![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
should this be limited to Road Protests in the UK and possibly Ireland since the USA already has a good article on their history? I propose a name change to 'Road Protests UK and Ireland' PeterIto ( talk) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done on creating this article, very needed. I might suggest extending it to Great Britain as there have been some interesting protest in the Republic of Ireland. There have been many many protests, especially in the 90's, trying to get a list of these seems important to me as it emphasises the scale of the movement, which was bigger than the just the few high profile campaigns. Do Or Die states that there were 34 such camps in 98-99 [2]
Scope is difficult, one view is as a history of a social movement, which is a fine encyclopaedic topic in itself, I've attempted such at Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom. The history of debate on road policy is an equally valid encyclopaedic topic. -- Salix alba ( talk) 11:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the republic of Ireland is part of GB any more but that is probably the subject of a separate article!! Your point though is a good one, The UK includes Northern Ireland (my passport says The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), but should we include the republic in this article, in which case the name should change again to avoide confusion/offense. Even though the policy narritive will have a different timeline in the two countries there seems to be affinity and communication between the two and I would certainly support a move to formally include the republic, but would probably be against taking it further into other EU countries. I debated adding this content to Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom but in the end desided that it could stand on its own and that there are very many strands of environment protest so the other article should be a top level one, leading into more detailed articles for major areas. PeterIto ( talk) 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
How should this article be balanced? I think it certainly needs much more on how the planning process works and draws in different opinion etc. I don't think we should end up with it being a battle ground for arguements for or against particular schemes. I am not sure how it would work including 'pro-road' campaiging but that would be very interesting as long as everythign didn't turn to mud in the battle that ensued! Either that or make it explicitely an anti-road building article which at the moment I would favour PeterIto ( talk) 11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 recognisable PeterIto ( talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- de Facto ( talk). 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
PeterIto, I didn't 'adjust' the SACTRA references, I attempted to relay an accurate interpretation of how SACTRA themselves, in the cited reference to a later report, interpreted the 1994 report. They don't say that they said that more roads made congestion worse. They actually say that they said that typically new schemes provide a net benefit:
2.30 In fact, SACTRA's 1994 report indicated that, in conditions of congestion, the consumer benefits
of a scheme would be generally reduced by the effects of induced traffic and, in some circumstances, this could then make the net present value of the scheme negative, though this would not necessarily be the case. The Committee's analysis suggested that the more typical case would probably be to make the net consumer benefits smaller, but still positive. The environmental effects of induced traffic
would, however, generally be unambiguously negative.
— Transport and the economy: full report (SACTRA)
The 1994 report did not discover, or even reveal for the first time, "induced demand", it was a phenomenon well known to network designers and road professionals by then. Indeed J. J. Leeming describes it in relation to road provision, with statistics and analysis of the impact that the building of the Doncaster bypass had on traffic between 1959 and 1961, in his book: J. J. Leeming (1969). Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish?. Cassell. SBN 304932132. See the induced demand article. The fact that transport planners may not fully account for it is a reflection of the difficulty in forecasting it, and not a reflection of the usefulness of an adequately planned (including the factoring-in of latent and induced demand) road scheme.
If you think that your "message needs to be retained", then you will need to find a reliable reference which gives that interpretation. -- de Facto ( talk). 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
should this be limited to Road Protests in the UK and possibly Ireland since the USA already has a good article on their history? I propose a name change to 'Road Protests UK and Ireland' PeterIto ( talk) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done on creating this article, very needed. I might suggest extending it to Great Britain as there have been some interesting protest in the Republic of Ireland. There have been many many protests, especially in the 90's, trying to get a list of these seems important to me as it emphasises the scale of the movement, which was bigger than the just the few high profile campaigns. Do Or Die states that there were 34 such camps in 98-99 [2]
Scope is difficult, one view is as a history of a social movement, which is a fine encyclopaedic topic in itself, I've attempted such at Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom. The history of debate on road policy is an equally valid encyclopaedic topic. -- Salix alba ( talk) 11:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the republic of Ireland is part of GB any more but that is probably the subject of a separate article!! Your point though is a good one, The UK includes Northern Ireland (my passport says The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), but should we include the republic in this article, in which case the name should change again to avoide confusion/offense. Even though the policy narritive will have a different timeline in the two countries there seems to be affinity and communication between the two and I would certainly support a move to formally include the republic, but would probably be against taking it further into other EU countries. I debated adding this content to Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom but in the end desided that it could stand on its own and that there are very many strands of environment protest so the other article should be a top level one, leading into more detailed articles for major areas. PeterIto ( talk) 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
How should this article be balanced? I think it certainly needs much more on how the planning process works and draws in different opinion etc. I don't think we should end up with it being a battle ground for arguements for or against particular schemes. I am not sure how it would work including 'pro-road' campaiging but that would be very interesting as long as everythign didn't turn to mud in the battle that ensued! Either that or make it explicitely an anti-road building article which at the moment I would favour PeterIto ( talk) 11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 recognisable PeterIto ( talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- de Facto ( talk). 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
PeterIto, I didn't 'adjust' the SACTRA references, I attempted to relay an accurate interpretation of how SACTRA themselves, in the cited reference to a later report, interpreted the 1994 report. They don't say that they said that more roads made congestion worse. They actually say that they said that typically new schemes provide a net benefit:
2.30 In fact, SACTRA's 1994 report indicated that, in conditions of congestion, the consumer benefits
of a scheme would be generally reduced by the effects of induced traffic and, in some circumstances, this could then make the net present value of the scheme negative, though this would not necessarily be the case. The Committee's analysis suggested that the more typical case would probably be to make the net consumer benefits smaller, but still positive. The environmental effects of induced traffic
would, however, generally be unambiguously negative.
— Transport and the economy: full report (SACTRA)
The 1994 report did not discover, or even reveal for the first time, "induced demand", it was a phenomenon well known to network designers and road professionals by then. Indeed J. J. Leeming describes it in relation to road provision, with statistics and analysis of the impact that the building of the Doncaster bypass had on traffic between 1959 and 1961, in his book: J. J. Leeming (1969). Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish?. Cassell. SBN 304932132. See the induced demand article. The fact that transport planners may not fully account for it is a reflection of the difficulty in forecasting it, and not a reflection of the usefulness of an adequately planned (including the factoring-in of latent and induced demand) road scheme.
If you think that your "message needs to be retained", then you will need to find a reliable reference which gives that interpretation. -- de Facto ( talk). 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)