Jump to content

Talk:CountyWatch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

neutral point of view

[edit]

This article fails to represent a neutral point of view, since it does not represent criticisms of the group, or give any indication of its true significance or the acceptance of its agenda within the wider British political scene. Just zis Guy you know? 19:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can an article about a pressure group such as this be "neutral"? Would, for an instance, an article about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament be "neutral"? Is that possible? The County Watch group has a particular aim. If you were reading, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the article would probably be much the same, unless, that is, there were "severe criticisms". But if there are none, then does that mean you cannot carry the article? Surely an article's essentiality is to inform on the organisation and its activities?

At local levels people feel very strongly about the issues here, county changes, all of which were carried out without the consent of the populance in the counties concerned. "Wider British political scene"? Well, there isn't one, as such, because these are essentially ancient county issues. But hundreds of thousands of people are affected. Is that wide enough? 213.122.130.222 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The same nonsense is happening on the Association of British Counties article. Just becuase particular editors don't agree with the group's actions doesn't make the factual article itself non-neutral. The article itself is neither praising or disparaging the group, merely describing it. Owain (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sorry but this is horribly POV. Yes, it does state the aims of County Watch and their actions but it seems as though the writer has a very disapproving tone. That's just how it reads. Maybe keep the article as it is, but add a section about their concerns. Who on earth wants to live in Tyne and Wear anyway (using an example for where I live)? What does it mean? It's County Durham and Northumberland - two counties steeped in centuries of history - nothing else. That is its heritage. As mentioned above, all of this was done without the public's consent. Now that T+W county council has disbanded (1986? - it was very short-lived), so should the county itself. Issues such as that should be included, it needs looking at. Whenever I've got the time I'll do it myself. hedpeguyuk 23 June 2006 17:40 (UTC)
Take this for an example, "Durham County Council issued a statement saying that County Watch's actions were "equivalent to those who vandalise telephone boxes". - fair enough. Can't we have a reply to that though? - hedpeguyuk 23 June 2006 17:45 (UTC)

31st March

[edit]

I have removed the following text temporarily from the article:

Berkshire

31 March 2006, CountyWatch Patron Count Tolsoy re-sites 'Welcome To royal County of Berkshire to its true 'Berkshire' border from Oxfordshire. pending the finding of a reliable source - I have not heard this reported in the media as yet, and this needs to be corroborated. Thanks, Aquilina 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated with appropriate source. Lancsalot 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Is it "County Watch" or "CountyWatch", with StudlyCaps? BBC are using the latter, as are the Guardian. Morwen - Talk 14:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs

[edit]

This section seems to contradict the rest. How does moving some signs hope to achieve their aims re: the EU? MRSC 14:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea goes
  • the regions of England are a European plot to destroy England and the United Kingdom
  • there is therefore also an plot to undermine genuine local identity and replace it with a fake regional identity
  • this is helped by the destruction of historic county identities instigated by the Local Government Act 1972

Bennett seems to be quite the character. Morwen - Talk 15:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the moving of signs in itself does nothing wrt. the EU, but it draws attention to the cause I guess. Owain (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Tony Bennett of CountyWatch

[edit]

Herewith some brief responses.

This week, one contributor on another page noted that this article was close to violating guidelines on 'Wikipedia Soap' articles, and pointed out that Wikipedia was not there to represent particular political points of view. The writer also claimed that the article on CountyWatch had become too 'Bennettcentric'. Unfortunately I don't know how to reach that page (though I've tried), so am answering the writer here.

I accept both observations, and would like to say that I think Wikipedia's editorial policy on this article has been very fair to date.

One reason why I hope the article will stay more or less unaffected is that CountyWatch (we spell it that way, but it doesn't really matter) receives great public support wherever our actions take place (plus of course some opposition from County Hall bureaucrats).

To give just one example, our most spectacular action to date was carried out in Lancashire over three days in November 2005 when 40 'Welcome to Lancashire' signs, mostly around 20 to 30 miles north of the traditional Lancashire border with Cheshire - namely, the river Mersey - were removed, and deposited for collection by Lancashire County Council on the historic border with Yorkshire near Nelson. Our action was filmed by BBC North West on two separate days - the third time a regional BBC programme has filmed us in action (other occasions were our actions in Lincolnshire and County Durham).

BBC North West then invited its viewers to submit by 'phone or e-mail their views on whether this action was 'unjustified vandalism' or 'justified action in support of Lancashire's historic boundaries'. Peter Marshall, the journalist and presenter, together with the editor of BBC North West, both told us afterwards that there had never ever in the history of BBC TV North West been a greater resposnse to any other single news item and viewers' poll - and in terms of the weight of opinion it was, to quote the BBC verbatim, 'overwhelmingly' in support of our action.

I will try not to post any more on this article unless there are press reports which are significant, which I will add as references. However, I would say that with further break-up of our historic county administration in the pipeline - such as in Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Shropshire etc., there is likely to be continued public interest in and discussion of this subject.

We have, along with other eurosceptic organisations, continually warned that the 'game plan' was to abolish county adminisrtation altogether, creating regional government on the basis of the nine new English regions, with a series of 'unitary authorities' below them - with both Counties and District Councils abolished. The government's announcement in July this year on the creation of a whole swath of new unitary authorities tends to prove our assessment correct.

Quite apart from that, most of our county boundaries have had virtually unchanged boundaries for over 1,000 years - until the Edward Heath re-organisaion of local government in 1974. They are, say CountyWatch, part of the historic fabric of the country and give us a sense of place and sometimes of identity; we think these boundaries, for which many people have a continuing affection, should be preserved, not destroyed.

Finally, I am currently preparing an article for Wikipedia on the historic counties of England, which will be entirely non-political and will simply give factual information about them - see the notice I have just posted earlier today under the 'Discussion on the Historic Counties of England' page. In my article, I hope to address these stated concerns about the existing article on historic Counties:

1) List/table showing which went on to become administrative and non-metropolitan counties and which did not (and how the ancient subdivisions were used as the basis for some admin counties) 2) Expanded references 3) Section detailing role of the ancient counties - still needs work.

Finally, thanks to those who have contributed above to explain that they too regard the issue of maintaining and promoting our historic county boundaries as an important one.

If anyone want to see a draft of the proposed article on historic counties they are welcome to 'phone me and I'll e-mail it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Bennett (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 August 2007

To explain why I removed all of the above users edits from earlier today - the edits were added in a haphazard manner which made, to put it bluntly, a mess of the section. Incorrect sources were used; for instance using a wikipedia article itself - in this instance the Luton article - as a source in contradiction of wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. I have re-inserted one part of the edits, as it had a source. I have however, balanced it out as much as possible to reflect both the views of CountyWatch and of the County Council. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored

[edit]

I think its perfectly reasonable, that we have a direct quote from the chairman of this organisation, explicitly pointing out what he feels his organisations beliefs are. This is the quote Jza removed.


I'm going to put it back in on the basis of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (its not censored) since the quote attributed to the chariman doesn't effect the neutrality of the content outside of the quotation marks. In fact it adds neutrality to a contentious article, by presenting exactly what CountyWatch believe they stand for. Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I don't understand why the above edit keeps getting removed. OK so wikipedia is not a soapbox and all that, but the edit that Yorkshirian keeps adding is a quote from the groups chairman in the "Beliefs" section in which it is surely relevant? Of course I am not talking with full knowledge of what is allowed in these circumstances, but it seems to me that a quote from the groups chairman in that section is relevant. Or am I missing something here?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that it's a breach of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. I feel the quote is excessive, unbalanced and is essentially a free advert for the group (WP:SOAPBOX?). I'm also concerned that the source provided isn't published, third-party or one that has a good record for fact-checking; ALL part of the criteria for being a reliable source.
I've no problem with a trim and a paraphrase, but feel the current position is objectionable. Indeed the beliefs are/were adequately summarised by the pre-existing paragraph anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 2005 CountyWatch newsletter from the time that Count Nikolai Tolstoy was announced as patron

No longer?

[edit]

Unless anyone can show that CountyWatch still exists I suggest we change the article to past tense. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an entry on the main page about the attendance (via Zoom) of two members of County Watch at the formation on 4 November 2020 of the new All Party Parliamentary Group on Historic Counties (chaired by Andrew Rosindell MP). So, yes, we are still very much in business Tony Bennett (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Tony BennettTony Bennett (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CountyWatch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CountyWatch&oldid=1201200457"