Talk:WOMBLES

Disbanded

I had edited this page to point out the WOMBLES have been disbanded but this has been reversed based on the reasonable grounds that there web site does not say this and I'm unable to provide proper references (I know this from talking to a couple of the more prominent ex members at the London Anarchist Bookfair last weekend but that doesn't really fit the reference format!)

Racism

Is this a racist group?

No. In fact I'm sure they're quite the contrary. --Tothebarricades 02:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

They certainly are Eurocentric though. They promote Euromayday!Harrypotter 17:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"White" refers to the white overalls, not race. NickF 21:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

POV

Mm, the latest edit to this page is ridiculously POV - I'm guessing someone from xxx is responsible? essentially everything following the four bullet points is a libertarian critique of the WOMBLES and their organising that I feel has no place in an encyclopaedia.

- xxx indicates a group which had nothing to do with ever editing this page. As a baseless accusation I thought it best to remove it. This discussion "is it a racist group" (and subsequent Eurocentric comment), which is obviously silly has been started by a couple of people who are known on the London anarchist scene, and have made similar accusations about the WOMBLES before which "xxx" have deleted as false smears.

should clarify - by "this page" I was referring to the article, not this discussion page. In the article, while everything up to the "professed aims" section is fairly NPOV, what follows is not information, but analysis - a critique, one might say, and one which has a lot in common with the views of the group mentioned earlier (I do accept, however, that it was wrong to name said group without evidence). How the statement "As time goes on and the WOMBLES continue to exist then they can perhaps be seen as the fetishisation of organisation. They exist because they ARE the WOMBLES, they no longer represent a viable anarchist method of organising for confrontation with the State" can be seen as neutral is beyond me. --Black Butterfly 18:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Black butterfly - the critique of the wombles incorporated into the articles does not having much "in common with the views of the group mentioned earlier", which are highly organisationalis, and the critique presented was highly organisationalist.

I agree that much of the stuff that has been (rightly) removed is POV analysis presented as fact. One small thing that might be worth rescuing is that they were inspired by the Itailan Tute Bianche.--JK the unwise 08:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

references to secret police bases

There are some issues with the references to the statement that "The group also provides information to anarchists on police tactics learnt at "secret training bases"[1] where allegedly "cops are instructed in how to cause maximum damage to an individual with a two-foot long steel bar"".

While this quote does come from the WOMBLES website, the refs provided seem to be an attempt to back up this claim, something which they completely fail at. For example:

The claim for secret police bases comes from the BBC article about a "New £50m police training centre". If it's in the news, then by its very nature, it's not a secret base.

The claim for cops having 2' steel bars comes from an American company that sells acetate police batons. This has absolutely nothing to do with a police force, especially those in the UK...and the baton itself isn't made of steel.

The idea of police being trained to cause "maximum damage to an individual" comes from a chart demonstrating points of the body to aim for. Instead of encouraging damage, these are meant to stop citizens engaged in self defence (nothing to do with police) from causing lasting harm. The article on globalsecurity.org deals with the US Army. Not the British police.

Maybe someone's being a bit keen to prove false points? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.121.91 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

I put the references in to come back later and expand on what's said in the quotes. It's the nature of the training which is secret - the Police Tactical Options Manual is not in the public domain. The American company (Monadnock) is the main supplier of public order weapons to UK police forces. I don't understand your claim about citizens engaging in self defence (do you mean the WOMBLES?), it is a matter of public record that Monadnock baton charts are used in police training.

Wnjr 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fascism?

In the end of the articla, it it stated: "they attended the [...] Conference [...] which reached the concensual decision to the participation of fascists in future events" -- can somebody please clarify this? I read the minutes of the conference that is referred to, and the only mentions of fascism are in terms of rejecting it. --Vesteinn (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is disbanded, but -- notability?

As of March 2009, the website says members of the group -- which it denies was a "group" -- effectively disbanded in 2006, as they did not meet since then. It says the website continues because it is produced "autonomously of the group": see [1]. (This sounds a lot like the wensite is produced by one person!).

Thus you could restore the claim that it is disbanded. However, it has to be asked whether this "group" meets general notability guidelines. It itself denies being a "group", it claims never to have had a formal structure, had no defined membership and no defined creed. As such they do not state "membership" numbers, but judging from newspaper photos of the rallies they attended in the distinctive uniform, there were never more than 7 (and probably not the same 7.) They stopped doing this in October 2002 and subsequently held a few informal meetings up until no later than 2006. (One wonders if it is a coincidence that the group lasted about as long as an undergraduate degree ... )

So this group is really just a small group of friends who went to 5 rallies dressed similarly, and later hung out together for a short while discussing common interests. If the WOMBLES are notable, I'm going to start an article about the friends I used to play cards with at uni. We had some really deep talks between rounds of 500, we had a secret symbol (I won't say what it was, partly because it was a secret, but mainly because with the advantage of growing years, it now seems rather juvenile) and there was a lot more than 7 of us. Possible as many as 12 at one point. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WOMBLES. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120510043207/http://www.wombles.org.uk:80/ to http://www.wombles.org.uk/

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)