Talk:2010 United Kingdom student protests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Flawed/false sentence

The clause "During the afternoon, about a thousand protestors moved away from the main march outside of the Houses of Parliament" is not correct. The planned route of the march continued past Parliament to the Tate, and past 30 Millbank. Indeed, NUS stewards were encouraging protestors to move on from Parliament Square after attempts to initiate a sit-in there, and didn't try to prevent us reaching 30 Millbank until much later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.170.39 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"one anonymous vice-chancellor"

Somehow a quote attributed by the Financial Times to an 'anonymous vice-chancellor' seems to me a little unencyclopaedic. It may well be true that a uni VC said that to an FT reporter, but is it verifiable? If newspapers think that direct quotes from anonymous sources are valid, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to. What does everyone think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fine because it's verifiable to the FT. FT is a reliable source - if they said they spoke to a VC then they did. It's the FT's prerogative whether to attribute or not. But as the article evolves and more information becomes available, then the FT report may be less worthy of our notice. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't fine, it attributes to the VC something he isn't reported as stating. The article reads 'one anonymous vice-chancellor of a London university told reporters from the Financial Times that he believed that the march, and the accompanying violence, was unproductive to the cause, and that it "could not have gone better for the government. George Osbourne will be delighted.".' The original, in the FT, reads 'A vice-chancellor from a London university, who declined to be named, said that the violence would undermine the anti-fees campaign, adding that it "could not have gone better for the government. George Osborne will be delighted".' The VC is not reported as saying anything about the march itself being unproductive. This obviously needs correcting, and while we are at it, I think it would be better worded as The Financial Times reported that an anonymous vice-chancellor from a London university had told them that the violence would undermine the campaign, and that it "could not have gone better for the government. George Osborne will be delighted". This way, we need make no assertion about what was said, only about what the FT reported was said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, really important to reflect sources accurately. I didn't notice. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change, as above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC) AndyTheGrump

Fire extinguisher incident

Ummmmmm, a fire extinguisher was allegedly thrown? Is the photographic evidence easily googleable not enough for you to believe the incident took place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.203.237 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly fell from the roof, I've seen no evidence of a person actually throwing it. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone has now been arrested on suspicion of throwing it. We'll see how this plays out. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 'wait and see' seems the most sensible option here. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an ongoing news source in any case. If the facts take time to emerge, we will have to take time to recount them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"allegedly later threw a fire extinguisher onto the riot police below" pedantic but vital I think... the extinguisher didn't hit the riot police therefore it wasn't thrown onto them, "at" would be better but only if it's ever proved that someone actually did try to hit those officers deliberately. This small event is likely to become quite complex should a prosecution be made. 109.153.242.203 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We do need to word this carefully. At the moment we can only go with the news reports so should summarise what they say. A police officer spoke to the press to say the extinguisher had fallen very close to him; this was widely reported and is worth mentioning. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is so notable. Far worse acts of violence happen every Friday and Saturday nights in the pubs in every town in the country. That said the media really seems to have picked up on this. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

An object that heavy falling from that height could very easily have been fatal. You're right of course about incidents in pubs, but they don't usually involve demonstrators entering buildings en masse, or the police in riot gear. It also makes good television of course. Sadly, the media are reluctant to report demonstrations in such detail unless violence is involved.

Response section

I'm concerned that this section is starting to get a bit sloppy. Are we interested in what the probably very small Alliance for Workers' Liberty thinks? There's a lot of comment out there in the blogosphere, but little of it will remain of interest after a couple of weeks, let alone a couple of years. We also have to be careful of BLP policy, so am removing an accusation against an individual. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And you don't have to even go as far as blogs. The more recognised media is full of "responses" of all types. Care is needed that prominence is not given to unrepresentative minorities. The Alliance for Workers' Liberty would be one of these. Can anyone explain why their thoughts are notable? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Because they are one of a wide number of socialist and student groups who express the same opinion. Many such groups have supported the Millbank protest, and are critical of Porter and the NUS. Such attitudes can be found on most leftist websites, papers and in student papers. The fact is, these opinions simply aren't being picked up and publicised in the major press, perhaps because being primarily run by big corporations and capitalist businessmen, the mainstream press simply doesn't want to even acknowledge the opinions of socialists. This is why such information has to be gleaned from smaller things such as websites and papers rather than from the mainstream newspapers, i.e. The Telegraph, The Independent, and to some extent The Guardian. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

I think that really the same discussion applies as we had on the Porter BLP. I was a little amused to see it removed also by Judith. Anyways, unknown left wing activists comments cited to minor publications with no editorial control are of no value here, why not find a comment in a more national publication that simply says, Porter was denigrated by the left wing activists that support violent protest and wanted to bring down the government. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

But the problem arises in that the mainstream British press most probably won’t report this, because of their general bias against socialism and the left (they are, after all, owned by capitalist business figures and run for profit). How about just saying something like “Some socialist and student commentators have criticised Porter and the NUS for their response to the situation, characterising them as careerist”, followed by a series of references from both leftist and student sources? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Well, perhaps, but I would prefer a single citation, the strongest one you have got, and I would like to wait for Judith opinion as well, would you post your desired addition here for users to consider..also. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream press has reported, I think, that some members of NUS executive have made statements more supportive of the Millbank events than the President was. And some staff and students at Goldsmiths made a statement. A line or two about those, sourced to BBC/ITV/broadsheets, but let's be restrained with responses because it's possible to waffle on for pages adding a right view to balance a left, then a left to balance a right ad infinitum. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the mainstream press think it unimportant then perhaps so should Wikipedia. I don't think this article should get drawn too far into the byzantine world of campus politics, and the lengthy sniping between the factions that will inevitably go on until the end of time. Many of these political groups are tiny and , as long as their particular ideological preferences aren't being followed, will always have a ready criticism for everything. Their opinions are only just slightly more notable here than they would be in any other politically orientated article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

fire estinguiser update

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j0PBCtyIzkZmHRIDiEm1MM45zTZA?docId=B2923971289875606A000 first man released, another man arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. Suggest possible removal of the first two arrests for violent disorder, although part of the investigation, as they could have been uninvolved. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Updated -  Done - Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition of "violent" removed from lead

"the mostly peaceful rally", "Thousands marched peacefully in London over plans to increase fees in England", "The violence came during a largely peaceful protest by students". The protest referred to in this article contained violence which is detailed in the lead, but it is inappropriate to claim it was a violent protest. O Fenian (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, there were only a small minority involved in any disruption, the majority was a peaceful demonstration. If such additions continue from unconfirmed accounts it will be helpful to request semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, whether it was peaceful or not is not really the point. 'violent' is a POV, and so doesn't belong in the lead. There is plenty of cited content, opinions and facts in the rest of the article for the the reader make up their own mind whether it was violent or not.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Facts about violence and injured should not be burried down, or downplayed

Someone removed facts that are suspiciously missing from the leading paragraph. Violence was certainly notable, and this important fact needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph, with proper qualifications, of course. That protest had 14 injured and that building was stormed is supported by many references, and is not disputed even later in the article. That having injured people means we have violence is not POV, but a fact. That most of the demonstrations were peaceful is also noted, and with this qualification, there is absolutely no reason or justification not to mention violence in the lead. BahirZahir (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You write "though majority of the participants were relatively peaceful." Relatively, huh? Ericoides (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Facts should also not be highlighted. The violence was a tiny minority and for the many thousands of peaceful protesters the issue did not end in violence, Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Except for the political violence unseen in UK since ousting of Tatcher, the demostrators were peaceful. I have removed the relatively if that pleases you. However, there is no way this important aspect of the demonstrations is going to be burried under the carpet in the long article. Also, the violence is seen by some analysts as continuation of the crisis through Europe, which started with violence in Greece, and there is no mention of this anywhere. But it can be concluded that violence was important part of what happened, and its impact was also not something to be mentioned in passing. BahirZahir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

what I was trying to say was .. EC...Some facts should not be highlighted over others either. The violence was a tiny minority and for the many thousands of peaceful protesters the issue did not end in violence, Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The information is already in the lead, I have removed the addition. O Fenian (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Violence" is an uninformative word that can mean far too many things. If you want to mention that a building was stormed then say that. If you want to say 14 were injured, then say that. If you want to say that property was destroyed, then say that. That's factual, and the reader can determine if that makes things "violent" themselves. But simply POV labelling the entire demonstration as "violent" isn't accurate and isn't useful. Also, if you want to connect this demonstrations, on one issue, to entirely different protest situations and causes elsewhere, you need very good cited authoritative sources that explain the connection. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Here here! The use of "violence" is a very subjective term, vandalism took place, but violence? really? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

ProtectiveCustodySA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BahirZahir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have now been blocked as sockpuppets of EnglishYard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the record, which is hardly surprising given the timing of the reappearance of ProtectiveCustodySA last night. O Fenian (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that is good, and as you say, not a great surprise. 11:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

24th November protests

What shall we do about the 24th of November protests? Shall we combine them with this and restructure the page or shall we have seperate pages?

What we have to bare in mind either way is that the early November protests were only in London where as later ones were national.

Had I known the protests were aranged earlier I would have sought some pictures of the Leeds protests. I'll keep an eye out on Flickr and see if any become available. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I reckon we deal with both protests, and any future ones, that take place in London, in this article, albeit with mention of others across the rest of the country. After all, they are essentially a part of the same protest movement, and are not particularly noteworthy of each having their own articles.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

Agreed. Deal with them here. We need a redirect from 2010 student protests in the United Kingdom, which I hereby create. Depending on developments, we might need to consider a rename, but not yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Next tuesday, more protests say students

Apparently the students say they will protest again next tuesday in the news, sinse its crystal balling right now to mention it should we wait and see if it happens?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

One sentence, referenced to a major mainstream news outlet, would be fine. Not crystal ball, but reflecting a report in the media. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok I think BBC news meantioned it yesterday--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Current event?

Are we to have current event template on the article all of 2010 as there are likely going to be also more demos to come, imo the template is not warranted. its not like the article will change just a new section may get added. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is really useful, as the whole article has been written as it has unfolded in the media. In coming months it can be reviewed and rewritten with hindsight and using a wider range of RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how having a current event template is helpful to that requirement, I just don't see it is an actual current event worthy of the template. The article will need rewriting at a later date anyway, that is as with all newsy write ups..no worries, if you and the user that added it think it is a benefit to the article it can be there. In other ways I am a bit dubious if the tile is the best available and if all the protests in 2010 will sit happily in a single article or if they even should. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"in London"

Whilst this article started off covering the first protest, large chunks of it are about protests elsewhere. Should we move it to 2010 student protests or 2010 United Kingdom student protests to more accurately describe the article's content? SmartSE (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support 2010 United Kingdom student protests - seems to be what it is developing into - Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Would 2010 UK student protests be better (This is already a redirect)? Though acronyms and initialisms are probably best avoided in general, I think it looks right here. It certainly merits moving. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I said earlier we might consider a move at some point, and I agree that now is that point. No strong views about the order of 2010, UK, students, since we can set up redirects for all the likely variants we can think of. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Are the protests in all of the united Kingdom, or just in some parts of it? Presently the article only mentions that students came from Wales and Scotland and NI but it doesn't mention any demos outside of England? Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find Cardiff University is in Wales. On the broader issue, it gets difficult because the Welsh Assembly has decided not to allow the fee increases. Scotland has a different system in any case. The article however states that student demonstrators have been coming from all parts of the UK though, so I think '2010 UK student protests' is entirely justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 UK student protests - I am a bit dubious, but happy to support for now as it is better than what we have now which is not correct any more .. Wikipedia:Article titles .. here it says it is ok to use UK in the title. Why don't you be bold and move it... Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would, except that it would seem prudent to take the wise words of the Qur'an into account: "pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge" - I've no idea how it is done. Perhaps someone else could do the honours? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - User:HJ Mitchell helped out. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Convoy

Home Secretary, Theresa May "did not confirm reports the duchess was poked with a stick during student protests on Thursday." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11978954 --Sennaista (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

9th December Section - NPOV

I have just added a NPOV tag to this section, as I beleive it lacks a sufficiently neutral point of view. I took this option, rather than directly editing, as I'm well aware that this is a contentious issue.

I have concerns that this section is somewhat biased in favour of the protestors. My main concern lies with the line, "Police in riot gear also began attacking the crowd...". This suggests an unprovoked attack on peaceful protestors. When this began, there was a high level of disorder among a section of the crowd.I suggest that his be reworded to include mention of the surrounding circumstances. I also have a more general issue with the tone, which seems somewhat unbalanced. Again, some slight reworking could be extremely useful here.

As an aside, should there be a mention of the attack on the Prince of Wales? It's mentioned in the lead, but not in the section on the day.

It should probably be mentioned in the section on the day, but not in the lead, being as it was a relatively minor detail. Not that you'd know it from the media coverage. 82.23.137.137 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

--92.236.22.96 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Some slight reworking might be appropriate, but we need to reflect the sources accurately. Most of the section about Parliament Square is taken from The Guardian's timeline. If you look, it is saying that the atmosphere was reasonably quiet around 3.30. A Guardian journalist was told that a "kettle" was in place by 3.45. Violence had broken out by 4.00. Scotland Yard is quoted saying that the kettle was there because of violence, but The Guardian timeline doesn't very obviously support that. The attack on the royal car is covered in the next section. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should reword that comments bit. It does imply an unprovoked attack from the police, which it not reflective of the situation as I saw it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have run through it neutralising some of the more obvious emotive language and bias. My concern with it remains that the section is almost entirely cited from the single rolling blog on the Guardian website, from reporters within the demonstrators. Obviously they have a first hand view of events, but the "front line" is not the best place to see the overall bigger picture. Cites from a wider selection of reliable sources would benefit this section greatly. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work, and I think it is nearly there. The BBC is an obvious further source, and the other broadsheet papers are RS too. I'm going to have a quick look at the French papers in case they pick up a dispatch from AFP. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that rolling blog is not a good place to source so much stuff. Its better after Orbits edits but imo it still seems a bit bloated almost like a running commentary, when really it just needs the most noteworthy detail. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Le Monde is here and not very accurate because it says that the violence was due to police protecting entry to Parliament, while the British sources agree that it was around Victoria Street and not directly outside Parliament. Good photos, perhaps the article needs more illustrations. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article as a whole is too long with too much trivial detail. Unfortunately that's what tends to happen with current event articles. It's only once they pass into history, and editors can assess things in retrospect, does it become clearer where the important points lie, and what is the excess baggage. Removing trivial detail just now would likely prove to be a futile exercise. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for these "surrounding circumstances"? The violence committed by some protesters is well documented here already.

You could equally argue it the other way - is it fair that we report the violence from protesters, when there may have been "surrounding circumstances"? Doesn't it currently imply unprovoked attacks on police?

No, all we can do is state the facts, without picking sides or making assumptions about additional circumstances. Mdwh (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

- Thanks. The current version is much better. I did not mean to suggest that we should focus heavily on the violence by protestors. I merely meant that the article should try to describe an extremely complex situation with even-handedness. --92.236.22.96 (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As per this comment from the user that placed the template - I have removed the npov template as the user appears happy with it now. Off2riorob (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Contact with Camilla

Just thought I'd let you know, I have updated the bit about the aledged contact between protesters and Camilla. The home secetary did today (13/12/2010) confirm to the House of Commons that there was 'contact' between a protester and Camilla. However there was no confirmed reports of what the protesters 'did to her'. Mrblobbyandahalf (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Due to the [sic] "theses" entry - would it not be appropriate to actually label the newspaper as "The Grauniad"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.132.160 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean attribute? Statements made in parliament shouldn't be attributed to a particular newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

primary does not assert notability

On Monday 6th December 2010, around 30 students from the University of Bristol occupied Senate Room in Senate House, the administrative centre of the university, demanding an 'opening of the books' and a full statement of condemnation from Vice-Chancellor Eric Thomas of the education cuts. http://bristoluniresistance.org.uk/2010/12/statement-of-bristol-university-occupation/ - this has been added without any independent support to assert notability . Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see this, bit of a local report http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Senate-room-occupied-fees-row-students/article-2976818-detail/article.html - Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We already have lots of reports of local actions. These should if possible be collated into a single sentence about places where there have been actions, but still all referenced to local papers etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)