This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Parts of this article have been lifted verbatim from the austerity article's "Controversy" section, and subsequently expanded upon. A rewrite of those lifted paragraphs is recommended.
Rationale
I discuss why this article is 1) needed and 2) able to stand on its own merits, within the article itself. If anyone has an objection as to the fundamental need for a separate article for this phenomenon, please do not speedily delete it, and please do not make a proposal for short-term deletion, without extensive discussion here first. Thank you!! Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a decent start to an article, but it could do with a little long-term perspective. It is hardly the case that 'anti-austerity protests' never happened before 2010. Or perhaps a rename to '2010-11 anti-austerity protests' would be appropriate? Robofish (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better solution would be to add a large section to the article detailing pre-2010/11 organised anti-austerity protests. I absolutely agree with you that it is unreasonable to imply-via-omission that meaningful anti-austerity protests didn't take place before the current financial crisis started, but at the same time, I can't be personally responsible for adding the historical stuff that would give a more complete picture — not the least of which reason is that I don't really know of any truly notable actions before the onset of this crisis and it would be a real pain in the rear for me to go rooting around for them. ;) ... In any case, you're welcome to try to add that stuff of course — I'd just appreciate it if you not break up the current flow and tone of the article as a "present-day-oriented" thing, and the way to avoid breaking it up and making it into a barely-readable hodgepodge of history-and-present-day, would be to have a committed, self-contained and well-constructed History section within the article. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a date in the title to give it some context. Protests are events and events happen at a certain time, described by some date. If the date is not in the title, then a second option would be to make heavy use of dates in section titles - description of protest events come first. -161
I disagree with that. I don't think this article needs to be broken up into date-based stuff nor do I believe section titles need to be given dates. Opposition to austerity is such a huge and fluid movement, sort of like the Arab Spring (or at least wanting to be it, according to the people I talk to), that to break this stuff up by dates would make it an absolute mess. If anyone's going to insist on a dates-based structure for this article, I pre-emptively insist that we put any such thing to a vote. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
