Talk:Battle of Orgreave/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV & accuracy dispute

How neutral is this entry?

"the only option open to the police (short of grinning and bearing it) was further charges"

The only option? This is but one of many examples of semantic hedging to be found throughout the text. Interestingly, it has very specific details regarding the events prior to the "battle real", clearly portraying the miners as agressors, but becomes decidedly hazy and vague as the police go on the offensive (apart from concrete excuses like the one above). Despite the later paragraphs, based on incontrovertible fact - it seems to me that this is a rather slanted article, favouring the police side of events.

09:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Mark

This is totally Left Wing bias. Stop making out that this was the poor downtrodden workers facing the might of the state;I was there as a Police officer. Prior to that I worked in heavy industry (engineering, steel works and saw mills ) for nine years. I was also a Trade Union shop steward. This wasn't a noble struggle, it was a tawdry episode in British trade union relations. An illeagal strike called by a man with too much power who tried to intimidate the rest of the mine workers into not working, and essentially bring down the State as he tried to do previously. A small faction of the pickets, fired up by rhetoric, were hell bent on violent confrontation with the Police.I saw enough missile throwing, including huge stone wall coping stones and concrete lamp posts. Most of this happened half way down the hill and below the main coking plant entrance. I suspect that very little media coverage was there, if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynysmon1 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Naturally i agree, i remember that day and it doesnt seem like the one documented. I remember the first charge and lots of me mates being clubbed around the heads with truncheons. The problem with wikipedia is you cant report an eye witness account if you were there!!But if you workrd for the BBC you can!Ukbn2 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

April 14th - Gaz

My dad was at Orgreave and from what he tells me the picketers were no more aggressive than the police. I'm not too sure on this but didn't the police stop the picketers from getting to the trucks they wanted to stop leaving? You have to remember when reading this that the miners were there trying to stand up for their jobs. The police were getting payed double or triple time and I think evidence has emerged since that some of the batons used by the police had been drilled and filled with concrete. I will never forgive the Tories for what happened at Orgreave.

29/06/07 "The Police also used riot batons and horse-mounted attacks on rock-wielding (and sometimes unarmed) miners, as shown in press photographs"

While I am not supporting the open batoning of protestors, the one in the picture has a brick in his hand...

Paul

it's a camera, bricks don't have shoulder straps. Rob

One could argue that clear bias is shown here in favour of the police in many places. For example: "(various videos are available which show very little if any stone throwing, a police senior police officer said on the day that the sky turned black due to objects been thrown)" Why would strong evidence contradicting police claims be relegated to parentheses? Small grammatical points but should read being not been and 'police' repetition -doesn't instil confidence in the reader. In addition there are constant references to stone throwing with little evidential support, contrast of eyewitness testimony or referral to aforementioned videos. Steve 22/10/12

Here also, these sentences in terms of sophisticaiton are telling: "What happened next is the subject of some debate. The police claim that a lorry tyre was rolled to within 20 yards of their line, and that stones started to be thrown again. Another account blamed an argument between miners and police. Given that the confrontation was not dying down, the police chose to make further charges."

If, as claimed it is the subject of some debate, little sophistication is demonstrated in engaging with what that debate might be. As is the case throughout the text ideas and explanantions are in the police's favour or simpy dichotomised and often in the police's favour or 'neutral'. Here The 'only' choices are given as a police claim of a tyre roll or an argument between the miners and police. Clearly either of these are in the police favour or 'neutrally' stated 'an argument between'. Perhaps there are explanations that would be in the miners favour - such and only a suggestion a pre-meditated plan on the police side. I am not claiming this but simply stating the obvious bias toward the police in the unsubstantiated explanations offered. Distinct lack of any evidence for any of the explanations given and inferences made. Steve 22/10/12

BBC

Does this BBC story refer to this event? The date appears to disagree. Drutt (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There were 2 big attempts to blockade Orgreave, the story refers to the first of them, this article, to the 2nd. Though it should prob. be mentioned. Chaikney (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

dizzee rascal

I've heard that his single "Sirens" video also had references to this battle. Correct? Mallerd (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Archive 1

Battle?

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

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)

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

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

Moreover, my dictionaries offer more than one definition of "battle", beyond that involving armies and the military. Keri (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)