Talk:Rochdale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Quality of photographs

This is just to support the recent ejection of a poor quality photograph. Some old photos may be of interest even if the quality is poor (although perhaps they can be retouched before publication), but there's no reason to include poor photos of existing buildings. If you're not good at photography, leave it to someone else. Otherwise, we have the Wikipedia equivalent of the holiday slides: "And this one is Rochdale Station. You could almost make it out if it weren't for the trees and the cars parked in front". Mike Shepherd 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitution

It's not clear that the reference to prostitution distinguishes the town from any other of similar size and, hence, the value of this section is questionable, since the article is about a specific town, not general urban history.

Other towns (except Bolton) do not have anywhere near as much blatant street work. Nottingham - especially Hyson Green - is famous for it, but on nothing like the scale of Rochdale, for a city at least three times the size of Rochdale.

While "Pickup Street" is certainly in a prostitute "pick up" area, the reference and photograph appear to add little but second-rate humour. Mike Shepherd 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, seems this one guy has an unhealthy fascination with editing about prostitution around Rochdale. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
Third rate if you don't mind. What is the true origin of Pickup, assuming it did not always mean women pushed onto the streets with heroin in order to provide a facade of work for far more than averagely useless Social Workers?
The Prostitution in the UK article suggests finding "business" from the many cards left in London's public telephone booths, with a photograph to demonstrate. Why not tell them to fly into Ringway, get a Rail Ranger and visit Rochdale - it's cheaper, so we'll get more customers and more Euro in Rochdale - and it may even stop the young darlings hurling mindless abuse at me.

205.212.72.116 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What has that got to do with this article exactly? And for that matter, Wikipedia? You want your local council website if you want to complain. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
Creates an accurate description of Rochdale that is also useful, if you like taking advantage of young women pushed into heroin addiction and prostitution by Social Workers with nothing better to do.
Do you have evidence and citations for this? If you do, by all means add a sentence or two about it. Don't make whole sections though, without talking about other topics. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 15:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

I'm surprised to find this topic on Wikipedia! I have sometimes donated to and worked with anti-prostitution charities, and I can't say that I've ever heard Rochdale mentioned as a particular hotbed. It generally happens in large places; Doncaster is the only one that seems to have a problem well beyond its size. I think that some decent references would be needed for such a change. You shouldn't post such things up without thinking about the consequences. Epa101 13:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Visit Rochdale and see for yourself. Yesterday, walking home, heard woman say to man, "sex is twenty." You may not have heard about it. Have you heard of Hyson Green?

I can visit it any time that I want; I don't live that far away. Still, I think that you should travel elsewhere, perhaps to Doncaster. Rochdale does not seem to have any particular problem with it. I'd say that Wakefield was probably worse as well, but still not as bas Doncaster. You need strong evidence for this. Just saying "I went there and saw prostitutes" is not enough. Anyway can say that. I could just go on the York page now and say that. Without evidence, it means nothing. Epa101 01:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. with your last question, I have heard of Nottingham's problems, and spoken to their Prostitute Outreach Workers group before in a failed effort to get them to do a talk at a law college. Nottingham does have a very big problem with it, from what I've heard and read.
All of that doesn't matter - it's either here nor there are far of Wikipedia is concerned. It's like if I wanted to put sections about underage drinking on this page, just because I personally suspect Rochdale has a high rate of it because I see kids drinking on streets. While it may be the case, unless you have references, don't add it. Can we please stop discussing this now, we are wasting time and energy. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Rochdale Town Hall"

This Hitler wanted Rochdale Town Hall's windows is degrading. Aside from all the logic, AH would have had to say don't bomb Manchester at night, but the German did. See numerous good Wikipedia articles on the capabilities of German bombers in 1940/1 (better than the Allies at the time).

Notice this rumour has even been removed from Rochdale Council's own web site, not an organisation noted for anything worthwhile.

[edit] Etymology

Isn't it obvious that Rochdale derives from the element Roch plus a Germanic/Anglo-Saxon element dale (probably OE dal) rather than OE ham? Wathiik 14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... in short... Yes! However, there is some kind of history with "Recedham" I've heard of... To elaborate a little more about Etymology- such statements should really be referenced. This can be done provisionally using a source that you may find on a simple Google search about Rochdale's origins, although ideally, a local history book whould provide a proper verification. I'd look at local-town articles Shaw and Crompton, and particularly Oldham as good examples of this.
On the subject of such local towns... in the spirit of healthy competition, I think it is safe to say that these articles of Oldham and Shaw and Crompton are considerabley more comprehensive than that of Rochdale. I think it would be great if an editor from the Rochdale area could use these local towns as examples to which to work towards, if not surpass, in terms of encyclopedic content. It certainly wouldn't be a bad thing!
Hope that helps a little! Jhamez84 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The Domesday book records Rochdale as Recedham, but this seems to have been changed over the years from ham to dale. Interestingly, the river name Roch is regarded by some as a back formation. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 10:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Pronunciation

I'm curious to know how people might think Rochdale is pronounced other than how it is. Rosh-dale or Rokh-dale maybe?? Is there really any need to give the IPA pronunciation in the first line (or at all)? --Blisco 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

They may pronounce it "Roach-dale", like the river it lies on. The IPA is just to help folk, and WP guides people no to delete info from articles (unless spurious). -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC).
Ah, OK, I didn't know about the different pronunciation of the river. (Interesting that it's the other way round, in terms of vowel length, from Cambridge and the River Cam!) I'd counter your second point with Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but it seems justified here. Perhaps it would be better to mention the difference in the body of the article, rather than just give the bare IPA in the first line, to give the information some context? --Blisco 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The IPA format given is similar to many other articles with ambiguous pronunciation. See Leicester, Gloucester, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and foreign cities ie Barcelona. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 19:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC).
The difference being that Leicester, Gloucester and Berwick are pronounced differently to how one would expect according to the usual conventions of English spelling, whereas Rochdale is pronounced as spelt. I'm not saying the information shouldn't be included, but it looks odd to have a seemingly obvious pronunciation in the first line when the vast majority of geographical articles don't. More importantly, to the vast majority of readers who don't understand IPA it suggests that there's something funny about the pronunciation, when in fact the opposite is true. --Blisco 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the pronunciation to the etymology section, and hope it's acceptable to all. I'm well aware that the IPA I've given for the River Roch doesn't reflect how the majority of Rochdale folk pronounce it, but I think it's standard practice to give RP in cases like this. --Blisco 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rochdale Principles

I would like to add information in the header section of the page (above the table of contents) linking to the Rochdale Principles page. I believe this is justified because "Rochdale" is a likely search term for Rochdale Principles, and the rochdale disambiguation page lists rochdale principles second from last. For the last paragraph in that section, how about-

"Rochdale is perhaps best known for being credited as the birthplace of the Co-operative Movement.[1] The Rochdale Principles, a set of ideals for the operation of cooperatives, take its name."

Or, perhaps:

"Rochdale is perhaps best known for being credited as the birthplace of the Co-operative Movement.[2] It lends its name to a set of principles for the operation of cooperatives."

Thoughts? I'm new, so if this doesn't make sense I would appreciate being pointed to a relevant WP page. --LesAziez 00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was me who inserted the lead as it currently exists. I wrote it quickly, hoping someone with greater local knowledge could improve upon it. This seems to now be the case! I personally like your first example, seems like a great improvement. Jhamez84 03:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Byron

Lord Byron, the famous Romantic poet, is mentioned as a notable resident. However, it seems to me that while he was connected with Rochdale through his inherited title, he is not mentioned in the Byron article as having lived in Rochdale - at least for any considerable amount of time. For this reason I disambiguated it to the wider title holder. Since he didn't live there notably, should he really be under notable residents? M A Mason 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demography

90% white, 10% asian? try 40% asian and you'd be a bit nearer the mark. at least half the people living in rochdale are of pakistani/bengali decent. bearing in mind we're talking about the town of rochdale and not the borough as a whole. i suspect the (uncited) claim is from a borough wide census

It's true the 90% figure is from a borough wide census, but I doubt it's as high as 40% because Rochdale is by far the biggest settlement in the borough and 40% of Rochdale's population would be more than 10% of the borough population (assuming all other towns were 100% white, which they aren't). I agree, it's probably higher than 10% though, probably around 15%-20%. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
Statistics are hard to get at a sub-borough level, other than from electoral wards used in the 2001 census. That said however, Oldham's Demography section tackles this problem well. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don Estelle was born in Crumpsall

Can someone tell me where the idea came from that Don Estelle was born in Rochdale? He certainly died in Rochdale infirmary and was buried in the town but most souces I've found on the web (from mainstream newspapers) say he was born in either Manchester or more specifically, Crumpsall. A friend of mine knew him well as a child and says he lived on Fountain Street, Crumpsall both before and after he was evacuated to Darwen. Does he have any connection with Rochdale at all, other than the fact that he died and was buried there? One webpage I found from the BBC says he was buried in his "home town" of Rochdale but then goes on to say that he was born in Manchester, so could this be where the confusion has crept in? Did he perhaps live in Rochdale in later life - or maybe he had relatives there? If there is no evidence to support the assertion that he was born in Rochdale the category for the "Don Estelle" article needs to be changed and the reference to him under "Notable people" removed from this article. Richerman 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Don Estelle lived in Rochdale for most of his life, in fact in one of the "Seven Sisters" tower flats in central Rochdale. Read "Alzheimer's Challenged & Conquered" by Louis Blank for a reference. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

Ok, I'll have a look for the book when I get the chance. However, it says in the article he was either born or bred in Rochdale. He lived in Crumpsall until at least his early twenties so I would say he was born and bred in Crumpsall (and Darwen) and lived in Rochdale later. Can you remember if it said when he moved to Rochdale? Richerman 12:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to Don Estelle to make it clear he wasn't born or brought up in Rochdale. Richerman 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead photograph and other issues

Hello Rochdale editors and watchers,

Having aided in developing articles on nearby places to featured article status, I have come to Rochdale (the article) and have been shocked on the low quality of the prose and images (sorry!). For such a major and prominent town I expected more! Oldham, Shaw and Crompton, Stretford, Manchester have all flown ahead in terms of quality set out at WP:UKCITIES.

Anyway, that said, I'll try to help improve the article, but it desperately needs some better images, particularly a high quality one for the infobox like that found in the aformentioned articles. I approached a photographer to obtain this photo, but sadly the owner declined to grant its use on Wikipedia.

Are their any budding photographers that could provide something suitable? A stunning shot of Rochdale could be taken from the appropriately named Fairview on the border between Rochdale and High Crompton... just an idea. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New media section

Jza24 - Media ownership is a vitally important part of any town's history and its present and I know a little about the subject and hence my contribution. MSJ1958 (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, but your contribution isn't supported by a clear and reliable source for others to verify. Wikipedia don't allow work from people who "know a little about the subject" - it has strict guidelines on what is, and isn't allowed. Also, I suspect you have a conflict of interest. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Further to that, I've left a note on your talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was being modest, I know a lot about the subject, and I have left a note on your talk page. As for a clear and reliable source, how much clearer and more reliable do you need than links to the websites of the two media organisations?

I note from reading your page that you have a long history of conflict due to your habit of unilaterally taking editorial decisions. I don't seek conflict, I have better things to do with my time, however, I dislike bullies and hence I shall continue to resist any attempt by you to enforce your will upon me and the many people who are interested in reading about Rochdale on the Rochdale Wikipedia page. MSJ1958 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's go through this one step at a time. You're clearly new to Wikipedia, and thus you're perhaps not understanding how Wikipedia works and functions. My problem:
  • Layout: There are project guidelines at WP:UKCITIES that outline when and where Media sections should be introduced. Your change (because you are a journalist who owns a media firms), gives Rochdaleonline greater coverage than Governance, Geography, Demography, Economy and other key elements of what Rochdale is about. Remember, the page is about Rochdale, not RochdaleOnline. Can you imagine other encyclopedia's giving your firm preference in such a way??
  • Referencing: Your changes aren't supported by any clear, reliable sources. Wikipedia is built on consensus editting by volunteers who must be able to verify every statement entered here exists in a reliable, neutral source. Your changes just give "Rochdaleonline" as the source; well, which page/edition/volume/author/date? Accoring to a google search, there's nothing on Rochdaleonline about what you've added.
  • Conflict of interest: Wikipedia is an open website, which has its plus and down sides. It can be used to spread knowledge about a place or event and be used as a legitimate free educational tool. My concern is that you're using Wikipedia to promote a website you own by taking advantage of Wikipedia's open system. Wikipedia is not a directory of links, nor a free advertising space.
  • Population:, a small point, but Rochdale has a population of around 90k. The wider metropolitan borough has a population of 200k+. Please be mindful of that distinction.
  • Bullying: Implying I'm a bully is precluded in our principle of civility at all times. We're usually all here for one goal - the writing of a great encyclopedia. I object to your changes, but that's not a green light to get personal.
This all said, I'm going to request that our local WikiProject (or team of editors) take a look at what's been said and to pass comment. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  10:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe User:MSJ1958's additions to be in full breach of WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM and his tone is breaching WP:CIVIL. Rochdale is just a town and the local newspaper, which is poor by the way, barely warrants inclusion let alone a whole section dedicated to it. As for your blatant promotion of your website Rochdale Online, which is a commercial site, Wikipedia should not be used as a means of redirecting traffic to your own site for financial gain. I fully support User:Jza84's removal of this spam disguised as prose. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jza84 and Joshii. Reliable sources are not provided therefore it's fair to remove the content. That's without even taking into account that the site and media section was given undue weight, and I'm not sure if it's really notable enough to be included. As a compromise, perhaps if a reliable source could be provided asserting notability, a sentence could be added to the 'public services' section?
As for Jza84's actions, I hardly think he's been acting unilaterally. WP:CITE states "any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor". Nev1 (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with Jza84, Joshii, and Nev1 here. Additionally, the two sources apparently given in the disputed section to verify the information do no such thing: instead they are merely links to the two home pages which contain nothing which backs up the numerous facts contained within the sections that they purportedly verify. The removed sections are disproportionate given the subject matter. Jza84's actions were completely understandable and justified here, though the comments made at 04:02 on 5 May 2008 by MSJ1958 were, I consider, uncalled for and unfair.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"OK, let's go through this one step at a time. You're clearly new to Wikipedia, and thus you're perhaps not understanding how Wikipedia works and functions."

I do not need patronising thank you.

"Layout: There are project guidelines at WP:UKCITIES that outline when and where Media sections should be introduced. Your change (because you are a journalist who owns a media firms), gives Rochdaleonline greater coverage than Governance, Geography, Demography, Economy and other key elements of what Rochdale is about. Remember, the page is about Rochdale, not RochdaleOnline. Can you imagine other encyclopedia's giving your firm preference in such a way?"

I have shortened the inclusions so as not to give to great a prominence and media is one of the optional headings in the Wikipedia guidelines. I have included both the major media organisations in town, the fact that I own one of them is completely irrelevant and should be put to one side. Had I the motive you clearly suspect I could quite easily have hidden my identity, I did not. I also would not have researched and written about the Rochdale Observer. This should allay any fears you have about my motives. I was born in Rochdale, I live in Rochdale, I own a media company in Rochdale and I am also a director of the Town Centre Mangament Company. My heart is in the town and my intent is to record matters of significance.

"Referencing: Your changes aren't supported by any clear, reliable sources. Wikipedia is built on consensus editting by volunteers who must be able to verify every statement entered here exists in a reliable, neutral source. Your changes just give "Rochdaleonline" as the source; well, which page/edition/volume/author/date? Accoring to a google search, there's nothing on Rochdaleonline about what you've added."

I have now proivded links to the specific pages of the source material on each of the two sites. Regarding Rochdale Online, self promotion is something we do not major on and hence if you check the page you will note a 'no index' meta tag and hence why you will not find the page in Google. It is for the very reason that I am not seeking to promote the site that I did not initially link to this specific page. I accept this is what you want and hence have now done so.

"Conflict of interest: Wikipedia is an open website, which has its plus and down sides. It can be used to spread knowledge about a place or event and be used as a legitimate free educational tool. My concern is that you're using Wikipedia to promote a website you own by taking advantage of Wikipedia's open system. Wikipedia is not a directory of links, nor a free advertising space."

I am not using Wikipedia to promote a web site, I am contributing matters of signifiance to the town. As Wikipeida is not crawled by search engines there is no advantage to having a link form the site. Moreover, at over 72,000 pages and 2.5 million page views per month, Rochdale Online is not in need of promotion or site traffic.

"Population:, a small point, but Rochdale has a population of around 90k. The wider metropolitan borough has a population of 200k+. Please be mindful of that distinction."

Rochdale as a town ceased to exist when the Metropolitan Borough was created and hence it is more accurate to give the opoulation figures for the borough as a whole as the vast majority of statistics produced for Rochdale refer to the Borough of Rochdale.

"Bullying: Implying I'm a bully is precluded in our principle of civility at all times. We're usually all here for one goal - the writing of a great encyclopedia. I object to your changes, but that's not a green light to get personal."

I read your history and I was not implying you are a bully I was stating what was clear to me. If you disagree with someone you edit their contribution first rather than seeking to engage in discussion. Such unilateral action is the action of a bully and IS uncivil.

I note now that my changes are being removed by Joshii. I shall not be brow beaten by him either, I am a community minded man who seeks the best for Rochdale - perhaps you have not noted the 500+ community and voluntary organisations who are provided with a free web presnece by Rochdale Online? I include that purely to counter you erreneous allegations that I have a commercial motive, I do not.

Regarding external links. The link to Rochdale Online in this section has been there for many years. The Rochdale Observer site gives little useful information in comparison to the Rochdale Online site and in removing the Rochdale Online link and retaining the Rochdale Observer those doing the editing impoverish the quality of local information referenced on the page and show thier own motivations to be the ones that are less than honourable.

I shall not edit again at the moment as I have no desire to be blocked of multiple edits in 24 hours, but please do rest assured I will not be bullied. The information I am providing is legitimate and hence I shall ensure it is put back.

Now if you are Joshi would care to be civil then you would cease to remove the shortened notes and the link and accept you are wrong about my motivation and welcome the interest I have in the town and the town's page on Wikipedia. Over to you, do we continue this silly waste of valuable time or do you accpet a compromise? MSJ1958 (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure your intentions are good but myself and Jza84 are just following the guidelines set out by the community of millions of wikipedians. Per your comment "Rochdale as a town ceased to exist when the Metropolitan Borough was created and hence it is more accurate to give the opoulation figures for the borough as a whole as the vast majority of statistics produced for Rochdale refer to the Borough of Rochdale." We do research here on Wikipedia and I can assure you that Rochdale still exists as a town as do the other towns within the borough e.g. Milnrow. Just because you often see the borough population published online does not mean we should put it on this article, we go off the facts from the Office for National Statistics not people's local opinions. You really should read WP:EL and you will see that the rules encourage external links to be kept to a bare minimum and avoid sites which are run for commercial gain (i.e. sites with adverts). We are not trying to bully you, we are just sticking to the guidelines which are there to ensure each article has a neutral point of view and is not just trying to promote an area or product. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I have read the guidelines Joshi and I am within them and have tried to compromise to satisfy the subjective opinions of Jza84 and you but you refuse to accept any such compromise, that to me is unreasonable.

With regards to your point on Rochdale as a town, you betray a lack of local knowledge, Milnrow is not a town it is a district of Rochdale. Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton make up the Borough of Rochdale.

Regarding external links, explian why you retain the link to the Rochdale Observer website which is completely commercial and yet you remove the link to the Rochdale Online web site, which whilst partly commercial also has significant non commercial sections that are run by a not for profit community interest company set up to ensure the sites original ideals are always retained? MSJ1958 (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Rochdale Observer is owned by the Guardian Media Group, a very respectable national company. No offence but I don't know of anybody who has even heard of your website which you want to plug. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Rochdale Online is co-owned by Hirst Kidd & Rennie, a 155 year old media company who own the Oldham Chronicle and FM Revolution Radio. Rochdale Online may only be ten years old but now has more readers than the Rochdale Observer. And I do not want to "plug" anything.
I note also you firstly say: "you will see that the rules encourage external links to be kept to a bare minimum and avoid sites which are run for commercial gain" and then when I point out that you have not removed the Rochdale Observer information (which I contributed by the way) you then say: "The Rochdale Observer is owned by the Guardian Media Group, a very respectable national company." So if you consider a company to be "respectable" that means that the bar on links to commercial sites does not apply does it? You are clearly being inconistent. MSJ1958 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed all commercial links from the external links now as a comprimise but the Observer site would be more likely to hold up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please stop adding your promotional section called "Media" to the article as it is not helpful. A consensus needs to be reached on if we really want this advert on the article or not. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 03:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added material to the War Memorial and Parish Church sections and that material is also getting removed. It is cited from reputable sources. It is quite clear that your problem and that of Malleus is personal and nothing to do with the material. Moreover, your leading language, that is the deliberate use of the term "advert", is prejudicial, and shows you to be part of a kangaroo court rather than anything based on justice. I have made it very clear I am not advertising, it is not my intent, it serves no purpose, I have no need. MSJ1958 (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)