Talk:Freshford
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Minor alterations made to tone of section concerning new developments, in interest of neutrality, since contributor (?local resident?) had in a couple of places represented opinion as fact.
Comment about "Constable would have loved it, had he travelled further" removed - deviation.
Comment detailing current music schedule removed/summarised only - smelt of advertising, plus subject to change faster than this page likely to be edited, and no date was given.
Removal of Freshford Mill information re-instated with supporting facts.
Constable would have loved this place. but would have missed the horses. It is hardly deviation to compare this place with what Constable loved to paint. It is a way of expressing the quality of this part of the country.
The Inn does provide (free) music and unless local pubs are supported they really will disappear. The Inn lost the Irish music night because of a perceived lack of support. The Inn does give Freshford a considerable part of its character and no picture would be complete without its image being included in the picture. Constable would almost certainly agree with me. I am not an employee and I am a resident.
Undo of Freshford Mill section as all the contributor needed to do, if it all, was to restate that the development is underway. One factor that was ommitted is the fact that the development is in a Zone 3 flood plain. This has been added together with a sentence that informs the reader that the development is underway.GGeoff (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Freshford Mill
Added tag to article as the section is highly POV and needs a more broadly balanced - not necessarily local - perspective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- The views expressed in the article on Freshford Mill are highly representative of the residents of Freshford Somerset. The reference at the end of the article provides that proof. Whether there is a need to include more information on the issue is debatible. Perhaps a separate article could be started on Freshford Mill which would explore in more detail the reasons why the residents are against a residential development at Freshford Mill. The local people are well aware of the contraints on their community at present. For example, a primary school that has no room, literally, to include an expansion in numbers of children that the development inevitably brings. The existing problems with high levels of traffic, and the fact that there is no village shop and only a very limited bus service. The residential housing is also not affordable housing. GGeoff (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- In my view, the current article does not make sufficiently clear that the views expressed are simply those of the local residents. Like it or not, however, others - including, presumably, the local planning authority when it came or comes to a decision, and the developers - hold different views, for whatever reasons. A neutral article, to inform a much wider than local readership, should not take one particular side of the argument. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- As part of expanding the whole article I have attempted to provide a more neutral commentary and supported by a wider range of references (cited per MOS). I hope this have justified my removal of the banner.— Rod talk 15:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent work, Rodw! I've made a few minor changes to reduce duplication, etc. By the way, who gave the planning permission - was it BANES or a planning inspector? - might be worth clarifying. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that reporting that almost the whole village of Freshford is against this development is presenting one side of the argument. There is only one argument that is that the only people who want this development are the developers who are only interested in making a profit and the local or regional authority who want the developer to save them the cost of clearing up this particular defacement of the countryside that they did not control when they should have. Apart from that I like the look of the revised article Rodw. Most of my pictures at present are too artistic and ewhilst I don't mind them being use in Wikipedia and associated webs I want to retain copyright. But I can take some more picturesque photos in the Spring.217.44.169.251 (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Forgot to log in GGeoff (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- BANES recommended permit and the local councillors voted 5 to 3 in favour. The Secretary of State decided not to Call In the application for his determination and gave permisson to allow BANES planning to make a decision if they so wish. However if wikipeadians decide that this is not the place to present these arguments then so be it. However, the beauty of this land will be eroded a little more and a little more.217.44.169.251 (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Forgot to log in GGeoff (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- As part of expanding the whole article I have attempted to provide a more neutral commentary and supported by a wider range of references (cited per MOS). I hope this have justified my removal of the banner.— Rod talk 15:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- In my view, the current article does not make sufficiently clear that the views expressed are simply those of the local residents. Like it or not, however, others - including, presumably, the local planning authority when it came or comes to a decision, and the developers - hold different views, for whatever reasons. A neutral article, to inform a much wider than local readership, should not take one particular side of the argument. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Photos
I can supply some photos but need to spend some time learning how to do so. Its a lot more complex than one might think! GGeoff (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
