Talk:Colworth House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Inappropriate material

I've marked the bulk of this article as inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia. In my opinion it's also presenting only one side of an argument (POV) and in any case is not encyclopaedic in nature. If any of this material is to be retained it needs to be incorporated into the article in proper Wikipedia style. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than remove one side - how about adding the other?--GazMan7 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have two problems with this idea. First, a Wikipedia article is not the right place for speculative arguments, these matters should be discussed here on the Talk page and then the consensus view should go into the article. And secondly, I work for Unilever at Colworth House so I'm reluctant to get involved.

I do have a suggestion to make, however. Maybe someone who is not involved might move the inappropriate material into the talk page and it could be discussed properly here. Meanwhile I've incorporated the parts that seem to me most useful into the article proper rather than just leave them 'hanging' at the bottom of the page. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the following content from the main article, so it can be discussed, and its credibility confirmed, here:

The group intends to increase the number of staff on site from 825 to 1500 by 2010. [1], [2]

The long term target, according to Dr Jim Darwent, vice-president of Colworth Park, is to increase the headcount on site to 3000 people. [3]

This is generally understood to refer to the construction of an A6 Link Road, to relieve the traffic pressure on the village of Sharnbrook [unverified].

strong, well-researched [conjecture]

concluded that there was every likelihood that the Goodman-provided estimates of extra traffic resulting from the application were likely to be exceeded by a considerable margin, greatly exacerbating Sharnbrook's existing traffic problems [contains false information]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambrook (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable data

The items that have been removed for discussion that have valid links are fully verifiable - click on them, it's pretty obvious. They should be returned to the main body of the article.Tankertop (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)