Talk:Battle of Orgreave: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:45, 2 November 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sheffield Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Battle of Orgreave is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1 June 2006-January 2010

Bias

this reads like police propoganda, and has no references. see the documentary by Yvette Livesey, and also Tony Benn's speech to parliament for confirmation of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.96 (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article is written from a biased pov in several places, eg stating that while pickets sunbathed and went off for "refreshments" the police were "hot in their uniforms"... Subjective twaddle and completely unreferenced. There is some weasling, too, with phrases such as "What happened next is the subject of some debate..." and "Opinion is divided..." Keri (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pickets or picketers?

The article uses "picketers" for the people doing the picketing. The usage I'm familiar with is "pickets" for those same people, and "picketers" - although it is in some of the dictionaries - sits very uncomfortably for me. I'm tempted to change it but would like to know others' views before I do. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following this non-heated debate I have changed it. DBaK (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the usual noun in British English is "picket". Keri (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current issues

The article has been woefully neglected for many years - lacking references, possibly factually inaccurate, etc. Since its creation, a wealth of information has emerged, particularly around the time that the IPCC announced they would review the activities of the police at Orgreave. It needs a thorough rewrite, and this may necessitate the removal of large chunks of unverified text. Keri (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC report

The June 2015 IPCC report states that the South Yorkshire police officer in command admitted that no warning was given before the first mounted police charged into the pickets, and that the stone throwing by pickets - originally claimed by police as the justification for charging - happened after the charge. The report also states that BBC News footage shown that evening was reversed to show the pickets throwing stones before the police charged. The whole section titled "Events" is of questionable factual accuracy, questionable neutrality, and remains largely unreferenced. Keri (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle?

There hasn't been a battle in England since 1940. (213.122.144.27 (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia uses the common name. Take it up with the press and broadcast media if you don't like how they've dubbed it for 30-odd years. Keri (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle" implies it was a military confrontation. (213.122.144.27 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I refer you to my previous comment. Keri (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 :Wikipedia uses the [[Wikipedia:Article titles|common name]]. Take it up with the press and broadcast media if you don't like how they've dubbed it for 30-odd years. [[User:Keri|Keri]] ([[User talk:Keri|talk]]) 14:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 ::"Battle" implies it was a military confrontation. ([[Special:Contributions/213.122.144.27|213.122.144.27]] ([[User talk:213.122.144.27|talk]]) 14:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC))
+:::I refer you to my previous comment. [[User:Keri|Keri]] ([[User talk:Keri|talk]]) 14:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)