Talk:Just Stop Oil

I want to call out the inappropriate editing by User:DeFacto over the oil protest today. Their two roll‑backs were not supported by their given reasons. My efforts to engage on their Talk page were removed after 5 minutes, so that traffic is gone. Hopefully this little skirmish will die down. With best wishes, Robbie RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

With reference to the claim in one roll‑back that "source doesn't support those charges for Hallam or Rumbelow and not clear how the protest relates to JSO", the article states just under the title "Just Stop Oil says cofounders Indigo Rumbelow and Roger Hallam were also arrested on Wednesday".^[1]

That is pretty clear in my view. Noting too that Damien Gayle is a long‑standing environmental reporter for The Guardian. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

JSO have posted to Twitter under the banner "Co‑founders arrested": twitter.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1714665304771407885 That supports Gayle's reporting. JSO is not a secondary source, though. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison, all that says is they were arrested following something that happened in August. It doesn't support the stuff I removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The first cited source doesn't link Rumbelow and Hallam to this protest specifically, it only says that Details of Thunberg’s charge came as Just Stop Oil said its cofounders, Indigo Rumbelow and Roger Hallam, were arrested on Wednesday morning following dawn raids at their homes. The other source you add doesn't mention Just Stop Oil, Rumbelow or Hallam at all.

There may well be a connection, but if the press isn't explicitly drawing it, Wikipedia can't either. Belbury (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison, my talkpage is not the correct place to discuss the content of this article, that's why (see my edit summary) I removed your contribution there]. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's put that aside. Can you explain why my edit violates Wikipedia policies — as you indicated on your most recent commit message. Let's discuss in good faith. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison, please quote the parts from the cited sources that you think supports the content that I removed, specifically:

1. that Roger Hallam and Indigo Rumbelow from JSO, were arrested for organizing or participating in a protest against the Energy Intelligence Forum conference in London.
2. that Thunberg's arrest was in any way related to the activities of JSO.

-- DeFacto (talk). 18:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

1. The first The Guardian article does draw a connection between Hallam and the London protest of course, because why else would the material on Hallam be included in the article? But that connection is clearly not stated to the standard you require.

2. I did not say that Thunberg was acting on behalf of JSO (nor do I believe that). But her arrest is a valid part of this material, in my view. You may not agree with that editorial decision but my edits are not a misrepresentation of the reported material.

There will be more information in The Guardian and elsewhere tomorrow no doubt. And I will continue editing then. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison,

1. The only connection made in the source article is that it happened on the same day, it didn't say there was any other connection.
2. This article is about JSO, so for content to be relevant there has to be a JSO connection, other than it was reported in a source article that also reported a JSO story.

-- DeFacto (talk). 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As indicated, I will return to this episode if and when there is more information. Given the profile of those involved, I image there will be considerably more media coverage? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

More detail here but don't know whether WP:RS. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No direct link to the Energy Intelligence Forum mentioned. Logging the reference nonetheless.^[1] RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This whole page could do with a total rework (instead of large bodies of text describing lots of similar protests, a table would work better: date, no. of arrests etc). Having some personal involvement (being arrested with Just Stop Oil multiple times) I try to not touch this page myself so not to muddy the waters but I think this could make this page far more readable and easier to maintain. ChildishGiant (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

there was an incident in which two just stop oil protesters were shot while blocking traffic two months ago in panama. that seems pretty significant and should be included in the article 151.8.4.101 (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Just Stop Oil are focused on fossil fuel extraction in the UK, that wasn't anything to do with them. The 2023 Panamanian protests were about copper mining. Belbury (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No they're not that's a bald faced lie. They're also, ignorantly, interested in israel for some reason. Something something oil I guess. For the Omnicause!! 73.100.184.209 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the most recent addition to the art galleries subsection (Mona Lisa Part) for better grammar, perhaps to "On January 27th, 2024, two activists threw tomato soup at the Mona Lisa painting, hitting the glass protection, at the Louvre Museum in Paris." This would replace the sentence "on January 27 2024, two activists trowned Mona Lisa painting through a glass protection, at the Louvre Museum in Paris.[66]", as that is incorrect grammar and spelling (not exactly sure what trowned is to mean, and the sentence itself isn't quite clear. TigersTacos (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done as I've removed the paragraph instead, this was not a Just Stop Oil protest and should not have been added to the article in the first place. --Belbury (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Not sure if it was a Just Stop Oil Protest, but I guess most news videos and whatnot mis-attributed it to them due to to their previous art attacks (maybe those were misattributed too.) TigersTacos (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Turns out I was wrong, it was a French Group called "Riposte Alimentaire" or something of the sort. Thanks for looking into it and correcting me. TigersTacos (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they're apparently part of the same umbrella group as Just Stop Oil, which some sources have noted, but that's all. Just Stop Oil is a UK protest group aimed specifically at UK government policy, so is unlikely to be active in Paris. Belbury (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Most famous incident so far and article is silent on it. 24.228.69.222 (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done - I don't live in the UK but I added what I think is the incident in question to the article. Just to let you know, the article itself is under indefinite semi-protection due to persistent vandalism and disruptive editing, which means only users who are confirmed or auto-confirmed are able to edit the article. However, other users and anonymous IPs can still write edit requests as you similarly did here on the article's talk page, which can be fulfilled by any eligible users. Hope this clarifies things! Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Please add "This is Rigged" to the list of other climate protest groups. It is the Scottish climate action group. 86.138.199.150 (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As I argued at the AfD discussion, it is not appropriate for the term Vandalism of Stonehenge to redirect here. There have been many, many other instances of vandalism of Stonehenge before, some involving lasting damage, and there no doubt will be more in the future. Associating the phrase with Just Stop Oil is inaccurate and misleading and could have consequences of the group being wrongly associated with potentially serious crimes. It should at best be redirected to Stonehenge if it needs to a redirect at all. Pinging User:OwenX who closed the AfD. Orange sticker (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not adjudicate what is or isn't vandalism. We may only repeat what reliable secondary sources said about the incident, neutrally and without passing judgement. The Prime Minister of UK referred to the act as a "disgraceful act of vandalism", as did much of the media. It seems disingenuous to suggest that the title of a Wikipedia redirect page would have consequences of the group being wrongly associated with potentially serious crimes. Your request comes across as politically motivated, rather than driven by a genuine interest in improving the project. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not disputing the meaning of the word vandalism. I'm pointing out that if someone searching for, say, the people who set fire to it in 2016, the people who took a hammer and chisel to it in 2008, or the Ban the Bomb graffiti from 1961 or any other acts of vandalism individuals or groups carry out in the future, they could well find themselves on the Just Stop Oil page with no explanation why. This has absolutely nothing to do with my political views, which I have not disclosed, but the accuracy of Wikipedia and wishing to avoid misleading information. Orange sticker (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to debate alternate merge/redirect targets on the relevant Talk page. Or if you believe my closure did not correctly reflect consensus at the AfD, you can take this to WP:DRV. As the closer, I don't get a say on which outcome is best, only on which outcome is valid based on policies and guidelines, and receives a rough consensus among eligible participants. What you say may very well be true, and indeed my closing comment left the door open to different mergers. But AfD is not the best forum for picking a merge/redirect target. Consensus was that at least some of the content was notable, but not as a standalone page. Beyond that, it's editorial work outside the scope of AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Orange sticker, here's a suggestion: why not rename the page to 2024 vandalism of Stonehenge, in line with our usual naming convention for such events? Now that the AfD is over, there is no restriction on carrying out a good-faith move while the merge is being done. Would that address your concerns? Owen× ☎ 19:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

...vaguely specifying that, "Stone circles can be found...

The comma is wrong. You don't put a comma if the quotation is continuing the sentence grammatically (unlike normal reported speech). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A4AD:F804:C87:5422 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The comma has been removed in the two places where this error occurred. Reconrabbit 18:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury starting a discussion here. I don't understand why you've opposed this form of words for the stated reasons.

The group have announced their intent to dissolve in April 2025, claiming that their goal of stopping new fossil fuel extraction had been met by a change in government policy. Despite this claim, the government still appear to be considering an expansion in fossil fuel extraction and the size of existing fields, with only a ban on new licences to be implemented.

This form of words isn't a violation of WP:SYNTH as you've suggested given that it is not combining the two claims. And in this instance the use of the word "claim" is suitable, given that JSO are explicitly claiming "Just Stop Oil’s demand to end new oil and gas is now government policy" without evidence this is actually government policy. Providing a recent second reliable source that demonstrates this difference between what JSO are claiming and the more ambivalent nature of the government's recent announcements is relevant here.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems the same kind of thing as in the United Nations example at WP:SYNTH. You write:

The group have announced their intent to dissolve in April 2025, claiming their goal of stopping new fossil fuel extraction to have been met by a change in government policy. Despite this claim, the government still appear to be considering an expansion in fossil fuel extraction and the size of existing fields, with only a ban on new licences to be implemented.

But from the same second source we could also write:

The group have announced their intent to dissolve in April 2025, claiming that their goal of stopping new fossil fuel extraction had been met by a change in government policy. This followed a government ban on new licences being confirmed in March 2025.

It may be that "only a ban on new licences" is in line what Just Stop Oil wanted, and they didn't take a position on expanding existing fields. It may be something that they've compromised on. Whether their announcement has been made "despite" current government policy seems better judged by press sources, which there will surely be some of in the coming weeks, than by us humble Wikipedia editors. Belbury (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury the difference though is the attribution. The proposed wording is not arguing about whether JSO was effective, influenced government policy, or "won or not" (which would be the SYNTH violation as the second source isn't discussing JSO's impact or effectiveness), it's about the statement that there has been a change in government policy to ban new fossil fuel extraction. The second source rather explicitly details that the government has banned new licences but details how that's not identical to new extraction. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence isn't making a statement about government policy, though, it's making a statement about what JSO have said about government policy. Would a direct quotation seem more appropriate?

I think it is worth including the context of whether JSO think they have "won or not", in some form. It seems an obvious next question from the reader, and one which isn't answered by reading the rest of the Wikipedia article, but which can be answered by reading the sources. Belbury (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury. It's not stating what JSO have said though. Their statement doesn't mention extraction as you introduced. It rather ambiguously says "new oil and gas".

Personally for now that's why I think the second source detailing recent government announcements is vital, because it adds much needed nuance and context to what is meant by recent government announcements. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that coverage in the lead section on whether JSO felt they were effective or not is warranted. The views of independent commentators on this question could be traversed in the main body. The problem is the counterfactual: what would have happened if JSO had not been active. And to inject my own views, I think JSO's goals were far larger than halting exploration licensing in the UK. My few euros worth. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. It's why I initially only mentioned they were dissolving and not their claims at all. Rather this article doesn't turn into a reddit argument. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

So maybe a direct quotation would be more useful, either in the lead or in the body? It seems needlessly mysterious to not give any context for why they say they're dissolving the group. Belbury (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

If we had a dissolution section that established what they stated and what it meant in the context of government policy, as well as the already absurd "reaction" in some newspapers I don't have a problem with that. However for the lead I think it's best to leave it as it is at present because there's a heavy amount of nuance needed to establish what exactly they're claiming the government have done and what the government have done. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It would certainly be useful to provide a short explanation in the lead section as to why. But I just carefully read the JSO press release and The Guardian coverage by Gayle. And the main message seems to be that we want to "creat[e] a new strategy". Maybe that should be reflected? For what it's worth, Last Generation in Germany is also doing similar things and producing equally vague pronouncements. I see these as works-in-progress in both cases. So I suggest this edit: ".. disband in April 2025 and regroup using less adversarial campaign strategies". Thoughts? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s too early to really say what, if anything, they’ll reform as.

Frankly their statement is a work of nebulosity, probably for good reason. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

No objections to my proposed edit (set in quotes) after two days so I'll go ahead and implement it. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Indigo has multiple articles in the guardian so no excuse for this 2A02:8084:6A87:F80:216C:D22B:F9B2:180 (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it is relevant to retain reference to Take Back Power in this article. I notice that Rambling Rambler removed such mentions, but it strikes me that, without good reasons and prior discussion, this change is problematic. The fact that JSO's website says "new project alert: Take Back Power" seems to unambiguously show that Take Back Power is associated with JSO, representing a succesor to the group. Additionally, the Times makes the link between JSO and Take Back Power: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/custard-throwing-protesters-plot-m-and-s-raids-to-redistribute-food-lmg9jbvc0?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1769077190

I will add this to the reference list and update the stuff about Take Back Power as soon as I have the time. I'll note that the Daily Mail and GB News also unambiguously state that Take Back Power is a rebrand of JSO, but these are obviously far too low quality to cite.

If Take Back Power is as notable as JSO, at some point it will warrant it's own Wikipedia page. But for now, Take Back Power just redirects to JSO. So removing reference to Take Back Power makes this redirect unintelligible. Given that Take Back Power is by all accounts closely affiliated with JSO, it makes sense to put information regarding Take Back Power here. Otherwise information about Take Back Power will be totally absent from Wikipedia. If at some point in the future Take Back Power gets its own page, mention of it can be reduced from here. But for now, it only makes sense to retain reference to Take Back Power. Dubiously (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dubiously you don't restore masses of content while claiming that you'll eventually add sources to support it. Daily Mail and GB News are explicitly not reliable sources per WP:RSP. The Times article merely claims the group are linked to JSO, not the same or a reinvention of it as this article previously claimed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I was about to leave a nice explanation on your talk page as I assumed you hadn't noticed my explanation, but now I'm slightly peeved! As I stated, I am well aware that GB News and the Daily Mail are far too low quality to be cited on Wikipedia. If you think I'm arguing for including them as sources, you have mistaken me.

As I said, JSO's website seems pretty unambiguous about Take Back Power being its new project. And, contrary to what you've said, the Times writes: "Take Back Power, the new civil-resistance group behind the stunt on Saturday, is a direct descendant of Just Stop Oil." So yes, I think that prominent mention of Take Back Power is warranted. Perhaps you could argue that Take Back Power needs its own Wikipedia page, though I doubt it would meet notability criteria at the moment. A compromise might be to reduce the prominence with which Take Back Power is referred to in this article. I notice that you've now added one sentence mentioning Take Back Power, but this still means that Wikipedia will be absent of any actual detail on what Take Back Power is or what they do. This would be an unfortunate omission.

In any case, your removals seem very drastic, and I think that it would be reasonable, and in keeping with Wikipedia's policies, if you allowed an opportunity for people to discuss this issue before you make enormous changes to the article. Dubiously (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Get "peeved" all you want, stating we should follow policies would mean discussing challenged content, not re-adding it (see WP:ONUS) and then claiming you'll bother to add sources when you can be arsed. If you're "aware" two sources are junk then there's no point in bringing them up. We don't trust anything they say.

I notice that you've now added one sentence mentioning Take Back Power, but this still means that Wikipedia will be absent of any actual detail on what Take Back Power is or what they do. This would be an unfortunate omission.

It's not an "omission", it's WP:DUE level information for a splinter/descendent group (which, again, is not the same thing as claiming it's the same group under a new name). This is an article about Just Stop Oil, not a venue to have a stub about a completely different group by the back door that is predominantly puff detail sourced from their own website. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)