Talk:Millwall brick/Archive 1

message: The only ways I can think of that the object described in this article could be used "with the force of a brick" are:
1. If the term "brick" is wide enough to include those bricks made entirely out of newspaper
2. If an actual brick was placed inside the object 
Try making one, place the object beside a granite brick, then ask yourself "which would I rather be hit over the head with?" Those who answer that it would make no difference could do worse than to take a long, hard look at themselves.
The citations are not all from reliable sourcesWP:RS. Is it really certain that the term refers simply to rolled-up newspaper (as opposed to newspaper used to conceal something that would be more effective as a weapon?) I really can't imagine soccer hooligans attacking each other with fly-swatters. I take the last point back, having just built one out of a broadsheet. It is comparable to a rubber cosh. The "force of a brick" thing still seems highly unlikely, however.
Pathlessdesert 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ditto-- Try breaking a brick with another brick, for instance, and then try it with a rolled up newspaper.  The citation supporting the allegation is pretty fluffy--a soccer fan's blog--and only refers to the "danger of a Millwall brick splattering [ones] brains onto the pavement"--soccer fan braggodocio at its best.  I'm removing the same-force-as-a-brick allegation. Silarius 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brick?

message: The following work may need to be done on this article:
# Track down the orgins of the term Millwall brick.  One article said that if you don't know what a Millwall brick is, ask your father or grandfather, implying that the term is more than 20 years old.
# Clean up (always!)
# Expand on how and where the Millwall brick is now being used.
# Once you completed one of the above tasks, please delete it. -- Jreferee 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Assistance

message: Millwall Brick? Is someone on the wind up? "The Millwall Brick" is a fanzine and media joke! Lion King 14:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would strongly recommend that you check the article. Are you saying all those references are wrong? --Alex (Talk) 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Lion King 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well here on Wikipedia we cannot take your word for it. Where is your evidence? --Alex (Talk) 16:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *A Google search for "The Art Of Rolled Paper Thuggery", "The Chelsea Hammer," The Pompey Cosh", and "Rucker Prize" didn't turn up anything that seemed to verify your assertion.  Moreover, neither Viz Comic nor Tony Hart mention anything to verify your assertion.  If there are verifiable citations to support your assertion that the source of the Millwall brick emanates from a spoof advertisement, please provide.--Jreferee 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Viz Comic spoof ad, issue 117 The Lion Roars Lion King 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh right, George Marshall was a skinhead in 1969 was he? Which numbskulled herbert fed him that? I have been a Millwall Supporter for over 40yrs, I have never heard of a Millwall Brick being used nor have I seen one. It doesn't matter that it predates the Viz nonsense, it only goes to show where they picked up the term in the first place.
Furthermore, when those bloody idiots who attach themselves to my team want to hit someone, do you think they use a newspaper? Honestly, do you think they hit them with a newspaper made into a brick? Lol! Lion King 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your reputable sourses seem to be a bunch of skinheads, football thug blogs and BBC news reports that make no mention of a "Millwall Brick". It may well be that this "deadly" piece of newsprint may have been named after "Millwall Hooligans" but by whom?
I find this article to be nothing more than just another pathetic attempt to drag the name of Millwall F.C. and it's supporters through the dirt, and I will be sending a copy to Stewart Till. Be Lucky, Lion King 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And what will Stewart Till do exactly? --Alex (Talk) 22:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this Nonsense?

message: *Is it... smart to have an image diagramming how to make one of these things on this page?  If they are indeed "weapons of deadly force", then I don't know that we have any business telling folks how to make one.Thor Rudebeck 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, the Anarchist Cookbook is available on the Internet, the US Government managed to post instructions for making a nuclear bomb in Arabic on the Internet, & prison inmates in the US have known how to make a weapon from wet newsprint for years -- so removing this information for those reasons is like blocking a single hole in a sieve to make it waterproof. -- llywrch 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *An anarchist known as 'Ancient One' addressed Millwall brick issues at: Ancient One.  (Sept. 19, 2006).  Voice of the Ancient One. 
US wants to test experimental weapons on dissident's does it...?. (writing, "We years ago at Millwall Football Club developed something called the Millwall Brick and many years of living in London has been trouble free from muggers and other nefarious people in the dark of the night saved by...?  A rolled up newspaper!)  -- Jreferee 17:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The article mentions poor little hammer.  What does poor little hammer mean?
*I believe it refers to a West Ham fan. Spylab 18:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor little hammer

message: I changed the infobox to read "Unknown; possibly Millwall", but was reverted, so I layout my case here:
The article says "However, it is not clear whether actual Millwall supporters have used the weapons", and there is no specific cite for it definitely originating from Millwall. Laïka 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown origin 

message: Oh wow! Check out the info on the Millwall Brick website - http://www.millwallbrick.com/ this certainly sheds some light, and it's linked as a source for this article! Renée.
:No it isn't, it's an external link. And your sarcasm doesn't help anyone. --Alex (Talk) 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *ENOM, INC., a reseller of domain names, paid to have http://www.millwallbrick.com/ registered on October 27, 2003 and have continued to pay the registration fees ever since.  ENOM's willingness to spend money on millwallbrick.com is evidence of a conscious business decision being made over the value of the term Millwall brick in that ENOM believes that others may be willing to pay at least US$200 for the website domain name.  Once this line of thought is developed, it may make its way into the body of the article. -- Jreferee 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Millwall Brick website

message: The intro says this thing is made from a tabloid paper; the directions recommend using a broadsheet. Which is correct? -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was broadsheet, but that's my own knowledge. --Alex (Talk) 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Go ahead and remove the words yourself, this is a Wiki. --Alex (Talk) 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tab or broadsheet? 

message: This might help us.  For the lead section, the Wikipedia guide to layout states "Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs. ... Keep in mind that for many users this is all they will read, so the most important information should be included. Avoid links in the summary--users should be encouraged to read the summary, and the article, before jumping elsewhere. In addition the colored highlighting of the links may mislead some users into thinking these are especially important points."
Is the connection between the Millwall Brick and Millwall F.C. a most important point of this street fighting weapon article?  Does the connection between the Millwall Brick and Millwall F.C. clearly explain the Millwall Brick?  How do other articles about weapons handle the "name of the weapon issue?"  Do they list the link between the weapon and the source of its name in the lead?  If the answer to these is more yes than no, then the connection should stay in the lead.  Otherwise, the connection should be removed from the lead. -- Jreferee 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *More thought.  Did books, songs, and musical groups adopt the term Millwall Brick because of its association to Millwall F.C. or association to hooliganism?  Given the images and information in the article, it seems more likely that the term is known by others for hooliganism, not Millwall F.C..  And if that is the case, then the connection between the Millwall Brick and Millwall F.C. does not seem to be a most important point of the article.  I would not object to having the reference to Millwall F.C. removed from the lead.--Jreferee 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guide to layout

message: Repeating a libellous statement from a second party, does not negate it's libellous content. Neither does it render said statement any less libellous.
"an exppression of hope that Millwall F.C. would upset Mancherster United and put the infamous Millwall Brick inside the famous FA Cup", is a defamatory statement, capable of causing harm, irrespective of who has said it, written it or reproduced it, and is therefore libellous.
Please remove. Thank you. Renée. 
:*Please stop asking others to remove things for you – remove it yourself, using an appropriate edit summary. Thank you. --Alex (Talk) 21:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Renée, your removal of the asserted libelous statement was inappripriate.  If you believe that Millwall brick contains a libelous statement on Wikipedia, the correct way to have it permanently removed is to E-mail the info team with details of the article and error as described in  Wikipedia's policy on Libel.-- Jreferee 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libellous statement

message: In the section on football hooliganism, it makes more sense to have the chronology based on the topics (i.e. 1960s hooligans, then 1970s hooligans) than to have the chronology based on when books/articles were published. I deleted the publication date of the book Skinhead, to help clear this up (although the publication date is still included in the reference). I also moved the sentence about UK parliament banning newspapers to the Other section, because it doesn't mention football. Spylab 17:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology of history section

message: Two and and a half years ago, I used to edit Wiki. I left because I was fed up with good faith, accurate edits being reverted because they cast doubt on the verifable content of certain articles, like this one. Now I'm lucky insomuch as, I am familiar with the rules, and not frightened by veiled accusations of vandalism because I dared to revert a load of cobblers!  I notice that what you thought was going to be a single IP contribution from myself was reverted.  Now what I have noticed is that a single IP contribution patently inventing "DO 'EM WIV A MILLWALL BRICK" with a non-existent source was not.  Could that perhaps be because it validates this ludicrous article?. 
I have spent over two hours checking your sources, they come from out of print books, blogs and one very inaccurate American sports paper report.  Now if I am not mistaken, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, presupposing of course, that Millwall supporters did name this weapon.
If an article topic has no reliable third party sources Wikipedia should not have an article on it. And BTW, before you jump to any concluions - I'm a Chelsea Fan. 62.136.158.165 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I sort of accept that but it says it by implication. I can tell you how the term Millwall Brick came into being, but it would be the truth, and not verifiable. 62.136.158.165 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've linked West Ham Utd. for you, it was linked to the London Borough of Newham62.136.158.165 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And [[Jimmy Wales]] still says single IP contribs. are not reverted