Talk:Milton Keynes in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Intro

The stereotype is artificial and synthetic, so let's say that. If Noel Edmonds really started this, he needs mention in the intro.

You know, there must be sociological or at least newsmagazine-level discussion of the Milton Keynes stereotype. If there is, that would be material for a good second section that isn't just a list of references - David Gerard 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And the name of the town should be a wikilink - it isn't actually mentioned in the article. But when blind reverting for the cause of town boosterism, one probably wouldn't notice that - David Gerard 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Edmonds is responsible for one stereotype: there are others. And there is more to the subject that than the preconceived notions of one popinjay. The NPOV intro should stay.

The name of the town is a wikilink. The MoS says don't wikilink the initial bold wording so it is wikilinked at the first available opportunity. --Concrete Cowboy 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick google on '"Milton Keynes" stereotype' turns up these [1] [2] in the first ten hits, from fans of Milton Keynes - that is, in denying the stereotype they acknowledge that it is the stereotype of being artificial and synthetic, the stereotype used in most of the stuff listed in the article. It's not just Noel Edmonds.

I'll be seeking out nicely solid references. If there are other current stereotypes, I'd ask you to please supply a sniff of evidence of their existence. Using NPOV in an edit summary doesn't make it not exist - David Gerard 22:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A Social History of Milton Keynes looks like a marvellous start - David Gerard 22:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"For Milton Keynes is still a city whose archive is largely dominated by planning materials and official reports researched and written up 'from above'." — Mark Clapson , Department of History, University of Luton: Review: Tales of the City: A Study of Narrative and Urban Life], Humanities and Social Sciences Network Online.

By the way, I'm finding a metric shitload of documentation not only that (a) the stereotype is current but that (b) the residents have a stereotypical allergic reaction to it. Which is somewhat at odds with claiming edits based on that reaction are "NPOV" - David Gerard 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But the article is "Milton Keynes in popular culture", not "stereotypes of Milton Keynes". It is especially not about thirty year old cowshit by a C-list celebrity. I don't pretend that these prejudiced views don't exist. I don't pretend that they don't annoy us who live in MK because they are so fatuous and disconnected from the truth, even though the jealousy is flattering. I accept that a para in the text would be a valid thing to have, IF it cites reliable sources. I do not accept that it deserves to be in the opening paragraph. --Concrete Cowboy 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes, A Social History of Milton Keynes is a good place to start. My claim for NPOV is the simple statement that "MK provokes positive and negative reactions", leaving the reader to come to his or own opinion after reading the text. Leading with the Edmunds stuff is analogous to beginning a biography with "this is the life of XYZ, who denies beating his wife". --Concrete Cowboy 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The stereotype belongs in the main town article, then. The question is, whatever Edmonds' qualities as a celebrity, did he originate it, per the text you cleansed from the article: As a "new city" founded in 1967, it is stereotyped as artificial and synthetic. Noel Edmonds is credited with tainting the image of Milton Keynes in the 1970s by repeatedly deriding it as a concrete jungle and the natural home of the famous Concrete Cows ?

You have a really bad case of Local Point Of View. This is not the same as Neutral Point Of View, and you really need to watch that for article quality and usefulness to the non-MK-dwelling reader - David Gerard 09:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, if I came across any article that began with a seriously pejorative and prejudicial "when did you stop beating your wife" opening, I'd feel completely justified in moving it way down the page and would seriously consider deleteing it outright. In this case, it it is Edmunds's PPOV and if he had written it in a wikipedia article, it would be deleted as vandalism without a second thought. Now if the Minister of Planning and Local Government in 1967 wrote in his memoirs that he had made a terrible mistake, then that would certainly be notable and worthy of inclusion. Edmunds is a nobody. So if we are going to start with the ad hominem attacks, maybe you might start by looking in the mirror and ask yourself if the real issue is maybe that you wrote that text and now you can't bear to see it drift down to a minor footnote? --Concrete Cowboy 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)