Talk:Battle of the Beanfield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
Is this even nominally NPOV? --chbarts 16:23, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Ahahahahaha..... ahahahahaha! I'm not entirely sure, but its extremely funny. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rewritten, including personal observationsSquiquifox 18:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
I think 217.44.169.79 just biased the article in the opposite direction. I prefer the prior version. Jamie
[edit] Suppressing the truth
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)
i decided to do a section on this as most of the media went missing, the police tapes went missing during the court case against them and the earl of cardigan sued the media for libel after they called him a liar (he won). not only is this all factually true but it was all proven in court. if anyone disagrees with the accounts of police violence perhaps cardigan can sue them too! --Gothicform 23:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] There is no doubt the police were voilent against women and children
....this is a NPOV. There is no 'bias' against police. Nobody who has seen the (NPOV) BBC film footage or read the (NPOV)Guardian reports can assume otherwise. In 1993 the (almost always NPOV in the police's favour) courts found aginst the police and awarded the victims £120,000 in compensation (although incredibly this was swallowed up in costs). The Beanfield, like Orgreave has come synonomous with the excessive police voilence that was common in the Thatcher era.
[edit] Double Standards
82.143.162.72 18:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC) One source is from the mainstream media (ITN). There have been documentaries presenting two sides of the dispute between travellers and landowners. In them it has been mentioned that a lot of New age travellers do not have the necessary tax and insurance for their vehicles. This is not seen as admissible in the article so why is a television report admissible here? There is also testimony from an eyewitness. Eyewitnesses have also said things of a negative nature to journalists, such as the lack of tax and insurance mentioned above, on a great deal of subjects across the political spectrum. Again, if it is negative it may not be mentioned in the entry for New-Age travellers so why is it admissible here?
- 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)
[edit] Citations
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)
