Talk:2009 G20 London summit protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ian Tomlinson[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

Removal of background section[edit]

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)[reply]

Responsibility of Police officers to prevent crime, and arrest perpetrators[edit]

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)[reply]

Balance[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Merge[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Suggested creation of "Police Tactics" section[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Socialist rant aside i think thats a fairly generalised view of the police, most were not wearing balaclavas (note the office who hit the woman) and there is no evidence of widespread attempts to cover the identy of police, and yes there were violent protests the police were right in predicting that there would be (see the smashing and theft from the inside of the RBS building) and the riot police when present do tend to wear flame retardent masks which is a sensible precaution. Regardless as to whether the police response was appropriate or preportionate we can't draw assumptions as to the intentions of the police, them saying "they're up for it" when talking about violent protests doesn't automatically mean they went out with the intention to smash everyone's face in. The experience of a few protesters isn't representative of the good nature of most of the day, the news doesn't report the boring bits.(I8mychicken (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Socialist rant?, I don't think so, there's always been protests against the Iraq war, CND marches, anti-pole tax. The response from the police was never as provocative and violent as at the anti-globalization protests. See here, apparently the RBS protest didn't turn violent until the police moved in to restore order ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t244-zEENSs&feature=related

Context for the main article ??

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/new_world_disorder/action2.html emacsuser (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "socialist rant" was more about the implication that dissent against globalisation is automatically crushed, funnily enough the main protest of 35,000 people on march 28th went by without violent disorder, police brutality or any kind of violence from either side. Strange that they allowed the biggest protest of all...Again there's no doubt there was a degree of police violence (particuarly at the G20 meltdown protests) buts it's neccesary to provide balance. After a whole day of protest closing down a part of cental london it's not surprising that when people refuse to move on the police "kettle" them so they can't indefinitly hold a camp while some go home to sleep, others go to eat and come back, 7 hours later everyone wanted to leave which is kinda the point, everyone left without the need for tear gas, mounted police and injuries and resentment on both sides. Just labelling it crushing of people power with faceless officers doing the dirty work is hardly a balanced view. (I8mychicken (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I8mychicken, this isn't a forum. If you want to suggest sources and wording to add to the page, please do. Fences and windows (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the policing of public events[edit]

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

I think that's premature. Fences and windows (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When would be appropriate?Mein Kopf (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

Per Capita Figure[edit]

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 [1] (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)[reply]


Copying G-20 Meltdown talk[edit]

The G-20 Meltdown talk page is being copied here as the page is being merged. Fences and windows (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links in Ian Tomlinson section[edit]

There are a number of broken links on the section about Ian Tomlinson. The Sky article seems to have been pulled and the video witness statement link appears to be unavailable to normal users.PeterEastern (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the broken Sky link which was supplementary to the main story.PeterEastern (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background to protest[edit]

This article needs some detail about the origins of the protest, how it was organised and its relationship to other protests. It would also be useful to have some more accurate times with regard to when events took place.PeterEastern (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

There is no justification for this protest having its own page, it should be merged back into the main G20 Protest page, Lodi01 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, especially since a sizable part of the page is devoted to the death of Ian Tomlinson, which even at this stage probably merits a page of its own. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there were many protests by different groups over a number of days in London associated with the G20 conference and the impression should not be given that G20 Meltdown was the 'main' protest or typical. Even within central London there were two separate protests, G20 Meltdown and the Climate Camp on the same day with different agendas and very different atmospheres and it is important not to confuse them - one had tents and musicians and was only kettled in the evening, the other was kettled earlier and there had already been serious confrontations with the police and criminal damage to property. Climate Camp was was drawing attention to climate change and the role the city had in carbon credits, and G20 meltdown was wanting to 'overthrow capitalism'. Other marches were held by other groups for other purposes. I suggest that time is given for these articles to be developed before reconsidering a merger. With regard to the proposal to make a separate page for Ian Tomlinson, that may be appropriate, however the context of his death was the G20 Meltdown protest and as such i suggest it should be part of this article. I will add content to the background of the G20 Meltdown which will balance the article out. Again shall we develop the articles in this arrangement and review it again in 24-48 hours? PeterEastern (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no justification for splitting the article. The events are better reported on one page, as much of the commentary and reports encompass the various protests and their policing. Fences and windows (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, the fact remains that considering the current level of coverage, the Ian Tomlinson material will soon overwhelm the rest of the page. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By way of comparison, the protests at the G8 meeting in Genoa 2001 (with perhaps 20 times as many protesters) don't even have their own page - see 27th G8 summit - although there is another page for the Death of Carlo Giuliani. Once the facts of the death of Ian Tomlinson become reported in more detail, it may then be time to create a page Death of Ian Tomlinson. Fences and windows (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support creating a page for 'Death of Ian Tomlinson' which is actually splitting that content out rather than merging. If as a result the rest of the G20 Meltdown article belongs back in the main protest section then that may also be appropriate however we should keep a clear distinction between the different protests and I would vote to keep this article separate for the next few days while we assemble information about the protest. Can someone upload some photos that give a balanced view of the protest?PeterEastern (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on having Death of Ian Tomlinson.--Sum (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've created it. If it is going to stand on its own, please cut down the content on this page, leaving a summary only, and ensure that the article Death of Ian Tomlinson is written to stand alone, rather than just cutting and pasting the content. Fences and windows (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all content from this article placing either on Death of Ian or the main summit protests page. Then redirect this page to the Summit protests. There is no justification for this article to remain now theres a seperate article for the death of Ian. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. Some 40,000 people protested at the London G20 talks of which about 2,000 took part G20 Meltdown and as such it would not be appropriate to have the protest page dominated by this protest - the media has already forgotten that anything else took place which is disappointing for other groups. Also... G20 Meltdown is an organisation with an on-going agenda. We will need to wait and see if it fizzles out or grows, but I still feel it is important to keep this protest (and group) separate from the Climate Camp and its protest and the Put People First March. There was only one arrest associated with the People's March for a non-violent offence. The Climate Camp in the City was good natured until 5pm after which there were only minor scuffles. At the G20 Meltdown Protest, which was billed with messages such as 'storm the banks' and 'the end of capitalism' there was blood on both sided by early afternoon.PeterEastern (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative would be to merge the 'protests' article back into the main summit article and keep the primary content for the individual protests and incidents where it currently is. This would have the benefit of allowing the policing section to cover all aspects of policing the event - delegates and protests and avoid the protests being 'sidelined' as they are from the main G20 article. The Protests section would remain reasonably brief and retain a clear message that there were many unrelated protests with different agendas and styles happening at the same time. PeterEastern (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but with a title like G20 meltdown i fail to see how they can have an ongoing active agenda. There is certainly justification for a single article on the protests, but i do not think having a hole page just for a single group involved. If the article isnt going to be merged, im going to put forward this article for deletion. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is unclear that G20 Meltdown will continue and there is a clear consensus to merge the content back into the protest page and no serious discussion about merging the protest page back into the main G20 London article so I agree that it makes sense to do so. If G20Meltdown turns out to be an on-going organisation then the decision can be reconsidered. What is clear is that the articles now represent a pretty good record of what took place. Fyi, I have a beta tester of www.Wikirank.com which doesn't have any stats for the G20 London Protest page yet but does for the main G20 London page which was viewed 157,000 times over the past 30 days so it is worth getting it right. PeterEastern (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have three options here folks, 1) Leave everything as it now 2) Merge this page back into the G20 Protests page with a separate death of ian tomlinson page 3) Merge the G20 Protest page back into the summit page with links to individual protest pages and death of tomlinson pages I'm personally now leaning towards the third option as it seems to satifsy most people, do you guys agree? Lodi01 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think that 1) is appropriate - the information it now to fragmented. I would accept 2) if that was the consensus view to avoid 1). Personally I am also in favour of 3) because I think 2 could be criticised of 'bias by putting some information into a separate article' on two counts Firstly by taking protests and policing out of the main summit article or alternatively by have the G20 Meltdown section in the main protest article but having the quieter camp for climate action article separate - If G20 Meltdown hadn't gone violent the fact that 2,000 people camped peacefully on Bishopsgate would have been huge news! I understand that others involved in the Climate Camp and the Put People First march would also support this view which avoids their messages being drowned by the more violent messages.PeterEastern (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time to merge the G-20 Meltdown page back into 2009 G-20 London summit protests. There needs to be more background to all of the protests, and some more information about the Camp for Climate Action on Bishopsgate should be in the main article. Death of Ian Tomlinson should remain separate, as he was not a protester, and his death and the investigation into it is notable by itself. Fences and windows (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agents provocateurs[edit]

There no sound evidence that the guy was police. Journalists and I assume also photographers also have passes - I note that Jenny Jones says "It is only thanks to my NUJ press pass that I managed to (eventually) escape the terrifying crush imposed by aggressive police. By that point I had spent at least two hours rammed in with other peaceful protesters, bursting for the loo and battling against a resurgence of a phobia of being trapped in tight crowds."[2] Is it not more likely that someone with a journalist pass was 'helping' others get some good photographs? PeterEastern (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, suggesting that the man seen by the photographer was a journalist would be original research, I think. Fences and windows (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I guess I am suggesting that the allegation that it is the police is itself is speculation and that there are other possibly more likely explanations and as such that the paragraph should be removed.PeterEastern (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting of agents provocateurs at the protest is notable, whoever they were. The report is from a reliable source, and the wording does not state that the man was a police officer, it only states the facts as reported. I just tried to think of a "disclaimer", but we're not meant to "editorialise" on Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, and for people who look further into it this thread documents our concerns.PeterEastern (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its known for the police to use under cover spotters in football matches to pick out the main trouble makers, and with the G20 summit attracting a large number of activists room across Europe & the UK i suspect that they employed these methods, as for keeping the section in it probably should be left as it now is, as long as its clear that it its taken from a report and may not be fact, it would be interesting to see if this is backed up by other sources or even denied by them to give a more un bias view. Lodi01 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spotters and different from agitators. I don't think police spotters are expected to stir up trouble! Let's see if other information emerges and lets leave it in for the time being. PeterEastern (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the point i was trying to make was its easy at the time to confuse a spotter who's been uncovered with someone whos agitating trouble Lodi01 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Fences and windows (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations for verification?[edit]

I believe all claims are now fully cited. Some are cited from video sources because these give the most convincing source for the level of aggression at the time although I have only used videos which clearly show that they were taken outside the Bank of England. Other sources are either from the G20 Meltdown website itself for their plans and motivation or from respected? media sources or are taken from suitable alternative news sources for announcements of the availability of the squats etc. Can we now remove the 'additional citations for verification' banner? The citations do need some work to add access dates/publishers/works/publication dates and authors which I am happy to do if the content is now pretty stable. PeterEastern (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one fact tag remaining in the article, however the associated video footage from Sky news uploaded to youtube that clearly shows a) the events described in previous sentences "Some protesters fought back, including one masked protester who hit police with a pole, resulting in one injury" and "A smoke or flour bomb was also thrown", and b) that it was taken outside the Bank of England. As such I feel the fact tag and the 'citations needed' tags are both now innapropriate. PeterEastern (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge re-propose[edit]

I really feel that we need to merge this into the main G-20 protest page. Please discuss at Talk:2009 G-20 London summit protests#Merge. Fences and windows (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

The timeline isn't the best way to describe events. It encourages trivia, such as 23 arrested by 15:22. Much of the content is taken from a BBC Twitter feed of the day. I think we can much better present the events in prose, and using more varied sources. Fences and windows (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy for someone to use the timeline as a resource and built the key facts into the relevant section into the main protest description. It is however a good resource for getting a feel of the ebb and flow of the event and I would suggest that the timeline as written is transfered to the talk page for future reference. By comparing the two feeds Guardian/BBC one can see that each organisation only picked up part of what happened and one can also see when they decided to go home or transfer their attention to the climate camp and the feeds stop - it would be good to find some suitable sources that deal with stuff happening after 7:30pm by which time both of them had stopped reporting on events. PeterEastern (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of G-20 Meltdown copied here[edit]

This timeline is useful for the events of the G-20 Meltdown protest, but we need to report using prose, and using more sources. Fences and windows (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • 10:15 Protesters congregate at Cannon Street, Liverpool Street, Moorgate and London Bridge[2]
  • 10:38 Police stop protesters in modified Armoured car outside the headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland, six are arrested[3]
  • 11:38 Silver horse crosses London Bridge - mood is peaceful and jolly. A brass band is playing "Tequila[2]
  • 11:57 Police struggle to cope with the number of protesters as Liverpool Street march and London Bridge march converge outside bank. Moorgate march also arrives. Not enough space available in area allocated by police.[2]
  • 12:04 Fight between some 50 police officers and protesters. Captured police helmets thrown in the air. Bottles and smoke bombs thrown. Police retreat.[2]
  • 12:09 Scotland Yard report that eight people after being found in possession of police uniforms.[3]
  • 12:20 24 black-clad protesters charge police lines on Cornhill.[3]
  • 12:41 Many people are described as curious onlookers rather than demonstrators.[2]
  • 12:52 G-20 Meltdown protest is kettled.[3]
  • 12:55 Mood increasingly tense. Police line in Threadneedle street becoming getting noisy.[3]
  • 14:09 Police estimate that 3,000 protesters are outside the bank.[3]
  • 13:15 Clashes on Threadneedle Street, bottles thrown, police use batons with injuries on both sides.[2]
  • 13:45 Windows of bank broken.[3]
  • 13:50 People emerging from RBS with computers and files. Riot police are advancing on horses.[2]
  • 14:05 Police officers putting on riot gear. Protesters have been trying to push through the police line. All approaches the square are blocked. People are able to leave but not enter.[3]
  • 14:17 Police in riot gear clearing area outside RBS. Occasional missle thrown.[3]
  • 14:22 Police horses move line up outside RBS. Firework thrown.[3]
  • 14:41 Two protesters get on the roof of the Bank of England. Police dogs brought in.[3]
  • 15:05 Cordon outside Bank of England relaxed. Protesters been allowed to leave to the West.[3]
  • 15:32 23 arrests have been made so far.[3]
  • 15:45 Police trying to disperse the protesters in an orderly fashion.[3]
  • 16:01 Approx 50 police in riot gear surrounded by protesters in Queen Victoria Street. Missiles thrown. Police holding the line.
  • 16:07 Two month police charges down Threadneedle Street to disperse protesters.[2]
  • 16:15 "hardcore" protesters break through police lines and head towards HSBC branch on Queen Victoria Street. An anarchist flag raised on block opposite the branch[2]
  • 16:22 Calm outside the Bank of England. Small numbers of protesters standing outside the Bank's gates, dancing and shouting.[3]
  • 16:44 Events on Queen Victoria Street turning very nasty. Sitting protesters being "pounded" by riot police with batons trying to drive them back towards the Bank of England.[2]
  • 16:54 The police are closing off street after street.[3]
  • 17:34 Police report that officers have only suffered minor injuries, one in hospital.[3]
  • 17:35 Protest more in party mood.[2]
  • 18:02 'siege' taking place outside Bank of England. People angry but weary.[3]
  • 18:24 Protesters outside Bank of England chanting "Let us out"[2]
  • 18:41 Injured protesters with blood on their faces say they can't get out to get treated.[3]
  • 19:08 Police Commander Simon O'Brien says there were small pockets of criminals but vast majority of participants good humoured. One police officer in hospital for treatment to blow to the head. Seven protesters also taken to hospital.[2]
  • 19:10 Ferocious fighting. Barricades in the street. Fire with black smoke burning. Missiles being thrown and the police. Mounted charge by police.[3]
  • 19:20 Ian Tomlinson is knocked to the ground by a police officer.[4]
  • 19:25 Ian Tomlinson collapses and dies shortly afterwards[4]

  1. ^ http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#London
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m "G20 summit and protests: live blog".
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t "Live: G20 Summit Build-up". BBC Newws. Retrieved 2009-04-15.
  4. ^ a b "Ian Tomlinson: 'See you tomorrow, Barry, if I'm still living and breathing'". The Times. 2009-04-09.

Reliable sources[edit]

Fornost has twice added an opinion from an anonymous blog given ahead of the protests.[3] I do not believe that this is appropriate as this is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Fences and windows (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adapting to protest[edit]

This report by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary really needs to be incorporated into this article. I think that most of the "Review of the policing of public events" section will need updating. Smartse (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category for Renaming[edit]

Cottonshirtτ 10:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 G-20 London summit protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:G-20 major economies which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 2009 G20 London summit protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_G20_London_summit_protests&oldid=1196543981"