Talk:CountyWatch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article fails to represent a neutral point of view, since it does not represent criticisms of the group, or give any indication of its true significance or the acceptance of its agenda within the wider British political scene. Just zis Guy you know? 19:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
How can an article about a pressure group such as this be "neutral"? Would, for an instance, an article about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament be "neutral"? Is that possible? The County Watch group has a particular aim. If you were reading, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the article would probably be much the same, unless, that is, there were "severe criticisms". But if there are none, then does that mean you cannot carry the article? Surely an article's essentiality is to inform on the organisation and its activities?
At local levels people feel very strongly about the issues here, county changes, all of which were carried out without the consent of the populance in the counties concerned. "Wider British political scene"? Well, there isn't one, as such, because these are essentially ancient county issues. But hundreds of thousands of people are affected. Is that wide enough? 213.122.130.222 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. The same nonsense is happening on the Association of British Counties article. Just becuase particular editors don't agree with the group's actions doesn't make the factual article itself non-neutral. The article itself is neither praising or disparaging the group, merely describing it. Owain (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry but this is horribly POV. Yes, it does state the aims of County Watch and their actions but it seems as though the writer has a very disapproving tone. That's just how it reads. Maybe keep the article as it is, but add a section about their concerns. Who on earth wants to live in Tyne and Wear anyway (using an example for where I live)? What does it mean? It's County Durham and Northumberland - two counties steeped in centuries of history - nothing else. That is its heritage. As mentioned above, all of this was done without the public's consent. Now that T+W county council has disbanded (1986? - it was very short-lived), so should the county itself. Issues such as that should be included, it needs looking at. Whenever I've got the time I'll do it myself. hedpeguyuk 23 June 2006 17:40 (UTC)
Take this for an example, "Durham County Council issued a statement saying that County Watch's actions were "equivalent to those who vandalise telephone boxes". - fair enough. Can't we have a reply to that though? - hedpeguyuk 23 June 2006 17:45 (UTC)
[edit] 31st March
I have removed the following text temporarily from the article:
- Berkshire
31 March 2006, CountyWatch Patron Count Tolsoy re-sites 'Welcome To royal County of Berkshire to its true 'Berkshire' border from Oxfordshire. pending the finding of a reliable source - I have not heard this reported in the media as yet, and this needs to be corroborated. Thanks, Aquilina 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have reinstated with appropriate source. Lancsalot 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling
Is it "County Watch" or "CountyWatch", with StudlyCaps? BBC are using the latter, as are the Guardian. Morwen - Talk 14:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beliefs
This section seems to contradict the rest. How does moving some signs hope to achieve their aims re: the EU? Mrsteviec 14:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think the idea goes
- the regions of England are a European plot to destroy England and the United Kingdom
- there is therefore also an plot to undermine genuine local identity and replace it with a fake regional identity
- this is helped by the destruction of historic county identities instigated by the Local Government Act 1972
Bennett seems to be quite the character. Morwen - Talk 15:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
