Talk:Battle of the Beanfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of the Beanfield is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

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)

  • I believe one of the best references is what Kim Sabido said at the end of his news report. It was not broadcast until a few years later in a documentary I believe (along with a piece on how the BBC altered news footage in order to make it look like (the striking) miners attacked Police before the Police responded). If you watch this YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3YtmBD_thM until the end, Sabido speaks at 09:28.
“ What we - the ITN camera crew and myself as a reporter - have seen in the last 30 minutes here in this field has been some of the most brutal police treatment of people that I’ve witnessed in my entire career as a journalist. The number of people who have been hit by policemen, who have been clubbed whilst holding babies in their arms in coaches around this field, is yet to be counted...There must surely be an enquiry after what has happened today ”

Stephenjh (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'The incident became notorious for the Police riot that was reported to have taken place'

I changed that because 'that was reported to have taken place' is unsourced. ninety:one 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • On this day, Police actions were extreme to say the least. I considered Police Riot to be a good and reasonable definition because, particularly,
“ Police, whose duty it is to enforce the law and prevent violent conflict, are subject to the same crowd psychology as any other group of armed men and women when in large confrontational groups, in encounters whose outcome is uncertain, and when in the grip of fear, anger, or other strong emotion. However, they are also provided with deadly weapons, and so have a special responsibility to keep their fear, anger, and similar emotions under control.[1] ”
  • I thought this was fairly 'neutral' it suggests that the Police are human too, and subject to the same emotions and reactions as everyone (obviously). When one considers the facts of the matter, the video evidence and the eye witness accounts from journalists (not the Police and travellers) it is understandable that Police actions that day were excessive and that their was a 'loss of control' either by the individual Police officers themselves or whoever was responsible for briefing / instructing / leading them. Consider Sabido's comments above and also those of Nick Davies, at the time Home Affairs correspondent for The Observer within the article. Stephenjh (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How about 'some claim [source to excessive violence] that there was a police riot'? ninety:one 12:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's my suggestion: "The incident became notorious for the police actions, described by some[ref] as a police riot." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good :) ninety:one 17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation standards

I have no vested interest in this article other than the observation that the majority of citations provided fall way short of WP:CITE. BBC Sources are good, as are major news publications. Random druidic websites and essays are not. Perhaps there was excessive police brutality, but it should be presented objectively (not with weasel words) and with proper citation. Djma12 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • RE: WP:CITE - In what respect, exactly, do the citations fail? Are you suggesting that the "random druidic websites" are not reliable, or as reliable as the BBC? If so, I would suggest that there is possibly more factual information about the Battle of the Beanfield in them, than most of the major media websites. Stephenjh (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am claiming that a herbalism website and an individual's personal blog is not as reliable as the BBC. As the incidents occured to neo-druids, druidic websites are inherently NPOV. Please read WP:QS, WP:SPS and specifically, WP:NPOV. Djma12 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes but NPOV means presenting both sides of the argument in a balanced way. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I think we're all in agreement that some form of police brutality occured. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the sources have to be encyclopedic. Please refer to WP:RS.

Let's put it this way. I had absolutely no knowledge about the events described here until I read the wiki article. (I found it via wikilink from Stonehenge proper.)

Being reasonably skeptical of wiki, my first reaction was, "Wow, that's horrrible. What did they cite?" I see several BBC and Guardian articles (so far so good), then some herbalism websites, a personal blog, and a self-published book. My opinion of the article immediately drops into, "Well, this is just disgruntled hippies exaggerating events." Stephenjh was good enough to fill me in on a few details, but the underlying problem remains. When you use substandard sources in an encyclopedic article, it cheapens the article and lowers your readers impressions about its reliablity. ESPECIALLY when you a describing an atrocity, objectivity must be maintained, otherwise readers get turned off. Djma12 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree (and as someone with very strong memories of the event). It was a major media event at the time and there was lots of publicity at the time re alleged police brutality, though this was far more destruction of property than it was actual people getting hurt. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that 'auto-assumption' the BBC is entirely accurate when compared to a 'druidic website' is proper. In fact, Sabido's reporting (and statement about the Police violence) only finally made it to TV as part of a documentary years later, the other half of that same documentary was a report about how the BBC reversed footage taken at a Miners picket line / demonstration to make it look as though the miners attacked the Police when, what happened was the opposite i.e. their stone throwing a reaction to a Police charge. We are dealing with an event that took place over 20 years ago and its reporting in the media at the time was itself highly subjective and contentious, remember, Lord Cardigan (see article) won his legal actions against all the largest newspapers at that time The Times, The Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror. I think viewing of the documentary (via YouTube) should be considered before people get too defensive about some issues in the article. It shocked me as a young man to see and hear Sabido's words and I have never forgotten them, I'm glad that this matter is still being debated.
My NPOV tag removal was based on the comments within the NPOV paragraph above. I didn't see these POV arguments within the 'Citations Standads'. My error perhaps. But where does it state that sources outside of the mainstream media aren't acceptable? Druids can be honest too ;) ! Stephenjh (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with honesty, but objectivity, and preventing even the appearance of non-objectivity. The WP:RS standard for an allowable source states that: Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources... and later: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Just as you wouldn't trust a police website for publishing what happened, you can't trust a druid one as well. They can't, by any definition, be third-party. Djma12 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested improvements

Rather than get caught up in the negative, why don't we talk about how the article can be improved? Here's some of my suggestions:

  1. Include a rationale on WHY Stonehenge was off-limits. The impression I get so far was "It was declared off-limits, people tried to go in, badness happened." This just doesn't make sense to a discriminating reader. In legal terms, sine qua non! WHY was it off-limits? WHY were the police so psycho in defending it? Did they just come off the Coal Strikes? Were there previous episodes of mischief? Having a violent act without an impetus is simply puzzling.
  2. The most potentially powerful section of the article is, right now, also its weakest. All these quotations are used, but do we have an original citation? All I can assume, since the overarching citation is to someone's book promotion website, is that's its either adversting or fabricated.
  3. Do we have any police accounts, properly cited, of the event. This article is told entirely from one POV. It may be that they were total fascist pigs, but the lack of their POV sticks out as a glaring omission to the casual reader.

Just my thoughts. Djma12 (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While the police were clearly unhappy about the selling of drugs openly at the festivals English Heritage were concerned about damage to Stonehenge itself and the archaeology of the surrounding area. I agree we need more factual information about the exclusion zone. Most of the festival goers were young, alienated unemployed people at a time of high unemployment etc in the middle of the Thatcher era, rather than being lots of druids. I think a great part of the problem is that the police have been far more circumspect than the convoy about whta happened but I do agree that we need to present both POVs with equal value. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)