Talk:M67 motorway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

WikiProject UK geography      (Rated Start-Class) 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. WikiProject UK Roads      (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the UK Roads WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's road network. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Greater Manchester      (Rated start-Class) North West England Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Greater Manchester WikiProject.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 NPOV 3 - 4 Routing of the extension to the M1

[edit] NPOV

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but this article doesn't feel entirely neutral to me: notably the mention of "dumping" traffic into Longdendale, use of emotive terms like "tragically" and the last para: "Although the beauty of the Dark Peak area was saved by not completing the motorway, many innocent lives have been lost, in addition to damages to health, time and the environment." I detect a vague pro-motorist bias. Any more experienced Wikipedians care to comment?

Dave I'm not a long-term prisoner either but I tend to agree with your doubts. The tone certainly is NOT neutral.

(The case of the missing M67 has some history I recollect - it was first advocated at a time when the rail line was still very much up and running - a Minister at the time said (IIRC) that anyone who really knew the area would realise that Londendale was well worth sacrificing - this not long after the CEGB had carefully undergrounded the Supergrid line. There was. I recollect, an outcry. The later scheme to use the n#bore of Woodhead 3 for one carriageway seemed deservedly not to get very far (given the very different needs of an electrified line and a string of motorcars & lorries.))Linuxlad 17:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I have to agree with the lack of neutrality. It's more reflective of opinion rather than fact.

[edit] -

i fixed a couple glaring POV's. anyone interested in doing some more work might find http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/67.shtml to be a more useful source of information than the only other source used: pathetic motorways. Stainless steel 02:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Routing of the extension to the M1

This article reads like a definitive route was decided, but then sources the Pathetic Motorways site, which states:

This is a mixture of facts and educated guesses, and attempts to show what might have been. If anyone has any more information, please contact me!

Specifically with regards to the Woodhead tunnels, the article clearly states that one carriageway was to use the tunnels, while the source states that this was extremely unlikely to be viable.Dosxuk (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)