Talk:Adlington, Cheshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

"Todo" content originally listed by  DDStretch  (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Chutney incident[edit]

Jotel, I am surprised you consider a spillage of 18 tonnes of mango chutney to be 'trivial'. It is a serious incident, exceptional in the history of the village. It distinguishes Adlington from other places, even ones with the same name, such as Adlington (Lancashire), where an incident of this nature never took place. Apparaently signed by 22:39, February 18, 2008 User:86.144.214.123

Reverter, you write: 'It is not for us to justify our removal. It is for you to justify why it is NOT an emphemeral and trivial event, unsuited for an encyclopaedia'. I'm not clear what status you have that you arrogate to yourself the right to act without justification ('it is not for us to justify') AND the right to summon others to justify themselves before you ('It is for you to justify'), but justify myself before you I will. First of all, ephemerality is out of the question. All historical events are ephemeral in that they happen only once and then pass. Second, it is quite clear that this event is remarkable. Few things have happened in Adlington; and few events of this nature have occurred in any other village. You may consider it trivial only if you adhere to a narrow conception of historical importance being defined within given patterns of political causality. On this logic events such as the sinking of the Titanic would also be trivial since they do not trigger immediate and major consequences in the field of inter-state relations and global order. However, public sensibility and the new cultural history (such as practised by Burckhardt and Huizinga) would evaluate the historicity of an incident like this somewhat differently. See for instance Daniel Wickberg, 'What is the history of sensibilities? On cultural history, old and new' in the American Historical Review, vol. 112, no. 3 (June 2007), pp. 661-684[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.192.243 (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Any editor can edit anyone else's contributions to wikipedia, and that includes removing content because it seem unlikely to satisfy the criteria for inclusion into wikipedia. Asking for justification is merely part of the guidelines as given in WP:V, and WP:References. Given that you have now explained why you think it is a notable event here, which is all that is required, then I, for one, would no longer remove it if you were to add the information again to the page. However, one cannot guarantee that other editors will agree with this, and you may yet find it is challenged and/or removed by others if the information is added again. The way to prevent this from happening is for the entire article to be expanded and structured along the lines described in WP:UKCITIES, so that, in context, this incident does not seem to dominate and appear to be the most remarkable thing about the civil parish and village. I know this should not matter, and ideally it wouldn't, but we are not in an ideal environment here. I would like to encourage you to help out by adding other information to the article to assist here, and can receommend that you look at, for instance, Chew Stoke, as an example of how a full article about a UK village could look (Adlington may have less information available about it than Chew Stoke, but it surely has more than the article shows at present!) Acton, Cheshire is another example of a good Cheshire village article, and I hope you can find some time to do this, which I would support you in doing. Sorry for any inconvenieice my actions may have previously caused you about this matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Adlington (Cheshire) 2008 Mango Chutney Spill, as it will undoubtedly be known in history, is something IMHO suitable for a Trivia section, except that the WP's Collective Wisdom decided such a section should be discouraged in all articles. --Jotel (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jotel, I think it could just be called the Adlington Mango Chutney Spill, or AMCS for short, as there has been no such spill in other years, or in Adlington (Lancashire). Regarding 'trivia', I presume Wiki policy is against separate trivia sections, rather than trivia per se. Trivia is a contextual category. For instance, the quotations illustrating the Oxford English Dictionary definition include objects like paperweights and questions such as 'Who is the heavyweight champion of the world?' or ‘Who was the back-up astronaut for Christa McAuliffe, the first teacher to fly in the space shuttle?’, as examples of trivia. And yet Wikipedia not only answers these questions but sometimes has separate articles dedicated to them.86.144.214.169 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have restored the AMCS in accordance with above discussion. I agree there should also be other facts about Adlington in this article; and that the Chew Stoke article forms an admirable model. But what other facts do we detain?86.144.214.169 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a useful first step might be to organise the article using the section headings as supplied in WP:UKCITIES. Of course, given the shortness of this article at the moment, not all of the sections will be able to have any content (and shouldn't therefore be included just yet.) That should then give some indication of sections that should be present, but which are currently completely absent. This then helps to specify what to go and search out. I don't know this village or civil parish at all, and so I'm probably not the best person to ask about the fine details, but an approach like that might repay some effort.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that, although I am sure it was undertaken in good faith and in an attempt to conform to the sage counsel of DDStretch, I find the addition of a 'Claims to Fame' heading somewhat inappropriate, especially as the person who added it seems to be using it as an alternative name for 'trivia'. My point about the AMCS was that although it may appear superficially trivial, it needn't be seen in this way. As for 'Claims to Fame', this rather broad category could in theory cover all existing data about Adlington; I am not sure it works as a separate section. What do others think?81.158.185.55 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are following the advice given in WP:UKCITIES and want to use the recommended section titles, then it seems to me that a good contender for the section title would be "History". But that would then highlight just how deficient in that section the entire article is, and how disproportionate the entry about the mango chutney spill is. Which then just takes us back to the originals points made about it, and allows me to re-state the invitation which was (roughly): since some claim to knowledge has been made, which assesses Adlington as being a "quiet place" with regards to significant events, then the person who claims that will then know what events have happened which will fit into the sections given in WP:UKCITIES, and so it seems sensible to invite them to direct their attentions to expanding the article according to the WP:UKCITIES guidelines rather than spending time on what may well still turn out to be a minor event in context.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDstretch, I concur with your comments and have changed the heading to history. Just a note, it is precisely Adlington's status as a 'quiet place' that makes the mango chutney spill significant. This, I repeat, should not be seen as disproportionate, i.e. there is no need to invent or magnify the significance of other events to 'balance' the AMCS. Some interesting alternative approaches to 'event-based' history are available these days, see e.g. the article on Annales school (the french version gives a more extensive critique of 'histoire evenementielle' but I don't know if you read that language with ease.81.158.185.55 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDstretch, I know you like to stretch, but I must say that to require a citation for the popularity of mango chutney is a stretch too far. You can google mango chutney and discover many recipes by Delia Smith, the UK's bestselling cookery author. That just proves what everybody knows, that mango chutney is popular. You may as well require a citation to confirm that it is a condiment; or that it is customarily spelt in the lower case.86.166.173.118 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, mocking my name, even if it is supposed to be a joke, is not being WP:CIVIL, and I think you need to consider your behaviour here. Secondly, the presence of recipes does not establish notability or the adjective "popular". If, as you say, there are numerous sources that can establish "popular" rather than an inference about popularity (which constitutes Original Research) then let us have it, otherwise let us drop the adjective.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDstretch, if I have offended you by my onomastic banter, please accept my apologies. In re. 'popular', surely it is not the multiplicity of the sources, but their individual import. Delia Smith is the UK's bestselling cookery author. She discusses mango chutney knowledgeably and at length. If that is not proof of popularity, I don't know what is. It would be useless to accumulate a multiplicity of less authoritative sources here.86.166.173.118 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. We are constructing an encyclopaedia in which it has an emphasis on No Original Research which can seem to be obsessive at times. This means that one has to avoid all kinds of inferences that are not explicitly given in the sources we use as verification. Your argument about Delia Smith's books and contents could (only could) be valid, but even if they were, it would be classified as Original Research by Wikipedia as the source does not explicitly state "Mango chutney is a popular condiment in the UK". Until it does, sharp eyed reviewers will seize upon that as Original Research if and when this article is being assessed for Good Article Status (WP:GA) or Featured Article Status (WP:FA) (it happens frequently, which you will see if you follow the discussions of the various articles nominated as candidates for these.) All I'm saying is that it is better to avoid this right from the start, rather than letting something creep in, and then having extra work later on to attempt to track down a suitable citation. That is all.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Afterthought: By the way, don't take my application of the policy here to be an indication that I wholly accept it - I am just aware of what will happen if this is let slip through and want to avoid the problems.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

DDstretch, I see on the chutney page that mango chutney appears on a list of popular condiments. Surely as toilers in the field of rural topography, we should really bow to those experts in chutney-related matters, and not require further documentation here. On the other hand, anyone who wished to question the popularity of mango chutney, or its right to appear in a list of popular condiments, should do so on that page, not this. More broadly, I think the confusion arose on account of a slight misinterpretation by Jotel of the POV rules. It certainly would be POV to write of mango chutney that it is a delicious condiment, or a strange-smelling one. But information about the extent of its consumption is empirical, not POV.86.166.173.118 (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not having heard back from DDstretch, I am proceeding with my proposal, namely to remove the 'citation needed' tag from the word 'popular' in the phrase 'popular condiment' on the grounds that mango chutney is designated as such on the chutney page. I propose that any questioning of the condiment's popularity take place over there. 86.166.173.118 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two days is not a long time given that we all have calls upon our time. Sorry, but I had added it back in. Your argument did not convince me at all with respect to what any reviewers would do. Unlerss you can come up with a quote which states "mango chutney is a popular..." directly, what you have given us is merely an unsuitable citation (wikiepdia cannot be used to verify facts it places in other articles) compounded with WP:OR in making an inference that need not be true. I suggest that the adjective is simply removed if you do not care to fulfil your obligations of verification in the claim you added.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDstretch, if you really want sources attesting to the popularity of mango chutney, they are available in spades. See for instance: http://www.barwellsfood.com/cgi-bin/products/sub_category.pl?Groceries%7CChutneys%20&%20Pickles, http://www.realfooddirect.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=1595, http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/food/crosse-blackwell-hot-mango-chutney/, http://www.mamtaskitchen.com/recipe_display.php?id=10086, http://www.finerpreserves.co.uk/chutneys.html. Many of these are normative in the grocery world, notably Crosse & Blackwell, a very established firm, and Delia Smith, about whom it is well known that her imprimatur on a product increases its popularity - read about the 'Delia effect'. My point is that the adjective 'popular' was accepted by everybody who edits this site until Jotel removed it in what I believe to be a misreading of the POV criteria. The adjective is useful to those seeking orientation in mango-chutney related matters, who require a succinct characterization of the condiment. Moreoever, surely the very presence of an 18-tonne load of mango chutney is evidence of its popularity. If it wasn't popular, who would have made 18 tonnes of the stuff?

First of all, you should sign your messages. Secondly, if the references you provide justify the use of the adjective "popular", then add them yourself to the article, please! The obligation is on those who add the facts to produce the justification, and you could have done it in less time than it took to type in the message I am replying to. I also doubt that the adjective was accepted until Jotel removed the addition: It was added by IP user 86.144.214.123 (see here) on February 16, 2008 at 20:02, and was removed by Jotel at 20:08 (6 minutes later!) (see here]). This was the first time it was ever added, and so I suggest you are mistaken and misleading in suggesting that it was widely accepted by implication for some reasonable amount of time before it was removed. Furthermore, if you mean that "popular" was used in some other articles on wikipedia, then what happens in other articles on wikipedia is not the issue here. What happens in this article is. Your inference that it must be popular, or else why make 18 tonnes of the stuff is not the only possibility, and, along with the slightly idea that people will read this article and want "orientation in mango-chutney related matters" or "who require a succinct characterization of the condiment" in context, seems to be unlikely and not usable in any real sense as a verification here. This is because I have stated many times before, these are inferences that would constitute WP:OR, and these are types of things wikipedia does not want in its articles. So, please accept your obligations here, and, if you think the sources you provided are adequate, then add the best one as a reference.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDstretch, Jotel's edits of 16 February were about the AMCS as a whole, not about the adjective 'popular' which is what we are talking about. The validity of the AMCS in general was then discussed in the context of contemporary historical methodology and it was agreed it should stay. It was restored on 2 March 2008. From that day until Jotel's second edit of 10.19, 24 March, nobody questioned the adjective 'popular'. It is on this basis that I suggested it was implicitly accepted for some reasonable amount of time before it was removed. On removing it, Jotel gave a reason, namely 'POV'. I am arguing that this appears to be POV, like many adjectival ascriptions (e.g. 'tasty'), but that it is empirically establishable and indeed so widely accepted as not worth backing up by footnotes. And that if anyone does want to question it, they should do so on the main chutney page where undoubtedly the greatest gathering of chutney expertise will be directing its attention and can bring to bear its expertise on this matter. Furthermore, I contest your remark that my suggestion that most chutneys that are transported by lorry in quantities of 18 tonnes are popular 'seems unlikely'. It seems to me highly likely that such chutneys are popular. Can you give me any instances of unpopular chutneys being made in that quantity?138.253.64.173 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I can give you any instances or not of unpopular chutneys being made in large quantities is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because, as always, those who make the claim have the burden of proof to justify or back up the claim. The use of "popular" under discussion here is not on the page devoted to chutney, it is on this page, and so it is on this page that the justification via an appropriate citation should be placed. The fact that a claim in need of justification was not justified for a period of time does not absolve it of ever being needed. A suitable justification is not a reference to another wikipedia article. A suitable justification may well be found in a citation taken from the list you earlier provided, and so please satisfy the requirements of being the editor who added it by adding one of the citations you believe is appropriate. I note again that you could have done this easily instead of spending time attempting to argue out of fulfilling your obligations here.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDstretch, I have hereabove supplied citations about mango chutney's popularity, commented on their suitability and relative weight, and of course I could easily add them. However, as a high quality researcher I abhor superfluous references. I have analysed the circumstances in which the apparent need arose for citations and argued that there is no real need. If you want to go ahead I won't stop you. But for my part I have a reputation to protect. Meanwhile we will have to agree to disagree regarding the relevance to this discussion of the fact you are unable to cite any unpopular chutneys existing in 18-tonne loads.86.166.173.118 (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDstretch has, I notice, failed to address my substantive points, and simply hacked away at the flesh of the article, leaving only his rather illiterate swipe at (his words) my 'slightly idea' of orientating the reader, in defence of his mutilations. So be it: caveat lector.86.166.173.118 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent round of reversions[edit]

There appears to be a difference of opinion over whether the following text belongs in the article:

Adlington made the news in January 2008, when a delivery vehicle shed 18 tonnes of mango chutney onto the road through the village. A spokesman for F Swain and Sons, the company which owns the lorry, said: "It was just one of those things."[8]

I'd suggest we discuss here the pros and cons of its inclusion in an attempt to reach a consensus, rather than undergoing this back-and-forth editing which is just wasting everyone's time.

My personal opinion is that the incident is a trivial one, of no long-term significance to the history of Adlington, and therefore has no place in the article, per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted to accept your invitation to debate, as I agree that 'ping-pong matches' of the kind that have been indulged in are less than fruitful. Basically there are several reasons why the account of the incident should stay. Firstly, however trivial it may appear, this accusation is really not specific, and could equally be applied to any other historical occurence. One could just as well question the inclusion of references to old buildings. Ultimately there is no reason why the latter should be valorized. Secondly, the incident is specific to Adlington and causes it to stand out among contemporary localities (some homonymous). Finally, while I agree that, in an ideal world, Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminate collection of information, I feel duty-bound to observe that even were the account of Adlington rendered totally chutney-free, would there be any glue, any mise-en-intrigue, any unifying theme around which a single narrative of Adlington could be constructed? Most social anthropologists would argue that the chutney incident throws significant light on the local economy, the relations of the periphery to the metropolis, the representation of self and other in cyberspace. Should you wish to argue otherwise, I suggest you make fuller use of the comparative method, and attempt to place your analysis of the chutney-spill in meaningful correlation to the other information contained in the article, stating why you feel this incident above all others should be expunged from the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.209.93 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.historycooperative.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals/ahr/112.3/wickberg.html

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adlington, Cheshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adlington, Cheshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adlington,_Cheshire&oldid=1204540541"