Talk:New Zealand riot police use batons to disperse unruly pub-crawl

Sigh.....

I guess the inaccuracies in this article will never be tidied up, and will forever serve as a reminder that, with the exception of wikipedia, openly editable sites do not work. That is a shame, I have offered to correct the page, but it has been locked, and my concerns ignored. Nzjrs 13:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Page Locked

Why has the page been locked before all of the glaring innacuracies have been tidied up? Can I fix these? Nzjrs 07:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"outrage"

article does not report any "outrage" from the students over the use of force, but the headline does. Doldrums 07:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How about now, with the addition of this paragraph: Paul Chong, Students Association president, said "Couch-burning and bottle-smashing aren't serious enough offences to justify bringing in baton-wielding police." -nzgabriel 07:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

fine. my suggestion is to change the title to something like Riot police use batons to disperse unruly pub-crawl in NZ, so that the title reflects the focus of the article - which mostly reports the events and only lightly touches upon the "outrage". "unruly" and "pub crawl" may be replaced by any other, more appropriate, phrases. Doldrums 07:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The title change is fine by me. Changing the phrases im im not too sure about. nzgabriel 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Headline missleading. Pub crawl was from Christchurch to Dunedin, taking place on 18-19 08/2006 while the confrontation with the police took place in the centre of Dunedin (Castle Street North) near the Otago University campus on 18/08/2006 after 21:00. The riot was a combination of a number of things; mainly increased numbers of students due to 1: 'Undie 500', 2: Graduation, 3: Two rugby tests taking place, 4: A fine warm day (rare in Dunedin). What was outragous about the use of force by the police was the use of batons, storming peoples houses and making everyone from those premises leave (even inocent bystanders), and thirdly the police tatics of herding the students, using systematic police lines with officers wheelding batons, into the university campus. Also worrying was the way police officers ramdomly selected intoxicated students within the crowds, charging them and dragging them off to await arrest in 'paddie' wagons, basically using individuals as examples to others. This might seem exceptable, however it was the large number of arrests that has incited outrage. Over 30 people in the space of one hour. Altogether just under 100 students were arrested between friday night and sunday afternoon. This compares to a 'normal' weekend of 5-10 arrests.—Cnz 09:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This article blames the riot on the undie 500. The author infers this as none of the referenced articles make this confusion. As a student who was there, and partly responisble for the organisation of the event I find this article inflamatory and inacurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.232.219 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 31 August 2006

article is based on the sources listed. can u pls point to the specific statement in the article that u take issue with? (by the way, u can sign ur posts by appending ~~~~ to the end of ur comment. this adds ur IP address (or username, if u sign up, which is better privacy) to the comment.) Doldrums 03:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article "...disperse unruly pub-crawl" implies that the riot contained a majority of people belonging to the undie. This completely false. From memory, of the 100 or so arrests for the weekend 25 were christchurch students. How is this a majority? Furthurmore, this article seems to base its interpretation that the riots were the undie500s fault from the referenced crime.co.nz story, which as the commenter at the start of the page pointed out, is incorrect. The riot was the night after the undie arrived. Finally, and to once again agree with the poster above, the other referenced news stories cite the undie as not the reason that the riots occured, but just a contributing factor. You asked me ot point to a specific phrase which I take issue with; as mentioned I take issue with the title and the first paragraph which in no uncertain terms attribute the riot not only to the undie, but also claim that it consisted soley/majority of undie participants.Nzjrs 02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

note that the tvnz source says pretty much the same thing, "An annual student road trip from Christchurch to Dunedin turned into a riot on Saturday night.". Doldrums 07:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, The impression this article gives (saying the sole cause of the riot was the undie500) is a lot stronger than the other linked sources, they do not say the same thing at all. More specific examples: 1) Quote from tvnz: Adding to the melee, hundreds of Canterbury students are in Dunedin this weekend for the annual Undie 500 road trip. i.e. undie was a contributing factor not the sole reason. 2) There were over 1500 participants on the undie (I know i have taken part in the organisation), the tvnz article lists Four hundred students worked themselves into a frenzy.. It does not say that 400 students rioted, nor does it imply that the 400 people are a majority from the undie. . How can the author of this article know the proportion of undie participants in the riot? As I was there I would be very certain that canterbury students did not make up more than 50%, which is reasonable considering the riot was in dunedin on a major flatting street. In conclusion, I believe that the only way the tvnz article can say the same thing is if the author only read the very first sentance An annual student road trip from Christchurch to Dunedin turned into a riot on Saturday night., stopped reading, and then on their own accord decided that the riot was casued by the undie, and had only undie participants take place. In some ways I disagree with the tvnz reporting also, but it is not as innacurate as this story at least. Nzjrs 12:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)