Talk:Yorkshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
To-do list for Yorkshire: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Trim "See also": Could any of these go in the Template:Yorkshire footer?
  2. Copyedit: could some of the sections with daughter articles be more succinct?
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Constructive discussions needed

A constructive discussion about the changes needed to bring this article up to GA quality is needed, please. Rather than reverts and terse edit summaries. Thanks--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Transport section is a bit thin on rail - no mention of Settle-Carlisle, Midland Mainline, suburban networks. And Sheffield trams. And various other lines listed at List_of_railway_lines_in_Great_Britain#Northern_England PamD (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The referencing and inline citations are exemplary thanks to conscientious editing.Whilst appreciating that this article has adopted summary style, I think it still has issues of breadth and balance. The History and Culture sections still seem to dominate the article: with the balance within those sections also needing addressing (e.g. theatre and classical music are not mentioned). These are a requirement of GA status as are the WP:STYLE guidelines.The text needs editing for WP:PEACOCK and WP:WTAas well as WP:NPOV. There are a lot of superlatives which come over as "in your face" and though they may be true (and verified by citations) it is often wise to understate. "Less is more" comes to mind.

Another issue is anachronism:

  • Does Yorkshire exist? if so, where exactly?

If not

  • When did it start and end and where was it?


This debate has been shelved yet needs to be addressed if the article is to be taken seriously.

I would really appreciate a calm, reasoned and constructive debate to further the progress of the article.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring any legal status, it exists in a lot of peoples minds. In addition non-governmental organisations still use the term, e.g. the Yorkshire Ambulance Service, and the Yorkshire Dales national park, I would agree to putting some thing about an end to official status but as a concept of an area, and culturally it it still live and kicking and that it continues in that capacity should also be covered. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Would this be an acceptable replacement for the first paragraph of the lead section?:

Situated in Northern England,Yorkshire was the largest historic county in Great Britain. The administrative county ceased to exist in 1889 when its functions were distributed to the Ridings and County Boroughs, yet Yorkshire has continued to be widely accepted as a cultural region.[1] The name is included in the titles of many organisations, products and sub-divisions and the English region of [[Yorkshire and the Humber]]

Referenced to

  1. ^ Allen, Liam (2006-08-01). What's so special about Yorkshire?. BBC. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.

This is an attempt to make clearer the subject of the article.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need scare quotes around Yorkshire. Administrative counties only started in 1889 so that bit will have to change. Officially there was a statutory county of Yorkshire right up until 1974, although the ridings and CBs were already used for most purposes from 1889. MRSC • Talk 05:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The scare quotes were accidental, they appeared when I italicized the text, sorry. Would this, then, be more acceptable, please?:

Situated in Northern England,Yorkshire was the largest historic county in Great Britain. The statutory county ceased to exist in 1974, although the ridings and County Boroughs were already used for most purposes from 1889, yet Yorkshire has continued to be widely accepted as a cultural region.[1] The name is included in the titles of many organisations, products and sub-divisions and the English region of Yorkshire and the Humber--Harkey Lodger (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We should remember that we are aiming at an international readership, who don't know what a "riding" is (including much of the UK readership). We can't use "ridings" in the lead sentence without explanation. Perhaps "the ridings (three traditional divisions: the North, West and East Ridings) and County Boroughs". Or just link as "the ridings".
Oops Thanks for reminding me. Done.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Was the largest historic sounds clumsy, how about was historically the largest, as at one time is wasn't a 'historic' county. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I was copying the wording of the present lead section which links historic county to Historic counties of England.Do we need to maintain the link and just alter the wording?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems sensible - just link "county" to Historic counties of England. PamD (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what was wrong with the old version of the intro? As the article is now, it seems to have turned a historic county into just a word that happens to be on products, etc. Civil administration is a different issue than whether a region "exists" or not, of course it exists because the monarchy (the only people with the power) have never disbanded them.
This is the official government statement of 1974; "The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change, despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties."[1] Its simply unacceptable to turn Yorkshire into a "non entity", when the government, nor the monarchy has ever said that. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) The issue is not whether Yorkshire exists, but what it exists as. It is no longer a unit of civil administration but a cultural area, with a proud history as a county, to which many people feel a great loyalty and sense of belonging. This needs to be made clear.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article Historic counties of England from which this is a quote

The Association of British Counties, and their regional affiliates, such as the Friends of Real Lancashire and the Yorkshire Ridings Society,[2][3] are pressure groups who assert that, on the basis that they were not formally abolished, the counties continue to exist with their ancient boundaries. They seek to promote greater public awareness of what they term 'traditional counties' and broadly wish to see counties realigned to the historic boundaries.

and

Editors must be mindful of fostering and/or introducing anachronism into former county articles. Use language that asserts past tense Wikipedia:PLACE We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. Continued use of the name of the county can be explained in the "Legacy" section.

from Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be used as a source for Wikipedia. An official quote from the government on the status of counties in the country which they rule, can be though.[2] You forgot to address the issue at hand, in regards to the government's comment, and the fact that a current until of administration is different to a historic region and that the monarchy has not dissolved Yorkshire. Yorkshire as a "historic county" is backed up by vertification, so is it not being a current title of administration. The "Yorkshire doesn't exist at all, it just happens to be the name used in a tea brand now" sentence you have stated isn't vertified, or vertifiable. Its just a personal POV. Please WP:CITE such claims. Cheers.
PS - one more thing, you referenced a Wikipedia project guideline, the opinion of Jza84. This is not a policy, or a general Wikipedia guideline either. Just a POV opinion of an editor, which is not backed up by law and comments made by the government of the United Kingdom. Attempting to suggest, the assertion of Yorkshire existing at all is "anachronism" is nothing short of ludacris - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Please can you point to where anyone made this statement -- The "Yorkshire doesn't exist at all, it just happens to be the name used in a tea brand now" sentence you have stated isn't vertified, or vertifiable. You have made an unverifiable accusation in my opinion.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
A Wikipedia guideline was quoted, not referenced. I asked questions to open a discussion, I did not express an opinion so NPOV is not an issue.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead MK III (and a bit)

Yorkshire is the area of Northern England which was historically the largest county of Great Britain. The statutory county ceased to exist in 1974, although the ridings and County Boroughs had already been used for most administrative purposes from 1889, yet Yorkshire has continued to be widely accepted as a cultural region.[4] The name is included in the titles of many organisations, products and sub-divisions and the English region of Yorkshire and the Humber--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this OK? --Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Could we lead with the article name, by rephrasing it as:
"Yorkshire is an area of Northern England and was historically the largest county in [or perhaps "of?"] Great Britain."?
I think "area" is innoccuous and should upset no-one... but that may be over-optimistic! Or would some people argue that Yorkshire no longer "is" anything? Hmmm. Most WP articles manage to have the article name as the first word(s) of the lead, and it makes a simpler sentence.
Another possibility:
"Yorkshire was historically the largest county in [or perhaps "of?"] Great Britain, situated in Northern England."
And I think we need to link County boroughs, as well as ridings. PamD (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Apart from the lead: the Culture section doesn't mention theatre. Northern Broadsides, Hull truck company, West Yorkshire Playhouse, Stephen Joseph Theatre/Alan Ayckbourn, ... . And the "literature" section needs copyediting. I'm not sure about Dracula having pole position, surely the Brontës are what comes first to mind? Alan Bennett, Tony Harrison, Barbara Taylor Bradford might all be worth a mention. PamD (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Looks good to me, next paragraph? ;D --Nate1481(t/c) 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Throughout much of history, Yorkshire has played a prominent role in Great Britain. The Brigantes, who were the largest Celtic Briton tribe held it as their heartland. The Romans made York (from which the county derives its name) one of the two capitals of all Roman Britain.[5] The area was an independent Viking kingdom known as Jórvík for around a century, before being taken by England. Most of the modern day large cities were founded during the Norman period.[6]

The first sentence is a bit ugly, to me. Then, York was the capital of Britannia Inferior. And the wording for around a century, before being taken by England. needs attention--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Throughout recorded history, the area has played a prominent role in Britain. The Brigantes, who were the largest Celtic British tribe held it as their heartland. The Romans made York (from which the county derives its name) the administrative centre of Britannia Inferior, one of the two provinces of Roman Britain.[7] It was an independent Viking kingdom known as Jórvík for about a century, before being annexed by England. Most of the present day large cities were founded during the Norman period.[6]

Is this acceptable as the revised text of paragraph II, please? --Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with it, except say join the last two sentences for better flow, but that's an option. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

I think there is some confusion about which of the following definitions of culture to use. The culture section starts as though it refers to definition 5 below then goes on to refer to present day matters as per definition 2.

Please can we decide which is appropriate for the article,or at least flag up which definition is being used.


cul·ture /ˈkʌltʃər/ [kuhl-cher] noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing. –noun


1. the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.

2. that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.

3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.

4. development or improvement of the mind by education or training.

5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.

6. Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.

culture. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved May 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Different ones are needed at different times, for the most but i'd say 3 but that over laps with 5 and any article covering a place may need to use 6.--Nate1481(t/c) 12:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Culture seems to follow two streams, one that could be termed traditional culture and another current culture. Are these better tackled a two separate sections (or as separate chronologically arranged paragraphs within each sub section )?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Does Wilfred Pickles get a look in? Iconic in the days of steam radio.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wars of the Roses

Please can this be made clear:

They (the Wars of the Roses) were never territorial confrontations between Lancashire and Yorkshire, rather clashes between two warring branches of the same royal house of Plantagenet, i.e. the Houses of York and Lancaster. Many Yorkshiremen, in fact, fought for the House of Lancaster, principally because they had little choice as their feudal overlords with vast estates in Yorkshire were on the Lancastrian side. Prominent among these were the Cliffords of Skipton Castle.

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I added note to the section on the Wars of the Roses to clarify this issue.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
ALISON Weir says in her book "Lancaster & York: The Wars of the Roses" of the supposed incident(portrayed by Shakespeare) in Temple Gardens: "Sadly, there is no truth in the legend. York was in the north in May 1455 when the incident is said to have taken place, and there is no evidence that the red rose was used as a badge by the House of Lancaster at this date. Nevertheless, red and white roses have been grown in the Temple Gardens since the sixteenth century to commemorate the event".

"The white rose was certainly one of the badges of the House of York, although York's personal badge was the falcon and fetterlock. Many modern historians claim that the Lancastrian red rose symbol was invented as propaganda by the first Tudor king, Henry VII."


She goes on to write about the great pageant at York in 1486 at which Henry ordered the creation of the Tudor rose, symbolising the unity of the two houses (he having just married Elizabeth of York). However, Weir adds:"There is evidence, though, that the red rose symbol dates from at least as early as the reign of Edward IV, for a Yorkist genealogy drawn up during this time, and now in the British Library, shows a bush bearing both red and white roses. It should be borne in mind that the rose badges were just two of a number of badges used by members of the houses of Lancaster and York."


--Harkey Lodger (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote and reference

The leading families in the East and West Ridings supported the House of Lancaster overwhelmingly, but in the North Riding loyalty was divided. The Nevilles of Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, the Scropes of Bolton, the Latimers of Danby and Snape, and the Mowbrays of Thirsk and Burton in Lonsdale supported the House of York. The Nevilles’ great rivals, the Percies, together with the Cliffords of Skipton, Ros of Helmsley, Greystock of Hinderskelfe, Stafford of Holderness and Talbot of Sheffield fought for the Lancastrians.

Page 180

David Hey. A History of Yorkshire. Carnegie Publishing. Lancaster. (2005) ISBN 1859361226

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shire

In reply to User:Yorkshirian @ 05:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)above

A Shire is and always has been an administrative division. Are we agreed that Yorkshire is no longer an administrative division?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

This article is experiencing issues related to WP:NPOV, WP:WTA, WP:AWW, WP:PEACOCK, WP:OWN and WP:MOS which I have tried to address, only to have edits nullified. Please can we discuss issues to reach consensus?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also tried to make changes and have been instantly reverted. It is an unfortunate situation. MRSC • Talk 09:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed some unsourced POV stuff with this diff. I'm sure you agree this is permissable. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction (again)

This edit/revert introduces a number of errors, inaccuracies or poor prose, which I would like to expand upon for discussion here.

  1. removal of "Because of its great size, county functions have traditionally been undertaken by its subdivisions" - I think this is important to add. The size of Yorkshire is part of the reason its administrative history has been more complex than some average size counties. It is factual that the ridings formed the basis of local administration (Quarter Sessions) for a very long time before 1889 and this 'tradition' has more or less translated into later reforms.
  2. removal of which have been subject to periodic reform. - this is an important fact and a link here means we do not have offer much more in the way of explanation in the introduction.
  3. addition of it is recognised by the government as a historic county - the government has made no such statement, at most recognising 'loyalties'
  4. changing featuring in the title of current areas of civil administration such as Yorkshire and the Humber. to featuring in the title of current areas of government office such as Yorkshire and the Humber. - West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire are not current areas of government office which is what the text alludes to with the "such as". If we use 'current areas of civil administration' we are referring to regional and upper tier divisions.

I hope this makes clear the reasons why the wholesale reversal of this change was inappropriate. MRSC • Talk 10:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

By claiming in the intro "because of its great size, county functions have traditionally been undertaken by its subdivisions", you are inserting incorrect information, which is not backed up by any sources. Yorkshire did not begin in the 1800s, only in relitively recent times has Yorkshire's county functions been undertaken by its subdivisions, "traditionally" that isn't the case. From at least 1069 until the 1800s, the High Sheriff of Yorkshire goverened law over the entire region. That is "traditional". Or how about the Yorkshire (UK Parliament constituency), which existed from 1290 until 1832. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you have been drawn into discussion. Perhaps the wording "because of its great size, many functions have traditionally been undertaken by its subdivisions" would work. There is no attempt to deny the existence or function of Yorkshire past or present, but we have to also acknowledge the significance of the ridings throughout history. As a final thought, if there is issue with one element of an edit that made several changes, it is bad for the encyclopedia if all those changes are reverted. MRSC • Talk 12:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning of scale being a factor in Yorkshire having ridings is important. The ridings are ancient, not recent; although their increased use in administration is now made clear. Is this untrue? MRSC • Talk 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Though the ridings are ancient, they were not represented in the government through much of the history of Yorkshire. As from 1290 until the 1832, Yorkshire was represented on a county basis by the Yorkshire (UK Parliament constituency), also with a High Sheriff of Yorkshire and Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire. It is essential to make that point if addressing how Yorkshire has been goverened in the opening paragraph. Only in the 1800s did the ancient ridings have the subdivisional government representation in the form of their own MPs. Subdivisionalisation of government represenation in Yorkshire has only happened in the last 170ish years. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That ignores the Quarter Sessions. However the current text of Because of its great size, throughout history functions have increasingly been undertaken by its subdivisions, which have been subject to periodic reform tells us that there have been county-wide functions and as time has gone on the subdivisions have become more important. This is a vital point for explaining why Yorkshire is not like all the other counties. MRSC • Talk 04:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
throughout history changed to over time. This change could have been achieved through discussion, which I made every attempt to draw you into. MRSC • Talk 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm here discussing with you am I not? I still feel your wording ignores the vast majority of Yorkshire's represenation in Parliament from 1290 until 1832. That is a huge chunk to just "gloss over", only from the years 1832 until today has Yorkshire "because of its great size, over time functions have increasingly been undertaken by its subdivisions". IMO its a recentist coverage, since the "over time" is only relevent from 1832 onwards. Where is a historical coverage of its parliamentary arrangements for the 550ish years before that?
Though I won't revent since I think that would be breaking 3RR. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm here discussing with you am I not? and Though I won't revent since I think that would be breaking 3RR demonstrate to me that you really don't understand how collaborative editing works. When someone tries to draw you into discussion over content, at that point stop editing and start talking, on talk pages.

I think you are focussing too much on parliamentary representation. Quarter Sessions date back to 1388 an that is not 'recent'. Also, the ridings were ancient divisions and they didn't divide up land for the sake of it, they were used as administrative units right from the start. Looking at the widest possible historical view it is still true to say that over time functions have increasingly been undertaken at the subdivision level, slowly at first and much faster in more recent history. MRSC • Talk 05:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence, "Yorkshire is widely considered to be the greenest area in England, due to both the vast rural countryside of the Yokshire Dales, North York Moors and some of the major cities." is in need of rewording. It does not say what it is about the major cities that qualifies them to be called green. I know it is the openness (the parks and Strays, etc.) but my last edit of this was reverted. Can I now alter this again?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the cities I propose "environmentally friendly" as perhaps a better way to cover them as that is what the references about "green cities" seems to allude to. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me, but if this is alluded to here, it may need mentioning again in the body of the article.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who rated the article as A class?

When and who rated the article as A Class, please? Was there any review process ?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OH This is too much! Add multiple project boxes and rate them all A.No consensus, yet. Please wait for other opinions.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I cut and pasted some of the project boxes from another articles talk (that were rated A) and couldn't remember whether it was supposed to be A or B. Do you really have to be so melodramatic "Oh this is too much"? Instead of whinging and acting as if a was murder was comited, you could have simply corrected the mistake. Clearly not too difficult. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Put back to B class. Perhaps the WP:GA process is unclear to User:Yorkshirian. MRSC • Talk 18:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm yes, but see here--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Oh well. MRSC • Talk 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, if this was a genuine mistake.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Function of the historic county of Yorkshire

What is the current function of the historic county of Yorkshire, please?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A cultural region probably sums up the "function" of this territory—something that is already mentioned in the article. I think there are a couple of organisations that provide services on a Yorkshire-wide basis, but, as I understand, Yorkshire has no statutory or ceremonial function in terms of local (and national) governance, nor in any serious, contemporary, and published form of geographic demarcation. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
How, then, do we write about cultural regions? (answers on a postcard, please )--Harkey Lodger (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Might be worth considering Sussex whilst we ponder this as this is in a similar situation, although slightly less complex. MRSC • Talk 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capital of Roman Britain

The sentence "The Romans made York (from which the county derives its name) one of the two capitals of all Roman Britain." makes it sound as though there were twin capitals. In fact York was the capital of Britannia Inferior. Inferior in this name simply means that it was further away from Rome. It does not mean that it was in any way less important. For clarity and to maintain Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards, please can this be changed?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for this change to be made. Seems perfectly logical. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some controversial, destructive edits by Jza.

  • The addition of numerous fact tags to the middle of sentences, asking for vertificated for things which are provided with references and vertificated at the end of sentences already.
  • In the politicis section, directly seeking conflict in an intentional efforts to antagonise. By calling Yorkshire a "former county" instead of the NPOV, official name "historic county".
  • The vandalism (see the policy section of "blanking" of this paragraph on its cuisine
“ The cuisine of Yorkshire and that of North England in general is known for using rich tasting ingredients, especially in regard to sweet dishes, which are widely affordable for the majority of people who live there. There are several dishes which originate from Yorkshire or are heavily associated with it. Yorkshire pudding, created from batter, is by far the most well known element of Yorkshire food. It is commonly served with roast beef and vegetables to form part of the Sunday roast, which itself grew from the county. ”

He literally violated WP:BLANK on the fact that Yorkshire pudding, if from Yorkshire.

  • He changed the fact that Honour of Richmond was in the historic North Riding.
  • He vandalised the fact that Yorkshire has played an important role in the world of sports, such as the fact that the county has provided the world with its first association football club, the invention of the sport rugby league and England's oldest horserace.
  • He removed which sports are played within the county.
  • He removed the fact that Yorkshire County Cricket Club are "the counties" cricket side.
  • He attempted to purge the word "Yorkshire" from the article in the part about football, by changing the words "The most successful Yorkshire clubs", to "The most successful clubs from the region.
  • He ripped out of the article the sentence "In the field of literature Yorkshire has been referenced to or provided noted figures."
  • He ripped out the sentence "When Stroker wrote the novel, he was living in Whitby at the time and parts of it are set there".
  • He ripped out the introduction to the part about music in Yorkshire.
  • He attacked sourced information in the politics section, violating the Wikipedia section of blanking. A referenced piece of information which showed that members of the royal family do not agree with his minority politicially motivated POV.

The majority of this seems good for a wholesale revert. Jza seems to be bringing his politicial minority POV directly into articles mainspace, motivated by jealous or hatered for me, I'm not sure. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now spent time reading through the detailed history of these edits and in my opinion they are ones of style rather than substance. They remove and or alter wording that certainly would not pass a GA review.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conduct of Yorkshirian

This is the third set of smears you have undertaken against Jza in as many days. The first was at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts on 5 May 2008. These were found to be baseless and this led to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian. Since then you made some terrible claims against Jza at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. These have been shown to be baseless and without evidence. You have still not responded there or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian. Your conduct is now spiralling out of control. Please stop editing articles where you are in disagreement with other editors and address these grave concerns. MRSC • Talk 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're not here to discuss the article content and are just here to launch personal attacks against me. Then go do it somewhere else. This talkpage is for discussing changes to the Wikipedia article Yorkshire, specifically brought up are the above edits. Wikipedia is not a form for you to moan about users. Content discuss, or leave. Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Jza seems to be bringing his politicial minority POV directly into articles mainspace, motivated by jealous or hatered for me" is hardly a rational debate about content. MRSC • Talk 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats your POV, you also neglected to mention the 11 bullet points presented above it. You know, all of it about article content. I've made this little section with your own title, because you're not discussing content and frankly I'm sick to death of hearing your personal opinion of me. Its not relevent. That belongs in a diary, as you've been warned article talk pages are for discussing article content. You're not going to derail dicussion content issues. Thank you. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your belligerent behavior and rudeness are clearly exhibited on this talk page and it is quite right to raise these point here. The language you have used in your comments - "vandalised" "attacked" "ripped out" "purged" - are exactly the sort of thing that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. It is clear that trying to talk things out with you has failed. And despite the escalation in conflict since the filing of the RFC, there is little else we can do other than wait for the result. It is with regret that we could not sort out these differences at an earlier stage. MRSC • Talk 13:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

There is a group of editors, who have made some brilliant edits to Wikipedia, waiting in the wings for the opportunity to co-operatively improve this article, which they haven't had for some time. Please may we continue?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Today I made a request that the article be protected to give time for constructive thought.I hope this acceptable to all.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Food of Yorkshire

IMO is needs an entire article for it, with then a summary from this article linking, a good way to improve the cuisine section. I have "Food in Yorkshire" by Joan Poulson, are there any more resorces available, online or otherwise? Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have two books:

Yorkshire Fare. Margaret Slack. Dalesman Books Clapham. 1979 ISBN 0852065663 A long and useful introduction then interesting notes on some Yorkshire recipes.

Favourite Yorkshire Recipes. Amanda Persey.Salmon Sevenoakes Kent ISBN 1898435111 Mostly recipes but with some interesting comments and snippets of information.

Googling Yorkshire Fat Rascals once took me to a good website (the scones I mean!!!) :-)

I think you will get enough info for an article, easily.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK we should get such an article started then, Food in Yorkshire is probably the best title. BTW, why has PhilKnight locked the article? :$. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
How about Yorkshire food, the other might be inviting every cafe, deli, tearoom and school canteen to add comments !! :-) I must admit I prefer eating food to writing about it.

I asked for the article to be locked to provide everyone with a bit of space.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] God's Own County

There seems to be a dispute about the sentence regarding the nickname "God's Own County", I've looked at the reference and it doesn't say the name refers to the Yorkshire countryside, or explicitly that it is a nickname for Yorkshire. There are also references to the nickname being God's own country. Does anyone have a source for the origin or correct form for the phrase and whether it is referring to Yorkshire or Yorkshire's countryside. --Kaly99 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the title of the sourced Guardian article but the text of that article does not support the assertion that this is a nickname of the area and I have rm'd it pending a supporting source. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There are several sources (having checked most seem to support "God's own country"), the one I referenced above is Yorkshire.com which is an official Yorkshire Tourist board site and says Yorkshire is "Known in Britain as "God's own country" ". Other sources say Yorkshire people often call it "God's own country" or sometimes "God's own county". Having scanned the sources I think it should definitely be included but as a name Yorkshire is known by not as a term for Yorkshire's countryside. Once more information is located a more detailed explanation can be added. --Kaly99 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian article title God's own county looks like a play on words to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
BBC source.[3] Its a nickname, not a "play on words". - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up. Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triplication

Do we really need to talk about "God's own county" three times within the article? PamD (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, I do think it's a bit much (by two). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teesdale?

Am I right in thinking that Teesdale is part of Yorkshire, on traditional boundaries? If so, the North Pennines AONB is worth a mention as part of our territory! The North Pennines AONB "shares a boundary with the Yorkshire Dales National Park" and there's a map of it here . It's also Britain's first "UNESCO European and Global Geopark". I think Teesdale is also a NNR. PamD (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, well the southern part of Teesdale anyway. The other half is traditionally part of County Durham. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional culture and heritage

Yorkshire's continued existence as a cultural region, and the strong identification of some of its inhabitants with the old county long after the demise of its administrative status in 1974, is noteworthy. This cultural identity is posited to be the product of its unique history and its status as England's largest county. Yet, there are opinions that suggest that this pride in the county is only of 19th century origin.It is not an homogeneous region. Because of its great area the county has several sub-areas each displaying their own unique cultural patterns in economic activity, vernacular architecture, food and dialect.For instance the inhabitants of the Dales have a different heritage and culture from the people of the West Riding coalfield or the boom town of Middlesbrough with its pottery, steel and chemical works. The Ryedale Folk Museum which has exhibits to interpret the history of the North York Moors area, is very different from similar museums in Hull, Halifax or, say, the Caphouse Colliery Museum. A change of the heading Culture to Traditional culture and heritage might more easily allow some of these points to be made without becoming tangled with the more usual meaning of culture as with Culture, media and sport in more conventional articles on places. The cultural region can include the areas that lay within the old county as there is no exact (or legal ?) definition of the region and if Saddleworth want to be in that's OK!! :-)--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What type of information would the section include? For example would it cover different theories about how Yorkshire culture (or different parts of Yorkshire culture) came about and when? Would the commonalities in culture for the area be discussed along with the differences between them? Are there enough reliable sources to get a balanced view of the different theories? Would information about media and sport be moved to a different section? --Kaly99 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
These are open to discussion. The problems that this article is experiencing, as I see it, is that of interpreting the words culture and county. There is the heritage centre type of historic culture, a type of jokey and stereotypical culture, the culture of the arts and the more recent globalised 21st century culture. They are all mixed up in this section at the moment. The view of David Hey, A History of Yorkshire. is that the Yorkshire pride arose with the good results of Yorkshire in cricket in the 19th century. Others tend to think of it as inherited from an admixture of Viking, Breton, Brigantian, etc. There are sources for each. I feel that the discussion of these views and viewpoints would make a contribution to the understanding of the current status of Yorkshire. The numerous books on the sub regions bear testimony to the differences as well as similarities.There are several views about the status of the county of Yorkshire. These are better discussed in the article than being warred about on talk pages.(and an interesting discussion they would make!!)--Harkey Lodger (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The status of Yorkshire could be included in the History section or a section on its own. The history section would have the advantage of giving context to the boundary and status changes but a separate section would allow more detail to be included.
The ideas related to historical culture would be great to include in the article, although it will take some careful balancing so that the theories that are more or less mainstream are given the right prominence. Areas that could be included (if there are sources) would be the influence of radical/working class/labour movements in the nineteenth century and distinctive aspects of religion in Yorkshire as a reflection or a factor in the formation of a distinct culture. The period prior to the Roman's presence needs to be handled carefully as there are no historical facts about the exact origin of these people as they were not a literate society. Despite this, theories about them are often presented as facts. It would also be worth considering how this section would relate to, or be different from, the history section.
I think the other information about sport and arts is worth including but I would prefer the focus to be on Yorkshire activities and Yorkshire trends in these. An area where organisations that are Yorkshire wide could be discussed would make the article more complete. --Kaly99 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As it is the status of Yorkshire that has been contentious, it might be better to air the subject fully in a separate section which makes reference to other Wikipedia articles on the subject of boundary changes in general and Yorkshire changes in particular. This could also be linked, as appropriate, to the History of Yorkshire article as well as reference being made to the history section in this article.I feel that the context of the differing views as to the status of the county is best explained fully to cut down on future attempts at POV and SOAPBOXING edits.
A summary of the influence of the radical etc movements in the nineteenth century might suffice if it were linked to a fuller treatment in the History of Yorkshire article.There was also a great deal of migration into and between areas of Yorkshire during the period of industrial growth and expansion which belies a simplistic explanation of inherited culture.
I am in total agreement about the care that needs to be taken with relating theories about the influences of pre Roman occupation.
There was a particular trend in sport related to Yorkshire but there was also a development of music -- colliery bands as well as Methodist hymns etc.
I think it would be possible easily to develop a framework for writing about this this section in a constructive way.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the aritcle on England is somewhat of a good "outline" in regards to the presentation of the culture section. (though this one seems to already be better when it comes to the actual information). Certainly in the area of music, we need it so it covers Yorkshire music in general, including brass bands, etc as well as keeping the parts about popular music. Also, like the England article, there should probably be sections for "Architecture" (especially with all the castles in Yorkshire), "Engineering and innovation" (this could also include information about people such as James Cook) and "Folklore" to give it more of a historic infusion. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
An Architecture section would have also to include abbeys, churches, vernacular and industrial architecture as well as the spectacular phase of town hall building in the West Riding.There is a wealth of industrial archeology to write about but are these subjects appropriate and amenable to a summary article? Folklore could go on forever !!!!!!! there's such a lot and it's difficult to verify.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Google Books is quite good when searching for things like folklore references and there seems to be whole books existing dedicated to each of the Ridings Folklore, but you're right when you say there is a lot... tryin to fit it all into a couple of paragraphs seems very daunting. The Ballads and Songs of Yorkshire seems to include some of the main Yorkshire folk like Robin Hood and highwayman John Nevison, for a start. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Here's a very rough draft for a possible structure for the new/renamed section:

  • Location and borders

With the information about the border changes and how the areas (mountain, sea) relative position (to Scandinavia and the rest of the UK) helped create a distinct region.

  • History

Focusing on events and developments that affected all or most of Yorkshire.

  • Traditional Culture and Heritage

(or possible just Culture and Heritage depending on the name of the next section)

Examining how Yorkshire's cultural identity, how it may have developed, the separate cultures within Yorkshire and how they relate together.

  • Arts, Sports and Customs

or Arts, Sports and culture including music, architecture, visual arts, dance, film, sport, cuisine etc.

I don't know how engineering and invention would fit into this structure so it may need to be changed or expanded for this but I think a brief summary sub-section on folklore would be appropriate under heritage. --Kaly99 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for traditional County

One of the causes of some disagreement about the content of this article seems to be the different interpretations of the term Yorkshire. An article called Traditional County of Yorkshire or Yorkshire County could be created to cover the entity that stopped existing in the 1970s following the structure laid out in the guidelines for historic counties. This article could then concentrate on covering the current use of the term, and the area as a cultural region. I don't know if this has been mentioned before but I thought it was worth suggesting. --Kaly99 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

After spending the morning thinking and reading about this matter, this was just the conclusion that I was coming to. There is a substantial body of academic writing about cultural areas and modern geographical thought seems to be going more in that direction since the break up of the Soviet Union and the move towards regional (or sub-national) representation in other areas of the globe. Nomenclature might be a problem, though if one is deemed to be less or more important.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The currently common use of Yorkshire, looking at organisations and literature, seems to be for the cultural area. Was the administrative region actually called Yorkshire or the County of Yorkshire? I would personally have this article as Yorkshire and treat this as the current name for a cultural area that existed before this name and continues to exist after the end of the county. I'd lock the county article into just the period the county existed (so no history before it came into existence), refer to it in the past tense etc and inlcuding things like demographics which I don't think fit into this article. --Kaly99 (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with this. Most of the material for the articles already exists in this article i.e. Yorkshire, and its sub-articles. I think that the problem will be in its implications for other UK county articles. Cornwall, say, has similar culturally rooted issues.Unless the geography community can be persuaded to accept cultural geography as a valid topic, which it now is, then we shall be hard pressed to have the cultural area article accepted. I tried some time ago here, although maybe they will reconsider the matter. After all it is as much history and sociology as it is geography.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honour of Richmond - North Riding

Before its mention in this article was changed from North Riding to North Yorkshire by another editor, but this is incorrect when describing the location of the Honour. Richmond itself, the seat is in the administrative area of North Yorkshire at the moment, but the entire honour covered five wapentakes all within the North Riding; Gilling West, Gilling East, Hang West, Hang East and Halikeld.[4] In the link is shown a map of the wapentakes to give an idea of their location, its basically eastern North Riding. Since "North Yorkshire" doesn't cover all of that area I'm going to reword the sentence. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is historically correct.Maybe Western area of the North Riding, though--Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still loads of bad practice here

How are we getting on removing breaches of WP:PLACE and toning down some of the language and synthesis? I know there have been a few calls about this here and elsewhere. Certinaly for me, there are too many sections here that tell me nothing about Yorkshire, but basically assert it still exists and theres loads of blanket-Yorkshirian culture still occuring to this day. E.g. London born David Bowie getting a mention in Yorkshire's culture section about an album he released after the Local Government Act 1972?? I suggest a re-think. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Bowie, you seem to have intentionally missed the whole part where the three people performing the music behind him in the band are from Yorkshire, you know; the Spiders From Mars. The fact that David himself is half Yorkshirian is just additional. Musicians from Hull such as Mick Ronson.. who Rolling Stone magazine happen to name 64th in a list of the "The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" obviously has a place in the musical part of the areas culture. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to put across, apart from you seem to strongly dislike that Yorkshire actually has culture? - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yorkshire has culture, but your edits to that section appear to be a breach of WP:SYNTH, and in turn is damaging the article's credibility and reputation. That's what point I'm trying to put across. Being "Half Yorkshirian" is about as important and codifiable as being "Half Northern" or "Half Bradfordian" or "Half European" - adds nothing to the article other than an attempt to assert Yorkshire exists. Indeed, at what point does one become Yorkshirian, let alone Half-Yorkshirian? - what definition are you alluding to? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In your bias, social authoritarian, anti-cultural view. Though you'd be very hard pressed to find people in Yorkshire who do not think being a Yorkshireman or woman is "important" and you're well aware of this. Also you seem to be pushing a similar social authoritarian stance onto certain Irish article, more than once. If you tried to do the same to topics on Brittany, Catalonia, Cornwall or any other such areas, it wouldn't be allowed for one minute and would be derided as racism. So I'm not sure why you feel it would be acceptable to indulge in such unabashed prejudice on articles relating to Yorkshire? Again, please leave personal political bias at the door as it puts you towards an area of WP:COI. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please can we keep the discussion here about the article itself and how to improve it in order to make the best encyclopaedia article possible. I don't think making comments about other editors is going to help in this and it distracts from the real and important issues which are being discussed here about how best to deal with Yorkshire as a topic. --Kaly99 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any doubt that Yorkshire exists? It obviously has no administrative meaning any longer, but it's still in quite common use as a geographical term. And, unlike many such areas, it has a pretty clear geographical meaning - the cermonial counties of the East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, and South Yorkshire together make up Yorkshire, with boundaries nearly identical (or fully identical?) to the old county, which has never really had a unified administration (the three ridings always used to be administered separately). The idea that anyone has to "assert" that Yorkshire exists is puzzling to me. john k (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As I understand them WP:PLACE and Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_counties both say that Yorkshire as a geographical region no longer exists and so should be written about in the past tense. I made a suggestion above that an article called County of Yorkshire (or something similar) could be created to refer to the administrative district that ended in 1972 and the Yorkshire article would then cover the more common meaning as a cultural region. --Kaly99 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement with this kind of solution. It's just a matter of explaining the situation in the articles and getting the names right.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
New England doesn't exist either, I imagine? john k (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
More broadly - while Yorkshire is obviously no longer a distinct administrative unit, that doesn't mean that it "no longer exists" "as a geographical region." I've never heard anybody say that something has to be a distinct administrative unit to be a geographical region. There are plenty of geographical regions which exist without having administrative unity. Many of them have much vaguer definitions than Yorkshire. The American South, for instance, which is not well-defined at all, certainly exists. Yorkshire, like New England, has a very clear definition, and people refer to it as a region all the time. Where on earth are you all getting the idea that something has to be a currently existing administrative unit to qualify as a geographical region? john k (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, are you really saying that Yorkshire is a "cultural region" but not a "geographical region"? I would think any place that is a region is by definition a geographical region - as opposed to a region of the mind, or something. Nothing about the term "geographical region" implies the existence of a distinct political unit. john k (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There have been several discussions about this, I wasn't involved in these, and current guidlines. From my understanding the results have been an agreement that Yorkshire stopped existing when it became a historical county, these aren't my views so I appologise if I'm misrepresenting them. The article Middlesex is an example that follows this line. There have been problems with some people trying to follow these guidelines and others writing about the current geographical region. My suggestion above was an attempt to help with this but I would prefer an article in the style of the New England one that treats Yorkshire as a current region. --Kaly99 (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Would an introduction saying "Yorkshire is a region in northern England. It was once an administrative area but is now mainly identified culturally ..." then go on to explain the intricacies of the ridings/modern counties in the body of article and link apropreatly. I like Kaly99's suggestion to have a seperate article covering the old administrative region, there would be crossover with the the History of Yorkshire but use of WP:Summary style would cover that. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree - an introduction like that would be sensible, in that it's true and easily understood, and is not an attempt to enforce silly general guidelines that have evolved for no particular reason. Yorkshire didn't cease to exist when the administrative county was abolished. It just stopped being an administrative county. Geographical regions can exist without having any administrative meaning. Metternich said that Italy was merely a geographical expression, but I don't think he'd have gone so far as to say that there was no such thing as Italy. john k (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) There is already an article, History of local government in Yorkshire, that was spun off from the main article some time ago which goes a long way to addressing some of this information. Maybe it could be improved along with the History of Yorkshire and highlighted more to help explain the current situation.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References - dates

Just noticed that a lot of the references here look a bit strange, many of them having date of 24 or 25 Oct 2007 appearing as publication date of reference, not as "Retrieved on". If we're aiming for GA or FA, they will all need to be corrected. In the {{cite web}} format, the field "date=" should be used for the publication date of the material, if known, while "accessdate=" is the one for the date the web page was last checked. Accessdate and date should both be entered in the form 2008-05-28, and not wikilinked. If the full date of publication is not known, "year=" and "month=" (if known) can be used, unlinked. This is all described at Template:Cite web. Sorry not to have picked up on this before - I only noticed just now when adding a ref (currently number 107) about the 1853 Gallery's Hockneys and checking to see that it looked OK, realised its neighbours looked strange. PamD (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)