Talk:Aldershot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
United Kingdom Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject.


Contents

[edit] Cleanup (again) and NPOV

This article has been de-tagged as requiring cleanup, but as far as I can see it is still very badly written and ungrammatical. Furthermore, several sections, especially the 'Shopping' section, contain numerous unsourced POV statements. I have reapplied tags as appropriate. DWaterson 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accurate

Interesting that someone who does not live in Aldershot disputes description of the town centre.

It is an accurate description of the state of Aldershot - run down, boarded-up shops, yobs on the streets, a no-go area at night for decent folk.

There are numerous sources quoted, incl a picture of trouble on the streets at night! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.17.23 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 May 2006.

Whether or not you believe your comments to be "accurate", they were unencyclopaedic and inappropriate for Wikipedia. WP strives to achieve a neutral point of view, and your comments were clearly unbalanced and lacked justification. For example, phrases such as, "At night Aldershot town centre becomes a war zone, a no-go area for decent people" and "the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor" are clearly statements of opinion and not fact. Rushmoor is not a rotten borough in the formal sense, and the remark is potentially confusing to other readers, never mind the obvious negative bias in the term. Who are your "decent people", and how have you asserted the relevance of their opinions on this page encyclopaedia? I also note from your talk page that you have previously been blocked from editing WP due to vandalism.
On a more constructive note, perhaps you would care to rewrite your comments, giving an even-handed treatment to all viewpoints and providing appropriate sources to support your comments? Otherwise, you are wasting your time and your comments will undoubtedly be reverted by other editors, not just myself.
Finally, please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes thus: ~~~~. DWaterson 18:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Watson. While your efforts to 'contribute' are noble and generous, they have become ignorant, disruptive and unhelpful. The 'Aldershot' page has only recently been taken upon to create. While the page is quite new and obviously lacking in certain areas and detail etc. those comments pictures and opinions (so far) are factual and represent many views of many people who actually know and / or live in the town. While the description of the town for example, may not immediately be seen as a positive contribution and a negative pov it is in fact VERY topical to anyone who has ever known the way the town was and the way it is now. Of course the reasons for this are subjective, but still they are fact and DO represent a very real aspect of the history of the town. If you don’t like it say so but please don’t go chopping and changing and deleting large chunks and even pictures because YOU don’t like them, because it does not confirm to your opinion alone. I'm sure as an 'expert' Wikipedia moderator you will find many areas of content, punctuation and even grammar does not meet your exacting standards but I would ask you unless you really KNOW, please lay off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.227.76.238 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 May 2006.

As you should be aware, all editors are free to be bold in making changes to articles. Specialist knowledge of a subject is not essential, though obviously beneficial. As it happens, I have been to Aldershot on a number of occasions, and am perfectly well aware of the area, thank you. You do not seem to dispute that your comments are "subjective" and show a "negative POV". You should be aware that this is therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia, as it is not the place for original research. If you wish to disseminate your opinions on the Internet, please place them elsewhere on your own website. Some of your text may be salvagable if rewritten carefully to ensure that it maintains a neutral point of view, and the sources you refer to are cited appropriately; I suggest that you might like to consider the Manual of Style and the NPOV tutorial for ideas on how to rephrase your edits in an acceptable manner. You need to avoid the use of 'weasel words'.
Finally, please do not make personal comments towards me, and please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes thus: ~~~~. Oh, and my surname is spelled 'Waterson'. DWaterson 13:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for spelling your name wrong.

Well all I can see it a lot of abuse rather than edit. You refer to opinion but actually its fact and as it happens the decline of the town is a relevant part of its stature. I did say more will be added. And then why the deletion of the memorial site information and photograph/s? If you were that conscientious and perfect for wiki you would have used it and added an independent page, as this was information that very few people have seen. Be my guest but I guess your not. In principle no one could disagree an edit is an edit which you clearly exploit to the max. However despite your own schoolboy grammer, the text your link refers to says "Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. If someone writes an inferior article, a merely humorous article, an article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry that editing it might hurt their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's total nonsense, replace it. That's the nature of a Wiki. And, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be.

…but don't be reckless!

And I think that says enough

Me too appallled by the actions of Watson, big bother has a big stick.

There was a perfectly good decription of Aldershot as it is, with pictures, with references, but he did not like it.

Tough!

If the content had been false, it would have been grounds to change it, but it wasn't.

There were pictures, there were references, did Big Bother bother to check?

Watson, or another of his big brother clones, are referring to other changes to other changes. Changes made from an ISP that is in a Public Library.

Obviously ignorance is bliss.

This tiny little episode seriously compromises the credibility of Wikipedia!


Would some idiot called Watson, Watkins or whoever he is, please stop abusing his position and vandalising the Aldershot page.

He does not like its contents, throws a childish tantrum, and vandalises the page.

What was there, and then restored, was a fair and accurate description of Aldershot.

He may not like it, but that is what Aldershot is like.

Interesting that he lives nowhere near Aldershot.

Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Highly amusing is the comment by Watson

'As you should be aware, all editors are free to be bold in making changes to articles. Specialist knowledge of a subject is not essential, though obviously beneficial'

One would hope that all those contributing to a page have expert knowldge, otherwise the page content is worthless, but to Watkisn, this is not important!

Ignorance is bliss!!!!

Latest issue of Surrey Hants Star (Thurs 11 May 2006), the local newspaper for Aldershot, has a letter describing how bad Aldershot is, people fear to go out on the streets, abusive yobs etc etc.

What eveyone who either knows or lives in Aldershot knows to be the truth.

What was here was a fair and accurate description of Aldershot, that is until the page was vandalised by Waterspoon who decided to strip out everything he did not like.

It is people like Wankerspoon who are giving Wikipedia a bad name.

He should be blocked from changing pages on Wikipedia.

[edit] 3rd Opinion

I have to agree with DWaterson here. It should be noted that Wikipedia is not interested in truth, Wikipedia is interested in verifiability. Thus, you cannot say things like, "the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor" or "At night Aldershot town centre becomes a war zone" unless a verifiable and reliable source has already made those statements. Without specific citations from the aforementioned reliable sources, the information should be removed immediately. The burden of proof is on those seeking to include the information, not on those seeking to remove it per WP:V. I find the behavior of the anonymous sock puppets here rather disturbing. Get a user account, follow our policies of no orginial research and WP:V and people will respect you much more, and will even help to incorporate the information you seek. --Hetar 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4th opinion

The version of "Shopping in Aldershot" by 131.227.76.238 is intersting and well-written, but is unbalanced and not supported by citation to reliable sources. For example, "All the local councillors seem capable of, is wringing their hands and shedding crocodile tears, (while collecting their expences)." This should appear in an encyclopedia only as an attributed quote, and should be balanced by a countervailing opinion. The version by DWaterson, while rather spare, is more nearly what an encyclopedia article should be. Tom Harrison Talk 19:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, I didn't write the current version; I just reverted to the last version I considered acceptably encyclopaedic. I agree that some of the anonymous editor's comments were interesting, but, as you say, are not supported adequately. That was why, in my comment of 13:25, 12 May 2006, I suggested a thorough rewrite could bring the text into a more acceptable format. Thanks for the 3rd/4th opinons though :) DWaterson 19:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memorials

I've removed this section as its a bit messy and far from complete. For anyone wnating to expand it, I've put it on a subpage /Memorials for development. --Robdurbar 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite and cleanup

In an attempt to resolve this dispute, I have substantially rewritten several sections and done a general tidy up. I have tried to incorporate several parts of the disputed text, although there wasn't a lot that was usable. This was because unfortunately, after some quick research, it appeared that a substantial proportion of the text was a potential copyvio (or at least a dubious rehash) of ((link to Parkins blacklisted site removed can be found at wwwdotheurekadotclaradotnet/surrey-hants/ald-shot.htm]. That website appears to contain mainly a highly POV rant about the supposed evils of Rushmoor borough council, so I do not see that we can use it reliably even as a source. However, if someone could flesh out the 'history' section and provide some reliable citations for the 'shopping' section, that would much improve the article. DWaterson 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its looking tider already. It really needs more content though - is it worthy of a stub tag, do you think? --Robdurbar 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content? Where's the point.

I have many credible News paper articles, in addition to photos, even video I could/would like to add. Some aspects of this place are not all bad I must say. Some bits were to be very good. But some nasty aspects of this town though are worthy of description to be said about it, that IS the way it is. Fact and Verifiable. and if any discussion takes place about it they must also be said for an honest and balanced view.

Of course behind the negative stuff and which IS NOT just pov are those that have and do administer it. This town HAS changed RADICALLY in one hundred years. Even there own verifiable publications acknowledge it.

So which bits should Wiki portray. Which year has the bits in YOU feel should be there? Otherwise YOU are doing Wiki the disservice by not allowing the good and the bad to be shown. Or giving anyone the chance to add content if you don’t like it. Does that mean it not there for Christ's sake! Or only allowing crap like "it was built on heath land to serve the British army" which isn’t realy going to fob off anyone that reads it, is it??? Are comments like these verifiable, or your guess from reading it somewhere. Or is it the way it is now, with many of its buildings derelict or demolished, empty run down shops, drunken drug laden louts rampaging through the streets, urban warriors that torment and intimidate. This IS all verifiable. This IS Aldershot NOW But then how do you pretend this is not so? By deleting one photo showing a street scene. By deleting the mention of its most recent memorial, AND a picture. By adding pointless references that you think ARE verifiable facts.

I'm afraid if the panic deletions of content of this one page before anyone gets a chance to complete it, are an example of Wikipedia then it has failed. Either they (waterson) were put up to it or are just over opinionated pricks that know no better (sorry no other term fits) . And as far as I'm concerned, unless I see a BALANCED view of the town, the way it REALY is, warts an all, then I and others will make sure that is made clear to all your pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clever dicky (talk • contribs)

I agree - we should show the good and the bad. I've come to this fairly late so I don't know about the images that have been removed. If you have sources - does the local newspaper have a webpage you can link to? If not, you could put in additions. The memorials section hasn't been deleted - if you read above, I've put it on a subpage for development till its ready. That way it can be worked on till its complete.

I agree that the entire article is unsourced and needs verification, including the heathland romanticization. --Robdurbar 07:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for you support

I'm new to this. I arrived on this page by chance only a few weeks ago, and found a few new entries to a fledgling page, and happened to agree with most of what was written and so added the pics I happened to have. The page certainly needed tidying. The pics taken were mine to upload as public domain that happened to support what was written. I vouch for their authenticity and content. And I have plenty more. Of course more needed adding to this article and not just bad stuff. A lot more can be added thats good in fact VERY good, like pics of an original Victorian arcade, & market in the town. Pics of Visits by Royalty, pics of Rushmoor military tattoo. and much, much more. But this is the past. None of its there anymore, and that’s the point. Isn’t an encyclopaedia meant to portray what is - not just what was. I can cite a dozen stories easily of people who once new Aldershot back in the day, and who are SHOCKED to see it as it is now. After travelling perhaps a couple of thousand miles. Can you imagine them saying "But I saw it on Wiki and it looked lovely, just like I knew it when I was stationed there fifty years ago"

It is difficult to see how can have a fair and balanced page on Aldershot when some idiot, who does not know the town, and lives nowhere near it is hell bent on vandalsing the page when he does not like the content.
Wankerspoon should be barred! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.128.24 (talk • contribs)

So how can anyone even make a start to contribute building up a good reference for others to see it as it is, if others are hell bent on deleting it all, all the time. Its such a good thing that the history of a page is kept. I appreciate (moving for the time being)the memorial section. Of course they mean a lot to many. So it will be good to include all those in the town. They include two national memorials from each world war. The second ww memorial actualy has a rockery made up from a piece of rubble from every town in Britain that was bombed. Nowadays given peoples attitude you could easily wonder why they bothered.

So as I and others who still might be tempted to upload stuff and think about what to write I wonder if anyone should bother, if others plan to delete what ever they happen to disagree with. And so how do you make a picture of something 'verifiable' ? Isnt it enough that its there or does verifiable only include the plagiarised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clever dicky (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Image use policy. When you upload a photo, you have to chose copyright licences and leave a description of the photo. If its you're own, you could chose to release it under a free licence and note in the box that it is 'self made' or something along those lines. --Robdurbar 12:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, this picture (fromerly in the article) is uploaded correctly:

Image:SIMG0014.JPG

However, the caption that went with it - Police kept busy by binge drinkers on a typical evening - was a bit misleading and polarizing. Something along the lines of 'Town centre drinking has lead to a high police presence in Aldershot in the evenings' approaches it from a more neutral point of view. --Robdurbar 12:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems wankerspoon is only interested in promoting his own pov and deleting anything he dislikes.

The impomtant bit, is it correct, seems to have been lost.

There was a fair and accurate description of Aldershot by people who live in or know the town, but wankerspoon who seems to be totally ignorant of Aldershot thought he knew best anbd vandilised the page.

[edit] Changes

I'm sorry, but I've reverted the changes for now. I do think that the things you are saying could be included in the article but at the moment your edits are not neutral. They are romanticizing a none existent past and represent one view of how the town has changed. This is a view worth representing, but in a paragraphy or two. I'd do it now myself but its 1am and I'm knackered. --Robdurbar 00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer. We can wait.

Tell us what more you need. Pictures, news articles, links witness statements. Copies of letters to councillors/MP. Retail figures, consultant reports its all there. Just say what you want.

well I've merged the two but statements such as:

"But unlike many towns, part of Aldershot’s inheritance has been based upon the evening economy of bars, pubs, and the entertainment of soldiers for many years. However, looking back at the effects of lost retail that reputation bought, and during the low times of the eighties when consumers began to choose where to shop. Is it any wonder? But like many towns now with local and national government supported all night 24hr drinking, what contribution has the reputation of the evening trade really cost this once great Victorian town?"

are just unacceptable. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge. Factors such as 24hr drinking etc. are seen as good things by some people. This is just opinion. --Robdurbar 09:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes (Again)

Yet another wildly unencyclopaedic POV rant has been inserted into this article. This time it is backed up with unconvincing sources and quotations, such as the rambing thoughts of letter-writers to the local newspaper. As I have already made my thoughts clear on the quality of such edits to this article in the past, I won't revert myself immediately (especially as I would be reverting to my own last version), but if anyone in agreement wishes to do so, they have my support. DWaterson 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that in the future don't worry about reverting that kind of stuff to your own last version. It was POV ridden with no sources and really brought down the quality of the article. David D. (Talk) 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

" This time it is backed up with unconvincing sources and quotations, such as the rambling thoughts of letter-writers to the local newspaper." This time....! WHO are you and David D. who felt that the quality of the article was bought down, to make such enlightened comments about what someone else, who seems to know far more about the place than either of you has written? Where are your own genuine 'positive' contributions? Not that anyone realy cares, but all I ever see are your edits LORDing over what others write. Who is realy going to give a shit if its peoples pov. What about George Bush's pov? Or where is your own original verifiable content that you havent read or copied from some far flung website. Do you even Know what a Pikey is? Edit by all means, but If you want to pass judgment on those that wrote say the EU constitution then your criticism might be tolerated, otherwise go do something useful and help your mates in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clever dicky (talk • contribs)

Clever Dicky, are you also editing from the IP 213.166.17.22 (talk · contribs), since that is who made the edits you are referring to here. If you take a look at the specific edits by 213.166.17.22, it should be clear to you why anyone would consider reverting rather than improving the content.
First the editor deleted a perfectly good section on the galleries and Wellington centre that actually addressed many of the issues that were then reintroduced. Except the deleted material was more concise, coherent and had better sources. This is one of the hallmark of a vandalism.
Secondly there are phrases in the new content that send up big warning flags that the new material is a rant rather than objective content.
For example:
  1. "building a shopping mall which ripped out the heart of the town"
    this is overly melodramatic
  2. "crass planning decisions"
    this is inappropriate use of slang
  3. "a local lass who now lives in Somerset"
    again inappropriate use of slang
  4. "an out-of-town Tesco was a death knell"
    melodramatic as well as being completely redundant with an earlier sentence "an edge-of-town Tesco superstore which drained business from the town"
  5. "The weekly Thursday market is a remnant of its former glory".
    Pretty strong POV here.
  6. "Somewhat belatedly and rather late in the day, local councillors have recognised that something is wrong."
    This is political commentary that is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article,
  7. The use of all the testimonials is also original research that is not aceptable for an encyclopedia.
In summary, good content was removed from the article and replaced with more voluminous content of a lower quality. I did not delete your contribution due the hegative perspective. i deleted it since it was not written in a style suitable for an encyclopedia. I hope this is helpful for you if you as a guide to how to write acceptable content for this article.
With regard to you comment, "WHO are you and David D. who felt that the quality of the article was bought down". Did you consider that it is unlikely for some random person to edit this article? There is a pretty good chance people don't edit such a page without some knowledge on the topic. Re: your Iraq comment "go do something useful and help your mates in Iraq", are you confusing me with being an American or are you referring to the para's? David D. (Talk) 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where are your own genuine 'positive' contributions?

Clever Dickey, in response to your question: "Where are your own genuine 'positive' contributions"? Since you don't seem to appreciate clean up editing, I've added two sections, happy? May the article now continue to grow as an encyclopedic article. David D. (Talk) 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


If you read my coments, titles below. You will know why I still hesitate to add anything new.

Dear Mr Watson. While your efforts to 'contribute'..... have many credible News paper articles, in addition to .... I'm new to this. I arrived on this page by chance only.... So how can anyone even make a start to contribute..... Thank you for your offer. We can wait.....

New sections are very welcome. You are most generous. I've an idea. How about YOU both writing a piece on Aldershot today, the way it really is today, in comparison to the way it really was... You might also like to add why this has come about (without pov)and what did actually lead to its demise, socio- economic decline and loss of its better buildings / businesses / and parts of the town that provided its character and distinction, say in comparison to the way it is, to the way it was (and continues to be portrayed) with other market towns. Then I and Im sure others wouldnt need to hesitate before adding content or other support. Now wouldnt that would make a good encyclopedic article. Clever Dicky.

I agree that the topic would be an interesting read but it fails the 'no original research' policy (WP:OR) that is used as a guideline for writing articles in wikipedia. On the otherhand, if you know of a similar article that has been written and published by a reputable publisher, then you can cite it and summarise the article. David D. (Talk) 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
People involved in this debate might be interested in going to the[1] - the individual involved is the same. Gsd2000 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup?

A few sections headed but not filled, looks a bit messy. I know nothing of the town so hopefully someone will be able to fill in these sections!

I've added information on the councillors in Aldershot and the wards that Aldershot is comprised of: TG312274 17:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You say "I know nothing of the town", so what on earth makes you think you're qualified to contribute to an article about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk • contribs)
I would think it is quite obvious that one does not need to be from a town to add sourced information. David D. (Talk) 16:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] lack of local knowledge

Is lack of local knowledge a prerequisite to edit this page? It would seem so from the behaviour of the wikithugs who are active here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.17.22 (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks --Charlesknight 16:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Keith, please sign your posts otherwise it is impossible to track the conversations. With regard to local knowledge, being a resident is not enough (see WP:OR). The article needs to be well sourced (see WP:RS). Within those guidelines you can write any balanced contribution to the article. What you wrote before was unsourced and from one perspective only. Once does not need to be from the town to write an encyclopedic article. In fact, in may be preferable to NOT live there to get a more objective arrticle. I hope this helps you with respect to future additions. First step is find some good sources. Then we can work on the balance. This is a serious encyclopedia and the people reverting your edits are not wikithugs. They do recognise, however, POV content. David D. (Talk) 15:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITs ME

Hi, me again. Ive just discovered how to 'sign' my name just by doing this ~ ~ ~ ~ cool! Perhaps i wont be accused of being somebody else now. Clever dicky 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way. I've just added a bit regarding the military and its effect on the town. Isnt much at the mo' cos I still dont believe people are fair about what others contribute and are still a bit 'del button' happy. But hey its a start.

Clever dicky 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason people hit the delete button is not about fairness, it's about adhering to the standards of WP. Your contribution may not have been out of place in a Lonely Planet travel guidebook, but that is not what Wikipedia is - it's an encyclopaedia of fact. Your latest contribution is full of weasel words (such as "In 2000 it was speculated that...") and opinions (such as "It will take more than ‘off price shopping’ to turn back the clock."). Gsd2000 11:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another weasel crawls from the rot

It would seem WP standards are an excuse for jumped up little turds that know, and most likely DO, sod all with their sad pathetic little lives. Hope your not offended if this includes YOU. Trouble is content might be factual and reproducible if only you could be bothered to ask or LOOK. But then that might mean sliding your fat ass off the floor and finding things out for yourself. Clearly others coments and from whats written and been deleted your like many a freak that gets off jacking others. In fact it might surprise you to learn that many of these 'quotes' were just that from local papers printed by reputable journalists. Not to mention fact based discussions between people who live in the town. Does that include YOU ????????????

If not then Swivel.

Clever dicky 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Clever dicky 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) and to make sure Clever dicky 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If they are quotes then that should be made clear. As it was there was nothing to indicate that they were quotes, which makes it plagiarism. If they were printed in a local newspaper please cite the source using footnotes. This is not something personal against you, or somebody disagreeing with what you have written, it is a case of having to verify that it is factual. Please stop being distruptive. Thanks, Joe D (t) 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, you say: " if only you could be bothered to ask or LOOK. But then that might mean sliding your fat ass off the floor and finding things out for yourself. ". Clearly you need to read up on the wikipedia policy of no original research. It is why little of your content is acceptable for this encyclopedia. David D. (Talk) 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] page move

User Clever dicky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who is probably Keith Parkin, has now been blocked for pulling this stunt (moved Aldershot to Aldershot_as_only_a_few_might_see_it) to make his wikipoint. Clever dicky, if you bring yet another sockpuppet to disrupt this page you can expect them to be banned too. Either edit following the policies layed out by wikipedia, for you the ones that are most relevant include WP:CIVIL, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:OR, or expect more bans. David D. (Talk) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous people

Is there a good reason to have this list of people on a separate page? It is not exactly a long list and seems to be too trivial to have a list of its own. David D. (Talk) 17:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hearsay with respect to wellington

I removed the following line from the article

"It was secretly agreed in Royal circles that the statue would not be removed during the Duke's lifetime, so as not to offend him."

Due to the following concerns from an IP contributor.

The above statment is unclarified and possibly false. It is only word of mouth at best. The following text is from http://www3.hants.gov.uk An offical government website that clearly states it was moved due to congestion at its original site and by request from the prince of wales.
"By the time of Wellington's death in 1852 the public had become used to the sight of the statue and in deference to the great Duke's memory no further attempt was made to have it moved for the next thirty years. But by 1882 traffic congestion around Hyde Park Corner had become so intense that a proposal was made to demolish the Arch to make way for road widening. But public sentiment was opposed to such destruction and in January 1883 the Prince of Wales wrote to the Prime Minister, Gladstone, recommending the removal of the Arch to a new position at the top of Constitution Hill. "As regard the old colossal statue of the Duke", he wrote, "I would suggest that it should not be broken up but removed to Aldershot where it will be highly valued by the Army".
When the statue was taken down and the Arch moved to its new position, the statue was left abandoned in a corner of Green Park for another year while various possible sites were considered including Chelsea Hospital, Horse Guards, Portsmouth, Wellington College and St James's Park. These were all rejected and at last a resolution of both Houses of Parliament gave permission for it to be moved to Aldershot.

The above source might be useful to add back to the article. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)