Talk:Battle of the Beanfield

message: With facts so thin on the ground, independent indications of the intensity of action would be useful.  The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/12/ukcrime.tonythompson - para 7) states, "In total, 537 people were arrested - the most arrests to take place on any single day since the Second World War."
Is this so? If that statistic is true, it gives a totally non-POV indication of general intensity of behaviour.
- Sonic_Hawk (a festival-goer) - 29 Aug 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.69.47 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahahahahaha..... ahahahahaha! I'm not entirely sure, but its extremely funny. Sam Spade Arb Com election 18:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: this is so not NPOV. tag added (tim)
I was a policeman on the ground during this time.  The article has been edited to remove obvious bias against the police.  Sadly there is very little real news footage of the event due to the police desire to keep it low key so other groups didn't perform copycat actions. (217.44.169.79)
The NPOV tag has been removed until the reasons and how to fix them are listed on the talk page. You don't just tag stuff without that - David Gerard 07:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I have restored the NPOV tag, because it seems everyone on all sides here has some problems with the pov in this article.
In particular, the following sentence keeps getting summarily blanked out by a couple of new editors
(even though wiki custom and courtesy dictates that when a sentence is removed, it should be removed to the talk page)
Anyway, to blank it out without putting it here is commonly known as "suppression", so here it is:
"Basically the police were extremely violent and beat up men and women with children." 
There is no POV with this statement, it is factually true.  If you have a problem with the truth (I seriously doubt either of those editors was an eyewitness to the pregnant women getting truncheoned) read what the Earl of Cardigan said and please discuss how you would modify this sentence to make it more factual and less "pov"...
Also I see that one of these new editors has just accused ME of reverting a third time, but that will not hold water because my last edit was not a revert but simply to put up a NPOV tag, and that is perfectly allowed.  The NPOV tag is gone already, but I hope noone will object if I now put it back up a second time.
Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 15:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressing the truth 

message: 82.143.162.72 18:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, in the context of the New age travellers article, whatever footage there is of showing coppers beating up travellers is a good primary source for the actual events mentioned here, and a TV documentary would likely be a good secondary source to verify that the events depicted here happened in the way the article says. I imagine your TV documentary, or Hansard mention re: tax discs isn't a good source, in that all it's a source for is that someone, somewhere says that some unspecified New Age Travellers don't have license plates. I'd be surprised if the people saying such things have done ANY verifiable research into the subject. I hope WP:RS clears things up. --Aim Here 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Standards 

message: I've reorganised the article a bit, to try and give a tighter narrative and explain the core of what happened.
However, there's a lack of citation - especially independent sources (the police and travellers can't really be called independent witnesses - and gave conflicting accounts afterwards - but the journalists, Cardigan etc. weren't on one side or the other, and therefore carry more weight).
This isn't saying anything in the article is inaccurate, but there ought to be more reference to some of the source material, even if just by stating more clearly exactly where statements were published (e.g. 'The Guardian, X/X/85'), and including some in-line external links for specific points (or footnotes if it's not a web-based source).
I'm pretty sure there's also more material that can be included - there were anti-traveller headlines in some of the newspapers over the next couple of days - for example, The Sun alleged attempted murder of a police officer by a traveller.
82.153.107.16 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I changed that because 'that was reported to have taken place' is unsourced. ninety:one 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good :) ninety:one 17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The incident became notorious for the Police riot that was reported to have taken place' 

message: Rather than get caught up in the negative, why don't we talk about how the article can be improved?  Here's some of my suggestions:
# Include a rationale on WHY Stonehenge was off-limits.  The impression I get so far was "It was declared off-limits, people tried to go in, badness happened."  This just doesn't make sense to a discriminating reader.  In legal terms, sine qua non!  WHY was it off-limits?  WHY were the police so psycho in defending it?  Did they just come off the Coal Strikes?  Were there previous episodes of mischief?  Having a violent act without an impetus is simply puzzling.
# The most potentially powerful section of the article is, right now, also its weakest.  All these quotations are used, but do we have an original citation?  All I can assume, since the overarching citation is to someone's book promotion website, is that's its either adversting or fabricated.  
# Do we have any police accounts, properly cited, of the event.  This article is told entirely from one POV.  It may be that they were total fascist pigs, but the lack of their POV sticks out as a glaring omission to the casual reader.
Just my thoughts.
Djma12 (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the police were clearly unhappy about the selling of drugs openly at the festivals English Heritage were concerned about damage to Stonehenge itself and the archaeology of the surrounding area. I agree we need more factual information about the exclusion zone. Most of the festival goers were young, alienated unemployed people at a time of high unemployment etc in the middle of the Thatcher era, rather than being lots of druids. I think a great part of the problem is that the police have been far more circumspect than the convoy about whta happened but I do agree that we need to present both POVs with equal value. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested improvements 

message: This supposedly happened recently during the G20 protests.  Surely the police are required to display their identifying numbers are all times?  If this is the case, surely there absence suggests intent.  If the police are required to wear their identifying numbers and where not doing so on this occasion surely this should be spelt out in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.90.89 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "none of the riot police involved had been wearing identifying numbers" 

message: Hi
The article states that this was to be the 11th festival - unfortunately this is not quite correct as the actual festival was the "Peoples Free Festival". That festival moved to Stonehenge in 1975 but existed before that in Windsor I seem to recall... and so the 1985 event would have been the 11th at Stonehenge. The whole reason that the government was so eager to stop the festival was the law which stated that "after 12 years of gathering in the same place of celebration a national event automatically came into being" and as a national event they would have been unable to prevent it from occurring again in the future. It was imperative for the government to stop the festival that year or the next to prevent it from becoming a national event by the next year 1986.
I will research more but the main refs ,  and  (Google news so Firefox users may have to switch to IE to look at them)
Chaosdruid (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  12th year or even 13th 

message: Cottonshirtτ 10:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for Renaming 

message: This is a note to say that I have been working on this article of late and at this juncture I am planning to remove much or even all of the quotations from the media section. There are several reasons for this:
* The quotations make up pretty much the entire Media Coverage section and all contain highly partisan language that strongly advocates one side's POV. Therefore the neutrality of the section is compromised. There is obviously consensus against this from WP:NPOV and the essay WP:QUOTE also specifically advises against this particular usage of quotations. In addition Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOAPBOX or a means of promotion.
* Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), meaning that Wikipedia is not the place for collections of quotations which should be hosted at Wikiquote. WP:QUOTE also advises against the overuse of quotations. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), this also conflicts with isolated collections of quotations.
* The majority of the citations are not cited which justifies their removal alone.Levelledout (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Coverage section / quotations 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tim Malyon. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 07:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Malyon listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]