Talk:2010 Chinese labour unrest

NPOV

The NPOV of this article is being challenged. The article reads like a one-sided propaganda piece. It uses weasel words and lacks references. WP is no place for an “analysis” – just the facts, please, referenced. Strikes in China are a regular occurrence. There is no special reason for a 2010 China Labour unrest page. This article gives the impression as if strikes are a new phenomenon in China. “Unrest” is a loaded word. A strike is not necessarily an “unrest.” Other than previous strikes (not cited here,) in which managers were taken hostage, the current strikes were peaceful and settled speedily with payment increases. The article misses plans of the Chinese government to "double average wages over the five years from 2011." http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20100608D08JFA05.htm 2010 is not over, and this isn't Wikinews. Boxun is not a reliable source.

What's more, the article suffers from a bad case of recentism. There is an article about Labor relations in the People's Republic of China, which duplicates a lot of the content. Labor relations in the People's Republic of China is better suited to taking a long-term, historical view. If desired, a list of strikes can be maintained in Labor relations in the People's Republic of China, but it's a chore.

Recommendation: Merge article with Labor relations in the People's Republic of China, or delete. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. There are a couple of things that I wanted to address. First, let's deal with the "recentism" issue. I need to put it out there that I consider myself a crusader against recentism - I even have a subpage of my userpage dedicated to this cause. So if I did not think this was relevant material to have its own article given Wikipedia's policies on Recentism, I would not have bothered creating it. If you want to get rid of more recentist article, there a pile of them here that need to be dealt with - a lot less qualified, might I add, than this article.

I absolutely agree with you that labour strikes occurs in China quite regularly, but something as wide-scale as this, where tens if not hundreds of workplaces/factories around the country ask for better wages and improved labour conditions simultaneously, is quite an unprecedented phenomenon. The fact that the government has now decided to censor news on it also means that it's reached the top echelons of the CPC leadership and is no longer a local, segregated, one-dimensional issue. Even prolific China-scholar, author, and Jamestown Foundation fellow Willy Lam has jumped on this issue. While I understand Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is reasonable to see that these particular incidents will have long-lasting effects on the labour landscape in China. Lam, specifically, calls this "the most serious labor unrest in recent memory"; note his usage of the word "unrest", which has also been used by most mainstream English-language newspapers. He goes on to say "This isn't just unusual; it represents a real turning point in China's economic development as the country's 400 million workers gain a stronger voice." Of course, Lam isn't the only one whose written lengthy analyses on the socio-political implication of the issue. There are many others who have analyzed it and treated it similarly as monumental - such as The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist; Chinese-language web portal Duowei dedicates an entire feature on related stories and analyses, and South China Morning Post also has done its share of analysis (I cannot link you, sadly, because you need a subscription).

Now that we established the obvious notability of these events, let me go on to address some of the other problems that you brought up. You say that this article needs more citations. That's true. But it is a work in progress, more citations will be added as editors get more sources. Wikipedia is dynamic. I won't argue on whether or not Boxun is a reliable source or not - but their basic point of view has been reflected on the New York Times and other major newspapers. Duowei said much the same. You also seem to believe that this article is not "NPOV". Please tell me what kind of contents to add to make it more NPOV, and I will be happy to oblige. I have always stood by the NPOV pillar on all articles - having been accused of being both too "pro-China" and too "anti-China". Thus the fact that you say this article is propaganda gave me a chuckle.

If I haven't been able to change your mind on your concerns, please put up an RfC. I'd be happy to continue the discussion there. Meanwhile, if you think what I say is reasonable, I invite you to work on this article as a collaborator. Colipon+(Talk) 22:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I said it "reads like a one-sided propaganda piece." You want to avoid this impression. Citations help. The article also gives the impression that strikes are new in China. Putting the matter in context would help. Staying away from rabid anti-Chinese sites like Boxun would also aid in avoiding NPOV concerns. I don't argue the noteworthiness of the events. I follow them myself professionally [from an automotive standpoint.] Currently, I only see them noteworthy as news, not for an encyclopedia. Time will tell, give it some time. Giving it a little time also helps avoid spreading rumors that Foxconn will pull out of China. [They just said they won't.] It may also be worthy to note that the majority of strikes on that list are at foreign-owned or (possibly) joint venture companies, which always makes matters interesting. As someone who follows Chinese matters regularly, you should be careful with allegations of censorship. State media had covered both the Foxconn matter and the Honda strikes extensively. It actually had taken a very special interest in Foxconn, there were times with daily Foxconn reports, which led to allegations that the Foxconn matter was actually played up. Being what state media is, someone must have decided that matters had gotten out of hand, and the reporting died down. This also is not an unprecedented phenomenon in the Chinese news cycle. Lastly, we should be aware of a larger political context: These are trade war times. Governments and unions own large car companies and might have an interest in this. I maintain that the strikes would be better suited as a chapter in Labor relations in the People's Republic of China, because when we look at it later, it will most likely be just a chapter in the long history of Chinese labor relations. Time will tell whether it's an important chapter, or not. Breathless reporting does not do the matter justice, and leads to mistakes. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd agree that this is not a simple or isolated labour dispute, but is part of a turning point. To illustrate the point, here are just a few quotes from news articles:

  "The moment that corporate executives from New York to Tokyo have dreaded has arrived: Chinese workers are demanding a raise. It was great for balance sheets while it lasted. Hundreds of millions were willing to toil for a dollar or two a day. Well, those days are over and the global economy won't be the same. Just ask Honda Motor, where a walkout shut down all of its production in China. The carmaker had to offer workers a 24 per cent pay rise to get things back online. Consider this the vanguard of a Chinese we-won't-work-for-peanuts movement and another reason to fret about inflation. Higher wages won't just become the norm because workers feel exploited. China will have no choice but to advocate big increases in compensation to keep the peace among its 1.3 billion people. Labour unrest is bubbling up. — Pesek, William (Jun 08, 2010). COMMENT :"Days of work-for-peanuts mainland labour are over", South China Morning Post

  The recent wave of labour unrest with strikes at three Honda Motor suppliers, and a 66 per cent pay raise for workers at Foxconn International (SEHK: 2038) after a string of suicides, have drawn attention to the issue of rising production costs in the country. Local governments nationwide have announced increases to the minimum wage ranging from 5 per cent to 27 per cent.—Huang, Cary (Jun 12, 2010) "Mainland inflation rises, industrial growth slows", South China Morning Post

  Geoffrey Crothall, a spokesman for the Hong Kong-based group China Labour Bulletin, said the clashes appeared to be part of a pattern. "There has definitely been an upsurge in worker discontent and activism this year," he said. "It isn't just in southern China. We are seeing it in central provinces and now in the Yangtze River Delta. And it is not just the young - middle-aged workers are now beginning to say `enough is enough, give us our due'."—Clem, Will; Lau, Mimi & Choi Chi-yuk (Jun 09, 2010) "Labour strife spreads to Yangtze River Delta", South China Morning Post

  Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As this is an ongoing and developing situation, I could give you literally thousands of quotes. (Comments to articles usually don't qualify ...) The core of the matter remains:

• There are many unsourced statements in this article, which
• make it appear one-sided
• Some of the claims in the article are simply wrong (for instance Foxconn leaving China)
• The article suffers from recentism
• Many cases are sourced to the South China Morning Post. It's a good paper. However, the articles cannot be verified without subscription.
• Outlets like Boxun or The World Socialist Web Site are, to put it mildly, biased sources. If I'd base my daily work on one of them, I'd be laughed out of town.
• As Boxun seems to accept news from anybody, it does not qualify as reliable
• The article would be better at home as a chapter in Labor relations in the People's Republic of China, which also would guarantee it readership long after the recent strikes have been forgotten

While we are at it, more care should be taken in reporting as long as we report:

• When unions of KFC and Pizza Hut negotiate with management, and get a 5% pay raise, then this hardly qualifies as a "strike" or "unrest"
• If the "shoe factory" in Dongguan can't be named, then don't list it. The source (subscription needed) talks about a rubber factory near Shanghai
• That "World Cup ball factory" sounds dubious. Again, sourced on Boxun

I could write a similar article, strictly sourced on the Financial Times, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Nikkei and other sources. The predominant choice of fringe sources makes the article suspect.

Rule #1 when reporting, especially when reporting contentious issues: Get your facts straight, and thoroughly vet your sources. -- BsBsBs (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I must caution you against further bombardments of the page with tags and templates. If you are really challenging some of the contents, I would rather you delete it outright than put up a bunch of "dubious" this, "citation needed" that. As I am not the only contributor to this article I feel no obligation to defend the validity of the sources, nor give you registration so that you can view the South China Morning Post to confirm the contents presented by the article (if you read the policy on this issue carefully, it clearly says it is perfectly fine to use these links as an inline citation, if nothing else). It is important, above all, assume good faith of other editors, and if there is a mistake in the article, as is inevitable, feel free to edit it or check for the credibility of the sources yourself, rather than just tagging it and then leaving the article in a mess. I feel that if we cooperated and put forth an honest effort to improve the article, it would serve the best interests of our readership. Meanwhile I will try to rectify some of the concerns brought up above. Colipon+(Talk) 03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I addressed several of the issues you brought up above. 1. I removed the Boxun reference for the "world cup ball factory" in favour of Reuters. 2. I removed the "shoe factory" strike altogether because even if it is verifiable it seems of dubious significance. 3. I changed "list of unrest" to "labour incidents" because not everything on the list is necessarily considered "confrontational". 4. Foxconn leaving China statement deleted, added sources from AP and FT to verify. 5. Your concern with the WSWS is noted, and I agree that it is a biased source. However, the only statement to it is a quote attributed to the Financial Times, which is easily located if you have a subscription. I agree that WSWS should not be used as a reliable source insofar as it deals with a passage with which it has a vested conflict of interest or clear ideological inclinations. Otherwise, if it is just reporting a few straight facts which are verifiable, I would not be nearly as critical.
I have every intention of making this article as neutral and as historically significant as possible. It would help me if other editors actually pitched in rather than just complain on this talk page. I will also replace the tags placed on the page with an "underconstruction" tag to make it less cluttered. Colipon+(Talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The tags were added as an inducement to raise the quality of the article. I usually do not like making controversial edits. However, after having been invited ...

I removed:

• Anything sourced on Boxun or The World Socialist Web Site
• KFC and Pizza hut. No strike
• The anonymous "sports good supplier." If Reuters can't name the company, it doesn't belong here
• several unsourced assertions an suppositions.

I added quotes from state media for passages where actions by the Chinese government were named.

Rewrote the last paragraph. All Boxun material gone. Opinions, even if rendered by the FT, have no place here, especially when sourced through the The World Socialist Web Site. WP deals with facts, not with opinions.

Brought the Bodeen ref in sync with what it says.

It is good practice to add a {{registration required}} tag to citations that are not freely accessible. It is true that sources that are accessible for money may be cited. However, the reader should be told. (I hope the Nikkei ref added is freely accessible as quoted. I can't tell, I have a subscription. If not, please add the tag.)

Hint: A WP article should not be written like a news story or blog post. I maintain that this should be a paragraph in Labor relations in the People's Republic of China -- BsBsBs (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and the changes you've made to the article. I only disagree on your view that "opinions have no place here". Having independent analysis is fine as long as this "opinion" is attributed and given due context. Remember the point here is to present the fact that there is a notable opinion that exists, not to present the opinion in and of itself. This is very much consistent with the Wikipedia pillar of neutral point of view. Colipon+(Talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations

User bsbsbs, please be aware of the proper citations format. A mere URL is generally not sufficient. In addition, citations are meant to attribute contents to a specific source, not to prove that there has been "widespread coverage". Something like a Google Search is not acceptable as a citation, and I have deleted it. Colipon+(Talk) 03:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When you want to demonstrate "widespread coverage in state media," a Google search of state media for the topic is the best reference. The reader can then ascertain whether the coverage was widespread or not. I have done this several times on WP when I wanted to demonstrate wide coverage or notoriety, and it was never challenged. Please do not remove references from statements, otherwise someone will complain that the statement is unreferenced.

There is no "proper citations format." There are different styles. I have mine, which is fast, and a bot usually does the rest. Others may have different styles. As long as you reference the source properly, it is ok. See citing sources

While on the topic of style:

• I have moved my last paragraph back as the last paragraph. Calling it "Background" establishes a cause and effect relationship, which is not proven.

• Please study the style manual . Verbiage like "jumped to his death" is discouraged, use "committed suicide." He most certainly didn't "jump to his death in an apartment" - maybe from an apartment. It's better to avoid such editorializing.

• Avoid weasel words like "reportedly" or "is reported" - either someone said it, then cite it, or not.

• A strike is not "broken" with concessions.

I hope we can give this article a rest now, unless other incidents happen. If they do, they should be viewed with a little distance. I usually get paid for editing, and this editing takes time away from gainful work. Thank you . -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for lecturing me. It would have sufficed for you to check the history of the article and see that it wasn't actually written by me, and the time you spent lecturing may well have been spent improving the article; also, I am not going to respond to your references to Wikipedia policy because it appears that you fundamentally misunderstand some of its most basic tenets. I am going to revert your additions of the URL references - they are inappropriate. Don't believe me? Ask any other experienced editor. Also, please show me which bot does referencing automatically for so I can save some time editing as well. It is also perhaps not "best practice" to advertise that you're getting paid for editing on Wikipedia, as the community clearly has not yet come to consensus on that issue. If this is a waste of your time because you're not getting paid, please just leave. I thought I could have a bona fide discussion with some good back-and-forth but your holier-than-thou attitude does not exhibit the type of behavior appreciated by the Wiki community. Colipon+(Talk) 01:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions are dangerous. I said I get paid for editing. I do. I did not say I get paid for "editing on Wikipedia." I don't. If I would, I would have no reason to complain about a waste of time. Removing references does WP a disservice. If you quote, please quote verbatim, do not edit the quote. The original IHT quote is “as natural as arguments between a husband and wife,” you turn it into "bickering between husband and wife." I know, small difference, but slippery slope. As for the waste of time, I think most was well spent. The article turned from a propaganda piece full of cliches into a balanced article that actually provides some food for thought. Thank you. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am still awaiting an answer on this "bot" that supposedly makes my references align with the proper format so long as I insert a lone URL. Colipon+(Talk) 04:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Labor_relations_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Honda_strikes_and_other_events_in_2010

I have restored most of what was in Labor_relations_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Honda_strikes_and_other_events_in_2010 but support a much more detailed article here. This is about a news event "unrest". Labor_relations_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China is about the ongoing state of labor relations, which whether there are strikes or not remains a factual issue. I created Labor_relations_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China because Economy of the People's Republic of China is totally out of hand, way too long and needs substantial subarticles created. As noted above, although the issues are obvious as the communist movement arose in the context of the labor movement, it is poor to use sectarian Marxist-Leninist sources with respect to these events, if for no other reason than that it conflates sectarian considerations with the actual perspectives of the workers involved. Fred Talk 19:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Initially

Folks, pls give the "initially" a rest. As it is easy to ascertain, there is a daily stream of strike reports from state media. I provided an (apparently bothersome) handy search tool. The article itself is full of recent citations, to wit, Carlsberg, last in the list. China Daily had SEVEN articles on strikes in the June 18 2010 edition. I know, it doesn't fit trite and true cliches, but many things in China don't. Time would be better spent with updating the list, but that's tedious work. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You've removed information which is quite well-sourced. The Foxcomm suicides were covered, even commented on by national leaders. The initial Honda strike was covered in People's Daily. I doubt there is even a mention of the Toyota strikes in Chinese national media. Fred Talk 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Updating the "list" certainly is tedious and actually not that productive. There are strikes and there are strikes. Strikes at suppliers that make essential parts for automakers are especially significant and powerful, see Flint Sit-Down Strike. Fred Talk 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What did I remove? As far as the coverage goes, after checking with the reliable sources notice board, I removed the handy Google search and went to the trouble of adding some coverage of the last few days. Looks pretty ugly, but rules are rules ... Yes, Toyota is covered. Easy to find. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, you're right. Reading it now. Fred Talk 20:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as the list goes, I thought that was the whole idea of the article. List maintenance is tedious, especially in a fluid situation. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Google_searches_to_prove_wide_coverage. Colipon+(Talk) 21:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As you pointed out in that discussion there is at least one NYT's article which reports increased censorship. I have added it to the article. There are doubtless other sources, but I would be very careful about using other sources unless they have reporters in China.Fred Talk 13:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A very good policy. BTW, the NYT seems to influence China Daily a lot. The same day (Jun 18th) that NYT article was written, there were 7 strike-related articles in China Daily. -- BsBsBs (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

For a long time the NYT's website was blocked in China, but about 5 years ago discussions were held by the newspaper with the Chinese leadership which moderated that. Not that there is any actual influence by the NYT's on China Daily, just notice that the global press is reporting on a subject. Fred Talk 16:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressing a few points:

Came from RSN to address a few points seen on the talk page:

There was a question about why there needed to be a page about labor issues in 2010 specifically. If we need a secondary source to tie the recent events together, you could use these that I just found, China: Spreading Labor Unrest by Stratfor[1] and Socialist workers: Is China’s labour market at a turning-point? in the Economist[2]].

There still isn't consensus on Boxun as RS, but it shouldn't be your first choice. WSWS probably meets RS, but see if the same facts weren't covered in other sources. If this was something that came from the Financial Times, that's on the top tier of RS so use that instead.

We're supposed to be NPOV, but there's no requirement for our sources to be unbiased. The way to handle biased sources is to use attribution.. "Source X said Y". Of course, it's better to use the most unbiased and generalist sources first and then fill in the fine detail from specialized sources.

There's nothing wrong with citing a RS for its quote of another source. That's actually preferred in some cases, such as if the original source is not accessible online or not in English. Otherwise, try to get the original source. Also, this is only for if the citing RS is of equal or greater status, ie you could cite the Financial Times for a statement from the WSWS, but you would not cite the WSWS for a statement from the Financial Times.

It's also okay if an RS refers to a "sporting goods company" or similar. I imagine most of these are not household names in English-speaking countries and the names might not exactly roll off the tongue. However, if the list grows to 30+ incidents then we'll have to revisit which ones are notable enough to include. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. This is basically what I've been saying to this user all along. Colipon+(Talk) 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a journalist by training. Old school. Fact checking had been drummed into us. When the Guardian says there was an editorial in People's Daily, then I head over to People's Daily and look for it. I don't have to leave my desk, People's Daily is available in English and on-line. There also is Global Times, the English writing sister publication of People's Daily. (Actually, a quite interesting one. It is surprisingly upfront and is often used to float new and sometimes daring ideas in China.) If I don't find the editorial in both, I drop it. The Guardian probably made a mistake. Wouldn't be the first time. Confusing Chinese sources is a common mistake. ("Hey, they all look alike.") If I really, seriously want that quote, then I'd say "The Guardian cites an editorial in People's Daily as saying ..." If I would want to be nasty, I could add "The editorial is not available in the People's Daily on-line edition," thereby leaving open whether the Guardian messed up, or whether PD removed the editorial. In any case, if I would talk about an editorial in People's Daily and then link to the Guardian, this would be the last story I would have published - unless I profusely apologize. Even if the Guardian would reprint a People's Daily editorial verbatim and in full length, professionalism dictates a "People's Daily editorial (via The Guardian.)" Or somesuch.

If I would have written about an unnamed "sporting goods manufacturer" when I was young, it would have come back to my desk with a big red circle and an angry "Who????" on the margin. And I would have received a talking to about not forgetting the 4 W (Who, What, Where, When) ever again. I also would have been asked whether I desire a career in the archives. The assumption that "most of these are not household names in English-speaking countries" is correct, however the assertion that "the names might not exactly roll off the tongue" is not. If they export, they have an English name, in addition to the Chinese. It may be something odd like "Jiangxi Dramatic Sports Goods Co., Ltd." but they have a name. An unnamed entity is unverifiable and raises eyebrows. A strike at a nameless company has no place in a list of strikes that supposedly cause a sea change.

PS: Stratfor is available by subscription only. We have one, not everybody does. -- BsBsBs (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, from all the talk above, the South China Morning Post seems to have been taken as a solely online source. It is not. Like many journals of today, it has a website, but it is essentially a paper journal. Citation rules concerning paper references apply here. I have removed the link because it is totally unhelpful for the vast majority that does not have an online subscription. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

State media coverage

State media coverage is almost certainly restricted on Chinese-language sites. For example, the Pingdingshan strike reported by the Toronto star cannot be located at all on People's Daily. Chinese language portals have been next to silent on this issue; if they report it, it is placed at the lower half of news feeds, and only for Honda and Foxconn. People's Daily might bring out an editorial every few days talking about the issue of strikes and the labour force in general, but nothing specific related to the strikes. None of the domestic strikes have been reported whatsoever in Chinese-language media (but if you find some please let me know) in China, let alone People's Daily. Global Times and China Daily are merely English papers with more-or-less a foreign audience, their reporting trends is thus not indicative of the same trends in Chinese-language media. For example, on June 4, Global Times commented on the 1989 Tiananmen protests, while all Chinese-language newspapers, including the rather liberal Southern Weekend, was silent. Colipon+(Talk) 16:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm afraid of riding a horse. Riding a tiger is completely out of the question. What we would need to make this article complete would be reliable information about internal Chinese discussions regarding this outbreak. But that, as you may know, is classified information. Fred Talk 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a difficult position. Western media is good at reporting the events but often fails when it comes to the socio-political analysis, so in many ways I am as wary of some reports as user BsBsBs. I guess that's why Wikipedia's English edition is home to severe systemic bias. Colipon+(Talk) 00:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of strikes by newspapers from world financial centers will focus on increased cost to a certain extent. Their readers are investors and think in terms of the profit to be make from low wages, and lost from increased wages. Fred Talk 11:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But they might also think of a developing middle class they could sell products to. See end of this article Fred Talk 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here, however, is the considered opinion of The New York Times. Fred Talk 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fred, re your edit summary "emerging middle class to buy junk:" That emerging middle class is quite quality conscious. The fake markets are full with western tourists, but even an underpaid Chinese secretary wouldn't get caught dead with a fake bag. The junk is being exported to the lowest bidder. That middle class is here and growing. BsBsBs (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that Chinese are better shoppers than the average American. If a Foxconn worker manages to buy a MacIntosh computer, now a year's wages, that's not junk in the sense that a Big Mac is. Here's the thing: if a factory is making iPhones they can easily afford to pay their assembly line workers $1,000 a month, that would be a 300% increase in wages, but if we are talking about a privatized cotton mill, paying more than $100 a month does raise the specter of movement of the industry to cheaper locations. An auto factory in the largest market for cars in the world is not so easily relocated. Fred Talk 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Violent clashes

This addition: "Some strikes were settled quickly after employees and management negotiated wage increases, while others involved drawn-out walkouts, protests, and even violent clashes." seems somewhat unsourced. I know many police were called out and there is a report of one person being beaten, but a "clash" would involve a situation were there was fighting by both sides, rather than simply police suppression of typical strike actions. Fred Talk 04:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced and removed. We should also be wary of lede obesity and redundancy. If strikes spread "nationwide," then they don't need to spread again "first in coastal regions, then further inland." If there are "debates," there is no further need for "discussions." A lede needs to be crisp and to the point. I left it, but I wonder : Why "attempted" suicides in the intro, when people successfully kill themselves further down? -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I also expanded the Pingdingshan mention a bit. Turns out, our Star reporter was a bit disingenuous. While complaining about a lack of coverage, he had received his tip from state media. China Daily mentioned Pingdingshan a week before the star reporter got there. They also had mentioned other locations. Chinese state media works in wondrous, cliche-busting ways. China Daily just had a redesign by Bill Gaspard, a noted American creative director, who likes it here. He was president of the (American) Society for News Design, and news design director at the LA Times, before he became deputy managing editor of the Las Vegas Sun. Monitoring of Global Times can be especially eye-opening. Their mention of Tiananmen was no coincidence. Staffers there are still proud of their "first." -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to educate me on media in China. I know full well what they are capable of. I just wish you'd also take a look at how the Chinese-language media has been treating the whole thing. English-language media in China is, in many ways, a front for foreign audiences. Thus they tend to be more liberal. It is the Chinese-language media that really matters as the vast majority of the audience cannot, or do not bother to, read English. When we say that there has been restricted coverage in China, we mean on the Chinese newspapers, not the English ones. Colipon+(Talk) 12:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Xie xie

Special thanks to Ohconfucius for taking an inordinate amount of time to fill-in refs, most mine, added in haste. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• buyong keqi! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

new news article

Chan, Minnie (30 Jun. 2010) "One man's touch sets off wave of factory strikes", South China Morning Post

The recent wave of strikes at factories in the southern mainland was triggered by one bold worker who decided to stick his thumb out. ....

"We are daring to bargain with management because we have the full support of our parents," he said. "My migrant worker father told me that he doesn't want me to suffer the same unfairness he endured."

(please blank out after use) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Read it. Copyright rules are against putting a whole article up. Nothing new anyway, just more detail. -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2010 Chinese labour unrest. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1991620,00.html?
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0601/Honda-stalled-as-China-workers-mull-wage-increasev
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/business/global/17strike.html?src=busln
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.economist.com/node/16319562?story_id=16319562
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5BkeP4BJld7crj9SWZxlnD8EwCAD9G914E80
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/opinion/17iht-edhan.html?
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/17/china-strikes-economy
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-05/29/c_13322933.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/news/world/china/article/820395--labour-strife-rolls-across-china
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://society.dwnews.com/news/2010-06-17/56090390.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611061226/http://www.financialpost.com:80/news/Wage+unrest+threatens+Beijing+power/3133322/story.html to http://www.financialpost.com/news/Wage+unrest+threatens+Beijing+power/3133322/story.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100721/wl_nm/us_china_labour

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)