Talk:Saddleworth White Rose Society

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Saddleworth White Rose Society is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Mossley

Saddleworth is the only part of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham or Greater Manchester, which formed part of the former administrative county of Yorkshire, West Riding, the rest formerly being part of Lancashire or an independent county borough.

I thought parts of Mossley were also? + they were previously part of Quick (Saddleworth) prior to 18?? Cant see any difference between those changes and those in 1974 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.163.164 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I raise some points?[edit]

Firstly, I would like to say that I do not consider myself some kind of county obsessed POV vandal. While I do support the traditional counties, I do not have any particular axe to grind, and I'm not affiliated with any group that does.

That having been said, I do not feel that it is a contravention of Wikipedia guidelines/rules to have the Yorkshire template affixed to this article. The society, while not based in Yorkshire, deals with issues related directly to the county of Yorkshire, so why not have a yorkshire template? Furthermore, to associate the society with the 'county watch' through the 'See also' section, is POV. I can find no link between the two, besides the fact that both deal with similar issues. Why not therefore have a link to friends of real lancashire, or the association of British counties? Linking the White Rose Society to the County Watch (which appears to be intent on criminal damage) is in my opinion libelous.

Finally, it is not an incorrect statement to say that the ancient bondaries were not altered. See this quote for example:

"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ....local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change". [Government statement made on 1 April 1974 at the time of implementation of the LGA 1972].

And yet, this was editted out. I appreciate that there is a lot of vandalism of this nature going on at the moment, however, what I had written was fact - and cannot be considered vandalsim, or indeed my POV. M A Mason 22:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, that quote is (a) a misquote, in that bits of it have been snipped, and part of the text outside quote marks, was misattributed to the government and (b) was not a government statement anyway. Furthermore the original version didn't have a capitalised 'C' in counties, a rather subtle point. Please see historic counties of England for the real quote. Also, [1] has the society saying "we wish County Watch every success". Morwen - Talk 10:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at a compromise[edit]

Now, whether people of an "anti-historic counties" stance like it or not, this organisation falls within the historic county of Yorkshire, which has never officiall being disolved. The address for the organisation is "Saddleworth, Yorkshire" and this should be represented in its categorys. They're entirely centered around this fact. To remove a category recognising the fact seems like open discrimination and an attempt to sever their culture, it is also extremely offensive and inflamatory to all the people who live there.

I propose that both categorys be used;

Category:Organisations based in Yorkshire - thus recognising the fact that they are part of the historic county. Which would be different than putting an "Organisations based in Yorkshire and the Humber" tag, a local government administration area in which they are not a part.
Category:Organisations based in Greater Manchester - currently, local government administration for Saddleworth falls within said 1974 created designation.

This solves the problem and hopefully avoids further dispute on the subject. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official address after 1974 was OLDHAM, Lancashire. Our policy does not extend to using former divisions of land as if they were current, anymore than it suggests using postal geography. We use current units of civil administration in categories, article names and statements about location. MRSC • Talk 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, in areas of the historic county of Yorkshire people such as this organisation have been able to change their postal address so it features "Yorkshire" as before 1974. As have some organisations in Slaidburn. On request this can be achieved by anybody in their situation. "former division" is WP:OR and WP:POV. You seem to be attempting to continue a dispute, rather than seeking a compromise. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how it works. No request is needed. Where a county is included (any county) the Post Office just ignore it. This really isn't getting anywhere. You know what our policy is in this area and since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian was filed your conduct seems to be getting worse. Please respect the decisions the community has come to. MRSC • Talk 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the official decisions of the community in regards to vertification, the address for the White Rose Society is.

Roy Bardsley (Secretary),

52 Church Road,

Uppermill,

Saddleworth, Yorkshire

OL3 6EJ

Accept the perfectly reasonable compromise, and resist insulting (whether intentional or not) the subject of the article. Alternatively you could always write a letter to the SWRS and ask them about their georgraphic location, the address of the organisation is provided above. Thanks.[2] - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been explained to you we do not use postal geography and I know you are familiar with WP:PLACE, which is the "official decision of the community" MRSC • Talk 05:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of information: If one wishes to get the official Post Office address for building number 52 in postcode OL3 6EJ, one can simply go to the Royal Mail website and choose "Find a postcode". If one enters 52 Church Road Saddleworth, I could not get the site to return a postcode, as it did not recognise the address. If one chose instead "Find an Address" after choosing "Find a postcode" and entered 52 for the building number, with the postcode OL3 6EJ, the address was readily found, and the problem is that Saddleworth is not part of the official addess, nor is Yorkshire. The returned address is " 52 Church Road, Uppermill., OLDHAM, OL3 6EJ". So even if postal geography is used, the official address taken from the post office site contains neither Saddleworth nor Yorkshire. DDStretch (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued ethnic/cultural cleansing attempts[edit]

Jza, has once again resorted to bias removal of information that does not fall in line with his personal opinion. He blanked this referenced sentence (from the website of the UK Parliament) by the MP for this area over the last decade because "he doesn't like what it says".

“

It is not his fault that he is from Yorkshire, although I must choose my words carefully because Saddleworth is in real Yorkshire--it is still in Yorkshire, as far as we in Saddleworth are concerned--but Oldham is not. The two areas--Oldham's cotton industry and the wool industry in Saddleworth--offer a good example of my point.

”

— Phil Woolas, MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, at the House of Commons in 27 January 1999^[1]

How Jza is allowed to edit in such a prejudice manner against this cultural group by removing sourced information is clearly unacceptable and dictatorial. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Woolas is not (verifiably) a member of SWRS. That commentary tells me nothing about the organisation; it's just content forking. Please WP:AGF. --Jza84 | Talk 01:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Woolas is the person who represents the area as the Member of Parliament. His stance on the matter, which he even thought to express in the House of Commons is extremely relevent. Again please stop trying to expouse your social authoritarian view on the subject by censoring stances which do not follow yours. The information is sourced, from perhaps the most notable person representing the area. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Woolas is not (verifiably) a member of SWRS. That commentary tells me nothing about the organisation; it's just content forking. Please WP:AGF. I'm going to revert this material again. --Jza84 | Talk 01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jan 1999 (pt 4)". Parliament.com. 28 May 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[commons-1] "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jan 1999 (pt 4)". Parliament.com. 28 May 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]