Talk:Royton/Archive 1

Politics and Ethnicity of Royton

A singular editor (81.131.8.32/81.131.5.2) has been contributing writings about the BNP presence in Royton. Whilst the BNP did indeed receive votes in both the wards of Royton North and South, (although considerabley fewer as parliamentary constituency of Oldham West & Royton in the 2005 general election), I do not think it is nessesary to include them in the Royton page as they are not in power (there is a compartively tiny mention of Labour in the article), given they have a fairly small part in the history of Royton.

The contributions are also of a highly politically biased nature and are somewhat misleading by their omittion to other political parties and views. Comments like the "2001 Asian Riots" are further inappropriate on Wikipedia given that the internal article to which it is linked to is actually named the Bradford/BNP riots.

The mention of BNP is of course allowed on the article but only when presented in an impartial and truly comprehensive mannor, (eg that every political party is represented and expanded upon, - with particullar expansion to the current and prevailing administration. The contributions made by 81.131.8.32 are not made with a neutral point of view (he/she is clearly a BNP supporter), and thus I would urge a re-edit.

For now I will move the comments into a seperate subsection. Can all members/editors become mindful of various contributions and remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy or soapbox, but an encyclopedia. Jhamez84 10:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is appropriate for a town's politics to be included (as long as it sticks to facts and figures) - especially if those politics are unusual. The BNP's progress has been the subject of a lot of media and political coverage and is of interest to many people. You are always going to get people who think such information is irrelevant or they don't simply like the facts themselves. Prominent local issues should not be censored (especially if presented impartially) and the rise of the BNP has been the main local issue of the last five years.

213.122.95.32 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In these sort of matters, there's a couple of things to remember - read the first line of WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

You should write without passing comment, and state only facts expressed in reliable sources. It may be true, but this is not the place for original research or comment. If there's a lot of media coverage, there should be no problems finding links to it. If it has political coverage, link to the debate in Hansard. If you're going to make a claim, be prepared to back it up stoutly.

Next, the rule of thumb is that if when someone else reads the article they can tell your point of view, it wasn't written in a neutral point of view (read WP:NPOV).

Finally, WP:NPOV states that facts should be placed in true proportion: although it did receive media attention, the fact is that no BNP member has ever been elected for this place, nor even come particularly close in its entire history. In the grand scheme of things, it's a footnote.

But overall, I don't think the article is too bad as it stands. I'll look over it again later Aquilina 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. I did indeed re-hash the article earlier to both keep the inclusion of the British National Party (which is quite fair given that it is fact and the nature of their policies and politics are a little... say... niché) but also reflects a more neutral and encyclopedic point of view. I trust that this edit is a now more appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks, Jhamez84 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have temporarily deleted the last paragraph of "Politics in Royton". I would like to point out that I do not object to the inclusion of the constituency results as long as there is a mention of the number of wards in the constituency (to put Royton's impact on the results into perspective) and that you reference the stats/results on an official government site. The Guardian is not a reliable source, even though they are correct in this instance.

213.122.23.86 01:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian newspaper is a perfectly reliable source for information - read WP:RS. Official figures are preferred, but in general there would be nothing wrong with using a respected national newspaper. Aquilina 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The source is no longer the Gaurdian website, but the so-called "official" oldham.gov website, the same one which the BNP supporter is also using. I trust this resolves the matter and brings neutrality to the article. Jhamez84 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 election results are on the appropriate constituency page, which Royton only forms a small part of. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to place constituency results on a 'ward' entry when they are available on the main entry.

213.122.33.254 10:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No this is unacceptable, either both paragraphs must be included or neither, otherwise their is a clear biased politial agenda to the article which is not NPOV. You were satisfied when the Oldham.gov site was cited, now you are not, indicating you are merely being awkward and trying to omit verifiable fact. This is considered Vandalism. Jhamez84 10:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To remove bias I've added Royton's council results to the constituency page since you seem to think the data is interchangeable. If you insist on including the constiuency results on a ward entry then the ward results must be added to the constituency entry since the same argument holds..

213.122.33.254 11:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets be civil here, I merely object to the censorship of 100% factual verifiable truths that Royton is wholly connected to the constituency of Oldham West and Royton (the fact it has Royton in the title is the give away to me (?!), and that the opening line of the section states this). You objected to the removal of the local council results on the same grounds of censorship, so I think we have an understanding here yes?

I will not be "gagged for telling the truth". If you object to the inclusion of the political vote facts on the Royton page, I suggest you start the Royton north and south ward pages and include the results there, thus removing any potential bias or political agendas from this main article. Because you do not agree with the results does not merit grounds to remove them:- and that goes for myself also.

With regard to this matter, if both paragraphs are included with full contexts I am satified with a NPOV being reached and that the article is fair, factual and comprehensive.

I trust we have an agreement and can now work together to improve the content of the Royton article in respect of identity, heritage and history, so it can rival the content of the Shaw and Crompton page.

I look forward to adding the forthcoming local election results to the relevant pages. ;) Thanks, Jhamez84 11:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you revert/vandalise the page again you will be in direct contradiction to the 3RR. As you have no static homepage, consider this an explict warning not to alter the page again, otherwise your profile will be presented to an administrator who may find it nessassary to block you from Wikipedia indefinately. Jhamez84 11:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

1. Read WP:CIVIL; calling people stupid in edit summaries is not helpful.
2. There is no reason for the constituency result not to be duplicated here, as it is relevant to the section - it is titled Politics after all!
3. I have temporarily removed the following section:

Royton has a predominantly indigenous white population and has been relatively free of the inter-racial problems that have been apparent in neighbouring Oldham

for this to be included, sources must be quoted for each of the three claims here (ie official figures of Royton's ethnic make-up, official statement of inter-racial troubles in Oldham, official statement/figures that this is lower in Royton). This is necessary by WP:V, as above: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

1. I have removed the link to the Bradford riots, as these are not directly connected - far better would be to create a new article on (specifically) the riot in Oldham, and link to that instead.

Aquilina 11:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics

This section keeps being vandalized by Jhamez84 because it doesn't fit with HIS image of the article. I believe it is the duty of the politics section to appropriately reflect the political landscape of the town. In doing this it is necessary to document how it has changed over the last few year. It is a FACT that BNP in the course of four years have gone from not contesting to receiving more votes than any other party other than Labour. It is a FACT that they only started contesting local elections after the Oldham riots. It is a FACT that the rioters were predominantly Asian Muslims - as documented in the main article on the riots and I believe it is necessary to include this information since it was the catalyst for the rise of the BNP in Royton. The vote counts are included so people can see the voter differentials for themselves. The section is being continuously damaged by Jhamez who keeps erasing a major part of a verified fact based article and adding poorly spelt superfluous information. This is vandalism, because by viewing the references it is clear that the facts are interpreted correctly which is the main criteria for inclusion on wiki. I would request anyone who comes across this article to revert the alterations he makes to it. 88.104.65.61 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed the history for this article I do not believe any of the edits by Jhamez84 can possibly be considered vandalism. This simply is a conflict between two editor's opinions of what should and shouldn't be included in the article. Wikipedia policy requires you to come to a concensus about your edit decisions and be civil to those whom oppose them. By writing a large paragraph accusing another editor of vandalism and requesting other editors to revert their contributions is not the way to do this. It is concidered edit warring and places yourself in a very poor light.

Offering an opinion, the information regarding which race was predominantly involved in the riots, or what was the catalyst for the rise of them, isn't really relevant to this article. If someone wanted to know this information, they would look for it in the Oldham Riots article, not here. Also if you believe your information can be verified, then a citation should be provided, again Jhamez84 can not be concidered a vandal for removing uncited information whether it's fact or not. ~~ Peteb16 22:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The information can easily be verified by following the link to the wiki article on the race riots and the reference to past election results on the council website. 88.104.105.120 01:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were relevant to Royton, anything included in this article has to be cited in the same article. Also, you keep reverting other legitimate edits which have nothing to do with the politics section. I will now revert again, please do not change anything back before discussing this properly and coming to a proper concensus. ~~ Peteb16 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, having now had the time to read the article you are referencing, I can find no information in the Oldham Riots article that says that the rioters were predominantly Asian-Muslims or any other race for that matter. ~~ Peteb16 09:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look under 'Riots' in the riots article you will find this in the first paragraph: "The race riots took place throughout the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, peaking on Saturday, May 26, 2001, and continuing on Sunday 27, and Monday, May 28, 2001, were particularly intensive in Glodwick, an area the south of Oldham town centre, were highly violent and led to the use of petrol bombs, bricks, bottles and other such projectiles by up to 500 Asian Muslim youths as they battled against lines of riot police[4]. At least 20 people were injured in the riots, including fifteen officers, and 37 people were arrested.[5]" 88.104.13.61 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Where in all of that does it say the rioters were predominenantly Asian Muslim? It gives a rough figure of 500 people, there is no other frame of reference to draw any conclusion. With all due respect why do you keep reverting without getting a concensus? Please read WP:3RR it will tell you that what you keep doing is wrong. I've given you the respect you deserve as an editor and assumed good faith, but you don't seem to want to respect anyone elses wishes here or the rules of Wikipedia. ~~ Peteb16 19:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I must also echo the sentiments of Peteb16 and would urge the anon (banned user Filmfan1971), to use edit summaries to comment on content, not contributors.

You keep removing Metropolitan Borough of Oldham once again, under the guise of spelling corrections - this is a bad faith edit. Furthermore, the BNP's manifesto is (apparently) not against minority-ethnic groups per ruling of Nick Griffin - so Asian or other ethnic coding shouldn't matter here. Also Asian may mean Chinese, Thai, Filipino, Afghani, Shri Lankan, Japanese etc etc, and is very ambiguous. The wording attempted to be used also uses weasel words which appears to place the blame upon the Asian community - despite most sources (which if you really want we can include on this article) saying it was the blame of white extremists.

Also, many men involved in the riots are British - shall we say British rioters? - it is quite verifiable. Whoever the rioters were, this is covered in interwiki, and does not help the Royton article in any way, particularly as this happened in a different town (which I thought you didn't want Royton connected with?).

I object also to the overkill on the BNP - they are a minor political party who have not won any election in Royton or wider Oldham (didn't Treacy leave early during the last election and then quit the party?). This section should be used for academic and historical purposes, for prevailing politics - not used for contemporary political propaganda for second-rate parties.

Why not now try to seek consensus that encompasses this? All that may be required here is a rephrase of the section to suit all. Jhamez84 11:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Town Hall Clocktower

I don't know whether other editors of this page have ever been to Royton, but the fact is that the east-facing clock is the smaller one. I qualified my comment about Shaw and Crompton as being a 'legend'. Many people in Royton believe it to be true; some do not. However, that such a tale is told says something about Royton's civic history and identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratner's Star (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Okay, the problem is, without having to go to Royton itself, or stand on my roof with a pair of binoculars, I'm going off the only published information on the web [1] for 'verifiable' information, which is what Wikipedia wants. There is also the indisputable fact that the bulk of Shaw and crompton is to the North East of Royton, East of Royton is Heyside and Oldham. Placing a smaller clock on the east side of the tower would therefore not have anything to do with Shaw and Crompton. I'm willing to bet the smaller clock face has nothing to do with other towns at all. The information is actually copied and pasted from this source anyway so it still needs a lot of rewording to avoid copyright problems. A picture of the clock tower itself with another building as a frame of reference may help to resolve any disputes with the conflicting information. Other than that, I'm happy for it to say 'east' for now. ~~ Peteb16 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! I sincereley apologise to all users of Wiki that may have needed this page for info, I didn't realise it would class as IP Vandalism or that it could be locked, I was merely having a laugh because of the statement in the Town Hall Clocktower Article about "Civic Rivalry between Royton and Shaw & Crompton"(I am a resident of Royton BTW)

On the issue of the clock face the East Facing clock is the one that points towards Shaw & Crompton! North faces Rochdale! as in Rochdale road where the town hall is situated facing West (map or compass anyone?)

The Race Riots were not an issue of race more an issue of hot summer nights, boredom and some story about white youths beating up an asian girl outside a shop which then in turn led to a lot of the muslim community (Youths i may add)in Oldham going on a riot there wasnt any white people to be seen once it had all escalated! also none of this rioting even touched Royton or had anything to do the locals because it was on the other side of town the nearest it got to Royton as far as i know was one of the pubs along Rochdale road near to the hospital was smashed up!

Once again my sincerest apolgies to all i may have offended (I didn't do it, I wasn't there!)Agr33d 08:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Previous comment moved from beginning to end per WP:TALK#Technical and format standards ~~ Peteb16 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Edit war

Please be mindful that there appears to be an edit war going on. An unnamed user keeps removing links to the Oldham borough from the Oldham category. A number of them have been re-linked DShamen 03:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rochdale Category

This has been added since Royton and Rochdale share UK parliamentary representation. Thornham falls across the Royton-Rochdale boundary, but Thornham is represented in the "Oldham West and Royton" constituency. That means Royton helps to elect parliamentary representation for Rochdale and vice versa. 88.104.88.173 14:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you are adding a rather bizarre frame of geographic reference to the Royton article (both the County Palatine of Lancashire and the Rochdale category). Your efforts confirm you are the previously banned contributor (I keep all the evidence) that pops up on the Royton article every few months, starts an impossible arguement to win, loses, gets blocked and then disappears to make a new plan, and thus I am writing to you to explain the position that is taken by the editting community, and to explain what is likely to happen if you persue this matter... again.

Given your editting history, you should be aware that continually adding references to Lancashire to the lead of Royton in an attempt to nulify links to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham will be reverted by the editting community. Each time you have done this, the community gains numbers, awareness, strength and measures to tackle you. The evidence also grows against you for a means to "range block" you - where none of your multiple IP addresses will work on Wikipedia indefinately.

The policy, for better or worse is to use contemporary geography (ie. the Ceremonial counties of England). The Dutchy of Lancashire merely excersises the right of the crown within the area (which WAS affected by the Local Government Act 1972, as it holds royal executive power in parts of the pre-1974 boundaries of Cheshire, and acknowledges the Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England as counties like mainstream people do [2]), and is not a frame of reference taken by any normal reader, contributor, person or indeed child or impaired, or taken by any other encyclopedia. Royton has no historic, or contemporary geographic links with Rochdale; Thornham is also split by ward and consituency, and thus Rochdale has no impact upon policital representation at any level for Royton.

There is an overwhelming consensus and policy that dictates this. If you persue this matter yet again (I think this will be your tenth time over 18 months), the article is likely to be protected, your contributions removed, and your accounts blocked. Please take this opportunity to rethink your position, and actually contribute something of worth to the article, rather than engage in provocative debate (you know how to use edit summaries but are not acknowledging them, and you are aware of the pattern which unfolds each time).

I must make you aware of the three revert rule - if you change the article to the same effect more than three times within a rolling 24 hours, you will be reported and blocked. Jhamez84 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The three revert rule applies to both of us. It means that if you effectively UNDO an edit THREE times you are in violation. Currently we are both on two, and if you revert it again you will be in violation of 3RR: "The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:

   An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. "

You will find that the whole of Thornham (even the part that lies in Rochdale borough) is included in the OldhamW/Royton parliemnetary constituency. This means people who live in Rochdale borough help to elect parlimentary representation for Royton and vice versa so Royton and Rochdale are tied to each other on a political level. The categeory is justified on that level because Royton is involved in "Government in Rochdale" which is a sub cat of 'Rochdale'. 88.104.88.173 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Thornham is split between Oldham West and Royton (UK Parliament constituency) and Rochdale (UK Parliament constituency). It's also split at a ward level [3]. Please base your contentions on verifiable fact rather than distruptive ideas. I beleive that settles our dispute. Jhamez84 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to request for intervention

1) I agree with Jhamez84 that the first paragraph should only be used for conventional geography. For this reason I've removed the county palatine reference, but I agree that Royton's distance from Rochdale is acceptable .

2) Royton is in the County Paltine so it is acceptable to state this, but best in the 2nd paragraph where Lancs is mentioned.

3) Jack Wild is indeed an Oscar nominated actor so I don't understand the problem with this. If it were my town I'd be proud of that.

4) The Rochdale category. I can't find anywhere that says Thornham is split across two constituencies. According to wiki it is only represented by one, Oldham West and Royton. If this is the case then it is perfectly proper for the Rochdale category to be there. If Jhamez84 is correct then I suggest he updates the Thornham entry with a proper reference saying that the Rochdale 'bit' of Thornham is in a different constituency and then remove the category from the Royton page. WalterMitty 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, where do I begin... the County Palatine was altered, and is not suitable for the lead of any article other than it's own (WP:LEAD, Naming conventions, UK settlement guidelines). Royton is not in Rochdale, or the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale and should never be placed in that category.

The distance to Rochdale in the lead is excessive and in breach of the aforementioned policies and guidelines, and inconsistent with every single settlement article on Wikipedia.

You've also removed the Greater Manchester navigation template - why? This is a breach of the WikiProject Greater Manchester settlement guidelines. With all due respect, we need an experienced editor here to make decisions like this. Jhamez84 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I got a message about Royton from 88.104. I think it's because I backed him over the category name so he thinks I will take his side. However, I will happily back you if the guidlines back you. I may be inexperienced, but if you humour my attempt at dispute resolution then may get somewhere. Maybe I can help :)

First, I took the Palatine out of the first paragraph since I agree it should be used for geography. Do you have an objection to the palatine being mentioned alongside Lancs in the second paragraph?

Secondly, where are these distance guidelines. If Rochdale lies out of the 'zone' then doesn't Manchester? Could you give me link to this set of guidelines. I agreed with 88.104 because it seemed reasonable but if it breeches the guidelines I will back you in removing it.

Third, the Rochdale category. Is there a reference for the Thornham constituencies because I agreed with this category on the basis that the wiki article about Thornham only cited the one constituency. You seem to be sure about this, but if we can find a reference that says Thornham is split then there is no argument for the Rochdale category to be there. At the moment, it looks like Royton and some of Rochdale share an MP on the Thornham article. WalterMitty 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He has only added Rochdale to the category to further his ideals of Royton being nothing to do with Oldham... that you have fallen for this and are backing this disruptive user is frankly tragic on your part, as inoffensive as inserting the distance between Royton and Rochdale is, it was done in bad faith. DShamen 09:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't judge contributions to articles by who made them, or revert them wholesale out of spite. I judge them on their merits and 'bad faith' isn't a valid argument for reverting changes if they are factually accurate and in keeping with the tone of the article. If you took the same approach maybe you wouldn't get caught up in pointless edit wars - 88.104 is certainly an irresponsible editor, but your behaviour has been a contributing factor to the vandalism the Oldham articles have endured. WalterMitty 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I find that very doubtful. I reacted angrily and stupidly... but he would have continued his assault on the Oldham categories regardless... as he does, every year. DShamen 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think it does. Neither side even attempted to come to a resolution. WalterMitty 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)