A news item involving 2011 London anti-cuts protest was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 March 2011. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It appears there is also a March for the Alternative page that has been created today. I believe that that should be merged into this one, seeing as the events of today covered more than just the organised TUC-led March and included a variety of independent protests, particularly around Oxford Street. ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
I am sure I saw the 4 horsemen visiting the Anti War demo, and none of the banners seem to have anything todo with the official TUC action. The guy proclaiming peace from a traffic signal is hardly representative of an UkUncut or Anarchist demonstrator- they were far better organised and weren't wasting their time on stunts like this. I suggest that this can be removed. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 14:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the following sentence: "The TUC argued that the spending reductions were entirely unnecessary, being a product of the government's right wing ideology rather than actual need." The sentence cites this article, however, I cannot verify the assertion underlined in it. Location ( talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I may suggest that this article could be renamed to: March for the Alternative. This is the name of the demonstration as promoted by the organisers and is the name that has become synonymous with the event. In months and years to come, the somewhat long-winded current name of 2011 anti-cuts protest in London might become less familiar and appear too wordy. Any thoughts? -- TBM10 ( talk) 18:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
We now have Guardian report on Video to contend with. I feel this needs to be in a separate article as though it was happening on the same day- it had nothing to do with the March for the Alternative and is likely to swamp the article. Thoughts? -- ClemRutter ( talk) 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Morning Star suggested in the Monday 28th March edition (on the front page) that the number may have been as high as 800,000 - however, with the paper being involved in the union movement and the march, the source may not be independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.3.155 ( talk) 21:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus, default to not moved. The proposed location of the article was too ambiguous and per common name guidelines the common name should be used over the official name. — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 8:40pm • 10:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
2011 anti-cuts protest in London → March for the Alternative —
We have an article section headed "Independent protests and violence", as well as an earlier reference to previous protests having "violence".
Wikipedia defines violence as "Violence is the expression of physical force against one or more people, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt."
Now yes, it's true that in these protests people were hurt, but given that the issues are mainly to do with "vandalism and criminal damage", or even in some cases simply occupying a shop, labelling the section as "violence" seems misleading or outright incorrect. (Also that the injuries tend to involve both protesters as well as others.) I suggest we change this heading accordingly - suggestions? Mdwh ( talk) 11:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Also note that 138 out of the 149 arrested were due to the occupation, not vandalism (see [1] for more on this). Whilst we say "the vast majority of arrests arose from the occupation of Fortnum & Mason", the fact that the section is headed "vandalism", and we don't specifically say what the arrests were for (just that they "arose from") to me conjures up the image of them arising for vandalism in this occupation. Mdwh ( talk) 11:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
OK - I will leave it there and do a bit of sleeping. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 01:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of the media reporting I've seen has suggested that the violent protests were carried out by people who broke off from the TUC march. I was there as independent press, and I can say with some certainty that most of the people involved in violent protests were not on the march at any point. There was some overlap; some protesters (with the trojan horse) arrived at Oxford Circus about halfway through, but they were certainly the first ones who came from the march, and a good deal of the violence had been carried out by then. In particular, the black bloc anarchists were not on the march at all as far as I could ascertain, and UK Uncut were active before the front of the march even got anywhere near the area. I therefore think it is worthwhile trying to find sources that are clear about how the violent parts started - the sentence in the lead says "Several independent protesting groups moved from the main march further north into Soho and Oxford Street", which is not wholly true but is supported by the BBC story it cites. ninety: one 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone add something about how the march was led by the Jewish Ed Milliband? Maybe something about the Jewish leadership and instigation of the demonstration? 64.136.197.17 ( talk) 05:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have brought this sentence here
A dozen police officers were surrounded and beaten by a masked mob in Sackville Street, off Piccadilly. [1] [2][Lol bollocks, I was there]
This sentence seems unreliable and I do not believe it was in the original Townsend 2011, article which was modded several times. The second reference, does nothing to support the Sackville Street claim, and many of the images appear to have been staged which had been predicted before the march. It also confuses Black Bloc, with March for Alternative and UK-Uncut so is unreliable. It seems at this point all the references now need to be checked. There is one misquote that suggests 16 police officers were injured- while Townsend actually writes 1 of the 16 people hospitalised was a police officer. The images I have uploaded certainly were closer to the experiences of the 500,000 people who were there than what was dreamt up later. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 15:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Townsend 2011.
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Removed categories that mentioned "riots". Not all political events from which arrests or even violence happen are riots. In particular, the arrest of only some dozens of people in a situation in which 250-500 thousand people participated is not a riot by any measure of the word.-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
What was the result of these riots-did the cuts get stopped or did they go ahead despite the protests? 70.172.198.185 ( talk) 01:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
A news item involving 2011 London anti-cuts protest was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 March 2011. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It appears there is also a March for the Alternative page that has been created today. I believe that that should be merged into this one, seeing as the events of today covered more than just the organised TUC-led March and included a variety of independent protests, particularly around Oxford Street. ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
I am sure I saw the 4 horsemen visiting the Anti War demo, and none of the banners seem to have anything todo with the official TUC action. The guy proclaiming peace from a traffic signal is hardly representative of an UkUncut or Anarchist demonstrator- they were far better organised and weren't wasting their time on stunts like this. I suggest that this can be removed. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 14:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the following sentence: "The TUC argued that the spending reductions were entirely unnecessary, being a product of the government's right wing ideology rather than actual need." The sentence cites this article, however, I cannot verify the assertion underlined in it. Location ( talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I may suggest that this article could be renamed to: March for the Alternative. This is the name of the demonstration as promoted by the organisers and is the name that has become synonymous with the event. In months and years to come, the somewhat long-winded current name of 2011 anti-cuts protest in London might become less familiar and appear too wordy. Any thoughts? -- TBM10 ( talk) 18:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
We now have Guardian report on Video to contend with. I feel this needs to be in a separate article as though it was happening on the same day- it had nothing to do with the March for the Alternative and is likely to swamp the article. Thoughts? -- ClemRutter ( talk) 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Morning Star suggested in the Monday 28th March edition (on the front page) that the number may have been as high as 800,000 - however, with the paper being involved in the union movement and the march, the source may not be independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.3.155 ( talk) 21:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus, default to not moved. The proposed location of the article was too ambiguous and per common name guidelines the common name should be used over the official name. — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 8:40pm • 10:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
2011 anti-cuts protest in London → March for the Alternative —
We have an article section headed "Independent protests and violence", as well as an earlier reference to previous protests having "violence".
Wikipedia defines violence as "Violence is the expression of physical force against one or more people, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt."
Now yes, it's true that in these protests people were hurt, but given that the issues are mainly to do with "vandalism and criminal damage", or even in some cases simply occupying a shop, labelling the section as "violence" seems misleading or outright incorrect. (Also that the injuries tend to involve both protesters as well as others.) I suggest we change this heading accordingly - suggestions? Mdwh ( talk) 11:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Also note that 138 out of the 149 arrested were due to the occupation, not vandalism (see [1] for more on this). Whilst we say "the vast majority of arrests arose from the occupation of Fortnum & Mason", the fact that the section is headed "vandalism", and we don't specifically say what the arrests were for (just that they "arose from") to me conjures up the image of them arising for vandalism in this occupation. Mdwh ( talk) 11:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
OK - I will leave it there and do a bit of sleeping. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 01:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of the media reporting I've seen has suggested that the violent protests were carried out by people who broke off from the TUC march. I was there as independent press, and I can say with some certainty that most of the people involved in violent protests were not on the march at any point. There was some overlap; some protesters (with the trojan horse) arrived at Oxford Circus about halfway through, but they were certainly the first ones who came from the march, and a good deal of the violence had been carried out by then. In particular, the black bloc anarchists were not on the march at all as far as I could ascertain, and UK Uncut were active before the front of the march even got anywhere near the area. I therefore think it is worthwhile trying to find sources that are clear about how the violent parts started - the sentence in the lead says "Several independent protesting groups moved from the main march further north into Soho and Oxford Street", which is not wholly true but is supported by the BBC story it cites. ninety: one 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone add something about how the march was led by the Jewish Ed Milliband? Maybe something about the Jewish leadership and instigation of the demonstration? 64.136.197.17 ( talk) 05:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have brought this sentence here
A dozen police officers were surrounded and beaten by a masked mob in Sackville Street, off Piccadilly. [1] [2][Lol bollocks, I was there]
This sentence seems unreliable and I do not believe it was in the original Townsend 2011, article which was modded several times. The second reference, does nothing to support the Sackville Street claim, and many of the images appear to have been staged which had been predicted before the march. It also confuses Black Bloc, with March for Alternative and UK-Uncut so is unreliable. It seems at this point all the references now need to be checked. There is one misquote that suggests 16 police officers were injured- while Townsend actually writes 1 of the 16 people hospitalised was a police officer. The images I have uploaded certainly were closer to the experiences of the 500,000 people who were there than what was dreamt up later. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 15:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Townsend 2011.
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Removed categories that mentioned "riots". Not all political events from which arrests or even violence happen are riots. In particular, the arrest of only some dozens of people in a situation in which 250-500 thousand people participated is not a riot by any measure of the word.-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
What was the result of these riots-did the cuts get stopped or did they go ahead despite the protests? 70.172.198.185 ( talk) 01:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)