Talk:2009 G20 London summit protests

Ian Tomlinson

In light of the video footage of Tomlinson's fall before his death, does anyone object if I create an article about him using the material here? I'm checking in case anyone feels it's inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Because he was not notable aside from his tragic death, I'm not sure that it is appropriate to create an individual page. As the investigation into his death continues, there may later be reason to create a separate page. Fences and windows (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fences, it wouldn't be appropriate to create an individual page for Mr. Tomlinson until the IPCC investigation is complete as that would inevitably determine the majority of the content of the page and until that is completed the full facts won't be known Lodi01 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll hold off in that case. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have have moved the content relating to G20 Meltdown (including the content about Ian Tomlinson) to a new article and also created some base content for 'camp in the city' on the climate camp page. As a result this article has become more of a list of protests and a set of links to other places. I hope people feel that this is appropriate. PeterEastern (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but i do not see the reason why we need two articles dealing with the protests. I also do not understand why G20 Meltdown claims ownership of the death of Ian, why does the full details belong on that page instead of this one? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The content for all protest should be kept in this article, or merged back into the main G-20 London Article Lodi01 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC) - I'ved added a merger tag to the G20 meltdown page and if no major objecions are recieved i will merger it all back into this page in a day or two.

See Talk:G-20_Meltdown for main discussion about mergerPeterEastern (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of background section

I have moved part of the background section (the reference to Greenpeace) to the main summit page in the 'green' section, moved the wikinews element to the relevant protest and have deleted the background section for the time being. It could be restored if someone wants to do the background research and provide the content to support it. Some background to the protests is already included in the policing section, other background belongs with the individual protest articles so possibly there will be no need for it. PeterEastern (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility of Police officers to prevent crime, and arrest perpetrators

In the videos there are many police officers watching the alleged assaults. Are they under any obligation to intervene, or does the fact that "The decision to use force is made by the individual police officer, and they must account for that." mean they cannot?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Balance

It seems to be important to ensure that the article continues to reflect the level of pressure that the police were under as well as any issues of over-reaction. I think it is reasonable at present but there is a tendency for minor edits to introduce a creeping bias over time. The article should continue to clearly indicate the sustained pressure the police were under and the dangers to them as well and any possible over-reaction by them - for example the incident where the policeman was struck in the face by a 6ft pole and the aggressor was been protected and shielded by the crowd should be cleared stated. The words 'police brutality' should only be used with equal weight being given to the brutality, violence and criminal damage metered out by some of the protesters. PeterEastern (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

such balance should be achieved by adding relevant, sourced material, not removing such.93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Right first off 1. I think fences and windows wording is appropriately neutral and the collation into a single section was a good edit, I'll leave it be but 2. I don't see how anything on my revision was copy-pasted having read the article word for word and object to having it labelled as such 3. Is "abusive" POV? If you watch the full footage (youtube it) there isn't really an argument as is currently lablled, it's just the woman in question swearing at the police officer, who doesn't respond verbally or physically until he has given third warning to her to move back. I think there is a strong case for using abusive, but i know we have to be careful with emotive language. (I8mychicken (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

We need to avoid drawing our own conclusions of events. We can saw she swore, we can say she argued, but 'abusive' becomes an interpretation of her behaviour. We have to try to report facts and the views of others, not our own views. The same reasoning applies to reports of the police, as Peter pointed out. We need to rely on what reliable sources say about notable events, rather than interpreting them ourselves.

To clarify about the copyvio, there was wording from the BBC report on the review of policing that was copied verbatim. Sorry that I didn't make that clear. Fences and windows (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Which wording was copied verbatium? I carefully paraphrased the section. How does Fences and windows removing the date of the action, and the fact that it was a response to the reported assaults, improve it? Have reinstated the text.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The section titled Review of policing public events following two alleged assaults by police during the G20 protests in London[1] was copied too much from the BBC wording, even if not intended to be. See WP:PLAGIARISM. Below are the two wordings, with exact copied wording in bold:

On April 15th 2009, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) to review policing tactics. Denis O'Connor will review the policing of public events following allegations of two assaults by police during the G20 protests in London on 1 April. He said the event was a "complex policing operation", and that footage of clashes with police will be reviewed to check if other incidents need to be examined. Sir Paul stressed that all uniformed officers must wear shoulder identification numbers so they can be easily identifiable by the public.

vs. the BBC report. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) to review policing tactics. Denis O'Connor will conduct the review after two alleged assaults by police during the G20 protests in London. Sir Paul said footage of the protests would be reviewed again...Sir Paul also stressed all uniformed officers must wear shoulder identification numbers so they can be easily identifiable by the public.

Also, he is not quoted in that article as saying it was a "complex policing operation". Removing information can avoid over-complicating articles with unnecessary detail. Fences and windows (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge

The page G-20 Meltdown needs merging into this one. The organisation will have no continued existence, and the splitting of the reporting of the protests and policing into two pages causes confusion. There should also be a summary of the relevant info from the Camp for Climate ChangeCamp for Climate Action. I am going to go ahead with this merge unless there are reasonable objections. Fences and windows (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Whoops. A "camp for climate change" would be a contrarian bunch... Fences and windows (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - The organisation existed. This is an encyclopaedia, not a current affairs programme.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• There are no citations to reliable sources given for the founding or even the existence of this organisation.
• It does not meet the notability guidelines for non-commercial organizations. The organization is not national, and the organization's longevity is limited. Aside from the G-20 protests, G-20 Meltdown is not notable.
• The existence of the two articles means there isn't a coherent account of the protests.

I'm not proposing to delete mention of G-20 Meltdown, just to merge it. Your comment that it isn't a current affairs programme is exactly why we don't need an article on G-20 Meltdown alone. "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". See WP:RECENT. Fences and windows (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support the merger and suggest you go ahead in about 24 hours unless there is overwhelming opposition within that period. If G20 Meltdown reappears then we can spin it out again but until then lets assume it was a one-off and merge it. PeterEastern (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is "response to police tactics" an appropriate section for alleged police misconduct?

I do not feel this is appropriate, as it suggests that beating up women, and elderly men, was a police tactic. There should be a section on "alleged police assaults", or misconduct, but when I create it, it is deleted, with no explanation, other than that there should not be lots of small sections. Small sections will grow, if allowed to exist, and are preferable to grouping facts together under misleading titles.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean us deciding what is a police tactic and what is misconduct? If we call it "police actions", that'll give a compromise. Fences and windows (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better compromise would be to create 2 sections - "Police tactics" and "Police actions", with a subsection for alleged misconduct within the later. Most sources draw a distinction between tactics, and alleged actions of misconduct. Tactics refers to official strategies, such as official communications prior to the g20, containment, use of mounted police, decisions to move peaceful demonstrators. Misconduct refers to actions of individual police officers, unsanctioned by authority, such as concealing identification numbers, assaulting members of the public, issuing misleading statements etc. In Sir Paul's words "a number of complaints have been raised in relation to the tactic of containment and as to whether this achieves that balance." "I want to be reassured that the use of this tactic remains appropriate and proportionate."Separately, I have already expressed my concern that the video footage of some police actions are clearly disturbing and should be thoroughly investigated." 93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested creation of "Police Tactics" section

Such a section should be created - at the moment only their threats, and the response to their tactics is described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Fences and windows (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and can we have a better descroiption from the police perspective of what they did and why they did it. There is no explanation of why they might use a kettle and there must be one even if it turned out to be a poor approach. Clearly the police were very worried about what might happen, and they were right when they said the some very violent people were going to turn up. It must have got very messy for them when they found groups assembling both sides of their lines and were in effect defending the front and rear of their line. I realise that we shouldn't do original research, but are they any published training books on police tactics that we could refer to or something? PeterEastern (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"the police perspective of what they did and why they did it .. they were right when they said the some very violent people were going to turn up"

Why they did it? The response to protests at previous Global summits, by police forces of other jurisdictions, have been equally sever. They would not normally take such action without the go ahead from some very senior authority. It appears that the people who really run the place won't tolerate any descent in the rush to globalization. The police were correct in predicting that 'some very violent people were going to turn up' as it was them that were going to do the violence. Else why turn up in balaclavas and with their numbers removed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/01/g20-policing-climate-protest-riot emacsuser (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of the policing of public events

This deserves a seperate article - any takers?93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's premature. Fences and windows (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When would be appropriate?Mein Kopf (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if anything conclusive comes from the investigation then it may be appropriate, especially if it leads to any major change in policing, however at the moment I think the paragraph that is currently on this page is adequate (we can't really say much more about it anyway without more news or just speculating) (I8mychicken (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Per Capita Figure

Is the £1,600 per protester figure appropriate given that the main operation of the day which involved over 1,500 police (withs boats helicopters etc.) not to mention other services were busy protecting the barely mentioned summit of 20 of the worlds most poweful leaders. The main protests were central london where around 3,000 police were present. Considering around a million people possibly more attended the anti-iraq war summit in 2003 (at least 10x the number that were at G20 protests) and that wasn't the most expensive operation in history, surely it can be derived that the protests themselves were not the main expense and thus a per protester number isn't particuarly viable since the main expense wasn't on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I8mychicken (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)