Talk:2011 Hetherington House Occupation

Controversy/Criticism

What was the reason for the re-naming. I don't particularly have an opinion either way but if the new name is to be kept then the last paragraph (about the stripteasing guu board members) should be removed as it has no relevance to 'criticism' of the free hetherington.

This paragraph should either be moved/deleted or the section should be more appropriately named. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.145.216 (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the Dialectic Society is also dubious, as it links to a FB page. I thought that was not allowed. LadyDiotima (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree, by the way, that the two sections should be merged. Not quite sure why a new section on the discussion page was started about this, as there was already a perfectly good discussion already ongoing below, but whatever. LadyDiotima (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies on double sections. I had a very specific question re:naming of section/relevance of content which is the purpose of this section. If we maintain the name of the section as "Criticism" then the Assault on the student should be kept seperate and the story about the naked visitors moved to that section (perhaps under a better title). Alternatively the section should be re-named to "Controversy" and the content regarding the assault should be merged into this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.145.216 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd think that the whole section could be merged as "controversy", though I note that there were concerns from others about the merits of including some of the content. However, as I realise that this is a sensitive issue, I think we should maybe leave this as a discussion for tonight and seek the opinions of others before we do any major editing. LadyDiotima (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I also am not sure about this:

The occupation has triggered debate about the legitimacy of protest action versus direct consultation with University management, including a debate hosted by the University Dialectic Society[28] and an emergency motion submitted to the SRC calling for disciplinary action against the occupiers.[29] The motion was not passed. The first reference is already contested. The second: does not mention "the legitimacy of protest action versus direct consultation with University management" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDiotima (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources don't seem to mention or back up the first sentence. I also don't see why the SRC motion is included if it was not passed? Flagondry (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, Flagon. A reference to a UCU motion that was not passed was removed for precisely this reason: that anyone can propose a motion, but unless it is passed it is not representative. LadyDiotima (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be on the basis that it is demonstrating the controversy. However, as you say, an attempted motion by 6-7 people that was not passed is not even political minutiae, it is unrepresentative minutiae. As with the UCU motion it should be removed. Tadramgo (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Tad. But is there any point? We three are having a reasonable discussion here, but if we make what we agree to be a reasonable edit, anonymous users will no doubt revert all changes tomorrow. Well, they're going to do that anyway :-( LadyDiotima (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a useful piece of information to contain. It strikes me, reading this article, that I want to be provided with as clear an understanding as possible about the situation. Clearly a lot of students both support and oppose this occupation. I want to know what is going on. Even more I don't see any harm that is accrued from providing a reader with such information as long as it is stated accurately. The '6-7 people' is surely quite a large number of signatures for a motion no? Do most motions not normally just get proposed by 1/2 people? I don't want to get into semantics but the fact that a number of SRC members felt the need to raise it, in as serious a wording as they did, is evidence of "Criticism/Controversy" and so quite relevant in this section. Particularly since one of the proposers appears to have been the incoming SRC president and, as I understand, the cuts/occupation/protests were a significant factor in this election. I understand more and better by having this information, that is why it is good. Neil999go (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Again sorry to change the subject from the above discussion, but is this sentence really necessary in the introduction: "though confrontations with students have led to accusations to the contrary (See Conflicts with fellow students below): ? Flagondry (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really, but I have no strong thoughts wither way about it. LadyDiotima (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I just wondered because I don't recall ever seeing another WP article that had something like that in the introduction. I could be wrong, but it seemed like someone was trying to force the topic further up the page. Even if I am wrong in that respect, it is incorrect to say 'confrontations' with 'students' in the plural as there is only one confrontation with one student in relation to an occupation meeting in the Conflicts with Fellow Students section. Flagondry (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I just had another though, the confrontation with the student in the meeting was due to his attempts to film the meeting, not him merely his attendance at the meeting, so this doesn't actually challenge the statement that 'meetings are open to all'. Flagondry (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well they're obviously not open to cameramen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.183 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

At risk of repeating myself, they'd obviously be open to anyone as long as they didn't film. Flagondry (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't know the background to this, but there was a mention of George Galloway being "banned" from going into the Hetherington this week due to certain views he holds. Is that relevant to the claim that the occupation is open to all? Was there actually any substance to that story? 94.195.174.51 (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Galloway is apparently not allowed: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=165261603530791&id=1502930906 I assume that if one name is identified as unallowed, that there is an unpublished list of people who cannot enter. I agree, this goes against the assertion that meetings are open to all. 130.209.241.193 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference for this? The facebook link cannot be used unfortunately as it's deemed unreliable by wiki rules, and it's a discussion thread between individuals rather than an official Free Hetherington post, but I'd be interested to see something from another source on this. Also, a friendly reminder to the editor above to bare in mind that assumptions and speculation (about a list of names) are not encyclopaedic. Flagondry (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume this sort of detail is logged in meeting minutes of the occupation, but those are not published. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hetherington House/Hetherington Research Club

People keep reverting reference to Hetherington House back to Hetherington Research Club. It is accurate to say the occupation is in Hetherington House, because that is what the building is called. The Hetherington Research Club previously inhabited Hetherington House. In principle, the Club still exists, even in potentia. A building can be occupied, but a club cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.73.180 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Also, just so no-one gets confused and hypercorrects, there's also a separate Hetherington Building on campus, which is where modern languages is) (NormanGray (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC))

The building is not referred to as Hetherington House, by any group or institution on campus, or in the wider media. In the interests of relevancy, calling it Hetherington House when it is not known as such is irrelevant and misleading. - Don't know how to sign this, but it's a valid point.

This is an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to be accurate, regardless of popular misrepresentation. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I've added some initial indication of notability (but I'm not the article's creator, so won't add the hang-on template). I wouldn't defend this topic's notability to the last ditch, but it is a significant event in this university's recent history, excited comment in the press (including internationally), and support from a broad range of people). In the context of a larger story of student unrest in the UK at this time, this occupation counts as a notable event. That context should perhaps be drawn out in the article. (NormanGray (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

I think this article includes several assertions of notability, it has received coverage in the Glasgow Herald and the Guardian (national British paper) and MSPs have raised questions about the eviction. A prod is almost certain to be contested so anyone who disputes notability should take it to AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be enough here to pass WP:A7 with the sources that are now included, so I think I'll remove the tag if no-one objects. The article needs some work, but probably not deletion - and certainly not speedy deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a question here about how notable this article is going to be long term. It's really an article about a current event because if the occupation ended tomorrow then the article would cease to be of much value. It might stand a better chance if the article was simply about the building itself and had sections covering the occupation/the original research club, etc. There are other articles like this on Wikipedia: e.g. Appleton Tower at Edinburgh University, Royal College Building at Strathclyde. Bandanamerchant (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.194.91 (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

+1 82.25.175.10 (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

But the building itself isn't in the least notable. Whereas this occupation, whether you agree with it or not, appears to be the longest-running UK student occupation for the last couple of years, and may be notable on a longer timescale than that (I don't know how one would find more details or corroboration – any ideas?). NormanGray (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with you that the building isn't that notable; however I think it would still stand a better chance than an article solely about the occupation. The main reason is that if you make it about the building then you can cover several bases - you can write about the building itself, you can write about it being a part of Glasgow University, you can write about the Hetherington Research Club and you can write about the occupation. If it's just about the occupation then you can only write about one of these things. Maybe none of them, in isolation, are enough to merit a wikipedia article, but in combination with each other it might push it over the line.

If you read the guideline below, for instance, I think it's going to be criticised if we can't show some sort of lasting significance:

"Not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).

Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Bandanamerchant (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'current event' tag takes care of this for the moment. The notability of this article will be apparent once there is some sort of settled situation. As with all such pages on Wikipedia, until that time the page with go through a maturing process. If it is found to be not notable it will either be cut, or merged with University of Glasgow or other appropriate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadramgo (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Disputes of fact

The Porter kettling was done independently of the occupation decision making process and the blog that the malicious editor keeps linking to clearly states teh article is the personal opinion of the author and not any official text. 188.222.46.96 (talk)

The Glasgow University Guardian reference continually cited in the 'Controversy' section does not give any indication that members of the 'Vote Foley' campaign team (who are accused by the GUU of violence) are or ever have been involved in the Hetherington occupation. Flagondry (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In 'Controversy' section - the quote "quite distressed" does not appear in the cited article. This quote should be removed or changed so as to be supported by the cited article. Flagondry (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Eviction section mentions questions being asked in Holyrood by MSPs. Neither of the two cited articles mention this. Suggestion that this statement should be removed from the article unless correct citation can be found.

No further evidence has been presented about this so the text has been removed, until better references are found. the text is added below for re-inclusion if and when appropriate references can be added.

The events led to questions being asked at Holyrood by Members of Scottish Parliament regarding the use of force against the protest.

Also, the statement "A small proportion of the student body disagree with the Hetherington's methods and promote the University’s attempts to remove the protesters from the site.". The cited article makes no mention of the proportion of the student body who disagree, only that opinion on campus is "split". Suggestion that the words "A small proportion" are changed to "A proportion" or something to that effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.172.253 (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do we have anyway of clarifying numbers? If not 'some' is probably better than 'a proportion', as there seems to be a lot of support references and few unsupportive. Tadramgo (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Authors opinion that it's occupied by hippies and anarchists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.62.180 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Free Hetherington is a school and as such is exempt from speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacecowboy22 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the proof that this is a school? It is a building in which people are using to house talks but that does not mean it is a schiil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.244.62.211 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a school. 212.238.73.180 (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an educational establishment which provides free educational lectures, space for tutorials, free seminars, and free workshops. If it's about semantics then no it is not a "school" however it effectively operates as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.28.52 (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On that basis (as you say, 'it is not a "school"'), it cannot be listed as a school. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

An editor continually attempts to revert "committed indecent exposure" to "stripped naked". "Committed indecent exposure" is the factually accurate term. Whoever is changing this is attempting to play down a sexual offence and is a malicious editor. 109.153.17.83 (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'Support' section is subject to constant vandalism. Flagondry (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Controversy' section is subject to constant vandalism and bias views that are opinion of the editor only (not supported by references cited or no references cited) Flagondry (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument about "Indecent Exposure" is both wrong and more than a little lacking in any intelligence. Stripping naked is the factual accuracy (we can clearly see from the cited reference that somebody stripped naked. "Commiting Indecent Exposure" is an allegation of a crime. Indecent exposure being a very specific type of stripping naked that it is very difficult to prove occurred in this instance from the cited evidence. A crime is something that you are innocent until proven guilty. Either the editor who advocates this accusation and defends it above is not very bright (as their argument is both wrong, contradictory and actually an argument against their own case) or they are deliberately trying to to do the one thing they accuse others of, promote a biased view to make a political point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.145.216 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Also, if we were to accept the argument about calling it indecent exposure we would also have to replace the word 'kettled' in an earlier paragraph with a link to the page on Physical Assault as, if the accounts in the referenced Free Hetherington article are to be believed, this is what happened. (Note we shouldn't put such a link in because it is improper to accuse someone of a crime based on incomplete facts)

Page order

In the interest of maintaining a clear narrative, the section 'Eviction' should be placed below 'Occupation' and above the sections labelled 'Controversy' and 'Support'. In the interest of balance the sections 'Controversy' and 'Support' should sit consecutively within the page order. Flagondry (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The narrative, if you look at the dates listed, requires that 'Eviction' follows 'Controversy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.175.10 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

discussions on anti hetherington petitions should be allowed to remain on the site in alignment of the hetherington's views of freedom to express ones views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.81.66.199 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC) "Freedom to express one's views" is not a Free Hetherington policy, thou should read up on their "safer spaces" article which forbids dissent with the party's central core of hardcore extremists. I am not a number; I am THE INNOCENT MAN! 16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if the eviction/reoccupation section should come before criticism (as it says a few posts up)? Since the criticism section has quotes relating to the eviction, it doesn't really make sense without reading the other part first. I also wondered (sorry I know not relevant to this section) if there are any photos that show the full extent of the police presence on March 22nd? I was there that day and there were loads of police officers - the photo of the police van at the moment doesn't really show it. Sorry I don't know how to do an edit request! 81.151.189.78 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The two sections are quite distinct: one concerns general criticism of the eviction, and one concerns the eviction and criticism of the eviction, the University, the police, or occupation actions during or immediately after the eviction. Ritchie's comments were made in the context of the eviction, and so belong there. I have moved them to sit alongside Tommy Gore's comments. This seems to resolve the issue. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

The stuff of legend, this page seems to have morphed into a list of demands by a political group masquerading as a political group in a building, which they occupy and this is a known fact and the page should be deleted for that reason and that reason alone is sufficient (not "suffice", which is a description of an action that something performs, not the nature of the thing itself). It must be consciously writtten out or it cannot be repeated; ce n'est pas le mur derrière lequel il se passe quelque chose, mais bien la cuisinière dans laquelle on a brûlé quelque chose. I am not a number; I am THE INNOCENT MAN! 16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInnocentMan (talk • contribs)

• Not quite sure what you're saying, but I Agree with the proposal to delete the page. I go to the University, and I'm unsure whether or not if we even had a good article it would meet notability if it were a good article, (WP:INDEPTH), I doubt it has recieved enough attention outside of the Uni to be news worthy, and it will be mainly be forgotten about when they choose to leave after getting concessions/get evicted. Even if it is, all the page is being used for now is an edit war between the protesters and the students who find them irritating, primarily it goes against WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTOPINION. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Number of media citations indicates a level of current notability. As mentioned above, this may change. The edit war is a reality and I have requested edit protection. Tadramgo (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Personally, I'd say the fact that sources can be found doesn't immediately give a subject notability, since it was almost certainly created by someone who wanted their opinion on the occupation to exist in writing and the article just grew from there, rather then being created for being a particularly notable event. Nonetheless, I was about to request protection anyway, so I'll retract my call for deletion and leave it at that for now. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Petition

RFC: Are online polls reliable sources?

Is an online poll a valid source for facts and figures indicating support for political actions? Tadramgo (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion prior to RFC, for archive purposes

This petition has been continually added as spam/vandalism, but it may have a place in the article. Though perhaps not as an image? Does anyone have a credible source beyond the bare petition (i.e. newspaper coverage of it?) in order to use as a citation?

It is spam and should be treated as such. 109.153.17.83 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's a petition calling for the occupation to end, then a mention of that should be included in the article. But this is the first I've heard of it. What's its URL? Is there a description of it in, for example, the Glasgow Guardian? NormanGray (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The petition is here: http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petition/44104.html The addition of a screenshot was inane. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The petition is directly related to the eviction. It is exactly the same relevance as the paragraph on the staff/students who have written complaining about the eviction. I've added it back in at this stage. So far there is no reason given on here why the staffs opinions ('Around 100 staff/students') are relevant but the student's opinions are not. The decision should be taken either to keep it in or remove both paragraphs (although I believe that both should be kept as they are widespread opinions on the event), much more relevant than most other "Comment" from newspapers and bbc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.145.216 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume that is was removed (though not by me) as it is not a link that is allowed by WP. I'd appreciate the opinion of an experienced editor about all of this LadyDiotima (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm also really dubious about this petition, now that I have seen it. Many of the "signatures" are anonymous and there is no guarantee that a) those signing it have anything to do with the University of Glasgow and b) that people cannot "sign" multiple times. Whereas the letter signed by staff at UG was, in fact signed. All staff who put their names to that letter did so by providing their name, university email address and job title to the academic who organised the letter. So the petition and the letter are not comparable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDiotima (talk • contribs) 01:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK - so I see the petition has been removed again by another editor. I'd like a definitive answer about this. my feeling is that is violates WP:RS LadyDiotima (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to comment here earlier, but was distracted shortly after I removed it. Unless a reliable source discusses it, I can't see any reason to mention an online petition that was started by some random person and collected ~600 anonymous signatures. The opinions of the staff are relevant because they were reported by a reliable source. My opinion on it hasn't changed since a week ago...a link to the petition is not a reliable source for anything except its own existence. --Onorem♠Dil 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Onorem. I agree with you. I was just wondering, as this keeps happening, if there was a specific link we could refer to. I know I have read it in one of the WP policies, but I now cannot find the exact reference. LadyDiotima (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent individuals can form their own opinions based upon reliability. There is no 'guarantee' that the Herald is correct about the number of staff, just a rational judgement on reliability. It is appalling that one view is included in this section and another is not. No Legitimate reason has been given for removal yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.183 (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed both sections, staff and student 'petitions' until a judgement can be made on whether to include them. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included. It's arrogant to claim that readers are unable to form determinations of their own about reliability. Whilst it cannot be 100% guaranteed that every signatory is a current student it clearly represents a groundswell of opinion and deserves inclusion. Looking above at the 550 odd facebook profiles that have 'reccomended' the petition may be an accurate reflection on identities. Still, it's meant as an example. Both should be included as they allow for all sides of debate to be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.183 (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit fed up with this. Independent editors agree that the petition must be removed, unless an external reference citing it can be given. Yet folk who are not willing to sign up as editors to WP continue to link to it. Please stop. LadyDiotima (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything above. The petition is not useful. Some signatories are clearly fictitious, some are anonymous, and it is unknown how many are students. It requires a much stronger backing before it can be included. Sdstrowes (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you believe you are capable of forming this judgement on reliability but others are not? Are you more intelligent than other readers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.183 (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. But if the page in question is clearly not reliable, with false names, anonymous entries, and no mechanism for verifying that the real signatures are from students at all, then there is no reason to include it. Sdstrowes (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's wrong to censor legitimate protest. I've added it back in with an attempt at mitigated descriptions. Please edit the content rather than deleting. Clearly given the number of editors who have submitted this, and the 600 odd signatures, this is a subject with a large support base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.183 (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because students don't have the same ability as academics to reliably add their name to a petition doesn't mean their views should be disregarded. A single academic can write a letter with their name on it. Students have to resort to petitions such as this to make their voices heard. It's not 100% reliable, but then neither are herald articles, and readers are intelligent enough to determine this for themselves. Readers don't need a patronising person telling them what information they are and are not allowed to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.183 (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Students are quite capable of writing letters and getting signatures in a more reliable manner than an externally-hosted online petition. As an encyclopedia, the aim here is to include only verifiable links. If there are hundreds of students who oppose the occupation, then it is reasonable to assume that there are better sources than one semi-fictitious petition on the web. I propose that you find an alternative link that is more reliable, and cite that instead. Sdstrowes (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the continued spurious citing that is wrong. As per WP guidelines, anything referenced must be to a reliable source. WP accepts the Herald, not gopetition. So this is a point of guidelines, not personal opinion. LadyDiotima (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed both petitions. Wrong to claim that staff's voice is more 'right' than students simply because one agrees with FH and other doesn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.183 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason, other than vandalism, that this user keeps adding this petition. He/she is refusing to acknowledge the discussion above. I'd suggest that the page stays as it is (i.e. without the petition) and we request (sigh) yet another independent arbitrator LadyDiotima (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I quickly pulled a copy of the full signature list for the petition. It currently has 585 signatures. If I remove duplicates and anonymous entries, then there are 469 left. A handful of the 469 are clearly not real. Can the owner of the petition can verify the rest? Sdstrowes (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the Herald article and sentence about staff is vandalism - this is an accepted wikipedia source, the petition is not. It is not a question of one agreeing or not, it's that one is backed up by a reliable and accepted source where the other isn't. Flagondry (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I second this. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is an Encyclopaedia. Worries about "views" being "disregarded" has absolutely nothing to do with this. The non-independent editors need to read reliable source carefully. Tadramgo (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely that depends on how the text is written. If the text states that "600 students supported the eviction" then you require some sort of verification for that and the petition would be completely inadequate as a source. However if you simply say "a petition exists with 600 signatures" then linking to the petition is the only requirement - it is a petition and it does have roughly 600 signatures.

You don't need an external source when you're simply discussing the existence of something you can directly link to. For instance, blogs are not an acceptable source, but you don't need an external source to confirm their existence when you're discussing them - see, Guido Fawkes, Belle de Jour, etc. What you can't do is use these sources to prove something else. I'm sure you'll agree that it would be a bit silly if every time you discussed the existence of a blog you had to then find a quote in the Herald or somewhere else proving that it existed (rather than simply linking to it directly).

So the question is not about the source (nobody doubts this petition actually exists) but rather about its relevance. Does a petition like this matter? Bandanamerchant (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I agree with the most recent comments. Earlier edit wars appear to have taken place between both sides. Claims of 'Vandalism' seem to be totally inapropriate and I will explain why in a moment but I first want to make one general comment. I noticed a large number of 'How many times do we have to tell you' edit comments from people claiming to have participated in this discussion. Expressing an opinion on here does not therefore make it correct and enable you to dictate to others. If there is clear opinions on both sides advocating the presence or removal of a piece of content then the chances are that it is a) relevant to other readers and b) badly phrased and in need of editing. We should seek to find a common ground, not just oppose things by diktat.

The above comment about the relevance of references is 100% correct. Making the claim that "A petition exists" and then referencing that petition is the best possible type of referencing. It is direct. In comparison making a claim that "100 people wrote to someone" and then linking to a newspaper article which makes the same claim is actually less reliable. How do we know the newspaper didn't make a mistake?

The lack of reliability lies not in the reference but in the content of the statement. I think it should be clear that this is what we should discuss.

I've read the above reasons for opposition and disagree on the following grounds,

1) The material is very relevant to the source discussion 2) The reliability of petitions like this is very obvious to all, and if you believe it is not then we can edit the content to make it clear 3) Regardless of whether it is 400, 500 or 600 actual signatures there is clearly a large opinion base of students who have chosen to express their views through this medium. This is further backed up by the ferocity that the edit wars (which seem to have involved many editors over a couple of weeks) have fought over this. It would be wrong to ignore this fact.

I propose that we decide on inclusion based on the following criteria.

Questions 1) Does it provide an outside reader with more context and knowledge of the situation? 2) Does it act as a detriment to accurate information? 3) Can any problems in either of the above two be resolved through better phrasing?

Answers 1) I believe having read the material that it is clearly evidence that a lot of students supported the eviction. Given the nearby inclusion of the views of staff members this relevance is, I believe, acknowledged by others also. Any reader who reads the article as current would get the impression that 'students/staff' as a generic whole were of one opinion on the subject. It's important to represent all sides.

2) Reliability is a matter of opinion. I believe most readers are able to make their own minds up. I also think that there is sufficient evidence that the petition is genuine and, in the most part, been signed in good faith by students. We can edit the content of the page to highlight small concerns otherwise but it is wrong to portray this petition as not being a broad expression of opinion by a number of students.

3) I think we can highlight concerns and still include the opinions of these students. I think coming to a compromise is much more grown up than the edit warring which has taken place and that it will allow us to strike a middle ground of providing as much information as possible whilst ensuring that the information is as reliable as possible

I've added the petition back in for now. I urge those opposed to edit the content to express their concerns rather than deleting the entire thing. Clearly a lot of students at Glasgow want their opinions heard and we shouldn't block this.

Neil999go (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil999go (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Neil

Well, I do agree that the way that you have added this petition is the most unbiased I have seen. However, just one caveat. The letter signed by staff exists, and a copy can be requested, which will contain hard data about those who signed it. The petition being, as it is, an online petition, is not of quite the same veracity. I'm not going to edit, or engage in edit wars, but I do think that, if the petition is to remain, it should be below, not above, the reference to the staff letter.

But I am really bored by all of this. The constant quibbling (and this is not a comment directed at you) is leading me to hope that this whole page vanishes into oblivion. LadyDiotima (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the incorrect signature count. There are 585 signatures; 469 of those are unique according to the discussion above. We do not know how many of those are real, unless Matthew Haigh can give us the results of his petition. I will remove the number entirely, as it's difficult to be factual either way. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The discussion above discounts annonymous entries and 'duplicates' without verifiable reason as to what determines a duplicate. Interestingly I know that there were four other students with the same name as me at my University. The only number we should include should be the total number of signatures, which is entirely relevant (as that is the whole point of the petition), objective and bipartisan. It is also the only number which we can verify. Questions as to reliability are fairly covered I believe. I think a more justifiable reason needs to be given why this number is a problem. Neil999go (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The reasons why the number is a problem are clear: There are a large number of anonymous signatures, and there are clearly false entries. (Read the list of signatures.) I agree with the discussion above; if there is strong support, then a more verifiable petition could be conducted. I do not deny the topic, I am simply not convinced that the petition itself is worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia article. However, I'm with Lady. The points above are clear, and there is little justification for the inclusion of the petition. But there we go. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That was my point Mr 82.25.175.10. People are capable of reading this petition and forming their own views. A lot of people might not want their name to be known as opposing the occupation (for many reasons). Also duplicates aren't impossible (they would need separate email addresses to register twice I think). It is better, in my view, that we state the known facts openly and objectively and allow readers to interpret from that. There are 585 signatures, this we know. All 585 might have been genuine, perhaps only 469 were. Subsequent sentences deal with the reliability issue. What is important is that readers are made aware of this so that they understand all sides to the debate and can work from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil999go (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is possible to sign on gopetition with no email address at all. Or at least, it is possible with a fake email address. This is the primary problem with the petition; even the author of the petition cannot know who is real, and who is not. There is no verification takes place at any point. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion sure snowballed. I put the 469 names, fake or otherwise, from the petition here: http://sdstrowes.co.uk/misc/gopetition44104.txt To address identical names, I made sure duplicates would not be dropped. For this list, I simply removed anonymous entries. There are only a handful that appear fake. Reasonable chance Colin McRae is fake, for example. Sdstrowes (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Love that first entry on the petition: Colonel Wimble Womble.  :-) LadyDiotima (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lady,

I have no objection to a change of order. I would suggest though that we should perhaps order on what is the most relevant or what provides the best flow rather than reliability which I don't think is relevant.

Neil

Neil999go (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Having read the references to this, chronologically the staff/student letter precedes the online petition, and should therefore be placed first. But I am as tired of all of those editing this as I am of the petty student politics that it exemplifies. LadyDiotima (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on staff/student letter prior to online petition. The text can be merged very easily with the second paragraph, to maintain flow. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A change of order shouldn't be necessary because the petition still shouldn't appear in the article. I still do not see any evidence that it's in any way worth mentioning. --Onorem♠Dil 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The current text admits that the source is bad, and renders the paragraph redundant, as far as I'm concerned. But if the petition must remain, I support rearranging the paragraphs. Sdstrowes (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also pretty bored of this. The only question I would ask is: What is the difference between an online petition and the number of a 'fans' of a Facebook page? Should we start including these in the article? As the number is constantly changing then there is a burden of continual maintenance of the page, are these unnamed and new editors going to dedicate themselves to this? I suspect this article will be rigorously cut in the future if it survives in order than it can be rendered in a stableform, and these details will be submerged. Tadramgo (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That, Tadrango, is a very good point LadyDiotima (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

*Tadramgo I have made an RFC (Request for Comment) to get some perspective on this issue. Tadramgo (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Can you qalso tell me how to respond? LadyDiotima (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know we respond in the normal manner. The RFC merely requests the attention of editors who have not been involved in the discussion so far. Fresh eyes and all that. Tadramgo (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Tadrango. I'll delete my comment above:-) LadyDiotima (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have switched the order of student/staff letter and petition so it now appears chronologically as consensus seems to support this. However I maintain my view that the petition is an unreliable source and therefore not worthy of inclusion in the article. Flagondry (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the present wording is fairly reasonable. It doesn't make any claim as to the reliability of the petition, it simply states that it exists (hence there is no need for an external source). There is also mention of the problems with online petitions. Perhaps linking the term "internet petition" to the wikipedia page on that subject would be beneficial as it goes into these arguments in more detail. Bandanamerchant (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tellingthetruth, 3 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

consistent failure to put a balanced review. Free Hetherington page only want fact relevent to their views and consistenly deletes other's imput such as

"The students of the University of Glasgow however are split in terms of support or condemnation of the Free the Hetherington organisation actions. Many of the student body disagree with the Hetherington's methods and promote the University’s attempts to remove the protesters from the site, as the small group are not representative of the Student body. A petition was produced stating 'We the undersigned, support the actions taken by University of Glasgow security staff and Strathclyde Police on the 22nd March 2011 in dealing with the student occupation of the Hetherington Building. We deny that the actions taken by Strathclyde Police were ‘heavy handed’. We call for an end to the disruptive and counterproductive student occupations of University of Glasgow premises. This petition makes no assumptions about the political, or other preferences of the undersigned, other than the statement given above.' Can be accessed at "

This is not offensive or vandalism, but another point of view. The page is continuously sparking controversy amoung students at glasgow university, and for this to end the page should be deleted untill the matter is settled, or it should not be allowed to be edited without approval.

Tellingthetruth (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The link to the petition was fine, in my opinion, and entirely credible. Pasting a screenshot of the webpage for the petition was not. I edited the mention of the petition earlier, and reduced it to one or two sentences along with the link to the petition. With the link to the petition in place, the "We, the undersigned..." text is entirely unnecessary. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If third party sources have mentioned the petition, comment on it and link to those. I don't see what the link to the petition itself adds. An online petition started by some random person and signed by a bunch of anonymous users. A link to the petition is not a reliable source for anything except its own existence. --Onorem♠Dil 21:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. Agree. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I had the screen-shot deleted, on copyright grounds. No comment regarding its suitability - because that became irrelevant, as it was a non-free screenshot. Therefore, I think this specific request has been resolved, so I cancelled the {{edit semi-protected}}. Please use another if you have any further request.  Chzz  ►  02:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Support

This reference should be removed: ^ http://www.gla.ac.uk/Staff/GAUT/meetings/UCUG_GM_Agenda10feb11.pdf as the motion (number 8) was not carried as written. Thanks. A UCUG member who was at the meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.243.146 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Superfluous Page Content

The page quickly falls off into minutia in most sections. This is a problem. Consider:

• Section 1, Hetherington House: Everything after "unwilling to continue supporting the club[7]" can be removed without detriment, and the quotation box is entirely unnecessary.
• Section 2, Controversy: The second sentence in paragraph one can be removed entirely, with the reference retained to support the first sentence. The second paragraph has been edited to within an inch of its life by hypersensitive editors, and once again the final sentence is entirely unnecessary.
• Section 3, Support: need not make any mention of the eviction to assert support for the occupation.
• Section 4, is actually not too bad. The final paragraph/sentence is contentious; to state that the student body is "split" without any assertion of proportion is simply a truism and thus irrelevant in an encyclopedia article. Those final words are worthy of deletion.

There have been some improvements, despite the edit wars. The removal of the occupation's demands, for instance, makes the article immediately more readable. I would push for retaining a slightly trimmed version of this article. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I think that gives the actual, specific reasons - do you think it gives undue weight? You might consider it superfluous, but I'm not convinced there is a good reason to remove it - it seems verifiable.

2. Re. the quote from Chris Sibbald - it does show an example of the controversy; similar to above, I'm not sure why it should be removed.

2nd para last sentence said The activists claimed to have succeeded in making him "quite distressed". - and I just removed that. It was only referenced to their own web page, so does seem poorly referenced.

3. I don't (currently) see any mention of eviction in that section

4. The phrase, The students of the University of Glasgow however are split in terms of support or condemnation of the Free the Hetherington organisation actions. - seems a neutral enough summarization of the present situation (as far as I understand things) - do you disagree? Can you suggest alternative phraseology?

Can you please be as specific as possible in responding - ie "I think THIS should change to THAT for THESE REASONS" - if there are reasonable grounds (based on Wikipedia policy and/or guidelines), then I'm sure people will happily change it. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't think it gives undue weight in terms of bias but I think the text is beside the point, despite its verifiability. It would fit on a page about the building, or a page about the Hetherington Research Club, but it is basically detail unrelated to the Free Hetherington. It is relevant enough to be referred to for context (i.e., cited for the context of why the building was laying empty), but the full quote is a diversion from the main article. I believe all that is required is The University later stated that they were unwilling to continue supporting the club.[7][8]

2. I think the text is superfluous, but I do not mind if it stays. It is from the same reference as is used for the first sentence, after all. In my opinion, the point of the paragraph is made in the first sentence, and that the Sibbald cite should be retained, but that there is no need for the vox pop. The second sentence can be dropped.

3. The text I refer to is Singer-songwriter David Rovics performed a concert during the occupation of the Senate building on the night of the eviction. This is true, he did. But this sentence does give undue weight to the event. He was already scheduled to play for the Free Hetherington on what happened to be the night of the eviction, it just so happened that the Free Hetherington was displaced for a night. In the context of this section, it is sufficient to state that he played for the occupation, and list him as being supportive with all the other names. I suggest the tail end of the section be simply: novelist Louise Welsh; comedian Mark Steel, and singer-songwriter David Rovics.[16]

4. "The people are split" is a neutral statement only because it is vague. Of course there will be division of opinion. The sentence adds nothing at all if it does not quantify the division. If the purpose of the sentence is to state that campus opinion is 50/50 then it should say so, but I am unaware of numbers, and have not seen useful cites. The whole paragraph can be merged with the first sentence of the Controversy section. 130.209.241.193 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Number 2 was done. For 1,3 and 4 - I think we have to see if others agree. Personally, I don't find the arguments compelling.  Chzz  ►  01:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request : remove reference

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please could you remove the reference to the UCUG agenda from this, and also remove the false statement that UCUG voted to write to the Principal in support of the occupation demands, as this is just wrong: At a General Meeting on 10 February 2011, University and College Union (UCU) Glasgow/Scotland noted the student occupation of Hetherington House, resolving to send a message of support to the occupation and to write to the Principal of Glasgow University in support of the occupation demands. [17] http://www.gla.ac.uk/Staff/GAUT/meetings/UCUG_GM_Agenda10feb11.pdf

Although this was an agenda item, it was not passed. A differently worded motion was passed. However, the minutes of that meeting have not been approved, therefore are not available. It is misleading, to say the least, to state in this article that staff supported all of the demands of the Free Hetherington. Nobody at the meeting, other than the two proposers, were in support of the demands. The far weaker motion of general support for the occupation is all we were willing to vote on. UCUG do not support the occupation demands. Please remove this. If you do not, we will start to ask for the whole page to be removed. Thanks. A member of UCUG who was (unlike the people writing this page) at the UCUG GM.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.248.170 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 April 2011

Can you please clarify exactly which parts you object to - quoting (copying here) as necessary. I see the statement, At a General Meeting on 10 February 2011, University and College Union (UCU) Glasgow/Scotland noted the student occupation of Hetherington House, resolving to send a message of support to the occupation and to write to the Principal of Glasgow University in support of the occupation demands. - ref [1] - which does absolutely state that there was a proposal UCU Glasgow/Scotland [..] Send a message of support to the occupation.

We can only state facts from reliable sources - is this not one? Do you have a reliable source (links, please) which contradicts it? I mean... the source used appears to verify that the org supported them. In what way is that claim invalidated? We are not stating that the org supported all the demands; merely noting that support was, apparently, expressed - in what would appear to be, official documented meeting notes. Chzz  ►  02:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chzz

No, these were not notes from a meeting, merely an agenda prior to the meeting. We voted against that motion. The minutes from that meeting will be published after they are approved in July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.248.170 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Chzz

Technically, they can say that there was a proposal. However, they cannot say that:

"University and College Union (UCU) Glasgow/Scotland noted the student occupation of Hetherington House, resolving to send a message of support to the occupation and to write to the Principal of Glasgow University in support of the occupation demands."

Because we did not. We specifically did not resolve to do that. In fact, by refusing to endorse the motion, we specifically resolved not to do that. That's what is annoying me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.248.170 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have removed that part for now. For the record, it was;

At a General Meeting on 10 February 2011, University and College Union (UCU) Glasgow/Scotland noted the student occupation of Hetherington House, resolving to send a message of support to the occupation and to write to the Principal of Glasgow University in support of the occupation demands. REF: http://www.gla.ac.uk/Staff/GAUT/meetings/UCUG_GM_Agenda10feb11.pdf

I've removed it, based on the argument you put forward - that the document does not represent any official decision.

Of course, others may discuss that here, and may wish to re-add the claim (in some form) depending on consensus. But for now - it is gone.

Anything else?  Chzz  ►  02:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As it goes, I support the occupation, and I'll see if I can get something official written that can be used to link here. I'm just a pedant :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.248.170 (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pedantry is encouraged. Feel free to use another {{edit semi-protected}} if there is anything further. As long as there are good grounds - and the community (here) does not disagree, through discussion - then edits can be performed. I'm just sorry that, for now, it has to be semi-protected; a sad necessity to prevent harm due to edit-warring.

I don't know if I support or oppose the occupation - I'm in the quite fortunate position of not being involved - which does help, in considering things in a neutral manner.

Sincere thanks for your understanding. You really should consider getting yourself a user account. My own user talk page is always available, for any and all questions. Best,  Chzz  ►  02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy: first sentence

The occupation has caused controversy and triggered a series of debates about the legitimacy of direct action versus direct consultation with University management.[9] Chris Sibbald, President of the Glasgow University Union (GUU) said, "They are undermining all the hard work we have been doing and the majority of students believe the students in the Hetherington are a distraction and are costing us time and money."[9]

The reference provided mentions one person speaking against the occupation, not a debate, not a series of debates. I'd suggest that the reference to the Chris Sibbald quote remains, as that is in the article cited, but that more citations are needed to prove that a debate has happened, let alone a "series of debates". LadyDiotima (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We are having a big problem with this article in that we have very few impartial users editing this article (except Chzz perhaps), since everyone with any interest in this article appears to have a Glasgow IP address... As for controversy, as a student who's indifferent to the occupation and not involved, I can vouch that there is opposition to the occupation from many students, especially in the Engineering & science departments. However these people aren't noted in the media etc. so there are no sources that state any opposition from the students (there is a petition, but that cannot be a source for it being involved in the event), and as it can't be verified it can't be said in the article. Its correct under WP rules, but this is what has ended up causing all the edit wars yesterday, and as soon as the article becomes unprotected they will continue. As for debates, if this means between students, that is also completely unverifiable, however there was at least one debate by the dialetic society on the last day of term, and it might also refer to the meeting with the principal on the same day (http://www.gust.tv/watch/principals-open-meeting-march-25/ , mentions both). If anyone feels they deserve being mentioned or the statement should be changed I'll edit the article for them (despite personally supporting deleting the article) MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Both of those seem to be good sources. My point of view: they should both be mentioned. Cheers, LD — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDiotima (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the problem here is simply framing it as a debate. The relevant information is really that the President of the Glasgow University Union (GUU) has made clear that he doesn't support the occupation and given a quote to that effect. I don't think you could really make a case for removing that from the article, but I don't think it constitutes a debate either. Bandanamerchant (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bandana. Yes, my point was not that Chris Sibbald's quote should be removed, as that is cited and makes a point. It was using that as evidence for a debate that I was questioning, so I think we are agreeing LadyDiotima (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The best way I could see of changing it in a way that might keep both sides happy would be to...

"The occupation has received some criticism with regard to the legitimacy of the direct action as an alternative to the ongoing student consultation with University management.[10] Chris Sibbald, President of the Glasgow University Union (GUU) said..."

also change "The students of the University of Glasgow however are split in terms of support or condemnation of the Free the Hetherington organisation actions. A small proportion of the student body disagree with the Hetherington's methods and promote the University’s attempts to remove the protesters from the site." to "The actions of the occupiers has recieved some criticism from some staff and student organisations. After the attempted eviction, the Glasgow University Dialetic Society held and open debate for students on the motion "This house supports the Free Hetherington""... any alterations appreciated...MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pond: which staff criticised? Where? Citation please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDiotima (talk • contribs) 04:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's in the source in the paragraph, but I suggested changing it from "students are split" which is what its being used to justify because its a bit suggestive. The first paragraph has already been changed by some one, but I think it may not be very impartial. (Remeber to sign your posts!) MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that the quote should not have been removed. I've added it back in as there doesn't appear to be a good argument against it being there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.145.216 (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with students

This section feels a bit like a glorification for the student involved. While there obviously was some sort of incident involving him, the video doesn't 100% back up what he claims happened. I also think that the reference to a letter he wrote is superfluous, and in itself contains some untruths surrounding the occupation, ie the amount of violence he claims is part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.176.161 (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the video does not back up all of what is claimed. Having this in its own section seems to give undue weight to the matter and seems trivial compared to other criticisms such as the Porter kettling. I don't see how an open letter written by one student warrants inclusion in this article. This source (though not valid for citation as it's from facebook) shows the response to the open letter by the SRC, QMU and GUU: http://www.facebook.com/notes/subcity-update/updated-050411-student-demands-referendum-on-hetherington-occupation-future/182537355126201 Flagondry (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same - does this merit inclusion at all? If it does, should it be in a section on its own or under the "criticism" section? LadyDiotima (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that I can see is definitely true from the references given is: "A first year international student was involved in an incident in which members of the occupation objected to him filming in an occupation meeting." The rest seems to be contested either in the Subcity article/interview or in the video footage itself (but please tell me if I've missed anything - long interview, long video!) On it's own this sentence doesn't seem to be significant enough for inclusion in the article at all. Flagondry (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This section is extremely important and relevant as it backs up the claims of many of the students who are protesting against the behaviour of the occupiers. I agree though that I don't see why it should have it's own section and does appear a little "Glorifying" of an individual incident. From what I can tell there have been a number of controversial incidents. They should all go in the criticism section IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.145.216 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If it " backs up the claims of many of the students who are protesting against the behaviour of the occupiers" then I would like to see references to all of these, rather than just evidence from one student. Can you please link to the claims of the other students who are against all of this? I'm not meaning to be antagonistic by saying this, just genuinely trying to find a reason for keeping all of this. As it goes, this page is turning into a bit of an edit war again tonight. LadyDiotima (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how it backs up claims made by students protesting against the occupiers - as the last user says, some sources on this would be helpful? From what I can see the sources given in the article don't back up what has been written. I would propose that it is either deleted entirely, or merged with criticism section, although I'd be keen to seek help from an experienced editor to find the correct wording if merged. Flagondry (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

____________________ On a separate note from the discussion above, there is an issue with this sentence "It was reported that the actions of these individuals was in response to alleged violence by members of the Vote Foley campaign team, that they believed were involved in the occupation, during the SRC election campaign." because the source provided does not appear to show whether or not these 'Vote Foley' campaigners were anything to do with the occupation. All of this "they alleged", "they claimed" and "they believed" stuff is getting very tedious and doesn't seem fit for an encyclopaedia entry. Thoughts? Flagondry (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Very tedious. The article referenced mentions different activist groups and makes no further assumptions about whether they are connected. It does not even mention whether those committing the assault 'believed' this - I'm not sure whether this is wikipedia:No original research into their minds by the editor, as it appears in no source I can find. Personally I would scrap that whole sentence, as it is completely unsupported. Shall we take 12 hours of comments then delete? Tadramgo (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both Flagondry and Tadramgo. 00:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDiotima (talk • contribs)

That was LadyD, by the way LadyDiotima (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence is really bad, particularly the repeated use of "thinks, believed to be" etc. That said I think it is really important to understand the context of what took place. The Guardian article clearly refers both directly, and infers, that these actions were the result of tensions which built up from apparent violence by the Vote Foley campaigners. There is a similar section about 'kettling' earlier in the article where similar logic applies. It is beneficial in both circumstances for the reader to be provided with context. Also the repeated posting of this material suggests that it is important to a number of editors. I think we should re-write the sentence to explain the situation but do so in a clearer way. Content shouldn't be deleted unless it is factually incorrect or completely irrelevant. This appears to be neither. Instead it should be edited to make it better. Neil999go (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Neil. Maybe you could have a go at rewriting it on this discussion page first. As I agree, it's a really badly written sentence. I do think that it is important to represent all of the facts in as neutral a way as possible. So, while I would support deleting the badly phrased sentence, this is only if it can be rewritten better. Sorry, typing quickly as I am late for a meeting. LadyDiotima (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Neil, My point was that it is factually inaccurate in that it isn't backed up by the source, and seems to be just speculation on the part of the editor. So I would be keen to find another source that supports the claim if the sentence is going to remain. The source says the tensions were created because of the 'Vote Foley campaigners' - but if they don't have anything to do with this page and the occupation is it not also irrelevant? (I noticed this because I was trying to reword the sentence and couldn't find a decent way to write it that was clear.) Flagondry (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've read that source though thoroughly, and I agree. Nowhere does it connect the "Vote Foley" supporters with the Free Heth. The stuff about the confrontation should stay, but the rest is not backed up by anything. Without further sources to back this up it is an unsupported allegation. Sorry, Neil, but there is no direct reference in that article to connect the "Vote Foley" campaigners with the Free Heth. If we want to get really convoluted, we can say "the GUU said that they were responding to ..., but this source provides no evidence of a connection between the Free Heth and the Vote Foley Campaign LadyDiotima (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Looking through some of the references cited for this page, I have to register a general concern. WP guidelines specifically say that linking to social media and/or blogs are not permitted. Some of the links here are still to those. I wonder if it would be possible to clean this page up further by citing WP recognised sources? Please note that this is not a comment suggesting that any of the content of this page is untrue, or should be removed, just recognising that the editing by others is such that all content on this page is liable for removal unless strict guidelines can be met. 2.24.243.236 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, some organisations only web presence these days is on Facebook. For example, the best reference I can find to the debate proposed by the GU Dialectic Society, afaik, on Facebook, but it seems worthy of inclusion relative to the rest of the discussion. The only other reference I can spot is the second paragraph on http://www.gust.tv/watch/principals-open-meeting-march-25/ 130.209.241.193 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Glasgow Guardian Article on the cost of the Occupation

Only a matter of time until someone adds this to the article, someone removes it and we have another argument, so let's get this out of the way. The Glasgow Guardian has produced an article claiming that the occupation has cost the university £10,000. Is this suitable for inclusion or not? If so how should it be added. The link to the article is: http://www.glasgowguardian.co.uk/news/hetherington-occupation-cost-to-university-10000/. Bandanamerchant (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is the product of an FOI. A unique reference to the actual FOI would be more valuable than the report. 130.209.241.193 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that the actual source for this GUG article would be a more useful source for this wikipedia article, but until such a source is published there is no reason not to include this statistic, provided its reliance on information from the university is made clear. As such I've added it with what I hope you'll consider to be an appropriate degree of nuance. — VikingViolinist | Talk 19:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the introduction. I've moved the text into 'criticism', on the assumption that's the purpose of the newspaper article, and clarified the source of the information. I have left a citation-needed in place so that somebody can unearth the unique FOI response ID. 130.209.241.193 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is FOI 2011/93 – F0137492, issued 20 April 2011. Updating article. 130.209.241.193 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The text included in this paragraph, as far as I can see, contains no criticism of the occupation. It is a paragraph stating that the cost of the occupation has so far been £10,000 and citing an article which contains evidence of this. Just because the article is negative towards the occupation doesn't mean that the paragraph on the wiki page is. There seems to be some confusion about this. Information such as this should be included in a general section, probably the introduction, but not in criticism. It would be legitimate for a paragraph to go in the criticism sections saying that 'some people have criticised the occupation for costing the university too much money' but that is different from 'the occupation has cost the university this much money'. One is criticism, the other is information. Neil999go (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as practice on wikipedia is not to write an article with only positive information, then hiding any negative aspects under a criticisms section. Ideally, criticism sections shouldn't exist, but should be incorporated into the text, but in articles such as this, they seem to be inevitable. See Wikipedia:Criticism sections — VikingViolinist | Talk 15:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree, I don't think an estimate of the cost itself amounts to "criticism". In theory you could think of a case where a more positive article argued that the cost of the occupation was negligible: e.g. "a Glasgow University Guardian article estimates the cost of the occupation to the university as being £5". That's not a qualitatively different statement, it's just a different number; yet it clearly wouldn't have ended up in the criticism section. Bandanamerchant (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A series of editors seem to be fighting over how to compare the cost of the occupation, either as a rough guesstimate of actual teaching cost per full-time student, or in terms of the University's (admittedly large) budget. One edit makes a valid point by accident: the cost of the occupation will not impact on teaching, because the teaching grant cannot be spent on other items (such as the utilities or security costs mentioned in the FOI release). Thus, it is misleading to link the cost of the occupation to the cost of teaching. (A comparison to the cost of bananas this week would be just as applicable, but less misleading.) Equally, it is probably unnecessary to mention that the teaching grant spending will not be affected by the occupation. Thus, I have removed both points from the text, but opinions welcome on whether the latter should be re-added. 82.25.175.10 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Article title

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

The result of the move request was: This page move has already been done. This is a procedural closure of the discussion. OCNative (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Free Hetherington → 2011 Hetherington House occupation –

@VikingViolinist I don't see how the article title contravenes neutrality? 'Free Hetherington' is a common use name, used in many press articles cited from this page, and if you google 'Free Hetherington' all results are sites about the occupation and many are press articles, such as the Guardian. WP:POVTITLE says that common names are fine for articles even if they do contravene neutrality (though I still don't see how 'Free Hetherington' could be considered not neutral). Flagondry (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Free Hetherington is a perfectly legitimate name. I think the proposed changed name was better. Free Hetherington does not, in my view appear in-neutral but again I would argue that the suggested name is better. You get a better understanding of what the article is about from the new name. I think we should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.109.22 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm astonished this wasn't considered unobjectionable by Flagondry. I thought that the NPOV issue in particular would go without saying. "Free" Hetherington presumes that there is something "free" about occupying a building, when one could make the exact opposite case: that occupying a building prevents it from being used for its legitimate purposes. It is claimed that it is a common use name, used in "many press articles" but in fact the opposite is the case. Out of the press articles cited here, only one of the many GUG articles cites it by that name [2], and the Herald uses that name only in reference to the banner hanging in front of the building [3]. So in fact the common usage is NOT "Free Hetherington" but rather "the occupation". The google results-based argument is particularly weak, but if you must: a google news search for "free hetherington" results in two results, both of which decide its a good idea to surrond the name with quotation marks. Then continue to refer to it as "the occupation."
Point being, the name of this article should be 2011 Hetherington House occupation — VikingViolinist | Talk 23:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In summary: 1) it fails NPOV because it presumes that there is something more free about an occupied building. 2) it fails for not using the official name, since most official sources (WP:UCN) (Guardian, Herald, Scotman, university documents, etc) refer to it as "the occupation". 3) Sources that do use the Free Hetherington are overwhelmingly from sources that view the occupation in a positive light (Socialist Workers Party, the occupiers themselves on Facebook, or letters submitted to newspapers by individuals favorable to or linked to the occupation), and thus failing on WP:NPOV again, as well as WP:COI to a degree — VikingViolinist | Talk 23:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with the above argument and support the re-naming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil999go (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this proposed change. I do not understand how the original title fails NPOV. I just googled "Free Hetherington" and got "About 34,200,000 results". I am not sure how VikingViolinist only got so few on their Google search!

I am really confused - nobody knows the Free Hetherington as "2011 Hetherington House occupation". This looks, from the outside, as if this is an attempt to hide this page from anybody who might be looking for it by renaming it with an obscure name. In fact, if you want a biased name, we could go for "Glasgow University Occupied", which is what many official sources call the occupation.

I say keep the original name LadyDiotima (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The quoted string "Free Hetherington" gets 6 Google News Archive hits. There does not seem to be an official name or a consensus name for this event so we should go with a neutral and accurate description for the title. "2011 Hetherington House occupation" is absolutely fine. This seems preferable to the only other plausible title I can think of, "2011 Hetherington Research Club occupation", as the research club had moved out some time before the occupation started.

The old title can be kept as a redirect, and can remain as an alternative name in the article, so anybody searching under that name will still find it. Other names such as Hetherington House and Hetherington Research Club could also be redirects. To suggest that this is an attempt to hide the article is, frankly, just a bit silly. Looking "from the outside", I see no evidence of bad faith in the proposal to rename. In fact it looks entirely uncontroversial. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I did consider this objectively. I don't understand how the word 'free' isn't neutral. In my own view I had interpreted 'free' to mean they had liberated the building from being closed down and disused so that it is now open. But I think the point of 'free' might be that it's open to interpretation (that's just my own thoughts). I have never seen it called 'Hetherington House occupation' anywhere. If we want a descriptive name I would go for 'Glasgow University occupation' but I don't see any problem with the name 'Free Hetherington'. (Another example of 'free' being used in an article name is 'Free Schools', but this doesn't mean the school's are free to attend, it's just the name of that model of education and that isn't considered not neutral). My view is keep the original name. Flagondry (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The point about "free schools" is that that is what they are called even if it is a misnomer. The term is in both official and common use and for us to use another name would be perverse and confusing. The point here is that this is not the case for "Free Hetherington". Names like "2011 Glasgow University occupation" are certainly reasonable but less specific than "2011 Hetherington House occupation". If we do for one I would support the other being a redirect to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I can Google "tory scum" and get a million results, that doesn't mean the article for the Conservative Party should be titled "Tory Scum".
• The websites which identify the occupation as "Free Hetherington" are either written by 1) the occupiers themselves or 2) organizations favoring the occupation (for example: Scottish Greens, facebook groups, Communist Students, Socialist Workers Party, Scottish Socialist Youth)
• Neutral, authoritative news organizations (BBC[4], Herald[5], Scotsman[6], Herald again[7]) all refer to the occupation as "the occupation" and rarely if ever "Free Hetherington"
• Thus: "Free Hetherington" is not NPOV, and neutral sources prefer other terminology
• One other note: why would we call it "2011 Glasgow University occupation"? That's less precise. What the article is about is an occupation in 2011 of the Hetherington House. — VikingViolinist | Talk 14:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My point about google was that it gives lots of examples of common usage of 'Free Hetherington' - an article from the Guardian comes up in the top 10 for example. Google has also 'learned' Free Hetherington in its predictive search, meaning people search for it a lot, where as it doesn't know 'Hetherington House occupation' and I can't find 'Hetherington House occupation' referred to in any articles. If you remember there was also some editing confusion on here about whether or not the building was called 'Hetherington House' and an editor said it is never referred to as this by Glasgow Uni students. That's why I suggested 'Glasgow University occupation' as it is often referred to in press articles as this (or it's referred to as 'the occupation of/at Glasgow University' so my suggestion was just a shortened version of this.) I'm still not convinced that the word 'Free' is against NPOV, as it doesn't bias the title to either 'for' or against' the occupation. NPOV also says that even if a name is considered biased by some the common name can still be used. Flagondry (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

1) The only article in the Guardian which uses "Free Hetherington" is a submission written by two students, so it reflects nothing regarding the paper's editorial preference. (Other articles all do not use the term).
2) The preference to "common names" in WP:UCN refers to common name in reliable published sources. As previously mentioned, reliable news reports (from BBC, Guardian, Herald, etc) in almost all cases do not use the term "Free Hetherington".
3) Whether or not it is referred to as such by uni students, the name of the building is "Hetherington House". [8]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingviolinist (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly as a student at the University, I know of nobody who refers to the occupation as the Free Hetherington. People tend to refer to it as "the occupation". 86.0.194.91 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New name sounds great. Support. 86.0.194.91 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New name sounds fair. Maintaining redirect should counter concerns of occupation members. As a side note there are a number of Glasgow uni students from derry who posted on the occupation facebook page saying that they find the hijacking of the word free in this context insulting. Back on topic though, it seems in my view that argument for name change is most supported here. Will check back tomorrow and then change title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.109.22 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that issues like this would be left open for discussion for 7 days in order that a consensus could be reached. I am concerned about the above anonymous editor saying that he/she will make the changes tomorrow. LadyDiotima (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a lecturer at Glasgow University, and the "Free Hetherington" is pretty much common usage on campus. It has to be said that, as this occupation has only been going on for three months (long for an occupation, mind you) it has not got a body of news articles YET which refer to it as such, but the suggested renaming of the page has even less to support it - as nobody refers to the Free Hetherington, or the occupation at Glasgow University as "Hetherington House Occupation". Maybe, to keep everyone happy, we should rename it to "Glasgow University Student Occupation (Free Hetherington)" 2.24.247.255 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand the problem with the word 'Free'?? Flagondry (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

@VikingViolinist: 'Free' is not neutral? What on earth does that even mean? 'Earth' is not neutral either.... So maybe we better change the name of the planet on Wiki before someone gets electrocuted....? (Flankspeed) 89.241.194.123 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem is it matters less what people call it on the street (though in my experience its pretty much "the occupation"). What matters is how it is referred to in reliable sources. And as I've noted twice above, reliable sources rarely if ever call it the "Free Hetherington", and the sources that DO call it the "Free Hetherington" are fairly consistently those with a POV (SSP, the occupiers, etc), and that's what makes it NPOV empirically. But if you want the rational reason why it is NPOV, it is because calling it "free" assumes that there is something "free" about the occupation, which as is discussed as this article discusses, is not a point of consensus. And that would probably be why reliable sources, with an astonishing rate of consistency, don't even mention the term "Free Hetherington". Thus the alternative is a descriptive title, there is no common adopted one. "2011 Hetherington House occupation" is EXACTLY what this article is about. Obviously "Free Hetherington" would still link to the new article title, so the previous point that this is a super secret conspiracy to hide the article couldn't be more ridiculous. I'm just trying to make the title of this article as neutral, and as supported by reliable sources as possible. — VikingViolinist | Talk 23:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the "Free Hetherington" is not in common use at the University of Glasgow. However, even if it is "Hetherington House" has even less to recommend it. If an alternative title is needed, then why not go for a purely descriptive one and use "Glasgow University Occupation"? As, if one reads the article, the occupation have, in fact, occupied more than one building at Glasgow University, so renaming it to "Hetherington House Occupation" is actually factually incorrect. LadyDiotima (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again may I note that it doesn't matter what common use is on the streets of Glasgow, but rather what the source material says.
But anyway, given the fact that the occupation and this article have centered almost exclusively around the Hetherington, it eludes me why that wouldn't be the most descriptive possible name, but if this is deemed so offensive for whatever reason, I have no objections to "2011 Glasgow University occupation" other than to emphatically prefer the more precise option. (the year is important, as this is not the first, nor will it be the last of its kind I have no doubt) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingviolinist (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All the people who are using the building are calling it "The Free Hetherington", and I'd say that's as good as first-hand, primary source material gets. As the occupation has also spread to the senate building, if only for a day, then the term "Glasgow University Occupation seems fine to me too. I would disagree with using the term "Hetherington House" however, as there is no precedent for this on Wiki. Previous Wiki articles referred to "The Hetherington Research Club." As for NPOV, the word "Free" in the title is a reference to the way the occupied building is being run as a non-commercial space, i.e. nothing is bought or sold in the building, only donated. The term is therefore purely descriptive. As the occupation is still ongoing, "2011" is superfluous. As for 'insulted students from Derry', I reckon they have way worse 'hijackings' to be insulted by: The Orange Free State, for a start.... that would REALLY annoy me if I was from Derry. 89.241.194.123 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hetherington Research Club isn't a building, it's an organization which is now defunct. The name of the building is the Hetherington House, as has been previously sourced. We don't need to repeat incorrect names people use on the street, when the actual name of the occupied building is well documented. As for the year, just because it's ongoing doesn't mean we don't distinguish between this occupation and previous ones. It's not being superfluous. It's being specific. See: 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, 2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests, 2011 Libyan civil war, all things that are ongoing. — VikingViolinist | Talk 00:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

These titles all say when the event occurred, where it occurred, and what the event is. Well established practice on wikipedia. It's just a matter of whether this article is going to be titled to acknowledge the fact that it has been pretty much entirely focused on the Hetherington or should it be titled to refer to Glasgow Uni in general. It's just a matter of calling it what it is. An occupation of the Hetherington House in 2011. (Note that there is no reason in the world why "2011 Glasgow University occupation" cannot redirect to "2011 Hetherington House occupation") — VikingViolinist | Talk 01:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Libyan Civil War continues for several more years - which it might, for all we know - it would look extremely foolish to be calling it "The 2011 Libyan Civil War", would it not? I would agree that there would be a need for more specificity if there had indeed been a previous occupation of "Hetherington House", but to my knowledge there has been none before this one. If you can supply a citation for a previous occupation, then fair enough. But again, it's called the "Free Hetherington" for a specific reason. Seriously, considering what you regard as some sort of sacrosanct Wiki rule, you would have to go around an awful lot of articles and change their titles one-by-one. "Paris Commune" would have to be changed to "1871 Occupation of Paris", "Vichy France" to "1940-1944 Occupation of France", "Norman Conquest" to "1066 Occupation of England" etc. In which case, good luck to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.194.123 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Practice on wikipedia is to label articles as such, and then change the titles. We're not naming the wars/occupations/protests, we're just titling articles to reflect what the articles are about. And yes, then the titles are changed to reflect changing circumstances. — VikingViolinist | Talk 16:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I miss understood you a bit there. "Vichy France" is descriptive term that is generally accepted by neutral soucres. That is not the case with "Free Hetherington". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingviolinist (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Support the name change based on the arguments above. Consider also, an outsider interested in the occupation: are they likely to search for "free hetherington", or "occupation at glasgow university"? Given the patchy use of the former on campus, let alone off campus, the latter as a factually correct description is more likely. The factually-correct name change is good, and I support it fully. Very strong preference for "2011 Hetherington House Occupation" as the article title, with redirects from "Free Hetherington" and "2011 Glasgow University Occupation". 82.25.175.10 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Viking Violinists arguments. I want to argue on the basis of neutrality and accessibility.
1. The fact that this discussion has taken place and people have registered criticism of the name here, and apparently on other mediums, is evidence that the name is contentious. As such the article would benefit as far as neutrality is concerned from having a more neutral name. It is not for us to arbitrarily declare others concerns invalid.
2. Much more importantly though is how identifiable the article and title are to outsiders. Groups that might be interested in more information on these protest actions might, for example, include graduates, potential students, glasgow university students, outside media, lecturers, investors to the university amongst many others. We have already heard in the discussion that the title appears to be mainly used by those activists residing in the building and other students apparently use terms such as "the occupation" so there is clearly not a consistent name on campus and then as for all the other groups I see no way that they could access the title "Free Hetherington". When the BBC runs a news story on the activists behaviour then outside parties will likely google/wiki all or some of (2011, hetherington house, occupation, glasgow university). I can't see any way that they would check for "Free Hethrington". The new name is neutral, more accessible and more descriptive. The only arguments against seem to be
i) That "Free Hetherington" is widely used, which it isn't (Concluded from external media sources and comments above)
ii) That it isn't a controversial name (The fact that this debate is happening is evidence to the contrary)
iii) The funny one earlier about changing the name being a form of censorship, which everyone has refuted by pointing out re-directs.
This seems a no-brainer to me. Neil999go (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If accessibility is the issue then I don't think Hetherington House is a good option, as none of the news articles call it this (even fewer than call it 'Free Hetherington') and if students on campus don't know it's called that, outsiders certainly won't. Also for the reasons said above about occupying other Glasgow Uni buildings, I would agree on '2011 Glasgow University occupation' as the best name, and the one most likely to be searched for through Google. However I am sorry to repeat myself but I just do not understand the argument against the word 'free', VikingViolinist says it's not because 'there is nothing free about an occupation' but does not offer any reasons to back this up - if you could elaborate I would appreciate it. I can think of lots of reasons for free being applied here, (liberated disused building, food/tea/coffee/events are free, everything is donated) but not reasons against its use. Flagondry (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason in the world why searching for "glasgow uni occupation" wouldn't give "2011 Hetherington House occupation" as the top result, considering the content of the page. It's not our job to anticipate users' lack of knowledge as to the name of the building in question. Our job is to name the article with a name that reflects the content of the article. Which is an occupation in 2011 of the Hetherington House.
Even if I was interested in discussing whether "Free Hetherington" is NPOV, it's not even relevant because what matters is that the reliable sources, as has been indicated countless times in this discussion, do not use the term "Free Hetherington", but rather that name is preferred by organizations with a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingviolinist (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could discuss your reasons for the "free" hetherington NPOV argument since you have used this numerous times and indeed it was part of your original reason for proposing the change, so I feel it is entirely relevant and important to fully understand all lines of reasoning as it will help all editors in their decision. Thanks. Flagondry (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What I've said ever since my edit summary when I first moved the page is that what makes it non-NPOV is that neutral sources don't use it, and the sources that favor the occupation do use it. It doesn't matter what we think, what matters is what the sources say. — VikingViolinist | Talk 21:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And what wikipedia policy dictates that we do in the absence of a uniformly adopted term, is adopt a title that precisely and concisely describes the subject of the article. — VikingViolinist | Talk 21:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Flagondry but you're clearly wrong. There is no point in taking the discussion further on NPOV. VikingViolinist has correctly identified that neutral sources do not use the name and that only non-neutral sources do. Flagondry doesn't appear willing to engage within the terms of accepted best practice. I think that the name should be changed purely on failing NPOV grounds alone. There are further arguments about accessibility and ensuring that the article is as informative as possible but these don't appear to have been responded to. Neil999go (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Flagondry is unwilling to engage, Neil, I think that this is genuinely something that needs to be clarified in order to resolve this issue. I take the relevant part of the policy to be this:

Neutral point of view:

See Wikipedia:Article titles for more on choosing an appropriate title for an article. In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and other relevant guidelines such as geographical names). Article titles which combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, Derry/Londonderry, Aluminium/Aluminum or Flat Earth (Round Earth) should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.

Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being the name of something. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint "for" or "against" something, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. LadyDiotima (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether "Free Hetherington" violates this. I am unsure whether it does or not. I think that the problem is that, though it is true that the occupiers refer to the occupation as the "Free Hetherington" (didn't they have a huge banner outside at the beginning, and isn't that the picture on their FB page?)and there are also many others on campus who are familiar with the name, the occupation itself has not been referred to by sources which Wikipedia considers to be reputable, and this is (I think) why Neil and Viking are suggesting that a purely descriptive name be used. I think that, if the occupation continues and does get referred to as the "Free Hetherington" by approved sources, there will be a case for eventually renaming the page to reflect common usage. However, at present I think that the best thing to do is to look for a name for the page that is neutral and set up the relevant redirects. LadyDiotima (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As consensus seems to be that the name change is a good idea I am happy to go with it, although I think redirects from Free Hetherington and Glasgow Uni Occupation would also be helpful. I understand about the neutral sources and have since checked more google results etc and can see what you are talking about. But I am disappointed that VikingViolinist hasn't answered by question, it is a genuine question that is important and relevant to this discussion, and I would like some help in understanding what you meant by 'there is nothing free about an occupation'. It has been part of your reasoning, and I feel a better understanding of what you meant will not only help this discussion but give me more of an understanding of the content of this page and thus I can get better as an editor. The comment that I am unwilling to engage with terms of accepted practise is unfair. I thought the point of the talk page was to discuss and make an informed decision based on the evidence and opinions presented, that is exactly what I am trying to do. Flagondry (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ever say that there was nothing free about an occupation. I said that the title as it stands now assumes that there is something free about the occupation, which isn't our job as Wikipedia editors to determine if this isn't standard naming practice in reliable sources.
And I really don't want to have a debate about the merits of that determination the sources have made, because 1) it's not our job and 2) I'm really quite ambivalent about the whole thing. If the "Free Hetherington" ever becomes a neutral, widely accepted term in BBC/Guardian/GU Guardian/Herald/Scotsman articles, then of course that's what the article should be called. But at the moment, these sources seem to have made the evaluation that "Free Hetherington" is not a NPOV term. — VikingViolinist | Talk 10:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Add another +1 in support of the title change (to "2011 HH Occupation") with possibly two redirects ("Free Hetherington" and "2011 GU Occupation"). Sdstrowes (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sd

I think you have mistaken the nature of this issue. It is not a matter of saying "+1" (i.e. this is not a simple matter of consensus). Rather, the point is to state why you agree/disagree that the original title violates fundamental WP policies.

At least, that is what some of us have been trying to do. LadyDiotima (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I was too terse; by saying "+1" I summarised that I agree with all points in favour of the change, and I do not agree with the points against the change. I agree with the arguments that the proposed title is factual, that few citeable sources refer to the occupation as the "free hetherington", and that it is commonly referred to as "the occupation" on campus. I make no comment on whether the current title is "neutral" or otherwise, I just think the proposed title is more coherent, more accurate, and more useful to casual readers. Sdstrowes (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is time to start wrapping this up. We have had the 7 day minimum discussion period. I wouldn't say that we have reached a full consensus but the arguments are getting repetitive and I don't think additional time will get us any further. Having participated in the discussion I am not eligible to close this myself so I would like to invite an uninvolved editor to rule on the result and implement it.. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I changed the article name. I believe we reached a reasonable consensus several days ago (in that all appear to now agree, the arguments in favour still seem to stand and the arguments against have either been responded to or acceptably, by the people discussing above, mitigated). I came on today and noticed the title still hadn't changed so made the edit. The above paragraph or two seems to be someone re-opening the discussion simply off the back of one guy expressing support "+1". We can debate it for days but I think there is a fairly overwhelming consensus now.

p.s. Could others please look at the opening paragraph and edit it as they see appropriate. I tried to make it sound sensible/maintain previous content whilst moving to handle new article title but may not have done the best job ever.Neil999go (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Neil - I'm a bit surprised that you did this as my understanding was that an editor who had been involved in the discussion (as you were) was not eligible to make the change. I think it would have been far better to ask, as Daniel did, for a neutral editor to implement this. 2.24.247.166 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hetherington members involvement in kelvingrove park riots

I wish to raise two points here, one is the relevance of this particular piece of information and the other is widespread deletion of added comments on the grounds that the specific cited source doesn't 100% prove it. This is a reason to find a better reference, not to delete the information.

The text currently reads 'Recently, pictures from a student party which descended into violence on the day of the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton show individuals waving banners from the Free Hetherington and apparently goading the police.[36]'

We know that the individuals pictured in the article are the same people seen leaving the free hetherington.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=128358353905754&set=a.120158684725721.23356.120118098063113&type=1&theater http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/04/29/police-horses-charge-illicit-street-party-in-glasgow-s-kelvingrove-park-86908-23095821/

We can also verify that they are members of the Free Hetherington in that one of the individuals assaulted Aaron Porter a few months ago and then posted am article on the Free Hetherington website bragging about it.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=122689291139327&set=pu.120118098063113&type=1&theater http://freehetherington.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/porterwatch/

My point here is simple. The editor who deleted the paragraph in question, in all likelihood, knows that it wasn't untrue. We should be seeking better citations and marking as citation needed rather than censoring important information and using a lack of 'concrete' evidence as a subsequent excuse. —Preceding

I don't see anything in those banners mentioning the Free Hetherington. I think more concrete evidence is needed before this is added. It looks as if somebody might have a "feeling" or a "personal belief" that some of the folk who were at Kelvingrove for the party had also been seen in the Free Hetherington (shock horror: students are seen at a West End park!), but a proper citation, rather than just an assertion that the same faces "might" be seen in two places is needed, IMO LadyDiotima (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The key policy here is No Original Research. This means that we don't make our own inferences from the information we have. Unless there is an external reliable source making a connection we don't make it. Quite apart from anything else, it protects Wikipedia from any accusation of libel. If anybody wants to make an allegation of a criminal offence they should be talking to the police directly, not using Wikipedia as a soapbox. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see this has been reverted. I should say, as one who lives in the West End of Glasgow, that the photos referenced do *not* show anybody leaving the Free Hetherington, so do not provide good evidence that those in the photos are anything to do with the occupation. I'm really bored of the edit wars going on here. LadyDiotima (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor who reverted the edit here because there was nothing in the videos that showed any visible signs of anyone there representing the occupation, no banners with the name on it etc. and there was no text alongside the videos saying there were people from the occupation were there. I wouldn't be surprised if they were since half of Glasgow was at Kelvingrove that day but it doesn't belong in the article, as the editor above said, it comes under 'no original research'. Flagondry (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations

I've just reverted an edit by 86.138.174.115 which removed the citation tags on the basis that the user was providing him/her self as the source of that information. This obviously violates the Wikipedia policy of no original research (WP:OR). The user also suggested writing up the allegations on a website and using that as a source. This would be a violation of both OR and would fail guidelines for reliable sources.

I'd encourage new users of Wikipedia to read three things if nothing else: No original reseach, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. Also having a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia isn't a bad idea. — VikingViolinist | Talk 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Viking. I totally agree with you LadyDiotima (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. Flagondry (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)