Talk:Battle of Lewisham

message: I am removing the NPOV tag, as I can't see why the page would be seen as such, and there is no discussion on talk page. BobFromBrockley 15:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am replacing it - the article is slanted towards the left and while I'm of a left-persuasion myself it doesn't follow that I want to see articles such as this almost crowing about a victory over the right while ignoring some important elements - eg that some of the worst of the violence was actually directed at the police, particularly after the Front had been packed off home for their suppers on the train, or the attacks against the police station, or the involvement of the SWP in orchestrating the violence and hijacking the earlier (peaceful) ALCARAF counter demo, etc. I'm also quite intrigued to get sight of the Kentish Mercury and South London Press issues that are used heavily as sources. JenniferGovernment 23:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To add: another example would be the statement that David McNee refused to ban the march; while technically correct, the edit doesn't explain that this wasn't because he/the police were pro-Front, but because he believed 4,000 officers could maintain order, particularly as the two demonstrations were given separate routes at different times of day. JenniferGovernment 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a mistake to try and mitigate the obvious slant of Wikipedia. You only end up moderating it, making the slant less obvious to common people. It is best to allow Wikipedia to expose its bias by being precisely as insane as the editors prefer it to be. 71.103.224.224 (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: A previous editor removed the link to Tottenham Lad's recollections and analysis of the Battle of Lewisham, posted at his blog. This link is a personal blog. Wikipedia discourages links to blogs. (WP:EL: "Links normally to be avoided: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.") Tottenham replaced the link. I removed it again, and Tottenham Lad replaced it. Rather than tit-for-tat editing, can we discuss this please? There are numerous personal recollections out there in reliable, published sources. Why is there a link to one person's non-reliable memories, illustrated by images taken from an un-credited source (Camerawork)? Am I alone in this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Suggs may join you... 86.22.107.83 (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bob, as per WP:ELNO: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Even aside from that, this particular blog has been removed by about 8 different editors over the space of 18 months, and each time Tottenhamlad has reverted them. That's edit-warring against consensus. As for the other blogs, perhaps they should also be removed. Fences&Windows 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough.  I'll delete all the external references, except the (still left wing) New Statesman and IRR.Tottenhamlad (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I agree with removing those. Fences&Windows 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tottenham Lad 

message: The cited reference for the May '77 arrests (The Times, Tuesday, May 31, 1977) does not give locations of the raids or state that 30 homes were raided; it only gives the number of arrests and the more vague term "south east London." JenniferGovernment 23:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: The South London Press and Kentish Mercury are cited heavily in the article, although only with publication dates - no article titles or bylines. I'm not convinced that these newspapers were directly consulted, as googling for them returns only the same (untitled, unattributed etc.) format citations on various blogs and self-published websites discussing the Lewisham riots. This leads me to conclude that the information which has been placed in the article and subsequently stated as sourced from these publications has not in fact been checked against the actual publications - either in an online or hard copy format - and so cannot be regarded as reliable. The SLP is still in print, and it seems that the KM is now the Greenwich Mercury. I will email them and ask if they know of the whereabouts of archived material from 1977, but without it, simply copy/pasta of the references from someone's blog is not good enough for WP. JenniferGovernment 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: This seems a bit POV-y, as the NF weren't deterred from further marches - marching in Lewisham in '80 (and again in '81 iirc) - and observers at the time felt that the '77 violence actually helped the NF by polarizing opinion and generating some degree of sympathy. As the IP editor has pointed out, their "popularity" continued to rise for at least 2 more years. Agreed, the riots certainly did provide a beneficial "turning point" for the anti-fascist movement, but the implication that the NF were dealt a severe blow is definitely not accurate. A bloody nose, for sure, but no more. JenniferGovernment 15:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, just because it was attributed to "some people". Am I some people, too? Wikipedia isn't for essays. Crazy that it was still here this long. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: incredible sumnink... I've got a name for you, Charlie! 86.22.107.83 (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We're all "some people"... but some of us choose to be Charlies! 86.22.107.83 (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Turning point"