Talk:Cambridgeshire TIF bid

Primary and secondary sources
While I agree with Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources I feel that in a case like this, where the information is either in the document or is not, a primary source is appropriate provided that no attempts are made to analyse the information. EricITOworld (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons for using third-party sources is that it's a way of showing the notability of a subject. I suspect this article will not meet notability criteria, but I'm waiting to see how it pans out before suggesting deletion. Dancarney (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cambridgeshire County Council is the promoter and therefore has a point of view. The article includes potentially controversial statements such as "congestion charging as the solution to Cambridge's transport problems".  There is also no challenge to the implicit assumption that these proposals would be worth the cost and pain and demolition and loss of green space.  In responses to the public consultation some people didn't think it was necessary to do anything.  You might like to look at the survey results http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/strategies/tacklingcongestion/consultationresults.htm.  Although this was an independent survey, it was commissioned by CCC. Rich257 (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that the full quote is "It was this study's findings that put forwards congestion charging as the solution to Cambridge's transport problems", which I think could be changed to make it even clearer that that is Cambridgeshire CC's point of view and not a statement of fact.
 * Point my second would be that I make no statement that the cost is worthwhile in either monetary or land use terms, merely saying what CCC's plans are. Though well cited points of view would help to create a fuller understanding of the scheme and its impact. EricITOworld (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there was no intent in the article to present the proposals as "an ideal solution". I was just pointing out that another reason for adding other sources is that they may provide another point of view (or not) and may have further insight into the proposals. Rich257 (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)