| Revision as of 01:07, 4 April 2006 editMorton devonshire (talk | contribs)6,576 edits →If you think you own this article . . .← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:30, 1 May 2006 edit undoMorton devonshire (talk | contribs)6,576 edits →If you think you own this article . . .Next edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| Cheers ] 01:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | Cheers ] 01:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==The Ultimate Violation of WP Policy on OR== | |||
| Citing your own web site as authority for a proposition in an article which you assert is true is the ultimate violation of Misplaced Pages's rule on original research. Please remove the material immediately. ] 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:30, 1 May 2006
Carlo Giuliani
Carlo Giuliani was wearing a white T-shirt, not black. Someone dressed his body in black after he was shot.
Who ever got the idea that a black bloc was a militia? A militia is an armed organization that usually operates along national lines; when black blocs use weapons at all, they tend to have only ad-hoc arms, such as sticks and stones and bottles; besides black blocs are not organized and they reject nationalism. So how could they be militias?
Also, what the heck is a union flying squad? And I have never heard of Situationists or Pagans engaging in black bloc activity. While individual Situationists or Pagans may take part in the occasional black bloc, Pagans tend to organize in Pagan clusters, which play music, sing, and conduct rituals and magic in demonstration settings, and Situationists are artists; they practice guerrilla communication, not rioting.
- A union flying squad is an autonomous group of workers who engage in various actions, sometimes with the official support of unions, to further the workplace struggle. The rest of your paragraph reads to me like stereotypes and generalizations. Any given bloc will be made up of any number of different people with different thoughts, beliefs, lifestyles, etc. Bk0 04:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Extremely slanted article.
I don't doubt the information presented in the article, but this is one of the most slanted articles I've read in wikipedia. All the way through, it's slanted in a way to put "black bloc" demonstrators in a positive light.
It read more like a slanted newspaper article trying to be neutral than an encyclopedia article.
Take for example the section about a "documentary" which apparantly slanted things in a way to try to proove that the police cooperated with fascist groups.
I'm sure this is a great discussion topic, but this article reads more like an attempt to defend the "black bloc" demonstrators than just a simple explanation about what a black bloc is.
- Agreed. This article is a mess. It should be a to the point explanation of what exactly a "black bloc" is. 80.203.115.12 13:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
massiveego's edits
I propose reverting. I don't like his "street fighting" crap and saying that anarchists train to use baseball bats and rocks. Total nonsense. Most anarchists hate the "anarchist cookbook," even the black bloc types. Black blocs aren't about street fighting and rioting. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I commented it out. Maybe there are some useful parts in it... G-u-a-k-@ 22:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Black Bloc is about fighting for your rights. You obviously were not there, never was among the hundreds of Anarchists fighting it out in N30 against WTO and cannot speak for all Anarchists, just your version of Anarchy. Some Anarchist appreciate the Anarchist Cookbook for what it is, a starting point on how to fight back the cooperations. Yes they do train with rocks, yes they use slingshots, and yes they use bats. Crude but effective. You need to look at the photographs from N30 more carefully before you jump to conclusions.Masssiveego
- There's something really clever and witty in the cooperations/corporations typo that you made, and I'm wondering what it is. grendel|khan 03:02, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
- If you use the cookbook you're more likely to blow yourself up than "fight back against the cooperations." I've never heard of people "training" to use rocks. It's more just picking one up and throwing it at a cop if the need arises. --Tothebarricades 19:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
"Violence by Black Bloc activists" section questioned on NPOV
I take issue with the "Violence by Black Bloc activists" section of the article because it appears to be written with the intention of being disparaging. However, the Washington Post and several other sources do cite the same incident. Additionally, I was at Malcolm X Park on J20 and have my own photos of the Protest Warriors dressed in full black bloc holding their banner.
I also question whether this is the most appropriate place for this section in the first place. I've been contemplating the possibility of creating an article for J20, entitled 2005 counter-inaugural protest or something like that as part of Wikiproject Anti-War. If I do create the article, I think that would be a more appropriate place for this bit than the Black bloc article.
Schuminweb 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- The incident occurred as stated. The Washington Post article left some things out that led up to the violence, but I can get you multiple sources given time. I could also get you the testimony of Kobrin himself, but that would probably violate the no original research policy. If it would be more appropriate to put in another article, then I'm amenable to that. Rogue 9 19:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I certainly don't dispute the factuality. As I mentioned, I have read pieces from both sides, and they tell the same basic story.
- Looking at the Black Bloc article as a whole, the section doesn't fit because it's a substantial section on a specific event, while the remainder of the article speaks in more general terms.
- As I mentioned earlier, I consider it worthwhile to start an article about J20, but I've got a few things ahead of it on my priority list. That would be the place for this bit, as I can imagine it being a sub-section of a larger section on the DAWN rally and march. For an article about the entire day, that would fit quite well, and I'd love any help I can get on the day. (Not going any further on that tangent, since I'm starting to drift off topic.)
- Still, that's my thought on it.
- The article for J20 is now in place, but it's really stubby. January 20, 2005 counter-inaugural protest Schuminweb 22:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I could get some people I know who were there to work on it, but the problem is that they might not be able to maintain neutrality; most of them were on the receiving end of the assault. I'll do what I can with it. As for the section here, do you think we should take it out entirely, or modify it to make it more general? I had a plan of expanding it to include more instances, but that was the only one that I had a ready description of at hand. Rogue 9 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I went ahead and completely moved it, since at least in my opinion, regarding specific events, it should go more in the context of the black bloc's activity at the event, rather than with the concept of Black Bloc. As for J20 (though this is getting outside the scope of this talk page), go ahead and get people to work on the section. Don't worry about NPOV so much. Do your best to stay neutral, but remember that there are a bazillion wikipedians out there who are also concerned about keeping it neutral, and one way or another, we'll get it right. And I think that anything further on this ought to go to the talk page for J20. Schuminweb 02:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- As you say. See you over there. Rogue 9 02:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
red army fraction
the black block has nothing to do with de red army fraction. the autonomen always were in opossition to the raf
If you think you own this article . . .
. . . you would be wrong. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative process, and has many editors. There are no "Senior Editors" that get to decide what does or doesn't belong in this article. We have Misplaced Pages rules -- they act as the guide for how an article is edited. That's it. Morton devonshire 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- LGagnon put it best on Talk:WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity when they said, "You'd lend more credibility to your argument if you cited the sources yourself." I'd like to politely request that you provide sources for your claim. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks in the future. Thanks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are six, if you want 20 more, let me know.
"When the window-smashers started to trash a Sixth Avenue Starbucks, an angry crowd forced the vandals back onto the streets. A gray-haired, bantam-weight woman in a yellow parka put herself between the Christmas Blend and the thugs and chewed them out."
Cheers Morton devonshire 01:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The Ultimate Violation of WP Policy on OR
Citing your own web site as authority for a proposition in an article which you assert is true is the ultimate violation of Misplaced Pages's rule on original research. Please remove the material immediately. Morton devonshire 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)