Talk:Newbury bypass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Squatting  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to squatting 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Work in progress[edit]

Work in progress. I was at the protest in March 1996 and have some photos that I took then to scan and post up. I was wondering if a new article should be created called 'The Third Battle of Newbury' and all the info about the protest separated from this article, with the article here being left specifically for information about the road itself. What do people think? Lizzyp

I agree NickW 08:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to say - I've got lots of pics too! NickW 13:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic NickW - do you think you might be able to post one or two here? Or do you have a website featuring them that you could link this article to? Lizzyp 17:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.knownet.com/writing/elearning2.0/entries/5254952183 - Mike, I enjoyed your blog entry and I agree - I'm working to tidy this article up. Why not lend a hand? Lizzyp 21:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think it's neccessary to split the article in two, and if it is it shouldn't be named as such, I think that choice would be a bit too emotive - if anything something like 'Newbury bypass protest' or similar would be more appropriate. -- Joolz 21:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I think there should be one article about the road, as part of the wider series of transport articles on Wikipedia, and one article about the protest. As for the title, well the Third Battle moniker was widely used by the people involved and much of the media. It's more descriptive than emotive. NickW 22:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's nearly as descriptive as my suggestion, and I don't think the article needs to be split up unless it becomes too big -- Joolz 13:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the road and the protest against it are/were two separate things. I can see that 'The Third Battle of Newbury' could be seen to be emotive and so not neutral. How about creating a page with this name (as this was the name widely given to the protest) but redirect from this to a page called 'Newbury Bypass Protest'? Lizzyp 13:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Swift reply :) The page is about the bypass and as such should carry information about the road being planned, built, and protested against, only if those sections become overwelmingly big do I think there would be a need for the page to be split up - perhaps we should settle this issue before discussing the appropriate name choices? -- Joolz 13:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to split the page. The bypass by itself is not really notable. Its only the controvasy and the protest which make it notable. --Salix alba (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But there are many roads in the UK with their own page on Wikipedia - the M25, the M3 and the M6 are just some examples. Lizzyp 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there is an article on the A34 road which the bypass is part of. --Salix alba (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the way to progress here is to stick with this article and as has been suggested split it if space becomes an issue. I'm sure the best solution will appear in the long run... I do have one remaining concern - the protest against the bypass was about more than the bypass itself - I wouldn't want restictive limitations placed upon the article by a too suggestively narrow title NickW 21:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Steven Byers, the Transport Minister during the construction phase, later admit the road shouldn't have been built where it was? I believe he meant it should have been built through farmland to the east rather than through the woods. I don't have a reference for this, but it's not often the the government says to protestors 'you were right'.TheSoupdragon 07:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This rings a bell. I think Norris did likewise - but more recently. NickW 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to 'eco-terrorism' removed. I've taken it out as the protest against the Newbury Bypass was largely non-violent and this infers that it was not. If anyone objects to this I'm happy to discuss it.Lizzyp 15:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - without context it's misleading and inaccurate. NickW 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Images[edit]

I've added a pic. of the Tot Hill eviction in progress. It's not particularly great but it's a start for the time being. I'll upload more in the near future.

I would also like to propose some guidelines for images of the protest - I think we should avoid including pics. where people are identifiable (unless permission has been given) - due to possible legal ramifications etc.. For this reason I've been struggling to find ones to upload! NickW 16:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I think its a good pic which gives a realistic impression of what the evictions were like. I agree absolutely and will only post up images where individuals faces are not clear enough to be identified. I have quite a few pictures either just featuring treehouses or people so far in the distance they cannot be identified so I will dig out the best one or two of these and post them up as soon as I get chance. Lizzyp 12:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Lizzy - glad you agree on my image proposal. I'll ask around and see if anyone I know has some decent pics. too. NickW 09:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Costs[edit]

The security and policing costs quoted at the top of the article were way too low, so I've added the correct figure for the security. I don't have a final figure for the policing costs, but I've added the total to December 1996. The final figure would be a little higher, given the cost of the January 1997 "reunion rampage" and other later activities. I've also sorted out the references so they work with proper hyperlinks. I hope I've done this correctly. It seems to work anyway. This article gets better all the time. Thanks to everyone who's worked on it :) Chrisw404 14:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath section[edit]

"The protests led to the government's road-building programme being curtailled with 110 projects being shelved including a bypass at Salisbury" is wildly speculative. Road projects were probably cancelled due to penny pinching and NIMBY-ism rather than environmental concerns. I've changed the section to remove opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.68.127 (talkcontribs) 30 Aug 2006.

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was Oppose the merger into A34 road. -- Seth Whales (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose a merger of this article with A34 road. The A34 is a series of bypasses anyway (Oxford Western, Abingdon, Didcot (Steventon), East Ilsley and Newbury) and so by merging will improve the A34 article to "B" class (probably). Seth Whales (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose the merger. The Newbury bypass is famous for the protests that took place. It should have its own article, with a summary section in the A34 article, from where people can come to this article for more information. No need to move content around to bolster other articles. Not all articles have to be long or detailed, and the A34 article looks fine as it is. Carcharoth (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the merger. On the basis that the protest against the bypass, including the background and aftermath is a notable subject in its own right. The article about the A34 is entirely different. NickW (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I would weakly oppose this for the reasons given. Although I appreciate the nominator's comments, I suspect we would just end splitting this off again in the future. DWaterson (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


NPOV[edit]

Despite making it clear that a majority of local residents were in favour of this road's construction, the Conflict section is largely written from the perspective of the anti road campaigners and violates WP:NPOV. The road protests were a significant event and should certainly be documented, but they dominate the article. More balance is needed. --Ef80 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)