Talk:Royton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions.	United Kingdom Portal
This article has been rated "stub" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale.
On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following has been identified as specific improvements this article needs: Add photos An increase in images (which includes both modern and historic photographs). Include a note on Royton's Etymology. Overhall (or even create) history, geography (both physical and administrative), and politics sections. Cite sources. Include more triva within the prose of the article. Use successful local articles as a guide (Oldham, Manchester etc).

[edit] Politics and Ethnicity of Royton

A singular editor (81.131.8.32/81.131.5.2) has been contributing writings about the BNP presence in Royton. Whilst the BNP did indeed receive votes in both the wards of Royton North and South, (although considerabley fewer as parliamentary constituency of Oldham West & Royton in the 2005 general election), I do not think it is nessesary to include them in the Royton page as they are not in power (there is a compartively tiny mention of Labour in the article), given they have a fairly small part in the history of Royton.

The contributions are also of a highly politically biased nature and are somewhat misleading by their omittion to other political parties and views. Comments like the "2001 Asian Riots" are further inappropriate on Wikipedia given that the internal article to which it is linked to is actually named the Bradford/BNP riots.

The mention of BNP is of course allowed on the article but only when presented in an impartial and truly comprehensive mannor, (eg that every political party is represented and expanded upon, - with particullar expansion to the current and prevailing administration. The contributions made by 81.131.8.32 are not made with a neutral point of view (he/she is clearly a BNP supporter), and thus I would urge a re-edit.

For now I will move the comments into a seperate subsection. Can all members/editors become mindful of various contributions and remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy or soapbox, but an encyclopedia. Jhamez84 10:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is appropriate for a town's politics to be included (as long as it sticks to facts and figures) - especially if those politics are unusual. The BNP's progress has been the subject of a lot of media and political coverage and is of interest to many people. You are always going to get people who think such information is irrelevant or they don't simply like the facts themselves. Prominent local issues should not be censored (especially if presented impartially) and the rise of the BNP has been the main local issue of the last five years.

213.122.95.32 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In these sort of matters, there's a couple of things to remember - read the first line of WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

You should write without passing comment, and state only facts expressed in reliable sources. It may be true, but this is not the place for original research or comment. If there's a lot of media coverage, there should be no problems finding links to it. If it has political coverage, link to the debate in Hansard. If you're going to make a claim, be prepared to back it up stoutly.

Next, the rule of thumb is that if when someone else reads the article they can tell your point of view, it wasn't written in a neutral point of view (read WP:NPOV).

Finally, WP:NPOV states that facts should be placed in true proportion: although it did receive media attention, the fact is that no BNP member has ever been elected for this place, nor even come particularly close in its entire history. In the grand scheme of things, it's a footnote.

But overall, I don't think the article is too bad as it stands. I'll look over it again later Aquilina 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. I did indeed re-hash the article earlier to both keep the inclusion of the British National Party (which is quite fair given that it is fact and the nature of their policies and politics are a little... say... niché) but also reflects a more neutral and encyclopedic point of view. I trust that this edit is a now more appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks, Jhamez84 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have temporarily deleted the last paragraph of "Politics in Royton". I would like to point out that I do not object to the inclusion of the constituency results as long as there is a mention of the number of wards in the constituency (to put Royton's impact on the results into perspective) and that you reference the stats/results on an official government site. The Guardian is not a reliable source, even though they are correct in this instance.

213.122.23.86 01:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian newspaper is a perfectly reliable source for information - read WP:RS. Official figures are preferred, but in general there would be nothing wrong with using a respected national newspaper. Aquilina 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The source is no longer the Gaurdian website, but the so-called "official" oldham.gov website, the same one which the BNP supporter is also using. I trust this resolves the matter and brings neutrality to the article. Jhamez84 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 election results are on the appropriate constituency page, which Royton only forms a small part of. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to place constituency results on a 'ward' entry when they are available on the main entry.

213.122.33.254 10:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No this is unacceptable, either both paragraphs must be included or neither, otherwise their is a clear biased politial agenda to the article which is not NPOV. You were satisfied when the Oldham.gov site was cited, now you are not, indicating you are merely being awkward and trying to omit verifiable fact. This is considered Vandalism. Jhamez84 10:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To remove bias I've added Royton's council results to the constituency page since you seem to think the data is interchangeable. If you insist on including the constiuency results on a ward entry then the ward results must be added to the constituency entry since the same argument holds..

213.122.33.254 11:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets be civil here, I merely object to the censorship of 100% factual verifiable truths that Royton is wholly connected to the constituency of Oldham West and Royton (the fact it has Royton in the title is the give away to me (?!), and that the opening line of the section states this). You objected to the removal of the local council results on the same grounds of censorship, so I think we have an understanding here yes?

I will not be "gagged for telling the truth". If you object to the inclusion of the political vote facts on the Royton page, I suggest you start the Royton north and south ward pages and include the results there, thus removing any potential bias or political agendas from this main article. Because you do not agree with the results does not merit grounds to remove them:- and that goes for myself also.

With regard to this matter, if both paragraphs are included with full contexts I am satified with a NPOV being reached and that the article is fair, factual and comprehensive.

I trust we have an agreement and can now work together to improve the content of the Royton article in respect of identity, heritage and history, so it can rival the content of the Shaw and Crompton page.

I look forward to adding the forthcoming local election results to the relevant pages. ;) Thanks, Jhamez84 11:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you revert/vandalise the page again you will be in direct contradiction to the 3RR. As you have no static homepage, consider this an explict warning not to alter the page again, otherwise your profile will be presented to an administrator who may find it nessassary to block you from Wikipedia indefinately. Jhamez84 11:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

1. Read WP:CIVIL; calling people stupid in edit summaries is not helpful.
2. There is no reason for the constituency result not to be duplicated here, as it is relevant to the section - it is titled Politics after all!
3. I have temporarily removed the following section:

Royton has a predominantly indigenous white population and has been relatively free of the inter-racial problems that have been apparent in neighbouring Oldham

for this to be included, sources must be quoted for each of the three claims here (ie official figures of Royton's ethnic make-up, official statement of inter-racial troubles in Oldham, official statement/figures that this is lower in Royton). This is necessary by WP:V, as above: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

1. I have removed the link to the Bradford riots, as these are not directly connected - far better would be to create a new article on (specifically) the riot in Oldham, and link to that instead.

Aquilina 11:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we are going to do well this year.

81.131.34.69 12:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)