Talk:River Avon, Warwickshire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gloucestershire

I think this page should be moved, probably to River Avon, Warwickshire. This river flows through Gloucs for about 1km, and forms the border of Gloucs for a little longer, near Tewkesbury. See Talk:River Avon. --rbrwr

Nobody objected, so I moved it. --rbrwr

Actually thats not quite correct, the source of the river Avon is in Northamptonshire. And it runs for roughly 5/6 miles through the county G-Man 22:43, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, but it still serves as a useful disambiguator, and what I was proposing was a move from River Avon, Gloucestershire, so Gloucs v Warwicks was the key comparison. Actually, if I had to do it all over again I might use River Avon (Warwickshire) and River Avon (Bristol) - I think the brackets give the impression of being a disambiguating device, whereas the comma rather implies that the river is in that particular place - which is true of neither the Warwicks Avon nor the Bristol Avon. I don't particularly feel they should be moved, though. --rbrwr

Avon, Warwickshire

Are you sure this should be moved to "Avon, Warwickshire" I've never heard it described as such, and as I've already pointed out it doesn't just flow through Warwickshire G-Man 20:38, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

According to the Ordnance Survey map it is known as the 'River Avon' not the 'Avon' so I moved it back, besides all the links go here G-Man 12:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Other Avons

From Wolf:--172.179.155.46 16:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think we have to understand that Avon comes from the Welsh word Afon, wich simply means River. And, we have to see, that there are at least a minimum of 4 River Avons (or River Rivers) in Great Britain.

1) Avon, a river in central England, rising in Northamptonshire and flowing southwest through Stratford-on-Avon to the River Severn at Tewkesbury.

2) Avon, a river rising on Dartmoor and flowing into the sea at Bigbury on Sea.

3) Avon, a river rising in Gloucestershire and flowing south and west through Bristol to the Severn estuary at Avonmouth

4) Avon, a river rising in Wiltshire and flowing south to the English Channel.

See River Avon, to which I've now added a link. Andy Mabbett 16:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Severn

Why is there an ugly big box about the Severn on this page? It's confusing. I know the Avon is a tributary, but that's not enough justification afaic! --kingboyk 19:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and replaced it with a See Also link. Much better imho. --kingboyk 09:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Avon I have edited the page because I found a few incorrect facts on about the navigation, as well as adding sources. The description Warwickshire Avon is useful because it distinguishes it from the Bristol Avon and the Hampshire (or Wiltshire) Avon.

Worcestershire

It seems top me that this river also goes through quite a chunk of Worcestershire.--Kudpung (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is always known as the Warwickshire Avon to distinguish it from the Bristol Avon, Hampshire Avon, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Navigation:early history

I am extremely disappointed that a recent editor should prefer the content of works on inland navigation generally to an article specifically dealing with the subject of flash locks and pound locks on THIS river. The 2006 article was discussed in detail in correspondence in RCHS Journal, without its arguments being successfully refuted. This means that it is the most reliable source on its subject and anything stating the contrary, which is not based directly on contemporary documents, should not be quoted to contract it. One should always prefer works based directly on primary sources (as King 2006 - which I wrote - is) to tertiary (or worse) works, which are (at best) based on secondary sources. King 2006 arose out of a larger piece of research, looking at all original sources that I could trace, including a number not identified by Hadfield or previous researchers. This larger work remains unpublished, and thus cannot be cited. If King 2006 is wrong, evidence to support the older views needs to be published before anything else is cited on this period. I have sought to revert the first paragraphs of the history to something like what was there before, dealing with the "weasel" issue that some one had identified. I have removed the numbers of locks built in each phase, since King 2006 contradicts the older views of Hadfield on numbers. My recollection (without checking) is that Yarranton restored "Pershore Sluice" (a pound lock) and did unspecified (but expensive) restoration on the Upper Avon, providing three flash locks to get boats over shallows where there was no mill. Hadfield described what existed in the 18th century and apportioned it (without evidence) between Sandys and Yarranton. I will try to find a measn of reinserting the numbers of locks, but not tonight. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The problem was that the sentence was tagged with a "weasel words" tag, (which has been there for more than a year), attached to the phrase "It is often suggested". You have now re-instated the phrase, and incorrectly attributed it to Hadfield, who makes no such claim, so I have removed the ref and we probably ought to re-instate the weasel words tag. I was unable to find who was "often suggesting", so I quoted a source for what I could verify. My use of Hadfield was not meant to contradict King - on the contrary they largely support each other. The obvious way to resolve this is to find and quote the sources that are suggesting a situation which is different from King (2006). I look forward to finding out what they are. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to strayed off message (a horrible term to my ears). Wikipedia does not require absolute truth. It requires verifiable published sources; and it does not require the removal of all conflicting information, if conflict exists between "reliable sources". Much of what is given in a wikipedia article is based on the sources "on hand" to those editors that have worked on the article. I happen to have Hadfield and other reliable sources that quote Hadfield. King (2006) is used once in the article, but it is not a reference that I have access to. Perhaps, if I did I would make use of it. Moreover, in many ways it is irrelevant if editors add information based on sources contrary to King (2006); later editors can (and do) made changes as more information comes to light. Your argument, that King (2006) is absolute truth and that all statements have to be measured against that standard and withdrawn unless it can be proved that King (2006) is wrong, appears to be untenable. Many authors have not heard of that reference; and I doubt that any successful argument could be made that wikipedia is an appropriate medium for actively promoting the work of Peter King. This is not intended as a criticism of King (2006), I've not seen it, it is just that the relationship between Peter King and Peterkingiron is such that latter should not be setting up King (2006) as an "absolute truth" for wikipedia articles. It is quite possible to give a statement about locks that is attributable to (King, 2006) whilst also pointing out (for example) that reliable works published before and afterwards provide divergent opinions, provided that these are also correctly referenced. However, I fully accept the argument about the merits of works based on primary versus secondary and tertiary works, so there is no disagreement on that point.

Returning "to message", the suggestion is that the article is wrong; and if that is the case the appropriate way forward is to add the necessary corrections by means of verifiable statements (obviously avoiding WP:OR). You appear to be willing to do that at a later date. And, thanks for bringing the "RCHS Journal" to our attention, I will google it and see what comes up. Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is not clear, I am author of King 2006. I assert that this is the most recent academic view on the subject, published in a reputable journal, and based on archival research, cited in the article. Certainly, it could be argued that my statements are wrong, but sources need to be provided for that, and none have been - only older works which my article rejected, with reason. The conflict concerns how many locks were built by Sandys and how many by Yarranton, and which were pound locks and which flash locks). King 2006 in fact arose out of a dispute in editing the article on river Teme, where I was told that my edits were as much WP:OR, as the content I was objecting to. Accordingly an Admin said that I must publish my conclusions and could them cite them. The problem was exacberated by a proponent of the Teme being navigable having published an article I did so, whose main authorities were cited as information for me, indicating the exact reverse of what I in fact believed. My article correspondence in two further issues of JRCHS, with some one else bringing forward further evidence about a lock on the river Wye, supporting my argument.

In restoring text referring to my article, I deleted statements about the numbers of locks. There is no dispute over the number that existed by 1670. I see no reason why a paragraph could not be added stating how many locks were built in all, and their types; this would be uncontroversial. It would be useful if it were expressed as the number of locks above and below Evesham, since that has since 1660 been the baundary between the Upper and Lower Avon navigations. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It was clear that you and King are "identical"; and you are quite right in so far as King (2006) can be used as citations for statements made in this article. However, the converse is not true, i.e. this article is not a suitable medium for presenting claims that your article is wrong - and I'm making no such suggestions that it is. The article currently contains statements (with citations) that are based on Hadfield's work, either directly or quoted in more recent articles/papers. This statements can be corrected using your work as a citation, but that needs to be done by someone who has a copy. Criticisms of editors who were unaware of your work and/or who do not have access to a copy is certainly one way of publicising your paper; perhaps that was the intention. Pyrotec (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)