Talk:Millwall brick/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Brick?

The only ways I can think of that the object described in this article could be used "with the force of a brick" are:

1. If the term "brick" is wide enough to include those bricks made entirely out of newspaper

2. If an actual brick was placed inside the object

Try making one, place the object beside a granite brick, then ask yourself "which would I rather be hit over the head with?" Those who answer that it would make no difference could do worse than to take a long, hard look at themselves. The citations are not all from reliable sourcesWP:RS. Is it really certain that the term refers simply to rolled-up newspaper (as opposed to newspaper used to conceal something that would be more effective as a weapon?) I really can't imagine soccer hooligans attacking each other with fly-swatters. I take the last point back, having just built one out of a broadsheet. It is comparable to a rubber cosh. The "force of a brick" thing still seems highly unlikely, however.

Pathlessdesert 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

ditto-- Try breaking a brick with another brick, for instance, and then try it with a rolled up newspaper. The citation supporting the allegation is pretty fluffy--a soccer fan's blog--and only refers to the "danger of a Millwall brick splattering [ones] brains onto the pavement"--soccer fan braggodocio at its best. I'm removing the same-force-as-a-brick allegation. Silarius 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Need Assistance

The following work may need to be done on this article:

  1. Track down the orgins of the term Millwall brick. One article said that if you don't know what a Millwall brick is, ask your father or grandfather, implying that the term is more than 20 years old.
  2. Clean up (always!)
  3. Expand on how and where the Millwall brick is now being used.
  4. Once you completed one of the above tasks, please delete it. -- Jreferee 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What is this Nonsense?

Millwall Brick? Is someone on the wind up? "The Millwall Brick" is a fanzine and media joke! Lion King 14:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I would strongly recommend that this "article" disappears before any official from Millwall Football Club spots it, or a copy of it is sent to them. Lion King 16:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I would strongly recommend that you check the article. Are you saying all those references are wrong? --Alex (Talk) 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Lion King 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is to inform you that the sourse of "The Millwall Brick" emanates from a spoof advertisment published in Viz Comic for "Tony Hart's - "The Art Of Rolled Paper Thuggery", which incidently was recommended for the 1999 Rucker Prize. The "spoof" ad also details how to make "The Chelsea Hammer" and "The Pompey Cosh". Lion King 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • A Google search for "The Art Of Rolled Paper Thuggery", "The Chelsea Hammer," The Pompey Cosh", and "Rucker Prize" didn't turn up anything that seemed to verify your assertion. Moreover, neither Viz Comic nor Tony Hart mention anything to verify your assertion. If there are verifiable citations to support your assertion that the source of the Millwall brick emanates from a spoof advertisement, please provide.--Jreferee 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in Lion King: Of course you didn't find anything Jreferee, they don't exist, it's a JOKE. And "Rucker" refers to a "Ruck" which is slang for a fight. Renée.

Viz Comic spoof ad, issue 117 The Lion Roars Lion King 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is from page 29 of Spirit of '69: A Skinhead Bible (1991), George Marshall, S.T. Publishing ISBN 0 9518497 0 0 (full-size paperback version). This is in reference to the 1960s:

Newspapers were rolled up tightly to form the so-called Millwall Brick and another trick was to make a knuckleduster out of pennies held in place by a wrapped around paper. You could hardly be pulled up for having a bit of loose change in your pocket and a Daily Mirror under your arm.

So much for the theory that the Millwall Brick was a fabrication by Viz in 1999. Spylab 20:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, George Marshall was a skinhead in 1969 was he? Which numbskulled herbert fed him that? I have been a Millwall Supporter for over 40yrs, I have never heard of a Millwall Brick being used nor have I seen one. It doesn't matter that it predates the Viz nonsense, it only goes to show where they picked up the term in the first place.

Furthermore, when those bloody idiots who attach themselves to my team want to hit someone, do you think they use a newspaper? Honestly, do you think they hit them with a newspaper made into a brick? Lol! Lion King 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Whether the weapon was used by actual Millwall supporters is unclear. Maybe it got tagged with the nickname Millwall simply because Millwall hooligans had a violent reputation. What is clear, is that there are many documented references that the Millwall brick actually exists. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present information that has been documented in other sources. It is up to the reader to decide if those sources are reputable.Spylab 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Your reputable sourses seem to be a bunch of skinheads, football thug blogs and BBC news reports that make no mention of a "Millwall Brick". It may well be that this "deadly" piece of newsprint may have been named after "Millwall Hooligans" but by whom?

I find this article to be nothing more than just another pathetic attempt to drag the name of Millwall F.C. and it's supporters through the dirt, and I will be sending a copy to Stewart Till. Be Lucky, Lion King 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And what will Stewart Till do exactly? --Alex (Talk) 22:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

  • Is it... smart to have an image diagramming how to make one of these things on this page? If they are indeed "weapons of deadly force", then I don't know that we have any business telling folks how to make one.Thor Rudebeck 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the Anarchist Cookbook is available on the Internet, the US Government managed to post instructions for making a nuclear bomb in Arabic on the Internet, & prison inmates in the US have known how to make a weapon from wet newsprint for years -- so removing this information for those reasons is like blocking a single hole in a sieve to make it waterproof. -- llywrch 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • An anarchist known as 'Ancient One' addressed Millwall brick issues at: Ancient One. (Sept. 19, 2006). Voice of the Ancient One.

US wants to test experimental weapons on dissident's does it...?. (writing, "We years ago at Millwall Football Club developed something called the Millwall Brick and many years of living in London has been trouble free from muggers and other nefarious people in the dark of the night saved by...? A rolled up newspaper!) -- Jreferee 17:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor little hammer

The article mentions poor little hammer. What does poor little hammer mean?

  • I believe it refers to a West Ham fan. Spylab 18:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputes over factual accuracy

Overall factual dispute

  • Also, I've placed a "controversial" tag at the beginning of the article based on the previous discussion; remove it if you like, but I think it's sufficient controversy. Thor Rudebeck 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Its just one user who disputes it, and that user is a fan of Millwall F.C.. There is no controversy around this article – take a look at some of the references. --Alex (Talk) 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Guess what Alex? That's right - there's two of us now! Iv'e never read such irresponsible tripe in all my life! And the working classes reading a broadsheet, the perishin' idea of it! You jumped up little snobs! --Renée, London. Iv'e checked your references. Skinhead is out of print, and I don't accept that your link points to page 17 as you assert. I can't find any BBC news report that makes any mention of Millwall Brick - it's certainly not in the one you have linked as a reference, and most of the others seem to have been written by football hooligans. The others are just perpetuating their usual remit: knock Millwall where ever and when ever possible. --Renée, London.
  • There's nothing in this article knocking Millwall FC or supporters of Millwall FC. It merely talks about the Millwall brick, which many sources say actually exists. The article even says it's unclear whether Millwall fans actually used them. It seems like some people want to whitewash history because the facts don't fit with their ideal view of the world. Spylab 14:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I think it's because history does not fit with your preconceived, tabloid ideas of who and what Millwall fans are. I ask again, which sources? -- Renée. BTW, the brick refered to in the "Millwall Chant" (Song), the morons who used to sing that, were refering to a brick, the ones that houses are built with? And the West Ham song (apart from the East End being full of tits and fanny) is not known to me.-- Renée.
  • A fan is a fan.. theres nothing special about "milwall fans" MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that we were very special insomuch as we are able to constuct covert deadly weapons from newspapers. And there is something very special about Millwall Fans, we all stick together, no glory hunters, who are sick and tired of being picked on by anyone who can put pen to paper or type. --Renée
  • Yes, you have misunderstood. Perhaps it would be a good idea to concentrate on what's actually written in the article, instead of discussing alleged slights against Millwall fans (slights which don't actually appear in this article). The only mention of Millwall in this article is in the explanation of where the Millwall brick got its name.Spylab 17:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If "Millwall Brick" exists, the name was made up by cheap red wine soaked hacks in fleet street, with a remit to slur the good name of Millwall Fans as much as possible. Now you must excuse me for now, I have to go and start a riot, eat a baby and beat up an old lady with my "Millwall Brick". --Renée
  • Perhaps it would be a good idea to concentrate on what's actually written in the article, instead of discussing alleged slights against Millwall fans (slights which don't actually appear in this article). Spylab 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Millwall brick is named after" sentence

  • And perhaps it might be a good idea to stop altering where I put things on this page? Right let's disccuss this article. Firstly, it is patently obvious that your knowledge of football is sadly lacking, I can tell that by you correctly "guessing" that Hammer refers to a West Ham fan. I have already informed you that the brick in that moronic song isn't your infamous Millwall Brick, it refers to a BRICK. It's a very old "song" and should not be included because it does not refer to a weapon made from a newspaper.
You say there are no "slights" against Millwall fans, but of course there are, by saying that the name Millwall Brick comes from Millwall F.C. Why not Millwall, London E.14? Now lets turn to the West Ham rubbish. Treatment? Balaclavas? Treatment were a bunch of silly kids who used to wear surgeons masks in the 1970's and the worst thing they ever did was run onto the pitch! No wonder the ICF steamed them, they did never pick on anyone thier own size! (I'm just trying to remain playfull here) But my point is, why do you accept the words of a WHUFC silly song as a reliable source? Renée.
  • You still seem to be confused about the purpose of Wikipedia articles. The people who have contributed to this Wikipedia article didn't invent the term Millwall brick, and they did not invent the concept of the weapon itself. They have merely gathered information showing that the term and the weapon have existed. There is no intentional bias for or against Millwall FC or Millwall supporters. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral collections of facts.
Of course the chants are not sources, however they both have links showing that the chants exist. The chants are there as examples of mentions of the Millwall brick in football hooligan culture. Even if the Millwall chant is referring to an actual brick, and not newspapers, perhaps that chant is the real origin of the term Millwall brick. For that reason, the chant is of historical significance. Again, please keep your comments related to the content that is actually written in the article. Spylab 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh I'm sorry, I thought I read that in the aritcle. Yes indeed, "Perhaps" being the operative word. There are just a few too many "perhaps" are there not? "perhaps" this weapon does exsist, "perhaps" it does cause serious damage to an other human being. Then "perhaps" the person who said that it is highly irresponsible to show violent people how to make them is absolutely correct, "perhaps" some crazed idiot may see this and seriously hurt or even kill someone "perhaps?" Renée.
  • I don't think you picked up on the point I made about Millwall. are you sure this "brick" was named after Millwall Football Club, or was it named after Millwall? -- Renée. Well do you? Do you know the difference between Millwall Football Club and Millwall? -- Renée
  • The sentence,The Millwall brick is named after the Millwall Football Club, because the weapon was allegedly used by football hooligans, and may have originated among Millwall supporters. now includes a footnote to Urban Dictionary. (2006). Millwall Brick. Obtained Nov. 6, 2006.-- Jreferee 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, it's hardly a reputable source is it? (more tall tales and urban myths generated by hooligans) Nor does it predate the Viz comic spoof ad. as mentioned by one of your OWN members. Renée
  • I changed the "The Millwall brick is named after" sentence. I deleted the first chant. Also, I tried verifying the Viz comic spoof ad. at the comic website through their archives, but could not. There are at least five different contributers. Thus, I've been moving the postings on this page around in an attempt to have all concerns addressed.--Jreferee 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What I need is a copy of the spoof ad itself. I will mail the MISA which has thousands of members, one of them at least I'm sure, will be bound to have a copy. Please bear with me. Renée

"The term Millwall brick gained a wider notoriety following an incident in May 2002 involving a riot after a game against Birmingham City." Did it? When? Where is there any evidence of that please? Renée.

There is NO evidence to sustansiate this claim, will you please delete it. Renée.

Here's another thing for you all to mull over, if the Millwall Brick originated in the the late 60's, why is there no mention of it in the Soccer Tribe (1981) By Dr. Desmond Morris, when dealing with Millwall's so called "F-Troup." Surely he would have loved to have hammered us (pun intended) with that one! Renée

I am now in possession of a copy the Viz spoof advertisment. It reads thus: RELIVE THE GOLDEN DAYS OF FOOTBALL HOOLIGANISM. JOIN TONY HART'S ORIGAMI ARMY! "With the football season now in full swing, and security at grounds tighter than ever, trouble has never been harder to start. BUT TAKE HART! Buy my new book, The Art of Folded Paper Thuggery, and you'll soon be putting yourself about in no time with nothing more conspicuous than your daily paper! In seconds you'll master... THE MILLWALL BRICK THE CHELSEA HAMMER THE POMPEY COSH. ONLY £15.99. RRP £4.99. Available from all shops everywhere! Morph says: IT'S THE IDEAL XMAS PRESENT!

I will upload it to this page (and this infernal site) as soon as I've worked out how not to reveal my address to the entire world!!! Renée.

How does that prove that that's where the Millwall brick originated? --Alex (Talk) 13:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

THE MILLWALL BRICK? THE CHELSEA HAMMER? THE POMPEY COSH? All I hear Alex, is the grinding of axes. Renée.

The advertisement would have been named after the Millwall brick and not the other way round. --Alex (Talk) 15:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
And now this article's on the front page Did you Know section. --Alex (Talk) 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No Alex, the spoof advertisment is named: "RELIVE THE GOLDEN DAYS OF FOOTBALL HOOLIGANISM" not "MILLWALL BRICK". Renée.

  • I'm referring to the object made out of paper. --Alex (Talk) 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why show people how to make a weapon?--70.160.123.211 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading in the 1980s an article about a WW2 British Army training manual that detailed how to make improvised weapons - one of the weapons was made from a folded-up newspaper which (according to the manual) if folded correctly and used in the right way, could be lethal. So, regardless of the origin of the term "Milwall Brick" the concept of making a weapon out of a newspaper has been around for some considerable time. Meowy 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, almost anything can be improvised and used as a weapon. I am not disputing that, what I am disputing is the spurious claim that this weapon originated at Millwall Football Club. Renée.

Where else would the name have originated from? --Alex (Talk) 16:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Millwall Dockers on the Isle of Dogs? Renée

Unknown origin

I changed the infobox to read "Unknown; possibly Millwall", but was reverted, so I layout my case here: The article says "However, it is not clear whether actual Millwall supporters have used the weapons", and there is no specific cite for it definitely originating from Millwall. Laïka 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Millwall Brick website

Oh wow! Check out the info on the Millwall Brick website - http://www.millwallbrick.com/ this certainly sheds some light, and it's linked as a source for this article! Renée.

No it isn't, it's an external link. And your sarcasm doesn't help anyone. --Alex (Talk) 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ENOM, INC., a reseller of domain names, paid to have http://www.millwallbrick.com/ registered on October 27, 2003 and have continued to pay the registration fees ever since. ENOM's willingness to spend money on millwallbrick.com is evidence of a conscious business decision being made over the value of the term Millwall brick in that ENOM believes that others may be willing to pay at least US$200 for the website domain name. Once this line of thought is developed, it may make its way into the body of the article. -- Jreferee 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tab or broadsheet?

The intro says this thing is made from a tabloid paper; the directions recommend using a broadsheet. Which is correct? -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was broadsheet, but that's my own knowledge. --Alex (Talk) 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

EITHER prove a direct link to this weapon, citing RELIABLE PUBLISHED SOURCES or DELETE the following words: MILLWALL FOOTBALL CLUB. Thank you. Renée.

Go ahead and remove the words yourself, this is a Wiki. --Alex (Talk) 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. Thank you Alex. Renée.

Lead Section

Reference to Millwall F.C.

I am unable to delete Millwall Football Club from the main page - will a member please oblige? Thank you for your attention, Renée.

Thank you for deleting. Once again, thank you for your attention. Renée.

Why has MILLWALL FOOTBALL CLUB been inserted back into this article? Renée

  • The added April 8, 2004 New York Sports Express (NYSX) article reference and accompanying text support the claim that "by 2004, the Millwall brick was associated with the Millwall Football Club of London, England." -- Jreferee 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And what evidence other than speculation is this based on? Renée.
  • The April 8, 2004 NYSX article is direct evidence (not speculative evidence) in support of the claim. -- Jreferee 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct evidence? Are you being serious, please don't tell me your'e being serious? Renée.

  • Renée - Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the lead in to Millwall brick. The way you did it is considered vandalism. -- Jreferee 18:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the NYSX article isn't direct evidence that the Millwall brick was specifically associated with Millwall FC. I took out the mentions of hoolignanism that don't specifically mention the Millwall brick, and only left the sentence that does mention it, just to show that the term is used in the press. That article does not document any actual events that involved the Millwall brick. Remember, this article is only about the Millwall brick, not other kinds of football violence. Spylab 17:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is what I see in the NYSX article:
  1. The article states that Millwall F.C. hooligan engaged in massive fistfights
  2. The article references Millwall Brick in the context of Millwall F.C.
  3. A reasonable conclusion may be drawn from the deleted portion of the NYSX post that Millwall F.C. hooligan engaged in massive fistfights using the Millwall Brick.

-- User:Jreferee|Jreferee]] 18:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It does not logically flow that because some Millwall supporters were involved in fistfights that they also must have used Millwall bricks. There is nothing in that sports column connecting the two. The possibility still exists that the Millwall brick was merely named after Millwall hooligans, and not actually used by them — in the same way that French Fries didn't originate in France, and the modern Hamburger didn't come from Hamburg, Germany. Spylab 18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    You are right, my conclusion probably isn't strong enough to include in the article.-- Jreferee 18:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As it stands this article is libellous, any mention of Millwall Football Club is based on anecdotal evidence and is hearsay, it is a logical fallacy. I strongly advise you to remove it, forthwith. Renée

Why would you strongly advise it? --Alex (Talk) 18:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Guide to layout

This might help us. For the lead section, the Wikipedia guide to layout states "Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs. ... Keep in mind that for many users this is all they will read, so the most important information should be included. Avoid links in the summary--users should be encouraged to read the summary, and the article, before jumping elsewhere. In addition the colored highlighting of the links may mislead some users into thinking these are especially important points."

Is the connection between the Millwall Brick and Millwall F.C. a most important point of this street fighting weapon article? Does the connection between the Millwall Brick and Millwall F.C. clearly explain the Millwall Brick? How do other articles about weapons handle the "name of the weapon issue?" Do they list the link between the weapon and the source of its name in the lead? If the answer to these is more yes than no, then the connection should stay in the lead. Otherwise, the connection should be removed from the lead. -- Jreferee 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • More thought. Did books, songs, and musical groups adopt the term Millwall Brick because of its association to Millwall F.C. or association to hooliganism? Given the images and information in the article, it seems more likely that the term is known by others for hooliganism, not Millwall F.C.. And if that is the case, then the connection between the Millwall Brick and Millwall F.C. does not seem to be a most important point of the article. I would not object to having the reference to Millwall F.C. removed from the lead.--Jreferee 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Libellous statement

Repeating a libellous statement from a second party, does not negate it's libellous content. Neither does it render said statement any less libellous.

"an exppression of hope that Millwall F.C. would upset Mancherster United and put the infamous Millwall Brick inside the famous FA Cup", is a defamatory statement, capable of causing harm, irrespective of who has said it, written it or reproduced it, and is therefore libellous. Please remove. Thank you. Renée.

  • Please stop asking others to remove things for you – remove it yourself, using an appropriate edit summary. Thank you. --Alex (Talk) 21:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Renée, your removal of the asserted libelous statement was inappripriate. If you believe that Millwall brick contains a libelous statement on Wikipedia, the correct way to have it permanently removed is to E-mail the info team with details of the article and error as described in Wikipedia's policy on Libel.-- Jreferee 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Chronology of history section

In the section on football hooliganism, it makes more sense to have the chronology based on the topics (i.e. 1960s hooligans, then 1970s hooligans) than to have the chronology based on when books/articles were published. I deleted the publication date of the book Skinhead, to help clear this up (although the publication date is still included in the reference). I also moved the sentence about UK parliament banning newspapers to the Other section, because it doesn't mention football. Spylab 17:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And Jimmy Wales still says single IP contribs. are not reverted

Two and and a half years ago, I used to edit Wiki. I left because I was fed up with good faith, accurate edits being reverted because they cast doubt on the verifable content of certain articles, like this one. Now I'm lucky insomuch as, I am familiar with the rules, and not frightened by veiled accusations of vandalism because I dared to revert a load of cobblers! I notice that what you thought was going to be a single IP contribution from myself was reverted. Now what I have noticed is that a single IP contribution patently inventing "DO 'EM WIV A MILLWALL BRICK" with a non-existent source was not. Could that perhaps be because it validates this ludicrous article?.

I have spent over two hours checking your sources, they come from out of print books, blogs and one very inaccurate American sports paper report. Now if I am not mistaken, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, presupposing of course, that Millwall supporters did name this weapon. If an article topic has no reliable third party sources Wikipedia should not have an article on it. And BTW, before you jump to any concluions - I'm a Chelsea Fan. 62.136.158.165 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The current version of the article does not say that Millwall supporters named the weapon, because no proof has been provided that the weapon actually had anything to do with Millwall supporters. As for the mention of Millwall bricks in the American sports paper, I moved that (and other mentions of the term in the media) from the history section to the References in the media and popular culture section. That's because those specific mentions weren't directly about the history of the weapon, and were merely used as literary devices in columns about different topics.Spylab 14:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I sort of accept that but it says it by implication. I can tell you how the term Millwall Brick came into being, but it would be the truth, and not verifiable. 62.136.158.165 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've linked West Ham Utd. for you, it was linked to the London Borough of Newham62.136.158.165 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)