# Talk:M11 link road protest

JB
i was not part of the protest and so have stumbled upon this article, my question relates to the mystical Rebecca that arrives unannounced near the end of the article. who is this and are they of any significance whatsoever?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.95.166 (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 
I'm quite POV on this topic as I was a protester against the road myself; however I've tried my best to keep this out of the article. That said, I don't think I've been completely successful, so someone else's — perhaps more objective — standpoint would be useful.
Also what I've written is largely from memory; you will notice that there is a corresponding lack of detail and some of the facts are probably in the wrong order. Hell, some of them may even be wrong — I hope it's not too many.
I hope there's someone else out there who remembers the events in Leytonstone in the early 1990s and can help to give them the article they deserve! --Lancevortex 01:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Most of the houses on the route were not compulsorily purchased. Most of the owners of the properties came to agreements with the DOT for them to buy instead.  The process of doing a CPO is long and expensive, so it was usually in both the owners and the DOT's interest to buy the houses (at a slightly increased price ) instead of going through the whole CPO process. In fact, I think (but am not sure) that the only house that was actually CPO'd was the house that Richard Leighton owned in Colville road which he lived in with his mother(?).  He was a very active member of the 'official' No M11 residents group. 
Random missing points

Old Mick who had squatted in no 17(?) Claremont for maybe 10 years before the protests started, he was quite instrumental in inviting the 'tree protesters' form twyford and very active in the direct action - he was one of the half a dozen or so people who were served with injunctions banning them from entering the construction sites.
The eviction of the chestnut tree on wanstaed green.
Building bunkers in and under houses as part of the defenses - I was in the bunker in the art house (no 68?) during the eviction :) .
Dolly Watson who was born in the house in Claremont road that she had lived in for the whole of her life. (will try to find out how old she was)  She ended up going into hospital (on her birthday?) about a week after some of the houses (maybe 4) at one end of the street were evicted to allow for 'advance drainage' works to be done.  She never returned to Claremont, and ended up being moved into sheltered housing
I think that is unfair to say that Rave parties were held on Claremont road, there were regular music on Sundays, and there was one large party the evening and hight after a protest march in London against the CJA.  - B.
Hi B, thanks for the corrections; I knew there'd be some errors/omissions in what I wrote originally. As this is Wikipedia, why not add to/edit the article to take account of your suggestions? --Lancevortex 08:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I was too lazy and just wanted to put down some random thoughts.  Will probably add them at some point in the future.  I was mainly involved in the Claremont phase and am still living with some of the people that I met on Claremont.  Also we could probably do with some pictures of Claremont road.  - B.
See "Image:Old0015.JPG" for a chestnut tree photo.

lovely new edit, well done whoever it was—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.86.204 (talk • contribs).

Probably me (heh). And thanks. :D Lewis Collard! (natter) 04:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

seriously, this is superb.  i've recently discovered a load of cuttings etc from the period so i'll try and add citations in the near future.  nice one 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

M11 link road protest
Independent Free Area of Wanstonia
Leytonstonia
Claremont Road, Leytonstone
Would be good to merge these stubby articles in to the main. Any thoughts? MRSC • Talk 16:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, the other articles are notable only as part of the overall protest and wouldn't swamp the main article if a merger occurred. MLA 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree.  I did some edits on this article a while back when i was new to wikipedia and haven't ben entirely happy with it for a while.  Merge these, and at some point in the future I will go through my collection of books and cuttings and see if i can add more detail, and some decent references as well - i would have done back then but was homeless and all my stuff was in storage :(

Having read this article I have concerns over the tone of the whole article.  It seems to be somewhat too essay like and reads like a lament.  It is very comprehensive, however, and one the better of the anti road protest articles.  None of this is a criticism of the authors. I have little source material on this so am reluctant to get into a full scale rewrite.  Does anyone have some good sources. Regan123 22:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture of 'Munstonia'/the last house is labeled 'The eviction of "Munstonia", the last squatted house on Claremont Road in London, England, during the M11 Link Road protests'. This house wasn't on Claremont Road at all. I think it was Fillebrook Road.  lost in space 10:33 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Ooops - this is mentioned in the article....  lost in space 10:36 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is on what was Fillebrook Road, but to really confuse things that road now stops at number 71 and continuation eastwards of Fairlop Road has been renamed as an extension to Grove Green Road, with all the houses renumbered. Here's what it looks like today --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through this article and clearing it up. My gut feeling is the article is still violating WP:NPOV as reported earlier, but I think it's better than it used to be. The protest was notably picked up by local MPs and by news outlets, so it should be possible to reliably source all sides of the argument. I've made a start on the background and will be keeping a level head on this. If I stop keeping a cool head on it, shout! --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You're doing a brilliant job. Thanks!  — Scott • talk 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A number of statements are made in the consequences section which are vague and need citations:

The argument about whether economic improvement would have removed planning blight if the road had not been built is unsourced. The vague supporters and critics need to be identified.
The sentence about "perceived lack of legacy" has been removed as this was not a criticism of the road, but of Olympic planning.
The residents complaining about lack of compensation is not cited.
The first Hansard source does not say that compensation was complicated by the handover to TfL.
The second Hansard source does not say anything about a grace period. It says that claims "must be made between one and six years after completion of the scheme", e.g. after the completion of the first year of road operation. The source says that £19.8 million was provided to TfL to deal with compensation claims during 2000–01 to 2004–05 including claims relating to the M11 link road.
"Many residents have complained that their streets became rat runs for commuters trying to get ahead of queues." is misleading as the residents complaining were living around Well street common in Hackney. This is more than 1.5 miles from Leyton and the complaint actually relates to the shortcomings of roads in the vicinity of the common that were suffering rat-running to avoid Cassland Road (the A106). The reference to the M11 link road is tangential at best, and to use the complaint as a criticism of the road is dubious.
Also:

The large box quote at the head of this section seems to be biased to one particular view point.
Reference 63 contains a commentary on the council report on traffic in Leytonstone town centre ("it is not clear whether such measures could have succeeded in reducing traffic on the road by themselves if the link road was not built"). This is argumentative and needs to be supported in some way.
I have amended the item about protesters challenging their arrest at the European Court of Justice. Only one of the five people mentioned in the cited case was arrested at the M11 link road protest and all of her claims were rejected.
--DavidCane (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem like an ideal candidate to GA review this article. Please consider doing so. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  06:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm too busy at the moment and for a while yet. I it is still awaiting a review when I have some more time, I may do the review.--DavidCane (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is looking absolutely great. However, the large number of references has caused it to become a bit unwieldy to edit. So, I've taken the time to convert it to using shortened footnotes. That said, it's impolite to do that to a live article without asking other contributors, so you can see my version here in my user space to have an explore of what I've done. If you're (Ritchie, David) okay with the new version, I can apply it to the article.  — Scott • talk 12:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'm pretty sure I've checked the content of each source (I certainly removed or replaced several unreliable ones), just I wasn't sure about the formatting. I can't speak for David, but given his above comments I think anything that helps identifying problems with sourcing, such as what he's reported, is good. I did make changes based on his report, but I still think some of the older sources I didn't personally add needs tidying up - your work here makes it more obvious. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The best way to use short referencing is for the book to be placed in the bibliography after the references section and for the reference to be set using {{sfn}} so that it "jumps" to the cited work when clicked on - see Frank Pick for an example.--DavidCane (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly what I did. I've made the change!  — Scott • talk 19:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to work this into the article at present, but here's an article in New Civil Engineer magazine from 1998 about the building of the road and tunnels.  — Scott • talk 14:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be subscription only. However, I do remember looking through similar reports from the Civil Engineering perspective when getting the article in shape for the GA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Well that's weird. If I click on it in these Google search results, I get the full text. If I go to the link directly, I get the subscription page. I guess they're trying to maximize their visibility to Google, or something. Does that work for you?  — Scott • talk 19:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M11 link road protest. 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/20110811145803/http://www.ciht.org.uk/motorway/m11loncam.htm to http://www.ciht.org.uk/motorway/m11loncam.htm
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M11 link road protest. 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/20070928032050/http://www.leytonhistorysociety.org.uk/art_claremont.html to http://www.leytonhistorysociety.org.uk/art_claremont.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.solihull.gov.uk/planappdocs/msadocuments/CD251.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033411/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1994-12-09/Writtens-1.html to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1994-12-09/Writtens-1.html
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M11 link road protest. 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/20070612205624/http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/pdf/news003.pdf to http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/pdf/news003.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070508230728/http://www.schnews.org.uk/sotw/claremont-rd.htm to http://www.schnews.org.uk/sotw/claremont-rd.htm
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)