Talk:Elm Conflict

Capitation?

I don't think capitation is what is meant as it is used in this article. Perhaps decapitation? I don't see the term capitation used anywhere as a technical term in the context of tree maintenance or removal, and from the article it seems they were proposed to be removed altogether, not just to be "relieved of their heads" as decapitation would suggest. Would "removal" suffice? Dwpaul ^Talk 20:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree fully with you. I just with my "swenglish" skills could come up with a better word at the time. But please change it to whatever you find more appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking "destruction" may be the right term, as there is no way to remove a tree of that age without destroying it (versus removal and replanting, an option with younger trees). Clearly the protesters saw it as destructive. Let me think on it. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made a number of basic edits to the article. I noticed that you've invited another editor to work on it in advance of DYK, so will stop here. A quick question: I see the Swedish term Slaget om almarna is used at the article Kungsträdgården to refer to this event. Is that, or Almstriden, the more commonly used term? The two articles should probably agree on this point. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of both terms was one of the reasons I moved this page to something completely different. :-) They're both quite common. If I had to pick one, it would be "Slaget om almarna", but I absolutely agree with you, Dwpaul, that the main thing is that the two articles agree. I've changed this one. BabbaQ, please feel free to change it to "Almstriden" in them both if you like. And if it's me you're waiting for me before putting it on DYK, please don't. I'm slow, and kind of busy IRL. But what I'm planning is to bulk out the final section, "Aftermath", a bit, and subsequently also the lead, to say how iconic the event it in Stockholm history and in Swedish social history. Swedes already know that, but Anglophones need to be told, I think, or they might think it's not (gasp) notable. There's plenty of material for it (Swedish only, but still material) in the sources. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I think it has been quite a long time since we have had mass protests of such lasting significance here in the US, though I grew up in the 1960s and 70s when they were more common here. (Not strictly a protest, but I was present in Washington, DC at the first Earth Day in 1970.) And I gather mass protest was and is more common here in the US than it was in 1970s Sweden, making this event even more significant. I can see from the references that there have been many scholarly studies and books written about the event and its effects on urban planning, community advocacy and government in Sweden. Thanks for sharing it! Dwpaul ^Talk 21:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I added a mention of the involvement of mounted police, mentioned in (the machine translation of) one of the Swedish refs, because I think this will help convey (at least to American readers) how serious an incident this was. They are only employed here when authorities are anxious to contain a situation they perceive as potentially out of control and/or violent. Hopefully my description is accurate, given its basis in a translation of a short summary of the incident. Dwpaul ^Talk

Great idea. The horses certainly add drama. A horse was apparently actually felled (?) by the activists, according to the arkitekt.se article. But I've become somewhat concerned about sourcing, see below. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

alternativstad.nu is not a third-party source

The battle of the elms was the proudest moment in the history of Alternativ stad, and their greatest victory. This means that we can only use their website as a reliable source for some things — for instance, that Cornelis Vreeswijk lent his support to the elm occupation and sang protest songs from the Kungsträdgården stage obviously isn't something they or anybody else would make up — but as soon as it's a question of how big the protest was, or how brilliantly organised, we need real third-party sources, and not Alternative stad's description of their famous victory from their own point of view. For instance, our article states that "thousands" of people demonstrated on the day. The arkitekt.se article says a thousand and that some people put up tents nearby during the week after May 11; alternativstad.nu says two thousand (and a quarter of a million altogether during the following week), and refers to "en liten tältstad", a small tent city. (Actually it sounds even more impressive in our article, tent cities — click on the link!). In such matters, it's appropriate to go with the third-party source. If you know Kungsträdgården — I live not far from there — the idea of tent cities becomes a little unrealistic, too. It's not a big park. I've changed the description to be more in line with arkitekt.se, which certainly isn't an unsympathetic source, or trying to downplay the importance of the protest. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

DYK

The DYK nomination mentions 14 elm trees; this article talks about 13. Which is correct? Dwpaul ^Talk 13:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, might I propose a better hook: ... that a 1971 protest against the destruction of 13 elm trees in a city park led to sweeping changes in the process of urban renewal and local governance in Stockholm, Sweden? (assuming that is accurate)? I think this is a much more significant and striking observation. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it now. And please write that Hook inside the DYK nomination page instead of here at the talk page. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done No problem, wanted to run it by you first. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your hook is lovely, Dwpaul. Really hits the nail on the head. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm bringing this issue here rather than simply going ahead and editing unilaterally. I see that the hook that was finally accepted refers to a "1,000-man protest", a term that is in fact not used in the article. Catchy references to the Million Man March notwithstanding, I would like to suggest that you substitute a more inclusive term for "1,000-man". Women today no longer accept that they are supposed to consider themselves included in the term "man/men" when we can just as easily use "person/people" (and "human" etc.). Alternatively, there's always the version suggested by Dwpaul, also interesting and attention-getting. Best, Awien (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Adds) Not to mention that the Miilion Man March itself was criticised for its sexism. Awien (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur; also thanks for the endorsement for ALT2. ;-) On that point, ALT2 was rejected on the basis that this aspect of the event wasn't sufficiently explained in the article. DYK notwithstanding, I think I have to agree, and that expansion concerning the long-term impact of the incident on redevelopment and governance policies in Stockholm (to me its most intriguing aspect) would improve the article. Unfortunately, this requires competence in Swedish, as I don't trust machine translation to help with this aspect. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree that Dwpaul's version above makes the event sound more epochal than the article as it stands actually supports, but it is definitely clear that it marked a turning point. How about a slightly modified version such as: ... that a 1971 protest against the destruction of 13 elm trees in a Stockholm city park led to more attention being paid to citizen input into the decision-making process of the city council?"

But catchy as it is, "1000-man" really needs to go.

Awien (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection? Two in favour . . . Awien (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With some trepidation I have made the change, on the grounds that now is the last chance for non-admins to do anything, whereas Bishonen as an admin can revert or re-edit even after the prep is moved up into the queue. Awien (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Elm Conflict. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 18:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]