Talk:Strathaven

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

As a new reader of this article on Strathaven, from the outside looking in, I find the caveats - e.g. alleged "weasel words", "peacock terms", "lacking balance", etc - placed upon this article to be unnecessary, not applicable, invalid and inappropriate. Although I am not from Strathaven (pronounced "STRAYven") I am nevertheless local to the area and know Strathaven very well.

The article has been very well written and is very well balanced - unlike the clumsy attemts to edit and/or direct by remote control. It is neutral fact that "some people say" and that others "say something else" (regarding a controversial new Hypermarket proposal) - this, in fact, gives true balance. It is one thing to demand fact(s) all the time when it is appropriate. It is quite another and rather silly to (automatically) demand fact(s) when it is a matter of local unrest among the local community which is not particularly documented/published. The caveats placed all over the article by some remote Wikipedia editor show an incredible lack of knowledge of the loacal area or of the subject - to the extent that a very well written article and which is "right on the money" is doubted/decimated by robotic remote control in a "painting by numbers" manner. As a local (not Strathaven but closeby) I can tell you that the piece couldn't have been written any better, or any more balanced, or any fairer, etc. There are no missing "facts" to be placed within the article, and the "painting by numbers" remote control attempts to direct and/or edit are simply unnesessary, not applicable, invalid and inappropriate. Your own definition of "Peacock Terms" does itself state that there may be exceptions where common sense prevails - this is one instance whereby it is absolutely screaming from the rooftops for truckloads of common sense or even one miniscule grain of same to be applied. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.72.163 (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]