Talk:Road protest in the United Kingdom

message: It sounds very appropriate to push the historical context back to at least the 1970's however I think the context should be to see how the nature of focus of protests and the planning process evolved in symbiosis and in particular the stages at which the planning process or policy came under concerted challenge.PeterIto (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the scope doesn't include all road protests in UK history, including for example those by the railway companies in the 19th century, then the title will need to be more specific, including something like "since 1970".  Better to accept all protests I think.  -- de Facto (talk). 11:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The historical context will probably split into periods which will make it manageable. Personally I would avoid going back to the Romans, although possibly that would also be interesting, given that Maggie mentioned them when promoting 'Roads for Prosperity' and that Hadrian evidently said something like: "This luxury of speed destroys its own aim: a pedestrian makes more headway than a hundred conveyances jammed end to end along the twists and turns of the Via Sacra". I guess in the end it comes down to what people want to contribute. I don't want it to stray away from Roads and into protests against Railway lines, Canals, Ports, Airports, incinerators etc, that would loose focus too much I think PeterIto (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical scope

message: Should this be UK only, UK and Ireland or still wider? I vote for UK and Ireland for reasons I have given elsewhere on the talk page. I propose that this scope applies to both this article and the hived off list.PeterIto (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I favour "Road protest in the United Kingdom" as the title.  Limit it to the UK only.  Ireland is independent, with its own laws, policies and agendas.  Including Ireland could result in the article getting very long and very unwieldy, with sentences requiring exceptions and provisos all over the place.  -- de Facto (talk). 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical scope

message: To balance the article, do you think that it should have two main sections, one for anti-road protests, and one for pro-road protests?  At the moment it is very biased towards the anti.  -- de Facto (talk). 11:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't confuse more comprehensive with more balanced.  By balance I mean covering not only protests against roads, but also protests in favour of new roads.  There is also a requirement to balance the description of each protest with details of notable criticisms of that protest.  -- de Facto (talk). 12:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, either it needs to be more explicitly about anti-roads and say so in the title and leader or contain pro-road campaigns as well.PeterIto (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed.  So which is it to be?  I favour the latter.  -- de Facto (talk). 12:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's take a rain-check on answering that for 48 hours to let other people contribute to this manic conversation and get a more considered view, less haste more speed:) PeterIto (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti road only, or also pro-road? 

message: There is a proposal to split of a List of roads in the UK subject to direct action protests. I would be in favour of this, although this article would continue to the current day looking at the sociological and governance issues coming out of these current protests. Should this hived off article be 'anti-road only' or also 'pro-road' campaigns?PeterIto PeterIto (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that we hive off this article and include both 'notable' current protests and also past protests. We will need to define 'notable' at some point. My reason for including past protests is that it will provide a vessel to contain details about smaller, but significant, protests that don't warrant their own article. Each protest can have 5-10 lines max describing to key issues, activities and link out to more resources. Major protests will link to their own articles.I suggest this article is only for anti-road protests to avoid it getting to long and arguementative, this should be clear from the title and leader and there should be clear links to siting promoting the schemes where they are available but pro-campaigns as such should be the focus of a different article.PeterIto (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like the idea of a list. There were a very large number of camps in the late eighties, Do or Die claims 34 in 1999  (not all roads though). --Salix alba (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiving of a 'list of roads in the UK subject to direct action protests'

message: The article now needs a formal introduction and leader.  It is normal for the article title to be the subject of the first sentence.  So, something starting: "Road protest in the United Kingdom has a long history...", or similar.  Also, the rest of the leader should be a concise summary of the entire article.  -- de Facto (talk). 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader 

message: Personally I reflected on what name to use for the individual protests and chose to use the protest group name and put the official name in brackets but hadn't completed the task, partly because the they would be very long. We are really in a bit of a cleft stick on this one because the official titles are as full of POV and spin as well. The protesters certainly do not agree that the 'improvement' schemes are an improvement or they would be doing their gardens! I do agree that the official scheme names may be more useful to more people, but possible we should remove blatant POV from the titles as long as the scheme name is still recognisablePeterIto (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the stated names are verifiable (from the scheme plans or announcements perhaps) I believe the full official names should be used.  To edit them would be unwise in POV terms.  One of the problems with using the name of a protest group is that there may be many groups protesting about a particular scheme (the Longdendale Bypass has at least 4).  -- de Facto (talk). 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed, and only one of the current schemes has a very loaded name (although I have seen some real corkers elsewhere) and clearly the proponents do have a strong POV but it may be best to live with that one!PeterIto (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loaded scheme names! 

message: Wikipedia policy dictates that great care is taken when adding biographical data about living people.  It is required that high quality references are provided for all such material added, and that material not complying is removed immediately.  There was much unsourced material in this section, so I thought it was better to remove it until complying references are provided.  -- de Facto (talk). 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but do I read into your comments that as long as high quality references are provided for all information and also that the information is relevant to the subject that the section should be reinstated? In which case I suggest the section is reinstated and that information that can be verified both from quality newspaper/BBC etc and also ideally from the person's own output should be reinstated. Incidentally I am in communication with Rebecca and is aware of what is happening and has asked me to build a biog. I am also in touch with most of the other people at CBT so can notify them of the articles and ensure that they are accurate that way as well. Stephen Norris is sourced from his own output and CBT etc. Swampy is un-sourced and should remain out until someone can chase them up.PeterIto (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to check the precise details in the policy, but as I understand it, if you can attribute each statement precisely, with a link to an approved verifiable reference, then it's fine.  -- de Facto (talk). 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  makes sense. I think Jason Torrance's entry passes. John Stewart fails for lack of reliable reference for some claims. Rebecca Lush's fails due to reference to 'self published source' , Swampy fails due to having no references, Stephen Norris fails due to unreliable (and actually incorrect) source for some of the information- he was not the transport minister who approved Newbury! Not sure if 'Speakers Corner' is reliable, so should assume not and it is also his personal words so possibly fails on that one as well. All in all not a very good show, sorry and thanks for cutting it as per policy. I will reinstate the section with more caution and care in due course. PeterIto (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'Individuals' section 

message: This comment related to the List of Road Schemes section of this article...
I am thinking about how to structure road protest content across different wikipedia articles as there are some articles for particular protests, there are sections within other articles on protests and single paragraphs or comments within the text for others and we also have content. How should this work and where should the main content be? My proposal is as follows:
Highly notable in their own right: protests like M11 link road protest should have their own articles, and summaries of the main relevant points in this article and other relevant articles with a 'see main article' pointer to that main article. In general if there is a viable article dedicated to the protest then the main content should exist there. If there is an article for a minor protest we might suggest that it is merged into this one.
Mid level: (not notable enough to have their own article) should have its most detailed content in this article, and short summaries and links to it from other relevant articles.
Lowest level: Gets a short mentioned in other relevant articles but doesn't get a mention here at all ("two protesters handed out leaflets for 10 minutes as councilors arrived").
Twyford Down is interesting in that the protest is still contained within an article about the Down itself and in my opinion should stand alone as Twyford Down road protest and leave the other article to regain its balance. Thames Gateway Bridge could probably stand on its own, as could M74 imho. The escalation path is therefore that someone mentions a protest on another related article. It then may get its main entry here and summary's elsewhere. It then spins out into its own article with a summary here. Over time an event might fade and become lost in history and fall back down the scale of notability so the 'past protests' list might only include details of the more important older protests and an event that used to have its own article might get merged into this one. Thoughts? PeterIto (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * things should break out into new articles & collapse back in, in line with their notability & volume. Twyford Down is now synonymous w the protest. Would the Down be notable & would there be anything left of the original non-protest article after such surgery?  The Thames Gateway Bridge has a long way to go to get to this stage.  I'm not a great fan of moving everything around in an attempt to impose order where there naturally is none, but one way round this might be to point another article with a xxx protest title towards xxx so both approaches are covered.  Ephebi (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  When there is enough verifiable info, then we can break it out per WP:SUMMARY, but if there is limited information, then we can redirect to this article and bold the appropriate text. When we can break out to a new article, then we have links already in place.  Generally I don't see protests becoming less notable, and some like the London Ringways, Twyford Down and Newbury Bypass will always be notable.  Regan123 (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines for individual protest content

message: I referenced two early 1990s Guardian newspaper articles to support the sentence "On several occasions protesters received prison sentences for refusing to be bound over, or for breaking court injunctions".  If anyone can find a freely available on-line link for them please add them.  For now, here are the relevant quote snippets, found on the Gale InfoTrac Full Text Newspaper database subscription service.
From The Guardian 1992-07-09: "... who was arrested last week when she blocked lorries while protesting against the extension of the M3 at Twyford Down in Hampshire, was sentenced at Winchester crown court yesterday to six months' prison after refusing to be bound over".
From The Guardian 1992-07-09: "... were imprisoned for 28 days last Friday for breaking the injunction by trespassing on the M3 site on July 4".  -- de Facto (talk). 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old newspaper quotes 

message: Discussion copied to here (where I think it is more appropriate) from my talk page.
Welcome back to the Road Protest article Defacto! Before trying to 'adjust' the references of SACTRA in 1994 again please do your research and understand the radical effect this document had on roads policy for the UK government due to its recognition of induced demand and the big changes this created by removing a key plank from the benefit / cost calculations that previously assumed that road users would see major benefits in their journey times. This message needs to be retained in the Road Protest article. PeterIto (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SACTRA