Talk:Ingleby Barwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Yorkshire Portal Ingleby Barwick is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's assessment scale. See comments for details.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-Priority on the Project's priority scale.

Contents 1 A Link Request 2 External Links 3 Pronunciation needed? 4 Correct Pronunciation? 5 Is IB a town or estate? 6 Is IB a town or estate? Part II 7 Clean Up 8 Problems 9 Domesday Book 1986

[edit] A Link Request

First things first, I'm wanting to add a link to a new Ingleby Barwick community forum. I’m in no way affiliated with any other Ingleby Barwick website.

I'm aware that if i posted a link, you would most likely remove is straight away. So, please hear me out! I recently moved in to Ingleby Barwick, and would like to contribute to the community. Being in IT, my initial thoughts were "I'll start a forum". I have ran many successful and active forum communities in the past, and know how much hard work is needed to get things of the ground. I feel that existing websites (no names) have lost their focus, and are now centred more on making profit from advertisers than actually benefiting anyone!

I have just completed the design of the site, and am now in the process of getting flyers and posters printed for distribution around the estate (note my carefull choice of word, its still an estate isn't it!). Just one of the many methods that i will be using to help make the site in to a valuable community resource. It will be a hard slog, but I’m hoping with the right moves, it will be successful.

To check out the site design you can visit it here.

Andrew, "forums should generally not be linked to" - I think the key work here is generally. There is no rule that states you can't link to forum communities. To shoot down something that could be beneficial for all isn't helpful, and to me defeats the point of a site such as wikipedia!

The first hurdle in getting things off the ground is getting targeted traffic. A link from this site would do such a thing.

You can get in touch with me at "mailme(at)matthewpark.co.uk"

--Mattpark 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No comments as yet. I'll wait a bit longer before i go putting up the link as im no no rush at the moment.

--Mattpark 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your link will be reverted. See WP:EL Andrew Duffell 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, Please elaborate on that a little. For what reason would the link be "reverted"? I see a one or two reasons from those guidelines which state that my particluar link wouldn't be adivsed, but i see more that would see me link as a valuable one. To hinder such a site is rather pointless. People who visit this wiki page can in turn visit the forum... and hopefully valuable information can be gathered there off visitors who don't understand wiki. I see no major reason why this wouldn't benefit all involved. --Mattpark 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It clearly says not to make links to your own site, or to forums (unless they meet critera that you don't meet). Andrew Duffell 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I really think linking to these "community forums" is completly unnecessary as we are already linking to their parent site "InglebyBarwick.com" which has explicit links to the forums. The only reason they "claim" the forums are seperate is because they got in to trouble over some of the things that were posted on the forum when it was hosted with the site. Also they are not very active forums at that, so I see no need for a direct link from this article.-Andrewduffell 07:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to this I reference the wikipedia guidelines on external links. Quote: "10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." -Andrewduffell 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Andrew is completely correct in his assertion here, please refrain from continuously adding the link to the forum. I don't know if it is the owner of the site is adding it or not, but if so this is spam/self publicity and also not permitted on wikipedia.Super Ted 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation needed?

I've already reverted the addition of a pronunciation description once and its been readded. I noticed Andrewduffell also reverted the change at the Thornaby on Tees article. I've not seen this type of pronunciation description in any other articles. I feel this change should be reverted. Any objections please discuss, I don't want to get into a revert/edit war over this. Super Ted 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Providing pronunciation for geographical locations? It's very common: see Berwick-upon-Tweed. Holgate 15:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have pronunciation guides where there is a need. There's clearly a need in places like Berwick-on-Tweed and Keswick, and so too is there a need when describing Ingleby Barwick. I vote it stays. Arcturus 16:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the method to describe the pronunciation was incorrect. The standard as far as I can see is as in this article. --Andrewduffell 18:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The way Andrew suggests looks more in fitting with an encyclopaedic entry as far as I'm concerned. If someone understands the terminology it may be useful to update the entry. Super Ted 00:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Pronunciation?

I have never heard Ingleby Barwick pronounced as it says in this article. I have only ever heard people say it as in "bar-wick" and not "barrick". Although I do not live in the estate myself, I live elsewhere in Teesside, so maybe someone who lives there knows better. --Screeming Monkey 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Barrick is the correct one, and if you speak to people who have lived in the estate for 20+ years they are more likly to use it. More recently I think the estate has been promoted as Bar-wick, and it has caught on with new people coming to the estate from outside the area.

Personally I call it Bar-wick, even though I know it is not correct, because it is what most people call it, and we have to wonder whether it really matters. Andrew Duffell 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation is Barrick as correctly pointed out above. It is centuries old and matters as it it's name.

[edit] Is IB a town or estate?

A search on http://www.multimap.com states that Ingleby Barwick is in Stockton-On-Tees. This is what I have always believed to be the case, for postal and other uses. Any objections to me removing the reference to Thornaby? Super Ted 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Ingleby Barwick is a housing estate, albeit a large one. Housing estates are in towns. In IBs case Thornaby. Thornaby is the area south of the Tees. Stockton is the area north of the Tees.

Stockton on Tees is the borough, so Ingleby Barwick (estate) is in Thornaby (town), which is in the local government district and borough of Stockton on Tees.

This can be compared to Levendale (estate), is in Yarm (town), which is in the the local government district and borough of Stockton on Tees.

I hope this clears this up. :) - Andrewduffell 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from there Andrew, but still feel placing it in Thornaby may be a mistake. Unless I'm mistaken, Levendale has a school, a pub and possibly some form of playing fields. IB on the other hand has multiple schools, a supermarket, multiple shops, 3 Doctor's surgeries, 2 vet's etc etc. I feel this makes IB an entity in its own right. Looking at Town I can see evidence both for and against describing IB as a town, and am unsure of its current status. I'm pretty sure the parish council don't describe themselves as a town council though which is likely the deciding factor here. However, I know of very few IB residents who feel they live in Thornaby, and as I say, postally Thornaby is not referenced in the address (Unlike Levendale which precedes Yarm I believe). In summary, I feel that unless there is evidence to the contrary (I'm happy to admit it if I'm wrong, I'm very new here!), the reference to Thornaby should be removed and IB described as being withing the borough of Stockton-On-Tees. Thanks for your prompt reply :) Super Ted 12:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Levendale may have less local ammenities, but purely because it is smaller. If Levendale expanded into the fields around it to be the same size as Ingleby Barwick, that would not make it a town in its own right, it would still be a part of Yarm. Yes, IB is a very large estate with many of the features of a small town, but it has never been re-designated as a town.

I know people in IB would not say they live in Thornaby, but that doesn't actually mean anything, but the fact that IB is so big it is well known in its own right. If I said to people I lived in Levendale, they wouldn't have a clue where I lived, because Levendale is so small ;)

I got to go now, so can't type any more now, but may continue this reply later :) -Andrewduffell 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers again for the prompt reply. Glad this isn't descending into an irrational arguement, as I mentioned previously I'm more than happy to be wrong, just want the article to be accurate :) In terms of the Levendale comparison, I don't think it has its own Parish Council so I wouldn't expect that to have town/independant entity status. As well as this, Levendale is surrounded by other areas of Yarm unless I'm mistaken. Whereas IB has the River/Yarm on one side and Thornaby on the other. This lack of containment so to speak would lead me to the conclusion that IB is not 'within' Thornaby. Have you got any links to references to confirm IB is within Thornaby? Thanks for your input so far, very useful! Super Ted 23:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Civil/Ecclesiastical Parishes have nothing to do with whether it is a town. I'm no expert on them, but as far as I know they are just a means of splitting up a large area into a small one, e.g Middlesbrough won't all be one parish as far as I know because it is too big.

Levendale has the rest of Yarm to the west of it, and Ingleby Barwick to the east of it (bordered by Leven) Eaglescliffe is to the north (bordered by Tees). Levendale is on the edge of Yarm, just as Ingleby Barwick is on the edge of Thornaby.

With regards to references, there is this map -->[1] -Andrewduffell 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to agree on this Andrew lol. Still, the world would be a boring place if we were all of the same opinion! Looking at the evidence presented, and the current state of affairs to me it seems it is definately a very grey area as to the exact status of IB. I still feel that IB is an entity in its own right due to its size and independant nature compared to Thornaby. However in the interests of fairness and that your views are entirely valid I'd like to propose a compromise. Would it be acceptable to you if I edit the first line to read: "Ingleby Barwick is a large housing estate on the outskirts of a town called Thornaby-on-Tees, within the borough of Stockton-on-Tees and ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England." That to me represents the state of affairs at the moment, if you disagree feel free to respond appropriately. Thanks again. Super Ted 10:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ingleby Barwick has never been declared by any act of government as an independent entity from Thornaby. Many people would like to disaccociate Ingleby Barwick from Thornaby due to the fact that they don't want to be accociated with some of the poorer parts of the town. Whilst I understand this, I do not think we should be diverging from the facts in an encyclopaedic article. The current wording reflects the current legal status of Ingleby Barwick as a housing estate in Thornaby, and editing it to say "on the outskirts" makes it unclear as to whether it is encapsulated by the the town of Thornaby, or whether it is a sepreate entity such as the village of Maltby.

I will look into writing a paragraph about the limbo that a lot of people see the estate as being in with regards to its relationship with Thornaby. - Andrewduffell 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Andrew, have to disagree with you there. My motives for correcting this article are nothing to do with not wishing IB to be linked with the "poorer parts", far from it. I, like you, also wish the article to be accurate. Stating that it is in Thornaby so to speak also makes the situation unclear as to the reality of IB's status. As I'm sure you are aware, there is a green belt of land (ever decreasing sadly due to development works) between what I consider to be the town of Thornaby and IB. Looking at a precise definition of outskirts http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=outskirts, "The part or region remote from a central district, as of a city or town. Often used in the plural: on the outskirts of Paris." As far as I'm concerned the central district of Thornaby is the areas in and around Mitchell Avenue, Lanehouse Road etc. IB is independant and remote from those areas. Therefore I fail to see how you do not consider it to be on the outskirts of Thornaby? According to the definition of outskirts, this still indicates that IB is in Thornaby but also is more descriptive as to IB's exact status. It is not up to the article to allow for a percieved ambiguity based on a misunderstanding of the word outskirts. Super Ted 11:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is IB a town or estate? Part II

Any further objections before I make the change to outskirts? Andrew, if you still have a problem with this following my explanation above, let me know. Super Ted 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[2] The site now lists classes Ingleby Barwick as a town in its own right. As this is the council's official website I see no reason to doubt the veracity of this claim. Any objctions please discuss. Super Ted 11:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The council has passed no motions to change the status of IB. Please do not change this without referencing official council minutes. This is clearly an error on the website which I will be contacting them about. User:Andrewduffell

Please see WP:Verifiability, in particular:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Under these guidelines I am afraid you were incorrect to revert my edit and I have re-reverted it accordingly. If it turns out that the council have made an error I have no objections to you altering the main page. However, I do not believe they have and as it stands IB is currently classed as a town in its own right according to the council. Also, The Borough of Stockton-on-Tees (Electoral Changes) Order 2003 [3] clearly categorises IB as a seperate parish to Thornaby. Hope this clears things up. Super Ted 16:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

See this article on the coucil website. http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:i6UPt9b5YhQJ:www.stockton.gov.uk/resources/environment/planning/openspace/thorningarea.pdf+"ingleby+barwick+estate"+site:stockton.gov.uk&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1 (Google cache with highlighting). IB is quoted as an estate. This is more reliable as a source because it is an offical document, not just a general promotional page which I doubt can be classed as a reliable source.The fact that IB is a seperate parish is irrelevent. Most large towns have multiple parishes (e.g Stockton and Middlesbrough.). Thornaby is no different.I have not reverted your edit, but unless you come up with something more firm than an error on the council website I will be reverting your edit.As I have said previously. There is an offical legal process that has to take place to change it from an estate to a town in its own right. This has not taken place. Unless you can reference this non-existant documentation of the legal process (which would be available if it has taken place) there is no way that IB is a town because issues discussed previously that show it is an estate in Thornaby still stands. Andrew Duffell 22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I live in Ingleby Barwick (correct pronunciation Barrick) and whatever those idiots at Stockton Borough Council say about it, it is definitely a large housing estate. There is no way this place is a town. Towns have character and uniqueness, maybe a town hall, and many other features that identify them as a town. IB has none of these. To suggest this overgrown estate is a town almost beggars belief. Arcturus 09:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I got an email from the council:

Subject: RE: Error on stockton.gov.uk
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:18:58 +0100
From: "Asquith, Judi" <Judi.Asquith@...>
To: "Andrew Duffell" <andrew@...>

Thanks for that, I'll change the wording

It hasn't changed yet, but I expect it will. Andrew Duffell 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Andrew, looks like I was a tad over zealous in following Wikipedia's 'Be Bold' philosophy! I do however feel that the accusation of vandalism by an anonymous user was entirely unjustified. I assure you that the edit was done with the best of intentions, having seen the data on the council's own website. Perhaps my faith in local government is somewhat misplaced! I am interested as to what effect this article has on IB's status though. [4] Does the fact that IB is a parish independant of Thornaby mean that it is not part of Thornaby as the article currently suggests? Having made one fairly horrendous error this week, figure I had check with someone more knowledgeable than myself on these matters before potentially making another one! Super Ted 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. As far as I know, being a parish seperate from Thornaby isn't really affecting the status of IB. Many large towns are split into seperate civil and church parishes because the size of them makes it unmanagable for them to be in the same parish. In the case of IB, it is the largest privately owned housing estate in Europe, and is very different from the rest of Thornaby, so has many different concerns. This is why they have created it a sepreate civil parish (albeit including Hilton). The seperate church parish was created with the forming of the church in Ingleby Barwick.

Looked at a few websites and it looks like a lot of boundaries across the country were redrawn in 2003. [5] Is a map of the Stockton area and the new boundaries. As far as I can see IB is now seperate from Thornaby. I think this establishes IB's nature as an independent entity or am I mistaken? Super Ted 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That is only ward and civil parish boundaries that have been changed as far as I can see. I note that Egglescliffe isn't showen as seperate from Eaglescliffe on this map, but they are seperate town/village. Parishes and Wards are not directly related to Towns/Villages, although in many cases they are loosely based.

Good point. However, I do feel that the map indicates IB's independence from Thornaby. If it were to be considered part of Thornaby, I would imagine that IB would be in the Thornaby South parish or some other such name. I'm trying not to get confused with IB's status as a town, village, estate etc and its status as an independent entity. To summarise what I mean, I think the first line of this article should read:

Ingleby Barwick (pronounced Barrick as in Berwick) is a large housing estate within the borough of Stockton-on-Tees and ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England.

As far as I can tell, a housing estate is usually part of a town. However its important to remember IB is fairly unique (i.e. size, population, amenities - compared to say Levendale). The map above indicates that there is a distinct boundary between Thornaby and IB, and I can find no modern reference linking the two any longer. Royal mail certainly doesn't see it that way, and neither do numerous online mapping services who all see IB as a seperate entity. I couldn't find one referencing thornaby. I hope this is acceptable to you. Super Ted 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, you are correct, this has dragged on for far too long now. However, the evidence that IB is now an independent housing estate is overwhelming to say the least. Your only evidence thus far that this is not the case is an old map [6] that was produced before IB came into existance. You will note that this is described as a "Boundary Map" on the site concerned.

You will note that these boundaries were changed pursuant to "The Borough of Stockton-on-Tees (Electoral Changes) Order 2003". [7] I suggest you pay particular arrention to section 3.1 - 3. - (1) The existing wards of the borough[7] shall be abolished.

If IB were part of Thornaby as you continue to assert then IB would fall under Wards of the parish of Thornaby, however it does not, it in fact falls under Wards of the parish of Ingleby Barwick.

I note from your replies above that you are under the incorrect impression that a housing state must be within a town. This is not the case. This is shown in the Leigh Park article. I am sure you will appreciate that IB is fairly unique in terms of its size and also in that it is not in direct contact with any town in the vicinity.

You are incorrect, Leigh Park is within Havant, a town district. All Leigh Park addresses have Havant in them.--88.105.96.197 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, in case you need to re-refer to it, there is a graphical representation of IB and Thornaby here: [8]

There is also anecdotal evidence indicating that IB is not part of Thornaby. The new sign at the entrance to the estate (coming from Leven Bank) says "Welcome to Ingleby Barwick - Stockton". It makes no reference to Thornaby. You will also note that the study that you quoted previously [9] clearly refers to Thornaby and Ingleby Barwick - (my emphasis) i.e. 2 seperate entities.

I appreciate that IB is not a town, and am grateful to you for clarifying that for me. However, I hope you now realise this does not mean that IB can not be an independant housing estate.

For further clarification see Town, you will note that Any parish council can decide to describe itself as a Town Council. Not all settlements which are commonly described as towns have a 'Town Council' however. I am not saying IB is a town, however having its own Parish Council as described above does mean it is an independent entity. The status of this entity is a housing estate, not a town, as the parish council have passed no such motion as you correctly described above. I am being careful not to confuse IB's independence (i.e. not part of Thornaby) and the description of it (i.e. estate, town etc.) I hope I have achieved this.

I hope you now see why IB is independent. I am grateful to you for the work you do on a large number of articles concerning areas in the north. By and large you do a fine job of ensuring inaccurate information does not get into the articles. However, in this case you are incorrect in your assertions. If, despite my explanation, you still wish to refute that IB is no longer part of Thornaby, please feel free to do so. We will then have to see where we go from here. I will revert the article to my edit in the near future if I don't hear anything to the contrary. Thanks for all your help. Super Ted 12:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, up til this point I have assumed good faith on your part. However, your accusations of vandalism are both unfounded and hurtful. On 2 occasions I have given you ample opportunity to make your views known before I edit the article, and on 2 occasions you have reverted without further discussion. Wikipedia relies on consensus, and without discussion this can not be achieved. I said at the end of my last comment above that if you still disagreed with the changes I was going to make, to say so and we would work out a course of action. I have quoted a number of sources, including an act which did reassign the boundaries. That is along with all the other evidence I mentioned. I am sure you know everything on wikipedia must be verifiable, verification which I have provided, and as far as I can tell, you haven't. As I was hopefully going to suggest to you before you started an edit war, as opposed to after, I recommend we take this to request for comment. I have now done this, and will await a response from an independent user. I am happy to leave the article in its current state until the situation is resolved. Super Ted 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have left the article for a long while now Andrew and unfortunately we appear to have recieved no further comment. I used the Leigh Park article as a reference as it stood at the time, if the article was incorrect that is fair enough. However, there is no reason a housing estate must be within a town, just as there is no reason a village must be within a town.

This is all by the by however. The discussion here is not whether I can prove IB is not in Thornaby or not (which I feel I have above with the evidence I have quoted.) Rather, if the reference to Thornaby is to remain, it is your responsibilty to cite appropriate sources to support your claim, and not simply call my removal of your unsourced claim vandalism. At present your only evidence is a map that was made before IB even existed. This is not catagorical proof that IB is within Thornaby. Especially considering I have already drawn your attention to a revised version of the map which clearly shows a boundary between IB & Thornaby. I am more than happy to allow the reference to remain if you can find a source to categorically support your claim that IB is within Thornaby. After all, I believe we both have the common aim of keeping this article accurate. Without a reference however, it is entirely correct to remove the claim, as unsourced statements are not permitted on wikipedia. Otherwise, disagreements like this would never be settled if both parties claimed that their version was the truth without appropriate citations. I would really appreciate a reply this time Andrew, as without discussion it is going to be impossible to resolve this in a constructive manner. Super Ted 20:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before. I consider all edits to say IB is not within a town to be vandalism from now onwards, and I expect that they will be reverted by myself, or fellow editors of this article. The hiarachy is: Estates > Towns/Villages/Hamlets/Cities/etc > Boroughs/Counties > Countries > Continents. As I haver pointed out numerous times. A parish is in no way directly linked to a town status. Towns can have seperate parishes for their different estates/areas, and this is quite common.

I will not be commenting again in response to your repeated rambling about parishes changing so IB must be an entity of its own. Good night Andrew Duffell 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you in a number of respects their Andrew. Housing estates are a modern phenomenon, but it is flawed logic to suggest that a hamlet (collection of a few houses) can be an independant entity whereas an estate (1000's of houses) cannot. Most estates are joined to the towns they are part of. IB is not in any way connected to Thornaby. As I have already stated, if you can show me a council/official document of any kind that says IB is part of Thornaby I am willing to reconsider my position on this matter. However, I doubt such a document exists as I have hunted high and low for it. Everything on Wikipedia MUST be verifiable, and as such evidence is required for any claims made in articles by editors. If something is unsourced it is our responsibility to find a source, or remove the offending piece of information. At present this Wikipedia article is the only piece of information I can find that states IB is within Thornaby. That is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's principles of verifiability. Whatever you believe to be true is irrelevant, if you can't source it, you can't put it in the article.

For evidence of this policy, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. In particular, this quote from Jimmy Wales,

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

I also draw your attention to another part of the article which I have already quoted to you on a previous occasion.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

I have removed the reference to Thornaby, but please feel free to reinstate it with appropriate sources that clearly show IB is within Thornaby. Preferably council minutes or another official document, I feel that if you expect such a source of me, it is entirely appropriate for me to expect the same of you. I do not appreciate, and will not be deterred by your threats of referring to my edits as vandalism. I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I will not report you this time as this debate has obviously angered you somewhat and we all make mistakes, however, I ask that you do not do this again. Super Ted 11:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

The article needs splitting into sections under seperate subtitles. Andrewduffell 11:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

I've just deleted a large amount of the problems section so to improve compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate it if someone could readd the information in a more verifiable manner. I spend a long while thinking before removing the information, and felt it best not to leave it in place for the time being as it was damaging to the overall reliability of the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Super Ted (talk • contribs) .

For reference, here is the removed text "Ingleby Barwick faces a number of problems, including traffic congestion at peak times. This traffic may get worse in the next two years, as the extensive housing development approaches completion. + Ingleby Barwick suffers from traffic congestion at peak times. - Many residents complain about the lack of activities available in the area for teenagers and children. This has resulted in gang fights taking place around Tesco in Ingleby Barwick centre on some evenings."-Andrewduffell 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all true, so why not put it back with suitable references, such as links to relevant articles in the Evening Gazette (I think Super Ted just forgot about the four tildes. I sometimes do the same - but not here) Arcturus 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(Yeh, I've missed the tildes too sometimes, but it's easiest just to put the standard template on to make it clear). I agree that it is all true, but was badly worded so to insinuate opinion even though it is fact. If you can find appropriate references then please do put it back in, slightly reworded. I don't think it should just have been removed as it was without discussion first, but now it has been done, we might aswell fix/improve it before we put it back.-Andrewduffell 18:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the signature, must admit I did completely forget to sign that time! Whilst I understand objections to the removal of the text, I feel it is important to pay close attention to the guidance we as editors should follow as reached by prior consensus. I will now detail why I removed each piece of information, and suggest a course of action to remedy the flaws if possible.

On the traffic issue, WP:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball clearly states that:

Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions.

It seemed clear to me that the article presented the information in such a way that it was in clear violation of this guidance. To remedy this I did attempt to seek out any official/acknowledged research into this area, but I was unable to find any. I must admit I am not very experienced in this field, so it is possible that such publications do exist and that I overlooked them. If this is the case, I would appreciate it if the information could be readded with appropriate wording and citations.

On the issue of gang wars in Ingleby Barwick Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words states that:

Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.

Again, I looked for a source for such information which concerned this subject, and again found my search fruitless. I must admit I was unsure of where to start with such a search, as finding a verifiable source for such information is difficult. Again, if someone could remedy this situation I would be most greatful.

Apologies for removing this information without discussion. However, I felt that the article presented almost textbook definitions of how the guidance above could be violated, and as such didn't forsee any objections to its removal. Super Ted 21:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domesday Book 1986

Here is the text from it:

   Ingleby Barwick is a new private      
   residential estate built on the       
   southern perimeter of the old Thornaby
   airfield.It was officially opened in  
   1981 by the mayor of Langbaurgh,a     
   borough of Cleveland County.The estate
   caters for the demand in the home     
   market from the small terrace to the  
   large detatched.Three main contractors
   are involved,each offering their own  
   individuality.The main criticisms from
   the new residents concern amenities,  
   access and communications.There are no
   shops,pubs,school or leisure centre   
   although the estate is now 5 years old
   and reasonably established.Poor bus   
   service,inadeqate road surfaces and a 
   feeling of isolation all combine to   
   give the majority of residents a sense
   of neglect.This would appear to be a  
   common problem_the failure to supply  
   the basic requirements of a community.

-Andrew Duffell 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)