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 Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope 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.
"Some economists, like Nobel Prize winning Princeton economist Paul Krugman, who argue that austerity measures tend to be counterproductive when applied to the populations and programs they are usually applied to."
This is not a sentence. It is a clause. Either the author cut off the statement amid stream or did not intend to use the word "who." I do not know which. With regard to the article in general, it doesn't really tell me what they "anti-austerity" is FOR, or specifically, what it is against. I'm pretty sure it's against the bankers, and against aggressive repayment of loans. Yet, it does not come out and say what should not be sacrificed in order to pay those loans. As a libertarian, I find myself in agreement with the distrust of banks, but not in agreement that loans should be unpaid with socialistic excuses. I believe something has to give. 174.16.157.37 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
This artical is terribly in favour of anti-austerity protests, i.e., it doesn't have a NPOV. Just so you know. 94.4.177.255 (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then Be Bold and make a Criticism section using reliable sources. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: RM closed as move already madeMike Cline (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Category:Anti-austerity protests in the European Union. The titles of these articles do not all follow the same pattern: sometimes 'protests', sometimes 'movement', sometimes other things. In my opinion this is not an uncontroversial move; it should have a discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that the name change should have been discussed first. The way I see the question is as follows. Is it a series of protests, or a movement of many people believing the same thing, and how do the sources treat it? In this case I think it is a movement, especially if you consider parties coming to power on an anti-austerity platform, as in Greece.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-austerity movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-austerity movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
