Jump to content

Talk:Fareham

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

Recent additions to the article

[edit]

I have snipped the following from the article and moved it here to facilitate discussion:

Fareham Public Houses and Inns since 1736

[edit]

A list of Public Houses and Inns is taken from the publication ‘Fareham Public Houses, Inns, Taverns, Hotels and Brewers from 1736’ researched and produced by Malcolm Low for research purposes only, compilation of dates and names from various sources have been followed as closely as possible to be used as a guide to any further research. See External link section and click on (3)

The History of the Red Lion Hotel an 18th century Coaching Inn. See External link section for connection to outside information and click on (4)

Fareham and the Public Health Act of 1848

[edit]

The Public Health Act of 1848 was an Act of co-operation rather than an enforced law, and because of this it did not appear to have been acted upon with any degree of urgency. An Enquiry was held by Mr Robert Rawlinson, Super-intending Engineer to the General Board of Health on the 18th December 1848 in the hall of the Fareham Institution (Portland Hall), into the Sewerage, drainage and Supply of Water and the sanitary conditions of the inhabitants of the town and parish of Fareham. On the 5th September 1849 the parish of Fareham was formed into a Urban Sanitary district and on the 18th September the government of the town was vested in a Board of Health consisting of nine members, with the chairman Richard Porter there were three merchants, three “gentlemen”, a brewer, a cooper, a basket-maker and a navel commander, these were invested to enforce the law. They were the Local Health Board to oversee the work. For further information see External link section and click on [5].

Whilst I am sure there is some valuable material that has been contributed here, it is currently not well integrated into the article and does not follow the general tone of the article. Are there any suggestions on how to rework it more clearly? In particular, the text should not direct readers to an external website (that suggests spamming), but should provide the content itself in a concise and relevant manner, citing the external website as a source (if appropriate). Cheers, DWaterson 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking ban

[edit]

There has been a small revert war over a reference to a delay in the implementation of the smoking ban in Fareham. My opinion is that, although verifiable, it is so trivial an incident (10 days delay) that it should be removed. In any case, if it were to be retained, it would be better in an article about Fareham Borough Council rather than Fareham. DWaterson (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Yes it is not of earth-shattering importance but it does seem to be adequately verified; it is however of mild interest to a browsing reader. Its presence is not wasting any valuable resources and we should not remove it simply because someone has an axe to grind. As for moving it to an FBC article, there is no such animal. And if there were, it would be excuciatingly boring. CanOfWorms (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Verified facts from links in article

[edit]

Ferneham Hall is another one of those provincial theatres that simply doesn't make the grade. A newspaper report referenced in the main article said: "BIG changes are to be made to an entertainment venue which has failed to make a profit in its 28-year history.Fareham Borough Council is holding a meeting tomorrow to see how the loss-making Ferneham Hall, in Osborn Road, which opened in 1982, can be improved to finally break even and bring in profit. In the last financial year the hall needed to make savings of £196,900. And in attempt to change this, councillors will be looking to make improvements, which include axing the current vacant post of senior technician, to save £20,000. A council report suggests other options such as: expanding the number of users and broadening the age profile; reviewing the current programme of shows; seeking potential partners to move into the venue; and setting a target to achieve a total income of £1m by April 2012." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fareham resident (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only part of Whiteley is in Fareham, and the business areas and Village complex is in the Winchester district.

Henry Cort was born in Lancaster and lived in Gosport with the Jellicoes; there is nothing to suggest that he ever lived in Fareham, let alone could be claimed a "native", having been born several hundred miles away.

Part of the Norman Invasion came up Fareham Creek, before continuing on to Winchester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.164.192 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mudge: addition to Welborne section on 3rd March 2014

[edit]

In the Welborne section, I have today added a history of the controversy surrounding the plan to build these 6000 houses north of Fareham. I have been careful to simply report on the facts, much taken from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England Press Releases opposing this development. I have been cautious in my comments, and no libeled no individuals. My view is Fareham Borough Council don't own Wikipedia, and I have as much right to put the other view as anyone - so long as I'm within the rules. My aim here was to add some balance that was not apparent in the section as it was - which was short but clearly one-sided showing just the council's views - views that are actively opposed by a lot of people. I have studied the Wikipedia rules carefully and I will accept minor edits of my comments of course, but I would hope that if you believe in democracy that you won't stamp on that by removing my perfectly lawful and reasonable history there of the opposition to these highly controversial plans.

Thanks! Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.185.81 (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place for long recitations of a protest group's press releases - I've tried to fold in the key facts from your text into the section but if you think I've missed anything that belongs in an encylopaedia please do edit again - Khendon (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Mudge 4/3, hi, thank you for you edit, I accept the basis of your editing to my points, and on the whole I feel you have acted reasonably, however I have made a couple of your tweaks to your text remove the really quite obvious I'm afraid pro-council bias in the wording. For instance you fail to mention the Government Inspector who must approve the scheme now - i.e. you imply it is a forgone conclusion this will take place in its current form, which is far from the truth. I've also reduced this to 6,000 houses to reflect the current plan not 6,500 to 7,500, that was changed by the council after the initial figures were deemed to be unsound. Thanks, take care, Jason.
4/3, I see you have further amended my edit and that's fine, however you are still showing results of a hotly contested survey as justification, having removed previously my comments on the number of objections received by the council etc, which is not a balanced view, so I have amended that end statement - being entirely factual. Hopefully we can now leave this. Thanks again, best wishes, Jason— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.159.205 (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no - that kind of unsourced "dispute" doesn't belong here. Purely as an aside, it's also wrong; 1,291 households of 48,000 (edit by Jason actually population is 97,504) gives a 99% confidence that the error is less than 3.11 percentage points away from the approval rate of 74%. By all means put in a properly sourced reference to the number of objections received, though. - Khendon (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4/3, Jason Mudge. As you well know though the question that was presented was highly leading, which at a minimum is bordering on sharp practice. You know that's what really gets people about this whole business, if people like me were really sure that the majority of people in Fareham wanted this development, well I would back off and I'm sure I'm not alone, however the council has decided to be underhand and undemocratic - what with the so-called consultations, the whole processes around people commenting (bureaucratic and purposely complex) - and Woodworm's famous 'bent survey and dodgy words around "not a brick...." - it all leaves a bad taste in the mouth, it really doesn't have to be like that.

However what you have amended there is a reasonable edit, and I welcome your offer for me to put a properly sourced reference to the number of objections raised during the various phases of this, so I'll draft a few careful words on that over the next few days and include as balance. Thanks, Jason.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.159.205 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the actual text of the survey question - Khendon (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4/3, Jason Mudge. Thank you, that is very public spirited, now people will be able to see what a loaded question that was - i.e. on the ragged edge of sharp practice - and I appreciate that, I can't say you are not being open by publishing the question there to remind people how bent this process was - especially as the council quote this 'survey result again and again in justification.

I will also have a properly sourced reference to the number of objections raised also in the next couple of days. Regards Jason.

4/3, Jason Mudge. Not me by the way doing the current edits ;-) lots of angry people out there upset by the disgusting way the council has handled this Welborne business..... so I guess you are going to be busy! ;-)

6/3 Jason Mudge, I have included the councils map of Welborne, this is none-biased and fits the Wiki ethos of adding more info without being controversial - simply factual tajken from the council's own plan so I hope you don't remove it, it sits there quite nicely to inform people, i.e. it adds to the piece, which I hope you agree, people have a right to see this.

I am not responsible for the other edits today, as I've said there are plenty of angry people, I am trying to be reasonable and have a fair dialogue with you - and you in turn I believe have been balanced - so I hope you can accept this small copy of the council's own map. Thanks Jason PS, I have checked the Crown Copyright rules carefully and I believe I can publish this map extract for educational/ news/ criticism purposes quite legitimately - there was an act of Parliament in 2000 that set rules around publishing certain Crown maps etc. in specific not-for-profit circumstances like this without having to first seek permission. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonRMudge (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; I think the map would be a good addition, but the notice in the image itself is pretty specific and I think without further reference to the generic permission it'll have to be deleted. - Khendon (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


6/3, Hello Khendon Just out of interest do you have any connections with Fareham Borough Council. The reason I ask the page seems to singing out of their music book? The page quotes 2013 survey conducted by Fareham Borough Council received responses from 1,291 households, of which 74% agreed with the question. Many residents dispute the figures the local Council quote in support of Weborne How about the petition of 1400 signed names which was presented to the council objecting to the new development Welborne. Reference http://http//www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/campaigns/petition-handed-in-against-new-eco-town-1-2358812. Could you refer to that? All I am looking for is balanced article which it is not at present.Shaun Cunningham (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection whatsoever with Fareham Borough Council. I have no interest in presenting one side or another of the debate. I do have an interest in making sure the article remains encyclopaedic; reading WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL might help explain why I've made the edits I've made. - Khendon (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7/3. Well you are doing a fine job putting the Counci's case for Welbore. How about a more balanced article on Welborne. You and I know the figures you quote regarding their survey are not representative of Fareham residents.
I would also suggest you take a walk in North Fareham, Funtley and Wallington. All I am looking for is BALANCE. Your artice on Welborne is not. There is also other people in Fareham other than Cllr Woodward. I give you a little bit of space to create a balance piece, if its not I will return. Over to you.Shaun Cunningham (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if it's representative or not, but even if I did the article wouldn't be the place to say so unless there was a reliable and verifiable source for it. - Khendon (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7/3 Jason Mudge, as requested I have uploaded a map that is none copyright and reflects the boundaries as per the latest council plan. None contentious, factual.... thanks Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.126 (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7/3 Hello Khendon, so any edits which have a verifiable source are OK. Of course the source does not always have to come from Fareham Council does it? There is pently of material out their which is sourced and interesting.

Over the next few days I will put them forward. The only wish I have is for a balance article, hope we can agree on this and make the article richer for it. Shaun Cunningham (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:RS for some guidelines on which sources are deemed reliable and which aren't, to help you avoid some common pitfalls. By the way you don't need to date your comments - your signature (~~~~) automatically includes the date and time. WaggersTALK 12:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khendon, I am concerned. reading your replies to Shaun, it just doesn't feel like you are acting in a balanced way to me. Also I think it is you who have added the reference to the 1400 people survey being handed in by Liberal Democrats? was that you?? - that and the fact you were so robust in your "99% confidence that the error is less than 3.11 percentage points away from the approval rate of 74%" makes me think you are not just a casual editor - that there is a political agenda in your pro-council edits. You say you don't work for the council, and I believe you, who are you then?? what is your name?? why hide?? Shaun has used his real name, and so have I, I always do on the Internet - a quick google search would show where I live. Are you a Tory party member?? - what is your connection to Sean Woodward and what gives you the right to control this page in a pro-council party political way like this??" You started by being reasonable but I'm seeing a true agenda now over the last few days I think! - thanks, best wishes, Jason. By the way, I am none-political, I belong to no political party, I couldn't care less about who controls the council, I just want the best for Fareham. I've removed the Liberal Democrat link, who cares - it goes against the Wiki ethos, that survey wasn't by any party - it was a cross-section of Normal people.

Honestly, I'm not at all worried about how "concerned" you are, who you are, who you think I am, what you think my motives might be, what your motives might be, Welborne, or Fareham. If you think I'm acting unreasonably, you might consider raising the issue at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. - Khendon (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree the link to the Liberal Democrats is completely unnecessary. The petition was given to local Councillors and it does not matter what their political is colour I have made a post on the article reference housing needs. Welborne is for the housing needs of South East Hampshire not just Fareham. I do believe the point is important.Shaun Cunningham (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Khendon Can you tell me why you removed by last edit? The post is an important part of the Welborne story.This is not what you claim "This is just propaganda" its FACT. The link proves this. The Words come from a Government Inspector. Are you really saying a government inspector pushes propaganda? Wikpedia believes in articles having factual points which my posts does. Shaun Cunningham (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTSOAPBOX. "This myth was however, finally exposed by the Planning Inspector at the Core Strategy Inquiry in 2011, when he made it abundantly clear..." is not appropriate phrasing for an encyclopedia. --NeilN talk to me 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: Khendon Ref:abundantly clear..." is not appropriate phrasing for an encyclopedia. You are making this up. OK what do you recommend? The story is linked to a source.Shaun Cunningham (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong anywhere in the article. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. This controversy, such as it is, barely rates a paragraph. Also, to answer your question on my talk page, "myth", "finally exposed", and "abundantly clear" are editorializing. --NeilN talk to me 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Khendon, you are just being plain difficult. I can take you to other pages were the wording is even worst and yet everyone agreed. Come on are you going to allow a balance article on Welborne. Yes or No. That's all I am asking. Shaun Cunningham (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khendon can speak for himself. As for me, no, I will not allow you to turn this article into a soapbox detailing the specifics of one issue. The article is about Fareham if you haven't noticed. Another thing for you to read: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe you have a agenda otherwise you and I could simply agree on words. I put it to you, your wish is to have a story based on The council agenda and not the residents of Fareham. Your article is about Fareham and the residents of this town and should reflect their views and the FACTS should it not.If not why not? There was nothing wrong with my last edit other than it did not fit into your box.There are two sides to Welborne. Surely we can put a small article together reflecting a balance article, can we not. All I am asking for is BALANCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaun Cunningham (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've never heard of this place and my only edits up until today were to revert vandalism/disruption [1]. And again, it is my view the current content is more than enough on the proposed development and adequately summarizes the opposition to it. We don't have articles within articles. --NeilN talk to me 20:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun: I am sadden by the view you have taken. I am totally against censorship. Being the author of this page I hoped you would share the basic principle that articles should be balanced and remain true to the facts. I am not in the business in stopping your thoughts but you are in the business stopping mine. I take no delight in your decision and hope you may reconsider in bringing a balanced article on Welborne. The very people you are asking to read your page deserve nothing less. I have looked at many pages on Wikipeda, many are richer in having diverse opinion. Shaun Cunningham (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the author of this article nor do I claim ownership of it. However, I am experienced in making sure articles meet our policies and guidelines, some of which I linked to above. This simply isn't the place to add a detailed account of a local political issue. --NeilN talk to me 20:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun: Sorry you are not getting away with that. Khendon can play politicals and others can not. That sound fair. Shaun Cunningham (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khendon, I apologise for my rudeness earlier last thing I want to say though is this development is biggest thing to hit Fareham in 100 years maybe ever, so not outrageous to expect Fareham page to feature it and from all sides, rather than news of a guy in Neighbour's who was born in Fareham! If you look at this ssay a week ago then now sure you agree we've improved it for the people of Fareham facing such a monumental change so if you could continue to allow comment that isn't from the council it has to be right thing to do, must be within wiki rules of course, Fareham of the future will than you. Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonRMudge (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fareham. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fareham. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fareham&oldid=1207181100"