Talk:WOMBLES
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Disbanded
I had edited this page to point out the WOMBLES have been disbanded but this has been reversed based on the reasonable grounds that there web site does not say this and I'm unable to provide proper references (I know this from talking to a couple of the more prominent ex members at the London Anarchist Bookfair last weekend but that doesn't really fit the reference format!)
[edit] Racism
Is this a racist group?
- No. In fact I'm sure they're quite the contrary. --Tothebarricades 02:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
They certainly are Eurocentric though. They promote Euromayday!Harrypotter 17:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- "White" refers to the white overalls, not race. NickF 21:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Mm, the latest edit to this page is ridiculously POV - I'm guessing someone from xxx is responsible? essentially everything following the four bullet points is a libertarian critique of the WOMBLES and their organising that I feel has no place in an encyclopaedia.
-
- - xxx indicates a group which had nothing to do with ever editing this page. As a baseless accusation I thought it best to remove it. This discussion "is it a racist group" (and subsequent Eurocentric comment), which is obviously silly has been started by a couple of people who are known on the London anarchist scene, and have made similar accusations about the WOMBLES before which "xxx" have deleted as false smears.
-
-
-
- should clarify - by "this page" I was referring to the article, not this discussion page. In the article, while everything up to the "professed aims" section is fairly NPOV, what follows is not information, but analysis - a critique, one might say, and one which has a lot in common with the views of the group mentioned earlier (I do accept, however, that it was wrong to name said group without evidence). How the statement "As time goes on and the WOMBLES continue to exist then they can perhaps be seen as the fetishisation of organisation. They exist because they ARE the WOMBLES, they no longer represent a viable anarchist method of organising for confrontation with the State" can be seen as neutral is beyond me. --Black Butterfly 18:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
Black butterfly - the critique of the wombles incorporated into the articles does not having much "in common with the views of the group mentioned earlier", which are highly organisationalis, and the critique presented was highly organisationalist.
I agree that much of the stuff that has been (rightly) removed is POV analysis presented as fact. One small thing that might be worth rescuing is that they were inspired by the Itailan Tute Bianche.--JK the unwise 08:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] references to secret police bases
There are some issues with the references to the statement that "The group also provides information to anarchists on police tactics learnt at "secret training bases"[1] where allegedly "cops are instructed in how to cause maximum damage to an individual with a two-foot long steel bar"".
While this quote does come from the WOMBLES website, the refs provided seem to be an attempt to back up this claim, something which they completely fail at. For example:
The claim for secret police bases comes from the BBC article about a "New £50m police training centre". If it's in the news, then by its very nature, it's not a secret base.
The claim for cops having 2' steel bars comes from an American company that sells acetate police batons. This has absolutely nothing to do with a police force, especially those in the UK...and the baton itself isn't made of steel.
The idea of police being trained to cause "maximum damage to an individual" comes from a chart demonstrating points of the body to aim for. Instead of encouraging damage, these are meant to stop citizens engaged in self defence (nothing to do with police) from causing lasting harm. The article on globalsecurity.org deals with the US Army. Not the British police.
Maybe someone's being a bit keen to prove false points? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.121.91 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC).
- I put the references in to come back later and expand on what's said in the quotes. It's the nature of the training which is secret - the Police Tactical Options Manual is not in the public domain. The American company (Monadnock) is the main supplier of public order weapons to UK police forces. I don't understand your claim about citizens engaging in self defence (do you mean the WOMBLES?), it is a matter of public record that Monadnock baton charts are used in police training.
- Wnjr 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
