Talk:Burford, Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian communities
This article is part of the Canadian communities WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Ontario
Ontario Portal
This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] J Burford Fields

I should be living there. J Burford Fields

[edit] Vandalism

The person who made comments in the text, should try to improve upon the text, as oppose to vandalize it.

(cur) (last) 14:16, 2005 October 8 65.93.26.11
(cur) (last) 14:14, 2005 October 8 65.93.26.11
(cur) (last) 14:12, 2005 October 8 65.93.26.11

These successive edits raise valid complaints, I mean cancer is a wonderful thing and all, but they might try to add or edit the article to improve readabilty.--Mikerussell 04:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I've tried to incorporate the above person's complaints into a neutral POV edit. There were a few things I didn't think were appropriate in the article, and a few things I didn't think were correct, either.

  • I've removed the mention of Burford Township since there hasn't been a Burford Township since amalgamation (circa 1999 or 2000).
  • I thought the mention of Burford's wealth being tied with a "cancer-causing crop" (tobacco) made it sound like Burford was consciously profitteering on people's poor health, which is very POV. It's a traditional crop for the area because the soil is sandy enough to grow it, no more, no less. The important part is the local economy slipped when smoking habits changed, which is true, most tobacco farmers are getting out of the crop.
  • The mention that the migrant workers aren't welcomed into the community is strongly POV. It makes the town sound racist which isn't fair. Many local businesses (particularly the grocery store) and farmers bend over backwards to cater to the migrant workers' needs. Keep in mind that there is a clear language barrier, most workers work ten-to-fifteen hours a day six days a week, Burford has no pubs/bowling alleys/other source of recreation, and the workers don't bring their children to Canada with them. These are also factors in why the workers aren't regularly seen pushing baby strollers down King Street and attending church socials.
  • I'd prefer more context given to the rivalry between towns. I've removed it for now, although I think it is still worth a mention. The way it was said made it sound like Burford is standoffish and condescending towards its neighbours. I can't say I've ever seen evidence of that. There's no rivalry between towns. What I have seen is some resistance to the perception of "outside" influence over local decisions, as with some recent County of Brant and Grand Erie District School Board decisions (such as closing the high school).

-- Matty j 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Matty j POV edits

You sound like a promising spokesperson for the American Tobacco Institute. RJR Nabisco and Phillip Morris may need people like you, so get your resume ready. If calling tobacco a "cancer-causing crop" is POV, then you have a very faulty understanding of the science and public health toll. To assume the article edit was offering a "guilt by association" argument- Burford because it grew tobacco is causing cancer- seems rather foolish, and perhaps indicates an over sensitivity on your part. Burford like many other communities profited from the crop and the general ignorance about its severe health consequences permeated society. Naming the crop as a carcinogen is justly factual. Just ask the Gretzky family about how wonderful a crop tobacco is.

  • I could do without the condescending tone. Substituting "cancer-causing crop" for "tobacco" in this article is like substituting "homicide-assisting instrument" for "hand gun" in some article not related to the pros and cons of handgun use. My point is that doing this substitution implies a level of culpability for the farmers because it causes cancer. Maybe there is, but if there is, it deserves a spot in another article. For my part, I've worked on several tobacco farms, and those farmers are just trying to put food on the table for their families, the same as everybody else. -- Matty j 18:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to pick a fight, but it seems really silly to suggest an article cannot contain any information about the qualities of the crop it grows, or the product it manufactures. A person who lived in a handgun producing state, grew wealthy from it, and then had to adjust because the laws surrounding the weapons changed due to world-wide accepted science, could not justly claim any mention of this is in an artcile describing the community is off-topic. You seem to be wedded to a faulty understanding of the fact-value disnction or something. --Mikerussell 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel it is not my place to edit the article any longer, I put in my 2 cents based on my previous, limited, experience of the community, but I tend to think the above changes are a little to self-protective, thus very POV. Your explanation about migrant workers, itself, is evidence of the very ‘racist’ perspective I had hinted at in the article. Blaming the other group, and saying how much the store owners do for them- what, they import tortillas and goat meat to sell at a nice profit?- indicates an absence of awareness of the real issue. The tune you are playing- 'look how much we do for them- bending over backwards for those people'- type song and dance is American cliche. These men are essential to the community’s continued economic survival, and are not integrated into the community. That's a fact, if not a problem. Can you honestly say you know how these groups feel? Saying they have no family is an excuse for what? I would be interested in having one edit the article too. Have you ever talked to any of them, just on the street? Burford is not alone in this situation, it occurs throughout rural Ontario, and my comments helped balance out the rosy picture about-

  • I really don't know what you're getting at.
What I am getting at, in my comments, as in reference to the 'American song and dance' statement, is that you are articulating this kind of attitude that outsiders to Burford just don't understand our 'unique way of life'. Since it is Martin Luther King Day in the States today, I just thought I would explain my earlier comments in this way, since that is why I think you are too sensitive. I know you feel protective of the community, but your perspective is not the only one, and others may add insights percisely because they are outsiders. I don't think this is condescending either. --Mikerussell 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have talked to "them". I've worked with them both planting tobacco and at the local grocery store, during my teens. I even agree, in a sense, that the workers are not integrated into the community. During the summer, the church pulpits and community group memberships (e.g. Lions Club, Optimist Club, etc.) are not indicative of the proportion of immigrant workers in the community at large. But I don't know what you're looking for. I mention that they don't have families in Canada because a significant portion of the "community" (day care, schools, Sunday school, youth sports leagues, etc.) is obviously therefore of no interest to them. There are other such obvious barriers. They typically only get Saturday evenings and Sundays off, and Burford has no late night recreation. Etc. Integration of that sort would be very difficult. And I should point out that this does not mean that they don't have a sense of community while they are here. There is a strong social web between farms that you might not notice unless you were to work on one. -- Matty j 18:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Well why don't you edit this info into the article, instead of getting so defensive and withdrawing my comment. Adding to the article, with your insight into these people's life and role in the town deserves inclusion, no? I only went by the comments I heard from the kids in the school and the teachers to a lesser degree. I always read the weekly newspaper- The Burford Times and looked for insight into the gangs of men I would see toted around in school buses or straglers in town walking around, and never found any. I would really hope you add to the article, because you have worked elbow to elbow with these people and it would greatly improve the article. I write from the perspective of an outsider to Burford, you are too defensive, I think, you fail to recognize how strange it may be to an outsider to see gangs of men segregated, if not politically, at least physically from others. I think that simply needs to be noted as a fact, and you can add further insight. What might a person of colour from Toronto or Detroit fell like walking down King Street seeing this sharp demarcation? That is all that I am getting at, it is my observation of the community, not a criminal indictment. Simply noting the obvious doesn't need censorship in my opinion. Compared to cities like Mississauga, and Toronto, or any large urban centre where the racial mix is flux and fold among the crowd, as opposed to sharp divide, it immediately caught my attention. Wikipedia is read world-wide and not just in small towns, so I think it is valid to mention the obvious. It might impress readers to know this. As far as the tobacco, ferget it, man, I think the way you reponded speaks for itself- all I know is that more could be written about it, the change from the tobacco economy to present times is worth a novel, at least I got that impression talking to oldtime teachers at BDHS- they really would tell you how the community changed in the past thirty years because tobacco was correctly identified as a cancer-causing crop- that impact is not even mentioned in your edit. --Mikerussell 01:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
“A rural community with strong ties to religious and community organizations, Burford Township prides itself on being a modern community with traditional small town ethics such as honesty, charity and industry.”

Interesting you saw fit to keep this (something I also wrote), as if it might not be equally construed as POV. My opinion definitely came from the perspective of an outsider, a person who took a keen interest in the community while I worked at the now closed high school, and although my style of introducing the comments you edited out may not be to your liking- I think ultimately, someone might try to re-address the issues you have seen as biased, otherwise, the article will fail to accurately capture the community. --Mikerussell 20:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Burford Times uses Township

I added a link to the "online' edition of the Burford Times- they still use the word Burford Township- and, quite frankly, I think they took a couple lines out my copy to describe the place. Just don't want people to think it is vice versa, and the article violates copyright or anything.--Mikerussell 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Burford.jpg

This is from my user page; it appears that the image will be deleted. Does anybody have a picture of Burford to replace it?--Mikerussell 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Burford.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I got some self-made photos from a friend who allows me to upload as replacements. --Mikerussell 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of religious sign removed

Someone removed a picture of a sign depicting a religious phrase, b/c they said it was used to represent a whole town. I noticed this aawhile back too, some anonymous editor deleted it without explantion so I am just guessing it might be related to the recent edit. I found that removing it a little prejudicial to small towns in general, and Burford in particular, as if just b/c the sign was present everyone in the town was slavish Christians or something. The picture is 1 of 9 pictures and like all the photos are presented to add "local colour", not define a community. --Mikerussell 03:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I drive past that sign all the time, so I'm inclined to say keep it just because it cracked me up to see it here. Still, a picture of a local church might be more appropriate for presenting the spiritual/religious side of the town than a sign threatening eternal damnation in the name of "small town ethics" (I have seen signs like that in the city, too). I'll bring my camera home with me the next time I think about it. -- Matty j 22:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Eternal damnation, eh, that's rather pessimestic, I never interpreted it like that. Technically, I always thought it could apply to any religious faith- the phrase has an existential weariness to it, on my take. Although obviously I assumed it was Christian. I think that is why people want to remove it though, they have a hyper-sensitivity to any public religious expression. Detroit drowns in public religious expression so I know the sign or one like it can be part of a city, although it still says something unique to me about Burford and surrounds, but perhaps it is just my private opinion. But I do think the sign is more telling then any church picture, I mean you can find churches in any town- small or large- signs such as that stand out, which is what caught my attention.--Mikerussell 04:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of Date Photos

Someone might want to remove the photos of Tappers (or at least change the caption on it), seeing as that one of the "several restaurants in Burford" is no longer in business. Anyone have a picture of Rick's Place? 74.114.211.12 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I was thinking about that, too. Might be nice to get a picture of the new(-ish) United Church up as well. -- Matty j 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)