Talk:Sunflower Student Movement

This needs to be on the main page

this needs to be on the main page--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. This story has been under consideration for appearing InTheNews since the 20th. - GroveGuy (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of policymic

Please see here. Policymic is self-published and is not a reliable source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Propose to break long sections into sub-sections by dates

Could we break 'Occupation' and 'Reactions' sections into sub-sections? --Ttzeng (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan's Sunflower Student Revolution | China Uncensored

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF44bx8SF54 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

China Uncensored is paid for by the CIA, is not an independent and reliable source. Akinkhoo (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is the writing of this page neutral [multiple points of views]?

Following recent political event in Taiwan and associated In The News candidacy", it have been STRONGLY asked by ITN's admin to check this article for its tone. Then, the event would be acceptable for ITN. Yug (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not neutral. 1) The viewpoint is extremely one-sided, presenting the events from the view point of the protesters and those who support protesters. There's very limited representation on the government's point of view on the issue, and NO point of view from sources that disagree with the protest (those who agree with the trade pact). 2) Too much of both the introduction and background sections depend on a single source (The Diplomat), a source that itself is not written in a neutral tone. It needs alternative sources, and less direct copying from single source. 61.70.50.164 14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IP?: When I request a review, I don't expect an anonymous IP to do the judgment. I salute, however, your additions of pro-governement contents and sources. (this is good!). But I notice your previous case of sourced content deletion. Yug (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe read Wikipedia guidelines more carefully next time: All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. (emphasis mine) --61.70.50.164

Your status of IP is not the point, as you know it. The fact that your edits are recent, get involve only on this issue, delete several sourced contents... all from the protesters side, navigate WP guidelines smoothly but stragely never sign, make you a contributor to monitor calmly. Thing we will simply do. Yug (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous poster with the IP address 61.70.50.164 is, according to Mr. Cole, a journalist, research fellow and former NATO intelligence officer at the University of Nottingham, a member of the pro-Chinese Want Want Group and a opinion monitor of the Chinese government. [1] At this point, police brutality is not an allegation. This is a well circulated slow motion video recording a police baton striking a prostrate student in the head, which is against police regulations in Taiwan and many other countries. [2] By all means, Wiki upper management should get involved and protect this article from further state-sponsored meddling. 111.248.90.140, 15:17, 27 March 2014‎

Police brutality (or any other illegal act) is an allegation until a court deems otherwise. That's the difference between writing opinions vs. writing news. And therefore why this article is not neutral.

Ok I went to read the blog post by Mr Cole courteously provided by IP address (x.100.whatever) above. And I cannot help but laugh. The conspiracy theory (and the willingness to entertain such conspiracy theories) are absolutely laughable. If Mr. Cole's neutrality was in question before, it surely is completely destroyed by now.

And with that I'll leave you all to your favorite topic. I feel sad for Wikipedia. But I remain hopeful that as time passes, and emotions calm, more balanced view-point will emerge. --61.70.50.164

We are in 2014, we know that the NSA monitor Wikipedia, and it's simply natural for other big governement to do as well, especially the Chinese governement which is well aware of our work and block it. So, we take it cooly, but we stay aware of it, and will continue our careful world citizen work. So Police brutality and snaky political push are not accepted. Yug (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It is neutral. I believe the current version of the article is fairly neutral. It includes perspectives from the KMT and the protesters, as well as reactions from those who support the trade pact, those who support the protesters, and neutral parties. Lasersharp (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lasersharp: Seems user:61.70.50.164 disapears and try to erase his edits the precise day when the article leave the ITN_candidate section. Really puzzling. Yug (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No It reads from a pro-Occupy perspective. Needs more emphasis on the illegality of protests and the KMT perspective on signing the cross-border deal with the ChiComs. Even the images currently give support to the protest. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is neutral. It provides commentary from the KMT perspective, cites the DPP's opposition, and describes the views of the protesters as their 'perceptions'. Coverage of the protests is well referenced, and is balanced both by citation of the KMT's attitude to the protests (not to mention criticism by Premier Jiang and President Ma), and by reference to the much smaller scale attempt at a counter-protest by the criminal Chang An Le. International commentary covers views from a range of sources, including China's Xinhua News Agency. It is also noted that occupation of the Legislative Yuan involved damage to property, and that several people were arrested as a result. The images provided are overwhelmingly neutral, showing protesters inside and outside the Legislative Yuan, as well as showing protesters outside the Executive Yuan. There is only one image of the aftermath of the police attacks on protesters at the Executive Yuan; the article could do with several more showing the riot police engaging protesters with baton attacks and water cannon.Taiwan boi (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Reactions section needs editing

The section on reactions needs editing. I suggest it be separated into two sections. One for reactions from the government and other influential organisations in Taiwan. The other for more general reactions: observations, opinions and commentary from groups not directly involved in the protest. This change would also help address some of the concerns about whether the article is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidreid (talk • contribs) 11:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Lasersharp (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Any other ideas for improvement? Vycl1994 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Sunflower Student Movement → ? – According to Bing, 40+ articles use "Taiwan-protests"; 81 articles use the current title; 120 articles (it says 3,000+ erroneously) drop the student and use "Sunflower-movement" instead. I personally prefer 2014 Taiwan protests because they were just protests that did not change or influence the government. Nevertheless, breaking into the parliamentary chamber that displays Sun Yat-sen turned protests into a Movement. To concise the title, we can drop the Student and turn into Sunflower Movement. However, if we can't retain Sunflower, perhaps it should move back to "2014 Taiwan protests", even if it is not concise (but non-judgmental). George Ho (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Request speedy closure and strongly oppose – What a nonsense proposal. "2014 Taiwan protests" is the worst name I've ever heard of in history, and strikes me as chauvinist. Taiwan is a big place, and they have had plenty of protests during 2014. This article is only about the Sunflower Student Movement, not about other protests on the island of Taiwan or elsewhere in the RoC. WP:OR about what makes a "movement" is just the tip of the iceberg. The present title is WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:NATURAL. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, it should be left alone. There no justification for changing it at all, let alone replacing it with a crappy constructed title. This has history of causing these kinds of messes, so I'm hardly surprised. RGloucester — ☎ 05:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, what about "Sunflower Movement" then? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Why (WP:TITLECHANGES)? RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

For easier typing, and there must have been also people who weren't "students" at the time of Movement. Article mentions "crowds of students, academics, civic organizations and other protestors". We can't restrict to only Students. Well, retaining Students leaves out other types of protesters, like graduate college students who grew up in different careers and/or jobs, like a labourer or a farmer. --George Ho (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to "Sunflower Movement", though I don't think a change is needed. If others support such a change, I too will throw in my lot behind it. RGloucester — ☎ 06:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The name is fine the way it is and I agree with @RGloucester:. No name change is needed to this article. —CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: The name "2014 Taiwan protests" is NOT a valid choice name. This article is only about Student Movement, and other movements in Taiwan may have occurred in 2014. The move of this article is strongly discouraged. —CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, what about "Sunflower Movement"? --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: − I think the name "Sunflower Student Movement" is fine the way it is, and I disagree with your suggested title "Sunflower Movement". This movement is primarily about the student protesters, not adults. ——CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, there were "academics, civic organizations and other protesters" also. Looking at File:Occupy Taiwan Legislature by VOA (5).jpg, there is a middle-aged spokesman speaking to protesters. --George Ho (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of police

The number of police is currently listed as 80,000. This doesn't seem reasonable; this exceeds the total NYPD police force, as well as Tokyo police force. The reference is also a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.111.213 (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering how the entire state of NY has ~15 million people, and the country of Taiwan (this was, after all, a naton-wide protest) exceeds 23 million, it's not unusual or unbelievable to think that the Taiwanese police force presence would be larger than that of New York or Tokyo. 203.70.88.174 (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-biased source?

The article references the Chinese state-run Xinhua news agency, which (as they themselves and their wikipedia page admit) have a long history of biased journalism favoring PRC policies and stances. Should it be included in this article, if neutrality is to be desired? 203.70.88.174 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)