Talk:Legislative violence

Legislator Smackdown (立委群毆)
Why was this changed to "legislative brawling"? I thought "Legislator Smackdown" was much funnier. --67.177.171.165 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Two events I think should be included: In one parliamentary session of the Taiwanese parliament, one person hit a hammer on his desk to signify a law had been passed, whereupon one man punched him in the head from behind, and a brawl ensued. Also, in (I think) the first federal parliament of Australia (1900s), there was a brawl which was widely reported in Australian newspapers. Rintrah 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So find the sources and add them in. I recall a brawl in Japan when they passed the newest stamp tax bill, but I can't find anything... _dk 10:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will, if I can be bothered. I was hoping to transfer the labour. Rintrah 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is a definition of the article's title necessary? I think the reader is more interested in the history, nature, and cases of Legislative violence than the term designating it, which has a self-evident definition anyway. Rintrah 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, but it's a standard practice to define the term first as an introduction...especially in this case, where its bordering on neologism. _dk 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Fair enough. Rintrah 14:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What about...
...Alabama's recent session? 68.39.174.238 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to an article describing that, with a video available there as well. But that was just one punch; I'm not sure it merits an entry in this article. --Metropolitan90 04:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My Removal of Taiwan Related Information
There were two main justifications for removing the large volume of information: I'm fairly confident that my bold actions will have the support of the wikipedia community. 58.164.33.106 12:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The section had been tagged for references for over 4 months and none were forthcoming. A large number of entries were not sourced and some appeared to contain allegations and rumors rather than verifiable fact. Also elements of original research, "Legislative violence in Taiwan has, according to some, been reduced to a political show used by legislators as a ploy to gain media coverage and votes amongst constituents."
 * The section clearly violated WP:NPOV which dictates against giving undue weight to an issue or side of an issue (in this case Taiwan compared to other countries). Many of the cases were relatively minor incidents that just fit within the definition (someone throwing food at another or pushing a chair over) and a number seemed to be geared towards discrediting the democratic nature of Taiwanese politics rather than providing encyclopedic coverage of the phenomenon (guidelines also state that examples should only be used to illustrate a point rather than constituting the bulk of an article).


 * It would not be NPOV if contributors who only know about Taiwan contributed information on this particular phenomena. Violence is specific to different contributions, so your deletions which I have not reviewed, may have actually tilted away a viable POV from a legitimate perspective, that others may have built. They may also have contributed worthwhile information. Simply because there was more information in that particular section is not a justification for its deletion or a misperceived weighting within the article. Maybe, when you hear the children next door screaming in agony, you should wait until they are dead before you call the police? Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Deadkid dk
If you have an issue with my removal of the overly long list of examples relating to Taiwan please bring it up here. There are two reasons for my removal: I took a quick look at your user page and noted that you are from Hong Kong, indicating that there could be some COI here, consolidated through comments such as "it is not a smear against taiwan if they themselves made a fool of themselves". Whatever your views are on Taiwan they must not interfere with the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia, we must adhere to both encyclopedic standards and a neutral point of view policy, and this cannot be achieved by listing every single example of legislative violence that has occurred in only one country. 58.164.33.106 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This is an article on "Legislative violence", not a "List of acts of legislative violence". As such it should explore the history and causes of the phenomenon and use a few, select and notable examples to demonstrate specific points. If you feel for an article extensively detailing every single act of legislative violence then by all means create one, but don't go dumping them here
 * 2) WP:NPOV provides a guideline against giving undue weight to an issue or side of an issue. The extensive list of acts relating to Taiwan compared to other countries gives the impression that Taiwanese parliament is violent/primitive etc. It is not a case of bringing the incidents in other countries up to the same volume (see pt. 1) but a question of using only a few notable examples to demonstrate that legislative violence occurs in Taiwan. As for something not being pov if it is sourced this is clearly flawed, if 9/10 of the article on God was on (properly sourced) arguments against his existence then that would violate npov, the same concept applies here.


 * Thank you for taking the time to find out more about me. Sadly, as you are editing under an IP account I can't do the same to you. So I will not base my response on your background but by your reasoning instead. (I don't know what stance a Hongkonger can take on Taiwanese issues, but whatever.)


 * The first point I agree with you, since the current structure of the article jumps around both in terms of time and region so it is a bit confusing. It would be great if we can gather enough resources to compile a chronological study of legislative violence, and have a separate list to complement this article. But at this stage we don't have much outside of news reports on these incidents, so a split wouldn't be worth it.


 * The issue of undue weight, though, does not apply. We are not giving undue weight to Taiwan when Taiwan is, in fact, the place where these things happen most often (and is unfortunately famous around the world). Trimming the section on Taiwan would give a false impression that other countries are/were just as bad as Taiwan, which isn't necessary the case. Your God analogy also doesn't work because there are people arguing for the existence of God, and to omit them would be NPOV; legisative violence in Taiwan has no detractors or deniers saying "other countries are just as bad" or "we're not fighting, we're just flirting!", just the cold hard truth from news reports (not opinions or arguements). My philosophy here is to present the facts as they are, and let the readers themselves decide what to think. Cheers. _dk 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the source in the first paragraph
The source was originally used to support a statement that singled out Taiwan for perpetrating legislative violence. It does not support the worldwide viewpoint currently in the article and is not the best choice. Is someone able to find a better one? 58.164.33.106 04:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the BBC article for the first paragraph to reference the psychology involved, not for singling out Taiwan and Korea. _dk 04:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, the source when I arrived was on the line "in the present day certain countries such as the Republic of China seem to be notorious for the disturbing frequency of such incidents" (bold added by me) and appeared to be used to push a POV statement. I can now see how it addresses the psychology involved, but perhaps another encompassing a more worldwide viewpoint could be found? 58.164.33.106 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources appear to be fine, and substantiate the material presented. I'm nowhere near Hong Kong and don't believe I have a conflict of interest in this matter.  ;-)  I'd like to hear what others think, but in my opinion, the broad removals of text and supplemental sources was unnecessary.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read one section above this, my view is that presenting a large number of incidents relating to Taiwan a) detracts from the encyclopedic quality of the article (examples should be used to illustrate a point not just listed indiscriminately) and b) appears to be pushing a POV that Taiwanese parliament is degenerate/primitive etc (having 5 examples and a separate introductory paragraph when the other countries only have at most two). Perhaps the history/psychological causes sections could be expanded and the listed examples embedded into there (the UK weapons policy, Ig Nobel prize - actually how I found this article - and the violence in Rome could be steamlined into one section and "notable recent examples" made into a section without having separate country titles). 58.164.33.106 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Taiwan is well known around the world (perhaps the best known among nations) for this activity, at least as it has taken place in the late 20th century. I myself have a collection of video footage of such violence as it has taken place in the ROC parliament. This is notable and we should provide factual information about it for our readers. We should not either attempt to minimize or maximize the Taiwan parliament's notoriety for legislative violence. Badagnani 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Noone is denying that Taiwan is notable around the world for it's activity, that's one of the reasons it's in the list. What I'm saying is that a) such an extensive list is not encyclopedic and that examples should be used to illustrate a point rather than indiscriminately collecting them down the bottom of an article and b) giving the Taiwanese section an introductory paragraph and five examples from the last three years whereas every other country has at most two a majority of which occurred prior to 2000 is blatant pov pushing implying that the Taiwanese parliament (and by implication the entire democratic structure of the state) is degenerate/primitive etc. At the worst this needs to be brought into check with the rest of the article, and at best the entire list needs to be integrated into a rewrite. It is not a question of robbing our readers of factual information or an attempt to minimise the Taiwanese parliament's notoriety for legislative violence, we are merely ensuring that encyclopedic and npov guidelines are met 58.164.33.106 05:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Taiwan and the UK get introductory paragraphs because in their cases the violence were trends rather than independent incidents (I can't be sure, Korea and the US must have similar trends too). Other countries don't get as much mention is either because A) we still haven't found out, or B) they don't happen as often. Does that make the Taiwanese parliament seem degenerate? Maybe, but if these things really happened we shouldn't be afraid to mention them for the sake of NPOV, because truth takes no point of view despite what Colbert says. _dk 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For clarification - mine and CSCWEM's reverts had little or nothing (well okay, I can't speak from his point of view, but...) to do with the inclusion or exclusion of certain sources on political, cultural, or any other grounds, if nothing else, the sole reason I rolled back the edits made by 58 is the fact that he removed the introduction of a paragraph, and a source from a politically neutral perspective. These changes were initially removed without an edit summary, then, and only then, were we told to provide clarification for our actions based on the reverts we had made.


 * As it stands, the article is fine. Bobo. 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

TV programs
I recall seeing 'a pair of programs' on legislative violence a while ago (occasionally repeated) - if located they could be added. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

European Parliament incident
Slightly surprising that this has not been included before. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional example(s)
Here's one from Argentina recently: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8392249.stm. Open4D (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Could the Ukrainian incident be included (disputing the extension of Russia occupation of the base in exchange for cut-price oil) be included. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be better if you can link to a source that confirms this actually happened for the less-informed rest of us. :) _dk (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-legislative activities
Given the incidents variously involving George W Bush, John Prescott and Silvio Berlusconi 'among others', could a similar list be created covering such activities? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

United States - Missing Information
Please note there are other incidents, particularly in the 1800's, which are missing from this article. One such incident as I recall, entailed the maiming of a northern congressman by several southern congressmen. There are other incidents as well. All of these are actually Wikipedia articles I have come across, so if someone does a search, hopefully they will find them... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like  is missing as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Arkansas!
John Wilson, the speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives, stabbed Representative J. J. Anthony to death during a legislative debate on the floor of the chamber in 1837. Wilson was later acquitted. The Old State House is said to be haunted to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.247.55 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The UKIP incident
... of today should be mentioned. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan, July 2017
Chiu Yi-ying engaged Hsu Shu-hua, Li Yanxiu, Lin Te-fu, and Huang Chao-shun. תיל&#34;ם (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Legislative violence. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021094709/http://jagoindian.com/jayalalithaa-chief-minister-of-tamil-nadu/ to http://jagoindian.com/jayalalithaa-chief-minister-of-tamil-nadu/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927044228/http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2010/12/08/0200000000AKR20101208206300004.HTML to http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2010/12/08/0200000000AKR20101208206300004.HTML
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051225103258/http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-05-30T125115Z_01_TP173720_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-TAIWAN-PARLIAMENT.XML
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123430/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1975/1/1975_1_11.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1975/1/1975_1_11.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove list of examples?
I'm unclear on the encyclopedic value of all the examples, and am concerned about BLP issues with having them. I think we should have clear inclusion criteria to avoid NOT, BLP, OR, and POV problems. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Propose article name change
Almost the entire article is just a list of legislative violence in countries around the world. I propose moving this page to List of legislative violence, so that the title matches the content. LK (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

External link
Will Wikipedia accept the following link: parliamentfights? תיל&#34;ם (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead section has extra information
I tagged the lead section as having extra information. See MOS:LEAD for purpose of the lead. It provides an accessible overview to the whole article. Information in the lead should be in the body of the article too. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The reason I have tagged this lead section as needing clean-up is that general statements in the lead section are not supported by a general background section in the body of the article. Without a background section, with citations and analysis or commentary, it is not clear if legislative violence is a notable phenomenon of itself, or even if this is the correct name and definition, or even if it exists as a specific phenomenon that is not simply a spillover from wider social or cultural behaviours. Otherwise this article just becomes a loose collection of news reports of politician physically fighting each other. Wikipedia is not a news website, nor should it just be a news cutting service that collects news stories on related themes; it needs to provide additional analysis or commentary about the collection of examples listed, and answer questions that readers might have. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)