Talk:Shaw and Crompton/Archive 1

Metropolitan Borough
Just writing to ask that editors kindly keep the link to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham as just that. Oldham is a town within this Borough as is Shaw & Crompton, rather like how Ashton is in the borough of Tameside. Please be mindful of this confusion. Thank you. -- Jhamez84 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to make the exact same revert that Jhamez84 did, and I fully support his comments. Shaw is indeed in the metropolitan borough, and not somewhere in Oldham town centre! Please use the talk pages before making such edits (here and on other such borough articles), and please use the edit summaries to explain your thinking. Thanks in advance Aquilina 18:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

22nd March 2006

Jhamez84 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC) says... on the Crompton House article page there has been much dispute as to the location of Shaw and Crompton. The dispute is now on the Shaw page once again. I would argure that Shaw and Crompton is not is Oldham, but is in the Metropolitan borough of Oldham, in Greater Manchester. Whereas others disregard the local government reforms act and simply say Shaw is is Lanchashire (?) (not even in Oldham MBC). I would like to ask for a third party or democratic resolution on this matter as this may spiral on eternally as different people have different agendas and perspectives.... Thank you

Correct geographical locations

Formal addresses are not supposed to reference unitary or control authorities because they often change. I will refer interested parties to the National Archives, a government maintained site:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/searches/sidocs.asp?LR=758

While there are no records specifically on Crompton House, there are numerous records on other organizations in Shaw and Crompton. The location in both these cases is given as either "Shaw, Lancashire" or "Crompton, Lancashire". Mentions of Oldham Metropolitan Borough are omitted. Mentioning unitary authorities as locations is inaccurate (it is a a bureacratic construct) and confusing (especially for people who live far aware from the area and particularly global users.

In keeping locations in line with other countries I request that locations are put in a purely geographic context, and since most countries use the county system I think that should be the system used here.

Jhamez84 02:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC) says.... with regard to this, please can members visit the following for consideration:


 * http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/towns/oldham1.html
 * http://www.gmpte.com/
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester
 * http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/divisionssearch.htm (government maintained website)
 * http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/GBH_match_page.jsp?ons=Oldham
 * http://www.oldham.gov.uk/maps-oldham-area.gif (government maintained website)
 * http://www.agma.gov.uk/ccm/portal/;jsessionid=AFE76E2838716C62AE24B6E5BEB52B23 (government maintained website)
 * http://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/?id7=1&id8=2 (government maintained website)
 * http://www.shawcam.co.uk/
 * http://www.answers.com/topic/shaw-greater-manchester
 * http://www.wheresmyproperty.com/towns/GreaterManchester/shaw.htm
 * http://www.daisycommunications.co.uk/product/24848_broadband_Products%20and%20Services_Daisy%20Broadband_Broadband%20Availability_Greater%20Manchester.htm
 * http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/home/index.asp (goverment maintained website)

I argue that with a progressive understanding of geography, and the evolutionary nature of conurbations, Shaw and Crompton lie within Greater Manchester and Oldham MBC as do the above unbiased websites. I hope this aids this process.

Further to this, when I receive a copy of the Lancashire Evening Chronicle or the Lancashire Evening News through my door, and am greeted by my Lancashire police constable, and vote for a Lancashire member of parliament, and pay tax to the Lancashire county council, and use Lancashire county public transport, and have any connection with the people from the likes of Fleetwood, Ribble and Clitheroe as opposed to Oldham, Tameside and Rochdale, I will then of course admit that I live in Shaw and Crompton, Lancashire.

Within the opposing logic, I could argue that England belongs to the Roman Empire because it did historically, or Britain is not part of Europe/Northern Ireland is not in the United Kingdom simply because I had a biased cultural perspective, and/or had an agenda of promoting recessive content rather than that which is progressive, most widely understood and factual.

Wiki global consistency

I would like to point out that most of the aforementioned sites are not offical government ones (the plaintiff refused to accept the gazeteer site as proof). Secondly, the government sites which are mentioned are not specifically designed to show geographic information. They cover services which are provided within the various authorities (since Lancashire breaks down into many authorities this is natural). I would like to point out that the dispute is about the geographic location of the school, not which authority it falls under. Giving unitary authorites as geographic locations is confusing (especially for people who live far away from the area and particularly global users who may have no idea where these places are).

In keeping location information consistent with other countries (and with other historic location information) I request that locations are put in a purely geographic context, and since most countries use the county system I think that should be the system used here. If the OMB boundaries are redrawn this will mean changes to all affected location information. The geographic county system is more widely known, more accessible to people not familiar with the area, and more robust to future changes which the government is forever undertaking.

If you take encyclopeadias as a guide for wiki, I can assure you that you would never find a unitary authority given as a geographic location. Most likely it would give the county or a compass bearing (i.e. North-West England) or sometimes a district such as 'Greater Manchester' if the district is globally recognized.

Third opinion
First things first: User:213.122.87.239, please sign the end of all your posts using ~ . If you get an account too, you get access to more useful editing features.

Please keep all discussion regarding Shaw and Crompton and Crompton House on this page from now on please, there is no point duplicating content elsewhere.

This "debate" is an old hatchet on WP, and has been pretty much resolved. Before making any further contributions, I would expect you to have read the official naming conventions for WP, and for your own interest at the discussions and even more discussions that led up to them. The conventions give a number of test cases, including:
 * Southwark is a village in the London Borough of Southwark in Greater London. It is in the traditional borders of Surrey

The current metropolitan borough and metropolitan county are stated in full first.

Either way, Shaw and Crompton is part of the metropolitan borough of Oldham. Noone is saying it is in the town of Oldham (look, they even have separate articles). You may view that Shaw is only part of the metropolitan borough for purely administrative purposes if you so wish, but a part of the borough it is all the same. WP has chosen to use the administrative divisions for geographical demarcation; for better or worse, this is the convention we all must use.

The gazetteer you cite above is not an official document either (it is from a fairly insignificant pressure group - see Association of British Counties and the corresponding talk pages for more information).

You may include a reference to Shaw's historical position in the traditional, historical or geographical county of Lancashire in addition if you wish, but Shaw's position of one of the seven boroughs is a verifiable fact (regardless of anybody's CV), and I will edit the article to reflect this.

Hope this helps Aquilina 11:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Opinion
I would have to agree with Aquilina, however the debate was a very stimulating read!

When I was in the army, I had to join the Kings regiment (Manchester) because I was from Shaw, rather than the Queens regiment for Lancashire.

User:213.122.87.239, also says that we should go to our town halls to discover our real county.... this is an interesting point as Shaw does not have a town hall (nor really does Oldham if you disclude the Civic Centre!).

I now teach history at the University of Salford, (and added much of the historic content of the Shaw and Crompton article) and would concur that if we were to use Lancashire, this would not reflect the truth. Lancashire is an idealic, but medieval conception, where Lancaster is the capital city. Also the old Lancashire would also include Merseyside - no Liverpudlian would ever argue they are still in Lancashire over Merseyside.

I sympathise with those such as the people of Saddleworth who do not want to be part of modern counties or metropolitan borough systems, particularly that of Oldham Metropolitan Borough, but whilst it is verifiable fact it must remain on Wiki.

Thanks for your contributions however.

86.133.74.16 12:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Appeal

1) If you refer to published encyclopaedias they will refer to the county or region. It would be better and more professional to retain this link with with vetted encylopaedias rather than the opinions of amateurs on the internet with liberal agendas.

2) Nobody else in the country knows where Oldham Metropolitan Borough (although they may now since the Asian riots). Most people have an intuitive knowledge where the traditional counties are located, so I do not understand why you wish to make locating such towns such a difficult task.

3) Most people in Shaw & Crompton and Saddleworth do not associate themselves with Oldham anymore.  Why should their cultural identity be ignored?

4) How democratic is this decision process?  It just seems to me that a few registered users have made up their minds without taking a reasonble sized poll.

I am not satisified that the decision has been given due care so will remove mention to OMB for the time being until each of my points are democratically defeated in a proper consultation. However, I am prepared to compromise on "Greater Manchester" since it combines beaurocratic boundaries with a well know geographic location.

213.122.93.157

Counter Appeal

I am no fan of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham and the adminstratation which forms the Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, but one cannot deny that Shaw and Crompton both lies within it and is administered by them respectively. Also Wikipedia formal formatting policy does indeed dictate that administrative boundaries are the ones which should be primarily used (this is was a process which has been resolved in the past, and until the policy changes, then edits not conforming are vandalising).

Furthermore, impartial and global users who require information on which borough Shaw and Crompton belongs to, very much have a right to know that Shaw and Crompton does indeed form part of the Oldham Metropolitan Borough. To deny this information is against formal positions and legal ones (freedom of information act), and of course, fact. To not include Oldham MB is misleading that Shaw and Crompton is it's own borough and has full (legal or otherwise) town status.

With regard to the fourth point made above by 213.122.93.157 - the process has been formally made by Wikipedia, via consultation with users over similar disputes over similar towns. This process was a democratic one.

And with regard to the third point, I do not think this is a really verifiable point to make given that Shaw and Crompton unquestionably associated with Oldham

There are many published and even reputable encyclopedias, but many are outdated, and I must state again that fact must be included (one cannot simply claim independance from Oldham Metropolitan Borough and mislead users from the wider communities).

However, perhaps a compromise should be made, seeing that those from older generations tend toprefer the traditional address/version, whereas younger generations (whos views will become the norm) often mark their addresses as Greater Manchester and would even say they are from Oldham.

I think that stating that Shaw and Crompton is in the 'traditional' pre-1974 Lancashire boundary is quite fair, but that Shaw and Crompton does however now form part of the Oldham Metropolitan Borough, in Greater Manchester. Every other town (see Bolton, Rochdale, Trafford) has adhered to this, lets not allow Shaw and Crompton militancy let ourselves down.

86.133.74.16 15:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

More comments from 213.122.93.157

Ultimately it is a difference of opinion since many people will geographically consider themselves part of Lancashire. If a full agreement cannot be reached then the disputed information must be left out because it is only a fact by perception on what the information should be offering. I think "Greater Manchester" is a good compromise since it combines the two concepts - that of a geographic location and that of an administrative county. Since most countries use a county system I think an administrative county fits the fill. Listing unitary boroughs vandalises the concept and introduces inconsistency into the global outlook of Wiki. The fact that there is such a strong debate means there are two very strong opposing arguments, and impartial and factual doucments should not taking sides while such a large difference of opinion exists.

Compromise/Suggestion

Firstly, please can all users kindly sign their comments. This is done by typing 4 lots of "~". This is Wiki etiquette. It indicates which user added what, and at which given time.

I am perhaps being bold considering how emotive this topic appears, and would thus like further agreeement... but perhaps the main article page can begin with....

" Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish, forming part of the administrative Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester, England. It lies within the traditional (pre-1974 local government reforms) Lancashire boarder. It lies 10 miles to the north east of Manchester in the north west of the United Kingdom. "

???

Thank you, 86.133.74.16 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreement 1

Given that I was part of the original so-called edit war, and also requested third party mediation, I am pleased to see that most now agree that Lancashire is appropriate only when talking about traditional counties, and that Greater Manchester is wholly appropriate for the opening line in the Shaw and Crompton main article, as Wikipedia stipulates (after democratic processes I must add) on the official naming conventions for WP that the reformed metropolitan boroughs and counties should be used first and foremost. If this is the Wiki position then it should be applied to the main article.

I cannot see why anyone would wish to deflect from the truth that Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish forming part of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. It is 100% fact and so should undoubtedly be included.

However, without furthering the dispute I wish to proclaim my agreement with 86.133.74.16 regarding the opening line, and I am sure there will be no objection to his/her idea from level-headed members.

Thanks Jhamez84 16:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Response - please read the links, too
1) If you refer to published encyclopaedias they will refer to the county or region. It would be better and more professional to retain this link with with vetted encylopaedias rather than the opinions of amateurs on the internet with liberal agendas.


 * Yes, they will - as well as the metropolitan borough it is part of! We're not saying the mentions of the county or region should be removed, but the borough should be mentioned as well. That "Shaw and Crompton" exists as an offical entity within the metropolitan borough is a verifiable fact; that "Crompton House" is a school in the MBO is a verifiable fact (it has Oldham in its web adress for that very reason!); you have no grounds upon which to remove these statements.
 * As for agendas, you have already stated that yours is based your worries on what a potential employer may think if they found out that your school was close to Oldham. What's my agenda?

2) Nobody else in the country knows where Oldham Metropolitan Borough (although they may now since the Asian riots). Most people have an intuitive knowledge where the traditional counties are located, so I do not understand why you wish to make locating such towns such a difficult task.


 * Yes people have an intuitive knowledge of the traditional counties; references are included to that as well. For those who do have some knowledge of the area, knowing that Shaw and Crompton is near Oldham helps them pin it down even better.  Why does it have to be either/or?  Oldham is a large conurbation of national repute, it is extremely nearby, and the towns of Shaw and Crompton are partially administered from there. There is absolutely no good reason not to include a mention of it in this article.

3) Most people in Shaw & Crompton and Saddleworth do not associate themselves with Oldham anymore.  Why should their cultural identity be ignored?


 * Even if you proved this, which you have not, this does not negate the fact that the township is within the borough as stated. Even if the residents find this unfortunate, it is still a verifiable fact and should be included.  If you do find truly verifiable evidence that Shaw residents feel this way (ie with cited reliable sources), feel free to add the material into the article - but even then the facts in the first paragraph would still stand.

4) How democratic is this decision process?  It just seems to me that a few registered users have made up their minds without taking a reasonble sized poll.


 * If you read all the references I cited above, you would understand this was a long-running issue, which was fiercely debated by many, many users for a considerable length of time. That the naming conventions I referenced are so carefully worded is no accident; and neither is the fact that they are carefully enforced.  Quite simply, they are the only version upon which a considerable consensus could be reached.


 * The convention is there for a very good reason. Even if you don't agree with it (and even I do not agree with all parts of it), you still have to abide by it. I've you don't agree with it, but want your edit to stand I'm afraid you will have to go the long way round - by changing the convention itself. You can't just edit articles in a way which contravenes it.


 * As for "democracy" and "polls" you may like to read the official policy WP:NOT - especially Wikipedia is not a democracy, and also the article Polls are evil.

I am not satisified that the decision has been given due care so will remove mention to OMB for the time being until each of my points are democratically defeated in a proper consultation


 * You'll be surprised at the amount of due care that goes into edits. Just look back at the number of links to extra information and policies I have given in my posts, and that will give you some idea for the care on my part.


 * As before, wikipedia is not a democracy - basically, if an edit is verifiably true, then it stands (to within the limits stated on WP:V, and pages such as WP:RS etc.), and that is the case here. You have not demonstrated that Shaw and Crompton is not part of the MBO, and I'm exceedingly doubtful that you will(!)


 * We are all here to make edits on WP within the guidelines and conventions. Please take particular note of WP:3RR - further deletions of the reference may result in your IP being blocked from editing.
 * I am no fan of OMB either, but it does not change the facts of the matter. Wikipedia is not my soapbox Aquilina 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

213.122.93.157

The fact that there is such strong debate means that the issue has not been resolved appropriately and that Wiki 'conventions' have taken a biased viewpoint. This is unhealthy for a source of factual information. I am not objecting to the inclusion of OMB in the administration section, but it is not appropriate in the introduction. Any future changes should be ones that are acceptable to both sides of the argument otherwise there will be ongoing conflict.

213.122.143.43 18:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated reversions
There is a strong debate about how to refer to places in Britain, which is exactly why we have the conventions, and why they are enforced. It avoids this conflict on every single UK geographical article. If you disagree with the conventions you must change the convention, not the articles.

Consensus does not mean specifically agreeing with you. It is about the agreement of a large body of editors over a long period of time.

This is not a point of bias, but a point of fact. You have not justified these deletions satisfactorily (especially given the motives behind them given in your edit summary), and you are leaving the articles out of line of agreed conventions, and the standards set in other articles. As such, they will be reverted immediately.

Any further reverts in the near future will put you in breach of WP:3RR and will result in your IP being blocked from editing. Aquilina 18:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Revsions

You have not justified these deletions satisfactorily. There is strong debate which suggests there is no consensus - only people on one side of the argument creating unsatisfactory conventions. As such, they will be reverted immediately.

213.122.143.43 19:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edit of the article at Shaw and Crompton was in breach of WP:3RR; this was your fourth revert to this article in 24 hours - despite an explicit warning above.

Your finding a convention unsatisfactory (a convention which was formulated and is accepted by consensus within the rest of the editing community) does not justify your reversions.

I have reported this at the administrators' noticeboard, and on your talk page. Aquilina 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Wiki policy dictates here. I concur with Aquilina and Wikipedia. This is not a matter about pride but one of fact. I am writing to emphasise the above about vandlism and blocking all future misleading edits. It really shouldn't come to this. The county and borough boundry dispute has been made and resolved in the past and is no longer a dispute for new unregisterd members to make in article pages. Compliance is now a must.

Furthermore, all other aliases and IP addresses which revert factual content will have to follow the same process. (with regard to 201.19.187.39 - a fresh unregistered memeber, you have "Undone vandalism" (see []) suggesting that you want to include vandalism due to stubborness, assertion and miseducation regarding Wiki policy. Please do not do this).

Jhamez84 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

213.122.143.43

It has not been resolved. There were strong arguments on either side and then a decision was taken which in no way reflects a consensus - this is not how you present encylcopaedic facts!

213.122.143.43 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time I will respond to your comments before presenting your profile of consistent reverting against both the freedom of information act and established Wikipedia concensus to an administrator who will block you. Please kindly educate yourself about established understanding, halt with your stubborness and misinformed pride. If Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish, then my god.... what borough does it belong to?!. Final Warning. Jhamez84 22:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

213.122.143.43

First of all, I am as scientist and am therefore well versed about established understanding. In my work things are not put forward as facts unless there is a UNIFORM consensus. There is no consensus here so I think it is arrogant and stubborn for a factual document to take one side of a debate and present it as a fact. Wikipedia is often being criticised for including erroneous information and I can see why - it allows points of view! In the interests of presenting factual information a document should err on the side of caution and have a policy of just not putting forward 'facts' that are strongly disputed. I am willing to relinquish the inclusion of Lancashire as a geographic location because it is DISPUTED, but in the interests of presenting hard facts you should also be willing to give up on including OMB because it is DISPUTED.

If we cannot agree on the terminology its location should be left at regions i.e. North West England and the metropolitan county i.e. Greater Manchester (which combines the concept of a county as a geographic location with that of an administrative jurisdiction). Lancashire can be mentioned in the context of a traditional/historic county in the geography and administration section along the administrative boundaries of OMB.

I would welcome the intervention of an administrator at this point because it will be clear I am not vandalising the site - I am not submitting non-factual information but merely trying to ensure that it is restricted to information that EVERYONE considers factual

213.122.91.35 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether you are a scientist or not (I have conducted science experiments so am I a scientist?) you first of all made several gramatical, spelling and wikipedia ettiquette errors in that outburst. I secondly doubt your academic status because of the point foresaid, but also your profile does not match that of an academic. If my perception is correct, from your editting style I suspect you are the same vandal as before and thus I issue you here with an explicit warning not to change the article again. I am a history lecturer at the University of Salford if you must know at P.H.D. level, however this does not give me the right to remove verifiable fact.

What the majority is saying (which is actually in itself irrelivant) is that the Offical Wikipedia Naming Convensions and the Freedom of Information act dictate that the Metropolitan Borough must be included.

DO NOT VANDALISE THE MAIN PAGE AGAIN OR YOUR PROFILE WILL BE PRESENTED TO AN ADMINISTRATOR SO YOU CAN BE BLOCKED INDEFINATELY FROM EDITING

Questions:

a) Are you proposing that Shaw and Crompton is not part of the Metropolitan Borough? If so on what verifiable basis?

b) On what authority do you proclaim Shaw and Cromptons independance from the Borough?

c) On what grounds do you find the inclusion of the Oldham M. B. so offensive?

I am beginning to suspect from your contributions you are possibley an eldar angry at the council and with an agenda, or more likely a youth hell-bent on winding serious Wiki members up with your constant reverting (this is criminal occording to wikipedia rules). Please now take some time to reflect on this whole page and its links, accept that the borough must be included, and promote fact not fiction on our encyclopedia. 213.122.143.43 has now been blocked, again, this is an explicit warning now to yourself. 86.133.74.16 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

213.122.143.43

I am the same as which vandal? I am not misrepresenting myself - it doesn't surprise me one bit if other people are making corrections too. The odd spelling error can slip in when you type in a discussion. I am also educated to Ph.D level so I am not daunted by high qualifications, especially one that is irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

The OMB is mentioned in the next section where its administrative context is made explicit and none of my edits have excluded that so get off your high horse over the freedom of information act. It is brought up in the introduction as a geographic location. To present it as a geographic location is to give bias to it in favour of the traditional county system as a primary locator. Both should be presented together or none at all. In the present context a factual document is being used to promote an opposing perspective of the geography of the country.

213.122.91.35 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with it as it is now?

There are obviously two very strong opinions so it is a bit weak to rely on conventions that disregard the view of one side. Lancashire and the borough are both mentioned in the next section anyway where their roles are fully explained. I think 'Greater Manchester' is a good compromise. 61.88.180.180 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer

Firstly, the original vandal (213.122.143.43) was blocked for a reason; stubbornness and misunderstanding the role of Wikipedia and breaking several rules. And there was no link to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham throughout the article, each time you changed it.

Secondly you have been able to use an additional IP address (213.122.91.35 – this is misrepresenting yourself and using a second IP address and is also criminal according to Wikipedia), to try to further your baseless argument. I will present this new finding to an administrator who will - thankfully - block you indefinately.

Thirdly, if you are a scientist, you will know that those numbers convert to a customer location. You are a BT internet customer and your record of consistent vandalism to a website can also be forwarded to those at abuse@btinternet.com in addition to Wikipedia. I am making you aware of that here.

Fourthly you have not answered my questions, we (the collective whom have the backing of Wikipedia naming convensions and whom YOU have to prove first before altering the article – not the other way round), have answered yours. Finally, may I ask where you lectured at to attain your ph.D science degree? I hardly think science is an fitting branch of learning for presenting a (unsubstantiated) case regarding geography (I also further doubt your claim to academic status, although this is irrelivant). And finally, geography by its very definition encompasses everything (demographics, authorities, geophysics), so when you ask for a geographic location, Oldham Metropolitan Borough is not only fact, but a working and definable geographic location. This is why Wikipedia policy demands it is put into articles. Whilst this is an explicit warning not to vandalise again, please alter the article again so you receive your third warning.’’’ 86.133.74.16 11:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

213.122.93.157

First of all I have never lectured but I received my Ph.D. from UMIST. Secondly, I never used my qualifications to back my argument, I merely used it to rebuff a claim that I had a poor claim on established collective understanding and pointed out how 'facts' were put forward in my field. Thirdly, Salford is a relatively poor university so to end up lecturing there you probably received a second rate degree and are a second rate researcher. That makes sense because you do not come across as intellectually sharp because you keep missing the point everytime I argue the case.

I have not objected to the inclusion of OMB in the correct context. OMB may be definable as a geographic location but so are the traditional county boundaries which are much better known - the argument is about why one is favoured more than the other. By selecting OMB as the primary locator in the introduction to the detriment of the traditional county you are promoting a SPECIFIC view of the country's geography which many people don't like. If you do that in a factual context it implicitly implies one view is more correct than the other. Both are accurate views within their appropriate context, but whichever one is taken is purely a matter of preference. In respect to this, both views should be introduced together in their respective contexts in the next section, or should be included together in the introduction.

Also, report me to BT if you want but they won't give a shit. If they banned everyone who had disagreements on the internet they would lose most of their customers.

81.131.22.72 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Special Protection Status

I think the previous contributer (now using another IP address) has crossed the line with those comments and used a number of expleatives and derogatory connotations to 86.133.74.16 - Wikipedia - the free online encyclopedia is not a soapbox or some sleezy blog for personal attacks. I would like an impartial reader to forward the contributers new and all previous details regarding this matter to the relevant page.

Readers may be pleased or displeased that the Shaw and Crompton page has been viewed by an administrator and is now going under a process which will give it special protection status (see the Offical Wikipedia article on semi-protection) this will mean vandals cannot edit out the Metropolitan Borough and thus the Metropolitan Borough will remain indefinately. I would like to thank all those involved, even including 81.131.22.72 aka the blocked 213.122.93.157, for their contributions in this debate.

But as of a very short time with the coming of the protection status, this dispute will be concluded and in favour of those of the inclusion of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. Please can all users respect this decision and each other in this matter.

I hope this debate remains on here as an example case for other future editors on this page and others.

Regards, Jhamez84 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

213.122.93.157

For Pete's sake, it has been made crystal clear that there is no objection to the inclusion of OMB - only an objection to the inclusion of it at the expense of an alternative and respected geography. If you present impartial facts in an impartial factual document, you present both INTERPRETATIONS of those facts with the same level of importance. Many towns still have strong ties with the traditional boundaries at a social level (such as various sports, associations and events), and also in terms of geographical recognition. As for the different IP address, have you never heard of dynamic IP allocation? Just as well I have it from the sounds of things.

213.122.105.116 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You are now a known Sock Puppet and will be tagged accordingly. Consider this your explicit warning not to use such techniques on Wikipedia. Jhamez84 23:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the page as it is now? I think it is more comprehensive taking on board both points. Why are you not willing to compromise Jhamez84? 201.31.253.132 02:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have compromised, please stop arguing, register and contibute positively

I have argued all week that Shaw and Crompton is in Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, in Greater Manchester. I was told that it wasn't actually in either, and stubbornly told it lies in Lancashire, - which of course it "historically" does, but with the coming of the 1974 reform, georgraphy changed (please see what the definition of Geography encompasses), and their is a marked shift away from Lancashire (for better or worse) in, geography, administration, travel, government, policing and many many many departments and ways of life. For the record, I am not saying Shaw lies in Oldham town, or the city of Manchester, I am not denying that it has never been in Lancashire either.

During this week I've been insulted, had my personal user space vandalised, had to spend almost a week reading up on Wikipedia policy, had to make numberous explicit warnings, messaged several administrators, fought to get protection status, and thought now I had brought a clear conclusion to the arguement. I am actually a very busy person - doing what exactly I fear to say as I may receive abuse despite how respectable I believe my proffession is.

You now claim that you always wanted OMB listed, and that you compromise on Greater Manchester. - the very point I had to argue and research from the very beginning, (even though official naming convension demands this and is an old arguement previously resolved and accepted) it was actually this factor which you were originally so against and offended by, and the factor which has caused a huge page of writing to be presented to halt your reverting.

The last comment I made simply states that you are a sock puppet, i.e. using a non-static IP address. It did not say I was not prepared to compromise (and if you read this page you will see I was happy to compromise with both standpoints given the right contexts - whereas you were not). Multiple IP addresses are prohibitted on Wikipedia, it's to stop vandals and reverters circumventing rules and blocking. I must report this to Wikipedia, and you may find yourself blocked indefinately. If you think this is unfair then I would urge you to register, where you attain (or it seems, at least should do) more respect and editing features, and can even produce a profile about your self, explaining your motivations and acheievements. This would help us in thinking you are not some idiot new to the internet with a bias, but an accomplished academic putting forward a postulation (although this should be done in the discussion page anyway).

With regard to the article, I, as well as others simply have the best interests of the article at heart, we only wanted the truth published regarding the exact Borough or County it currently belongs - whether this is for better or worse (I actually despise Oldham as I think we all have said), it is truth, and even when I put my bin out this morning, it was stamped with Oldham Metropolitan Borough, and as I picked up my Oldham Advertiser, it says for the people of Oldham (which is not strictly true as we both understand). I presume you now of course see and/or respect that this is the motivation backing us in trying to keep the page as best as possible.

As far as I am concerned (as well as Wikipedia) the arguement is concluded; a special probationary period will come shortly, protecting the content from being edited further (you may find some of your reverts are cancelled - this will not be my decision but one of an administrators as they see fit). With regards to compromise, I have even given way to allowing Oldham MB to be mentioned second, even though every other page relating to a township in the borough mentions Oldham within the first few words inc. even Saddleworth!

Finally, Saddleworth has a strong pressure group trying to revert it back to the West riding of Yorkshire, or failing this, form a new borough with similar rural north-eastern Greater Mancuinian areas such as Littleborough (which if you read this article mentions the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale within a few opening words). Note, Saddleworth whole-heartedly acknowledges it currently belongs not to Lancashire, nor to Yorkshire, but to Greater Manchester, and specifically the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. You must understand that it is innate that the pressure group (Saddlworth White Rose Society) wouldn't exist if it was otherwise (you may be surprised I also happen to back them).

I believe I have been respectful to you, and listened to you and counter-debated each of your own debates, but I would now suggest if indeed you are a scientist with a PhD, to firstly register with Wikipedia, secondly halt using dynamic IP rolling, and then write an article on your given scientific thesis, one which you can contribute to Wikipedia with positivity and prudency. I sincerely hope this hails the end of this period of discussion, and can perhaps both expand upon other aspects of Shaw and Crompton. I look forward to collaborating with you on Wikipedia. Thank you Jhamez84 12:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton Geography Resolution
It appears that the edit war has now calmed somewhat. For those interested, I found the exact Wikipedia policy on town and place naming in Britain and can be found here.

According to this, following encycolpedic standards (yes the encyclopedia Britanica uses this method!), broad and accepted consensus, and legal positioning, modern Metropolitan boroughs and counties stand as the foremost system which one should use (and quite rightfully so in my opinion) and thus all British location based articles should reflect this. Historic counties from the old system should be placed as a secondary location and with appropriate context for historical interest purposes.

A note is (this is according to the conventions; I am not being stubborn), modern metropolitan boroughs must not be placed secondary to the "ceremonial" or older county systems in any article. The article must be changed to mirror this.

Please can all past, present and future editors become familiar with this piece of Wiki policy and ammend the main article as necessary and when necessary. Please leave this part of the discussion up as a permenant reminder to all. Thank you for your co-operation Jhamez84 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Crompton Fold
Could anyone help clear up my own confusion on the subject of the suburb of Crompton Fold. This article and the Buckstones article basically state that Crompton Fold was unofficially replaced with Buckstones, yet Buckstones doesn't appear on the Ordnance Survey map unlike Crompton Fold. In my mind the suburb of Crompton Fold is basically the area around the park where Crompton Hall used to be, including St. Saviours church and the old cottages and houses around it. As it's far from being a new area or estate like Buckstones itself, I can't understand how it got renamed, even if it was unofficially. St. Saviours Church continues to support this with the official church name remaining St. Saviours Crompton Fold according to the Manchester Diocese website. So, unless there is some documentation to say Crompton Fold is no more, please could we put it back on the map before someone notices it's gone? ;) Thanks in advance for any input! PeteB16 22:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC+1)


 * You are quite right to bring this matter to attention given the possible confusion surrounding this. Crompton Fold as a verifiable term/geographic location is still in existence, but the area was indeed unofficially renamed Buckstones (I believe in the mid to late 1970s), and is broadly known as a verifiable area...
 * A very comparible confusion exists with regard to Crompton being unofficially (re)named Shaw!
 * To be a little more specific to this matter, to refer to Buckstones is to refer to the residential/housing suburb; inclusive of the housing and amenities, whereas Crompton Fold is the actual historic geographic location we should use.
 * What I would be mindful of is, although one should use Crompton Fold, most do not, and thus Buckstones and Crompton Fold are both fine, verifiable, broadly understood, and are perhaps interchangable (!?) - as are Shaw, Crompton, and Shaw and Crompton as a location.
 * I would keep the article as is stands.
 * Furthermore, I am very much in favour of all the recent contributions to the 'Shaw and Crompton' article, but is it really appropriate that every single pub and building (at least currently) has it's own internal wikipedia link? - e.g. The Pineapple pub, Shaw! - I'm inclined to say it is not (the page is very much awash with red!!!). Hope this helps a little!... Jhamez84 23:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've found out since that 'fold' means collection of small cottages... which is quite appropriate considering that's all it ever was. What is known as Crompton Fold (that bit near where Crompton Hall was) remains a collection of very old cottages with the newest development being the church at the beginning of the 20th Century. I don't think anyone ever considered the huge 60's-70's housing estate now known as Buckstones as replacing or even being in Crompton Fold, as during the days of Crompton Hall it was, of course, just a very big field. Would it be okay to say that Crompton Fold basically stands as the tiny area around St. Saviours Church? As I believe it's more accurate. Unless you have and you can cite documentary evidence that says the Church, the park and the cottages around it have all been swallowed up as part of the new housing estate. There are tons of very small suburbs of Shaw and Crompton with a specific historic name and personally I don't understand why the name should be dropped just because it's got a bigger, newer neighbouring suburb. (You understand I don't disagree with your point of view, just the plonker in the 70s that stated Crompton Fold had erm... folded).
 * Thanks for your feedback; I'm glad my contributions are appreciated. I admit however, that I may have been getting carried away with the links (you're lucky I didn't do one for every mill! ;) ) I think it was mainly because there were already articles for different schools in Shaw and Crompton, I sort of carried on in the same 'The sky's the limit' vane. Obviously if you think having an article on every pub in Shaw is going a bit OTT I'll of course remove the links because I'm not sure I'll ever get enough information for those myself... although there is a book on Pubs in Oldham... hmmm... I'm kidding of course! :D PeteB16 01:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC+1)

Suburb/Hamlet Source

 * http://www.mancuniensis.info/CromptonFP.htm

I found this source regarding some of the ancient (disused?) suburbs and hamlets of the township of Crompton: I've listed it here first for a review as to if it's appropriate for the main Shaw and Crompton article page (the article is getting quite lengthy) or for the smaller article of Crompton (on which the information may get overlooked). Please let me know your thoughts? Jhamez84 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Status
The page may be going through some small changes over the next few days/weeks in an effort to bring the article inline with Good articles criteria. The changes will be positive ones, including better referencing section, an increase in information and related links, and more photographs.

For Shaw and Crompton to reach this would be a first of its kind given its small size and location, and probably a first for a town/civil parish to meet on Wikipedia.

Please refer to Good articles for the criteria which we must together meet. We must also bring the article inline with Manual of Style, Inline Citation, but also Naming conventions (places) and all Greater Manchester related articles. This means (quite rightly) puting the traditional/ancient county bounday information after the current one, as any British administrator will tear our hard work apart on this basis and not grant the Good Article stamp!

I will be providing a solid reference for the opening paragraph. This is the 100% bonifide legal status in short of where Shaw and Crompton is and more importantly was to stop any conflict with any individual (although given the justification made both here and with a reference I should expect there shall be no such problems).

I trust everyone will appreciate the hard work put in. I give particular thanks to User:peteb16 and User:Aquilina for their sources and contributions. Jhamez84 10:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are only referring to common law though, as in an act by passed by parliament. Common law is secondary to Crown law, and the PO accepts traditional counties as legal geographic locations with the same status as metropolitan counties and metropolitan boroughs.  Since the Queen legally owns all mail within UK borders, that means if the PO recognizes traditional counties as geographic locations they are recognized by the Crown, which takes precedence over common law. If wiki is to reflect the legality of the country's geography, then that means it shouldn't give precedence to metropolitan boroughs and counties.  To eliminate bias it would make sense to list them either chronologically or alphabetically. 81.131.33.194 12:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to provide proof that this is really the case. I've just used the Royal Mail website to verify my actual address based on my postcode. The result consisted of my address, Shaw, Oldham and my Postcode. It didn't say Lancashire (or LANCS) it didn't say Greater Manchester either. So it could be argued that as far as Royal Mail is concerned it doesn't matter if you use traditional or ceremonial counties in your address. If you wish to debate crown and legal issues regarding the county then you should note that the police force that is responsible for this area is Greater Manchester Police and like all police forces, its logo bares a crown and the insignia of the ruling monarch, in this case ER. Peteb16 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Postal counties of the United Kingdom should make it clear. Greater Manchester was never adopted by the Royal Mail as a county, and it was made clear that people 'in' Greater Manchester were in Lancashire.  This was an official part of your address until 1996, along with the name of the postal town (Oldham in Shaw's case).  Royal Mail has never acknowledged OMB or Greater Manchester.  Obviously Shaw is not in Oldham, that's just the name of the postal town, so as far as Royal Mail is concerned Shaw is in Lancashire, not OMB or Greater Manchester since it has never recognized them.  Since 1996, postcodes have formally replaced counties as your formal address but postal counties are still recognized under Royal Mail's flexible addressing policy.  So the Crown does not recognize OMB and Greater Manchester as places, even though common law may well do but the Crown takes precedence over common law.  Greater Manchester is a jurisdiction for the police, with administrative boundaries, not a geographic location.  In my view, if Wiki is to accurately reflect the location of a place then it should reflect the actual legality, and that is common law follows Crown law. i.e. OMB and Greater Manchester must come after the Crown recognized location of Lancashire.213.122.103.101 20:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article you referred to doesn't cite its sources. Also, forgive me, but I don't understand how Royal Mail represents crown law in any way. The government owns it and apart from the name it no longer has any connection with the crown. The government itself not only recognises Greater Manchester as the administrative county but it started the whole daft idea in the first place. In the interest of keeping this article accurate, I don't think Royal Mail should be used as a guideline - especially as it's mostly through their ignorance that Crompton ended up being largely referred to as Shaw in the first place. If we're going to use them as a definitive ruling on which bit goes first in the introduction, we need some hard proof that they actually know what they're talking about and that their views do actually express crown law. It could be that keeping the county address as Lancashire for all that time was just a way to avoid confusion which effected the efficiency of their sorting system. Incidentally I always took it that the 'Oldham' part of my address was referring to OMBC, just as when I lived in Newhey, the 'Rochdale' part of my address referred to Rochdale MBC.  Peteb16 21:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the naming conventions re GM are totally inadequate as they simply don't reflect popular usage. The vast majority of people correctly refer to these towns being in Lancashire.  Lancashire existed for hundreds of years prior to the county council being created in 1889.  The absurd logic of the fake counties fan club is that the real county ceased to exist in 1974 when county council boundaries were changed.  But that when GM council was abolished in 1986, it continued to exist despite the fact it was only ever created for admin purposes!  For the official crown position, see this map of Lancashire on an official crown website, quite clearly showing the traditional county (or county palatine) as the true position according to our head of state.  Lancsalot 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add an extra opinion on this subject for diffusion purposes; The Postal counties of the United Kingdom - if you read the article - are interestingly, actually and officially known as the former postal counties of the UK! However, this is all actually an old dispute which is for better-or-worse, resolved in the naming conventions aptly aforementioned previously. I've found it interesting that this dispute only exists (persists in form of trolling) on this article - look at Whitefield, Prestwich, Saddleworth, Castleton, Denshaw, Littleborough, Alkrington, Bury, Broadbottom, Tottington, Norden, Edgerton, Moorside, Blackrod, Offerton Estate, Ringway.... I could go on.... these Greater Manchester place articles all follow a broad consensus and understanding of "modern" geography, as per the naming conventions. This article should not be any kind of special case (Crown or no Crown!) and should be inline with these similar articles. Looking at Crowns and law - look at the Ceremonial counties of England (this acknowledges Greater Manchester). These areas of England are each appointed a Lord-Lieutenant; a royal representative. Also, we should use the exact equation in the conventions, that, ''A town is in the borough of "****" in the county of "****". It is in the traditional/historic county of "****".'' It's best to stick to this way of presentation as it is the only approved style of geographic presentation on Wikipedia; we use this to avoid disputes. An example of a good source is the one mentioned on the article already (The Greater Manchester County Records Office - note the use of county). A second one which has been used for citation elsewhere on Wikipedia for this kind of article is the Governmental Boundary Committee - note the use of county on this article. Regardless, this is an old dispute, and the article should reflect the conventions and not be changed by anyone - it isn't fair or appropriate or correct. I've always found that my part of the world is better represented on Wikipedia stating it is in the borough of "****", rather than other websites which use postal style geography and say it is just part of a larger town. I hope this solves any problems. Nice article BTW too! 81.154.76.6 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you 81.154.76.6 for the postive feedback and your support on this matter, you seem to have made an excellent case for keeping the article as it is.
 * Just quickly I'd like to respond to the previous post by Lancsalot if I may. The Wikipedia article you referenced says that Lancashire is formerly a palentine. The website, although seems to contradict this, notes in its FAQ that the palentine of Lancaster includes "today primarily Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside" thereby acknowledging they are currently seperate counties.
 * I agree that it is more popular to refer to the area as directly being in Lancashire, but we can't base this article on wishful thinking. We need to prove that we are in Lancashire and while the police cars have GMP on them, the bus stops have GMPTE on them and nowhere, besides an envelope, can you find the word 'Lancashire' around here, we're going to have a lot of difficulty making this one stick. So with this and 81.154.76.6's previous comment in mind I believe we should all agree at this point to just leave it be. I hope this is satisfactory for everyone concerned. Peteb16 00:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Crown recognition of Lancashire as a geogrpahic location:


 * "The Wikipedia article you referenced says that Lancashire is formerly a palentine. The website, although seems to contradict this, notes in its FAQ that the palentine of Lancaster includes "today primarily Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside" thereby acknowledging they are currently seperate counties."


 * This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of geography. A county cannot be 'three different counties'.  Counties do not contain counties.  The county Palatine of Lancaster is broken into three distinct administration counties.  These have noe bearing on geography.  Here is a map from the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster showing the geographic Lancashire boundaries:


 * "We need to prove that we are in Lancashire and while the police cars have GMP on them, the bus stops have GMPTE on them and nowhere, besides an envelope, can you find the word 'Lancashire' around here, we're going to have a lot of difficulty making this one stick"


 * Here is a quote from the MOD site which makes it quite clear that only administrative boundaries have changed: "The Local Government Act of 1972 altered the administrative boundaries of Lancashire by creating the Metropolitan Counties of Merseyside and Greater Manchester. These three administrative counties now form the area for which the Chancellor of the Duchy has magisterial responsibilities.  However the historic County Palatine boundaries are not altered by this administrative change".


 * Here is a quote from a parliamentary debate which quite clearly points out that a person's address is in Lancashire and that the 1972 Local Government act did not 'reform' the boundaries of Lancashire: "The solicitor for the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster is appointed to administer the estates of persons whose last permanent address was within the boundaries of the county palatine of Lancaster who die intestate and without surviving kin entitled to the estate under the rules of intestate succession. The boundaries of the county palatine are the same as the county boundaries which existed prior to local government reorganisation in 1973" under the Duchy of Lancaster section


 * This is an official government comment that the traditional Lancashire borders still constitute a geographic location and that the boundary reform only effected changes in administration and not GEOGRAPHY.


 * Wiki is factually incorrect in its presentation of administrative regions as geographic locations. It is technically committing treason by denying Crown authority on this issue.  81.131.69.244 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now is that leaving it be? I'm sorry but with all due respect you're still not making a case for changing the article.


 * "This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of geography. A county cannot be 'three different counties'.  Counties do not contain counties.  The county Palatine of Lancaster is broken into three distinct administration counties.  These have noe bearing on geography".


 * I'm not sure what definition of geography you're using here (maybe my own misunderstanding) but you seem to be under the false impression that we're talking about a single county that has been broken into seperate counties. A 'County Palatine of Lancaster' is an official, in this case an official of Lancaster, who is responsible for a number of counties, in this case Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester. The website about the Palatine actually acknowledges that "today" Merseyside and Greater Manchester are as much counties as Lancashire is. Shaw and Crompton isn't in the county of Lancashire it isn't in county of Merseyside thereby it must be in the county of Greater Manchester as accurately described on the article page. It used to be in the county of Lancashire before they moved the boundary in 1974, this also is accurately shown in the article. You cannot currently argue that through your view of geography, crown law or an accusation that Wikipedia (an International website) is committing treason, to get the article to be changed so it suggests the district is in Lancashire. I'm sorry you feel so strongly against the way the government has messed up the counties with blatent ignorance and miles of red tape, but denying they've done it in this article isn't going to help anything.  Peteb16 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'County Palatine of Lancaster' is a historical name for Lancashire. Lancashire's borders are shown on the map.  It references the Lancashire, GM and Merseyside administrations in the context of undertaking administrative duties, and these are the three administrative counties in Lancashire.  The geographic boundaries of Lancashire are clearly shown on the map provided by the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster.  Also, I have presented you with clear evidence from a parliamentary transcript that the Lancashire borders still exist and are no different from those prior to the local government reforms.  It doesn't get any clearer than that.  Please show me the part of the 1972 Local Government Act which desolves Lancashire's geographic borders, as opposed to just establishing administration counties.  Borders can only be desolved by an act of parliament, so please show me official evidence that the traditional Lancashire borders were dissolved.  I've shown you a parliamentary transcript which indicates that they still exist, so the onus is on you to prove that they were dissolved by parliament.

213.122.40.204 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys.... come on now. Putting my beleifs on this matter to one-side (although I can't resist the temptation to state that the pro-Lancashire school of thought is making contradictorary and obsolete/defeatable suggestions - e.g. that acts of parilament don't desolve laws and borders - the UK uses what's known as Constitutional reform, and acts of parilament simply over-ride previous acts.)... this article's talk page is not the place to be having this discussion. This kind of debate should be initiated at Village pump. I'm giving some advise for free here; you'll get further there than arguing with other users on here, as the pro-Gtr Manchester school ultimately have the backing of the conventions and are in turn just carrying out verifiably good-work. Trolling here is not going to change this.

Additionally, this debate and talk page is excessive and oversized (at some 64KB) and according to Article size, needs archiving ASAP. Jhamez84 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, with a final request to 213.122.40.204 to re-read the parliamentary transcript and the Duchy website, they do not prove your case. The only evidence I can show to prove that Shaw and Crompton is in Greater Manchester is the transcript and the website itself and I've already done that. With respect, I believe you merely misunderstanding them. If you did fully understand the whole concept of what the palatine is, the role of the Duchy of Lancaster and the counties it is currently responsible for, you wouldn't be using this as a case for changing the article. I urge you to let the subject end here with a firm and definite no - The article stays as it is and this debate terminates now before it causes more problems. Thank you for your input in this matter and I wish you well. Peteb16 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)