Toady Jug (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement of Coalition Economics[edit]

I've had to delete attempts to justify one position on the necessity of cuts twice now. Economic opinion was and is divided on the necessity for cuts. If we are to cover anything, we would have to cover all views and its really not our place. This article is about protests. All we need to note is that they were triggered by cuts and that the necessity of those cuts is controversial. --Snowded TALK 21:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat - the purpose of this article is not to argue for or against the cuts, but to explain the context for the protests. WP:BRD is very clear, if material is disputed then it should be discussed here on the talk page, not simply reinserted. --Snowded TALK 09:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the inserted text of which you speak:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) economists praised the pace of the government's austerity measures to wipe out the public sector spending deficit, saying that the cuts would impact upon growth, but that they were necessary.[1]
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the world’s leading economic watchdog, also endorsed the Coalition spending cuts, stating that the Chancellor's plans to plug Britain's £155 billion deficit were "strong, credible and essential".[2]
Perhaps we can come to agreement on if it should be included, and what balancing content needs to be included with it if it does become part of the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=525772&in_page_id=2
  2. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315635/Boost-Osborne-IMF-backs-Coalition-spending-cuts.html

Background section[edit]

I've fact tagged a number of claims in the "Background" section because they purport to summarise the protesters' position in some detail. However this is all uncited, and since the following demonstrations listed do not appear to have any one single organisation behind them, I wonder who has determined that they all think the same and have the same aims? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sections you tagged as uncited are actually cited elsewhere in that same section. I've duplicated some of those refs to make this more clear. No comment on the tussle between the equally correct (depending on region) spelling variations: protestors / protesters. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for citing the claims correctly. Since you reverted my changes en mass, could you fix the following.
You are most welcome (but they were already cited). And I only reverted about 70% of your changes. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remove the "ongoing" from the lead. There are two problems with this. Firstly, it is speculative as it suggests to the reader there's more to come, an indefinite campaign. But there is nothing cited to verify this. Secondly, it is a relative time reference. It only works if the reader knows when it was written. If they read this article in December, are they still "ongoing"? The reader has no idea, as they do not know what timeframe "ongoing" is in reference to.
The first "problem" isn't, as "ongoing" conveys "presently going" (not more to come or indefinite, as you have misinterpreted), and that is true at least as recently as within the past 48 hours. However, your second problem description is spot on, and as such the word should be replaced. Fixed. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also removed the reference to "startled bankers" "who were led out by more protesters and questioned". This is not supported by the cite, which is far from a reliable third-party source anyway. UK Uncut is a campaign website (or more like a blog). It shouldn't be used as a impartial source for anything factual.
Incorrect. That exact wording is very much supported by the cite. It is not a third-party source, true, but that concern was mentioned nowhere in your edit summary which incorrectly claimed it was uncited. If you were seeking non-primary sources, perhaps it would be helpful to note that many of the UKuncut sources also contain additional secondary source links. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which involves around 300,000 public service jobs ending" - where is this claim cited? It appears to be at best a guess by a partisan person, but the reader has no way of knowing who, or judging its accuracy.
The cuts announced involve most government departments, with the loss of 300,000 public service jobs and pay freezes for civil servants. -- ABC News source already cited in the article. ("Nearly half a million" according to another source in the article.) Xenophrenic (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marched through Edinburgh and rally" - This mixes tenses, and subtly exaggerates. By "through" are we to take it they marched from one side of the city to the other? Or did they not simply march in Edinburgh?
"Rally" should indeed be "rallied". As for exaggeration, it actually appears to downplay events. I'll reword it a little, and add a ref -- I think we can agree that is a much better solution that wholesale deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the assembled crowds" - a subtle non-neutral exaggeration, talking up the number of people there. A what point does a crowd become plural "crowds"? I take it Milliband made a speech to one single body of people.
You are, of course, free to "take it" however you please, but incorporating your personal interpretation into the Wikipedia article may be problematic. Looking at the cited sources, I see "crowds" used frequently (see The Guardian cite as one example). Perhaps it, along with protestor/protester, is just a regional thing. I find it interesting that you keep seeing 'exaggeration' conspiracies. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious Xenophrenic? Many of the so called “protests” that are listed here seem to have been attended by only around 5 to 15 people if one actually bothers to explore the scant references given here, and many appear to have been completely unreported in any reliable third-party or local news media sources (if they even actually took place at all).
For example, for the so-called “protest” in Poole on March 12th, even the organisers' own highly biased and partisan propaganda website (UK Uncut) states that only 5 people actually bothered to attend.
Should we really have Wikipedia articles that list series of “protests” that highly insignificant amounts of people actually attended? More people were probably present for my 5th birthday party, should I create an article for that too(!)?
Also, for some of the “protests” listed here I cannot find any evidence that they actually happened at all, other than being planned/talked about on UK Uncut's own website.
The terms “Taunton protest 6th March” and “Bexley protest 9th March” return ZERO results from Google News, and there is no mention in the respective local newspapers from that time either.
What about the policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (events)?
Most of the so-called “citations” in this article appear to solely come from the partisan “UK Uncut” website, which to me seems rather dubious as far as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is concerned.
How about we just include those “protests” that actually have been reported by reliable third-party sources or at least were deemed to be newsworthy enough to be reported by the local/national news media at the time? Toady Jug (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also yes, if indeed they were protests. No, but you are welcome to give it a shot. What about them (and one is policy, while the other is guideline that applies to creating articles -- not the content within the article)? I don't know that there are any third party sources yet, as the events are too recent; and there are indeed news sources that convey that numerous protests have been held, so I guess they are covered. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attacks on editors relocated to user's talk page. Please keep discussions relevant to article improvement.)
Xenophrenic, I can only assume that you were positively responding that articles should indeed exist on any protest no matter how insignificant and irrespective of the fact that it may not even be considered newsworthy in the town that it allegedly took place.
Are you sure that such a position is fully in compliance with the policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (events)?
Your claim that “the events are too recent” to be covered by reliable third party sources is laughable in our age of almost instant, 24 hours a day, rolling global news coverage, and mass social media/internet usage. The alleged protests in Taunton and Bexley over a month ago have not been covered by any local news media sources, such as weekly local newspapers or the daily BBC/ITV local news.
How would you suggest that Wikipedia distinguishes fictional protests that only appear on partisan propaganda websites, that never actually took place, from real protests given your stance?
How about we just include those “protests” that actually have been reported by reliable third party sources, or at least those that were deemed to be newsworthy enough to be actually reported by the local/national news media at the time? Toady Jug (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there are any third party sources yet, as the events are too recent; and there are indeed news sources that convey that numerous protests have been held, so I guess they are covered already, at least as a group. If you know of any, by all means present them. To date, I have only seen secondary news sources, many of which are already cited in this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your concerns about the Bexley and Tauton protests: rather than delete the content if you aren't satisfied with the sources, just tag them as "citation needed". That will notify editors more adept at researching sources that better sources are requested. Searching for Bexley, I found several proper sources, including this one. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then my other unanswered question still stands:
How would you suggest that Wikipedia (and those of us trying to improve this article) distinguish fictional protests that only appear on partisan propaganda websites, that never actually took place, from real protests given this stance?
Does the UK Uncut website meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or not? Toady Jug (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't, and yes. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began around ten in the morning, and would be highlighted by an address" - more weird tense mixing
Fixed. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble at all. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the problems here are related to your idea that citing something in one place of the article is enough to cover its use anywhere else. So it's up to the reader to determine which of the cited sources cover which statement, which ones they don't and which are actually being misappropriated in citing something that they're not specifically discussing. This isn't good enough. If the article is going to state "the loss of 300,000 public service jobs" then we need to see who said this and in which source.
Randomly selecting mentions of "crowds" from a source not directly cited against use of the word, and from a source that doesn't even mention Milliband, is also not good enough. If we want to randomly pick and mix from all the words in all the sources, we could come up with a similar "cite" for absolutely anything. No matter how many crowds were about on the day, Milliband did not make multiple speeches; he made one speech to one crowd gathered in one place.
Could you please direct me exactly where it says "startled bankers were led out by more protesters and questioned." in this cite? I see a mention of "startled bankers", a POV phrase from an partial source, but where is the rest?? Where's the leading and where's the questioning? At what point in this protest did the protesters assume responsibility for policing others?
Talking of "5,000 descending upon Edinburgh" is not neutral phrasing as it is implying forcefully, as if from a great height. How about I rephrase it to say "5,000 trickled into Edinburgh"? Factually still accurate, but you'll agree that the POV phrasing can make all the difference. Neutral phrasing would be more like "gathered in Edinburgh"
I do not see a conspiracy. I see additions that are forgetting that a principle of Wikipedia is neutrality. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your conjecture about "your idea that citing something in one place of the article is enough" is incorrect. I've had no such idea. You are describing a common situation in articles where one editor has added a paragraph with a proper citation, then another editor injects additional content with a proper citation into the middle of that paragraph, and so on, until the original citation is quite distant from portions of the original text. You described certain content as unsourced, and I corrected you, pointing out that the sources were indeed there, but had drifted a bit within the section after numerous edits.
Again, on whether to use "crowd or crowds" or "protester or protestor" I have no strong opinion. I've already pointed out to you that some sources use "crowds" to describe a "single crowd". (And of course you found no mention of Milliband giving a speech in the sources; try Miliband.)
You say "POV phrase from a partial source" as if that were somehow problematic. When wording is obviously "POV" but relevant, we can use it if it is attributed to a specific source. Oh look, we did.
Regarding your suggestions that you rephrase text to say, "5,000 trickled into Edinburgh" or "gathered in Edinburgh", that's fine, as long as those equally problematic wordings are conveyed by reliable sources. While reading the cited source, I did not perceive that the protesters arrived "forcefully from a great height", but hey, I wasn't there. I read it with a broader understanding of the origin and usage of the word "descend". Replacing a perceived POV phrase from a reliable source with an unsourced, personal POV phrase, does not NPOV make. As editors, we shouldn't force unsourced milquetoast descriptions of events into articles, in the name of neutral phrasing, unless sources actually convey it is a milquetoast event. If it helps, alternate sources have described it thusly: "...marched into Edinburgh and demonstrated"; and "...marched to the Scottish Parliament and held a rally to urge politicians to make education an election priority." Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how the statements came to be separated from their cites, if that what you think happened, is irrelevant. The end result is the same, they were uncited with no indication of the where they were sourced from, if at all. Or are you asking the reader to investigate the history of the article to work it out themselves? As such I was entirely correct to tag them uncited and, being bold, remove the more extreme examples.
You say you have no preference over "crowds", but that didn't stop you reverting back to it. Amusingly, the source you refer me too (thanks for the correction on spelling "Miliband", that was what was misleading me), indeed has one mention of Miliband addressing the crowd, singular (at 3.02pm). So your own choice of source (and we could have had any, since there was none attached to the statement) doesn't support the wording used either.
Descend and descent- take your pick of "broader understandings". I don't see any of the definitions being literally true (do you?), so I can only conclude the word is being used metaphorically. But which definition is being applied as the metaphor? My money is on the whole "sudden raid", "as if from a vantage ground" thing, as none of the others would make much sense. But since Wikipedia isn't the place for metaphors, especially one as blatantly POV as this, I don't think we should get hung up on it.
My example of "5,000 trickled into Edinburgh" was only supposed to demonstrate POV phrasing. But what's problematic about "gathered in Edinburgh"? It isn't "forcing description" of anything. It's a neutral and precise summary of what happened, and just because a reliable source chooses to describe events metaphorically in an opinion piece (it's listed as a blog), does not mean that Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, should do also. "Gathered" is quite literally true, "descended" is not.
As for those "startled bankers", I will put quotes around the phrase to make it clear this is a description from a observer, and a non-neutral one. Thank you for removing the "leading out" and "questioning". Something I believe I made clear was unsupported by the source, and you previously denied. Did you forget to acknowledge this? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your five paragraphs in order:
1) Again, that is incorrect. They were indeed cited, as explained above. That the citation was not duplicated after every single sentence of contiguous content from that cited source, while you may personally object, is not a requirement. No, I am not asking the reader to investigate the history of the article; I merely ask that the reader continue to read another sentence or two beyond the first, before getting into a panic over not having yet seen a citation.
2) I said I didn't have a "strong opinion", not no preference at all, indicating I won't fight you over which should be in the article. Go right ahead and use the version you prefer. As for the example source I gave, it served perfectly to support my assertion that "crowds" is indeed used in that region, where you or I might use "crowd" instead. I did not cite that source to support wording used in our article.
3)"...so I can only conclude..." Therein lies a big part of the problem. Of course we are all allowed to form our own conclusions, but we are not allowed to implement our personal conclusions when editing Wikipedia articles. (As an aside, I read "descended upon" as "converged upon", and like the phrase "let's head downtown", I don't insist that a change in elevation must be implied. And not having been there personally, I cannot say if the protesters did indeed come from a higher elevation, so I'll just stick with conveying what reliable sources say.) You have personally concluded that a reliably sourced statement is a metaphor rather than a colloquialism, and POV as well. I have already offered (see my previous post) alternative verbiage from reliable sources that you may use in lieu of your personal synthesis.
4) What's problematic about "gathered in Edinburgh" I'm fairly certain that isn't what they did. Sources I've read indicate they marched there. It was even billed as a march & a rally. (Oh darn, there's another militaristic term indicating forceful movement, no doubt also including an attack ... probably from an elevated height...). Why describe them as one would describe an already present flock of pigeons around an old man holding bread crumbs? We should stick with reliable sources.
5) I have no problem with you putting quotes around quoted material. What I "denied" was your assertion that the "startled banker" and "leading" content wasn't supported by the sources, when it was. Thank you for acknowledging that. Granted, the confused wording about bankers being led and questioned by protesters slipped by my brief review (I was just confirming that the stuff was indeed present in the source); but I did fix the wording. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you still believe that it's just possible that "descend" was getting used in some other sense, and weren't quite sure if the march hadn't come from somewhere else apart from Edinburgh, perhaps a higher elevation, I thought the best solution was to use some other sources with less "ambiguous" language and more detail. I believe the cites I've added are an improvement and result in a clearer article. Your interpretation of what constitutes "synthesis" remains uniquely your own. I do not see appreciating the use and meaning of words in articles as addition research, I see it as good editing. And what you claimed as "contiguous content" cited from one source isn't what I saw. Referring back, I see a statement ("300,000 public service jobs") that we know know was sourced from a cite that was two paragraphs away, separated by three other cites. That isn't useful citing by any means --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed[edit]

Number 1: I don't agree with the title change, but I see that most people do agree so I'll just go with it. :)

Number 2: In the infobox, under Injuries, it says "28 people; 5 police officers". What does this mean? Is it 28 people including 5 police officers, or 28 people plus 5 police officers? Could someone just clarify that for me please, and then make the appropriate changes to the article? Until then, I've added a [clarification needed] tag onto the statement.

Thanks User:GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor expressed the opinion that the original title was too vague. Is the present title too restrictive, and not inclusive enough? I haven't heard actual debate or discussion on the matter; just a lot of tacit agreement (through inaction) with both titles.
The infobox stats appear to come from this source, if that helps clarify things. The 5 officers were "also" injured. One problem though: that source doesn't cover all of the protests, does it? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the term "anti-austerity" comes from. I've not heard this mentioned at all, it seems far more common to call it "anti-cuts" and 2011 United Kingdom anti-cuts protests seem like a better name to me.--Salix (talk): 19:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try here: Anti-austerity protests, here, and here. 88.111.116.226 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both "anti-austerity" and "anti-cuts" leave out the significant "anti-tax avoidance" protests as well. Is there a not-too-vague description that would encompass all three? Many of the sources describe UK Uncut as a protest group against tax avoidance. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking ages to reply. For now I'll put 33 (including 5 police officers); that'll do until we can find a source for the whole protests I think. And about the title, the only title I can think of that would include all three at the moment is the original title... but I think it'll be best just to leave the title alone for a while first, and see what happens. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No rush to change the title; it's a work in progress. Another possible solution would be to more clearly define in the WP:LEDE exactly what the protests are about, and include both cuts to public programs as well as large businesses avoiding tax responsibilities in the definition. As it stands now, the lede directs the reader to another article to discover what is being protested, and the details aren't mentioned until the 'Background' section. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violence and arrests[edit]

There appears to be a conflict in sources, so I have moved the following content from the article to here for resolution of the outstanding issues:

A total of 201 arrests were made. Some 145 arrests were in connection with a sit-in by campaign group UK Uncut at luxury store Fortnum & Mason.[1] The following day, 138 of those were charged with aggravated trespass. The other seven were bailed pending inquiries.
The remaining 11 people charged were accused of various offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, violent disorder, assault on police, criminal damage and drunk and disorderly behaviour.
Yvette Cooper also said that Labour condemned the "few hundred mindless idiots" responsible for the violence. "In a democracy, this kind of violence is no form of political protest," she said. "It is violent assault and criminal damage, it is thuggish behaviour of the worst kind and it must face the full force of the law."[2]
She praised police for their speed in charging people and said they had the opposition's support.

All of the above is cited to a single source. That source also gives other "responses" by other individuals, UK Uncut, etc., but for some reason they were omitted. In addition, this reliable source gives a completely different and conflicting account of the majority of those arrests, as well as makes the distinction between different groups, whereas the content inserted in the article does not. Can we find an NPOV way of conveying the actual facts of this event? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC News article states:
"A total of 201 arrests were made. Some 145 arrests were in connection with a sit-in by campaign group UK Uncut at luxury store Fortnum & Mason in protest over alleged tax avoidance by the business's part-owners.
On Sunday, 138 of those were charged with aggravated trespass. The other seven were bailed pending inquiries.
The remaining 11 people charged so far are accused of various offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, violent disorder, assault on police, criminal damage and drunk and disorderly behaviour."
The Guardian (a centre-left newspaper) article states:
"In all, 201 arrests were made during protests in London on Saturday, at which shops, banks and hotels were attacked by demonstrators who had broken away from the main, union-organised march down Whitehall to Hyde Park.
A total of 149 people have been charged with offences, including 138 charged with aggravated trespass in connection with the Fortnum & Mason protest."
There is no "conflict" in these objective facts, as far as I can detect. Both sources agree that there were 201 total arrests and a total of 149 people charged (138 charged with aggravated trespass, 11 charged with other offences). The BBC source merely gives further information by stating that of "some 145" arrests in connection with the sit-in at Fortnum & Mason, 7 people were bailed (which again tallies with the stated figure of 138 people charged (145-7)).
I also fail to see how Yvette Cooper's comments can be considered to be anything other than a factual matter of record.
Toady Jug (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood, or perhaps I didn't make my concern clear enough. I'm not saying the facts in different sources conflict with each other. I am saying the same facts, in multiple sources, are being used to tell conflicting stories. One story has it that several hundred of the protesters were violent, destructive and arrested by police. We're feeding into that version of the story by inserting "responses" about the about the violence into the section that should actually contain responses about the protest. The conflicting story has it that a a small minority group of anarchists and thugs, unaffiliated with the actual protest, infiltrated the march and used it as cover from which to launch acts of violence and damage. Even the BBC source distinguishes the "peaceful anti-spending cuts protest" from the trouble being created "alongside" it -- yet our article conveniently left this out. The sources indicate that the UK Uncut protesters were only arrested for trespassing, and not violence and vandalism, (and even notes they assert they have nothing to do with the hooligans), yet the content inserted in our article blurs this distinction by sneaking in the UK Uncut sit-in protesters right between the guys throwing ammonia at police and 11 charges of violence and vandalism.
So as I requested above: Can we find an NPOV way of conveying the actual facts of this event? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant: These questions raised by MPs and this article on how to present numbers so as to smear the protest. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12881734
  2. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12881734

June 30 - "J30"[edit]

I added the June 30 - "J30" strike and rallys.Wipsenade (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wipsenade for adding it in (and also the welcome on my user talk page!), I've restructured it a bit (along with the whole page, really). It helped having the details already there though. Thanks for adding it! GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-)Wipsenade (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 30, 2011, "J30" protests[edit]

The June 30 - "J30" sectioln has got so large now that it can stand alone as the June 30, 2011, "J30" protests on notabilay grounds.82.2.75.97 (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Wipsenade (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There currently is this article J30 protests, but it is only 1 referenceless line long. So make a new article and redirect that to it, or something.AerobicFox (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated industrial disputes removed[edit]

It looks as though this article has been used as a repository for lists of normal industrial disputes which are unrelated to any "anti-austerity" agenda. I've gone through and removed content which I believe falls into that category. Nothing should be added to this article that isn't correctly associated to this agenda and that association supported by a reliable source. FactController (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester For The Alternative / TUC Demonstration At Conservative Party Conference[edit]

The protest on 2nd October is now showing itself to be a largescale protest, with Greater Manchester Police estimating 30,000+ attendees. Should probably be added to this article, probably upon conclusion when we have more details. --AndrewTindall (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to the Occupy movement[edit]

Should Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movement be listed as responses, or something else? Dualus (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag with 2011 UK public sector strikes[edit]

Seeing as no-one has mentioned it here and there is a consensus not to merge on the other article's talk page, I am deleting the Merge tags. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution?[edit]

This article once had a reference to these protests, along with the riots, as part of a British Revolution. I wonder what happened to that reference? -- 92.4.111.7 (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Anti-austerity movement in the United Kingdom. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-austerity movement in the United Kingdom. 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:

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) 02:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in the United Kingdom opposed to austerity to be added[edit]

The old article List of political parties in the United Kingdom opposed to austerity has been redirected to the main article about the austerity program in the UK. What would editors think about the info from that page before it's blanking being moved into this article as a sub-heading? Jonjonjohny (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-austerity_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1204892100"