Talk:Association of British Counties

message: This article seems to lack balance.--IanDavies 03:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree.  For example, last time I looked the Kingdom of Fife was an historic kingdom, not an historic British county. Just zis Guy you know? 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Why can't you accept that it can be both? This is an article about an organisation that has specific ideals, whether you agree with them or not. Owain (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about a minor pressure group of nutters. It's oly because some of those nutters are on Wikipedia and determined to use it to push there reactionary views by adding traditional county articles to parallel the current counties.--84.9.194.234 13:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These people are not "nutters", they are proud of their history and determined that politicians should not take away their identity. As it happens the traditional counties have a continuing legal existence, but even if they didn't, it would be a laudable aim to try and keep the well-known and historic names and areas in the public conscience. Owain (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange. Weren't the counties ESTABLISHED by politicians (European ones actually - Normans, who ran an Anglo-French-Irish empire) in order to govern the country more efficiently?  In the North the Normans more or less ignored traditional divisions and created large counties such as Lancashire and Yorkshire. By 1974 Lancashire had a larger population than many independent nations. Why should not local government boundaries follow changes in population and the requirements of adminstration? Of course we can REMEMBER and celebrate the historic counties - but they exist only as lines on a map.
Exile 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Anglo-Saxons established the counties, but okay. Zacwill16 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I can accept it is both.  But for some reaosn only one of the two - the one backed by a pressure group - is on infoboxes.  I wonder why that is? Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a standard set of counties that have a continuing legal existence and that people continue to use. There are any number of other overlapping mediæval kingdoms that could be used to describe where a place is, but they are entirely dependent on a time-critical context. In the context of counties, the traditional set are still relevant and used today. What is the problem? Owain (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For values of "standard" that exclude legal definitions, and for values of "people" that includes at least some who are pushing an agenda. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you read the relevant legislation? I have. I am not pushing an agenda, other than that of factual accuracy. Owain (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  So, in the interests of factual accuracy, you can cite the size of the orgnisation and the significant coverage in reputable sourcves, right? Just zis Guy you know? 17:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: There seems to be a revert-war going on regarding the membership size of ABC -- as if to say it's irrelevant as an entity due to the membership size not being known. This assertion is ludicrous; the size of ABC is not an important fact therefore not knowing the size is even less useful! MonMan 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is clearly a campaign to denigrate traditional counties on Wikipedia; witness the current revert wars and use of sockpuppets on this and related articles. There is no need for it. Owain (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The campaign is by you to push them. --84.9.194.234 13:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no such campaign.  I do see an attempt to astroturf.  This organisation is essentially negligible, it's not even the most significant traditional counties group, and the traditional counties movement is of very little significance.  Just zis Guy you know? 13:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clearly coming from a non-neutral point-of-view then. There are articles whose wording was agreed on a long time ago that have been edited recently to push one PoV. Have you done ANY research on traditional county groups? The ABC is the umbrella organisation for many other groups such as Friends of Real Lancashire, whereas County Watch are merely a recently-created group of individuals. If you have an objection to their aims then that is fine, but please do not try to suggest that they are negligible or that the aims of people they represent are "of very little significance". Owain (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never heard of these people before yesterday.  I have done some reading up.  I have yet to find any credible evidence that they are considered significant outside theor (unstated) membership.  They get fewer Google hits than I do.  But thanks for providing another data point to support the evidence that it's always the admins who are non-neutral and activists who are the defenders of balance and fairness :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't heard of them, therefore they are insignificant? Good argument. Please do not use the condescending attitude that admins somehow know more about any given subject than people who have read the legislation and been researching the subject for years. Owain (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not here as an admin, I'm here as an editor.  One of the more important things when assessing the importance and influence of an organisation is the number of members.  Refusal (clearly not simply failure) to give this information undermines the group's credibility.  You allude to affiliated organsiations - which ones?  How many members have they?  How influential?  There is nothing in this article which establishes the significance of this group, and some things which definitely undermine it.  I repeat: you get fewer Google hits than I do, and I am not notable in any way.  I have a website too (which ususally does work after midnight GMT.  One letter in the Telegraph?  Big deal - I've had dozens of letters published in the press, and been interviewed on national radio.  A name check in Hansard?  Big deal - I've been invited to contribute to a government consultation, and I've had early day motions put oon my behalf, and I have corresponded with Ministers and MPs.  I see lots of bluster here but no actual conrete verifiable proof of actual notability or importance. So, let's start with the number of members, shall we?  That would give a good indication of the significance of the organisation. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's significant for the reason given above: in the absence of a single cited reliable source, the size of the group is important to establishing whether it is actually notable.  As far as I can tell it genuinely is not, since it scores lower on every measure of significance I can think of than I do, and I'm just zis guy, you know? Just zis Guy you know? 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really think that a number of google hits versus another number of google hits is an accurate indication of notability then it is pointless trying to argue with you. It is the importance of the results that matters, not the absolute number of them. As has been mentioned before, the ABC have been mentioned in many Parliamentary debates whereas I doubt you ever have. Owain (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For two political pressure groups in the same country on the same side of the same issue?  It seems like a pretty good rough and ready guide, if nothing more. Feel free to provide evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership Size

message: I don't understand why this keeps coming up -- this is an article about a group that lobbies for something that some people may find contentious, but surely this article itself is perfectly neutral and eminently factual?
Can someone explain how this article--as it stands--is anything but neutral? I'd really like to know. MonMan 04:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The wording is mostly paraphrased from the ABC site itself. It is trivial to compare what it says here to what it says there and notice that they are saying essentially the same thing. As an organisation, they obviously have a PoV, so the addition of a non-neutral PoV template to this page is ludicrous. Owain (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:NPOV.  What it means is that the neutrality of the article is disputed - this is a flattering portrait of the organisation but neglects crucial facts.  Lack of wider coverage, no information about size etc.  You canot tell form this article whether the group are significant or not (and the number of genuinely significant groups whose website fails after midnight GMT is pretty small, I'd suggest).  So until the article makes it clear that this is a quixotic bunch with very limited support it is not neutral. Just zis Guy you know? 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have just shown a significant bias there, unless you meant to say: makes it clear that this is a quixotic bunch with very limited support--if that's truely what they are. How about someone actually asks them about some of the things about which we're all wondering? Besides, I don't think the article is the least bit flattering to ABC--it's merely the facts! [BTW, I've not had any connectivity issues to the ABC site from the US] MonMan 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, it's like this: I follow British politics reasonably closely.  I am familiar with many of the pressure groups like the weights & measures bunch and so on, but I have never once come across any single reference to this lot.  I followed them up in a few news bases (I don't have access to the really good ones as they require subscription) and got precisely zero hits.  I am having enormous trouble finding any coverage of this lot at all in reliable sources.  Without coverage in reliable sources, a topic is officially unverifiable per Wikipedia policy. I've seen some evidence of this agenda being pused on Wikipedia but very little evidence linking this group to any significant events or movements in the UK (which is where I live).  So I am left wondering: whose word do we have, other than theirs, that they are significant? Just zis Guy you know? 17:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have never come across references to "this lot", but I have. What does that prove? Nothing. The reason you won't see any mainstream news articles about them is because they don't do headline-grabbing things like stealing administrative border signs. They do boring stuff like replying to government discussion papers and othery low-profile lobbying. I have given you a small list of affiliated organisations, so rather than attacking the article from your standpoint of no knowledge, do some proper research. There are plenty of reliable sources, unless you count the official record of the House of Commons and the British Library as 'unreliable'. Owain (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The world is full of groups who have excuses for the fact that they have failed to achieve widespread coverage.  They remain groups who have not achieved widespread coverage.  This group gets only slightly more coverage on Google than I do, and when the BBC covered the issue the only time ABC was mentioned was by one Owain Vaughan of Monmouth, who replied using the Feedback link advocating said group and describing the archaic counties as the "real" counties, which certianly indicates a point of view.  Remember, WP:NPOV means representing the balance of informed opinion, not avoiding hurting the feelings of every little pressure group. Just zis Guy you know? 18:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone is entitled to their own point of view! You seem to be obssessed with the level of coverage in the media as if that is somehow the most important thing any organisation can do. Surely doing things is better than talking to the media? Owain (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a political organsiation to have virtually no coverage in the press is compelling evidence of lack of importance.  But the Press is just one of the possible reliable sources which have failed to cover this group.  I'm still waiting for links to those reliable sources which have covered them.  Without coverage in reliable sources the content and neutrality are functionally unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't remove it, it is the sole cited source for the entire article! Just zis Guy you know? 13:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it would be appropriate for links to Traditional counties of the British Isles to come hear.  If anything that article should be written in such a way so that it is clear it represents a POV shared by the ABC, etc: but it should definitely remain an article about the counties themselves.  Yorkshire Phoenix   09:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But that presupposes that only people who support or have heard of ABC could possibly hold the same viewpoint; that would be very PoV! Owain (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: :The significance of ABC is hard to ascertain, there being no data on membership published on its website, and no evidence of widespread coverage in the British news media.
Hard for whom to ascertain? Should an encyclopaedia article provide data from which to 'ascertain significance', rather than patronising the reader in this way?
:The "traditional counties movement" does claim some minor successes. 
 
What exactly is the "traditional counties movement"? Where has it 'claimed successes'? If no-one can define what this 'movement' is, it shouldn't be mentioned. Where is the evidence?
:There is no indication of ABC's role in these.
Does this imply the ABC has a role? This passage reads as an unsubstatiated remark about an undefined 'movement' and then states that there is no provable connection with that 'movement' to the subject of this article. What redundancy!
: It should be noted that the boundaries and designations of counties have changed a number of times in British history, so the designation of the asserted boundaries as "historic" or "traditional" is itself contentious.
Who contends it? Evidence?
:For example, the historic county of Fife, in Scotland, might more justifiably be characterised as the historic Kingdom of Fife.
Who characterises it thus? And who claims it might be more justifiable? Evidence?
:In particular, ABC uses scare quotes around the word 'county' when not referring to the traditional counties.
Refering to the scare quotes article: "an author who uses the term scare quotes to describe them generally does so disapprovingly" - thus how exactly is this sentence NPOV?
:Otherwise, the ABC fears [citation needed], having a single historic county falling within more than one region could have an adverse effect on people's cultural ties to their home county . This point is debatable since the British population is quite mobile and also includes a number of ethnic and social sub-groups, so cultural identification with counties is not universal, although there is evidence of county identification in natives of counties with long-standing rivalries such as Yorkshire and Lancashire.
If this point is debatable, who debates it? Either someone or group should be quoted, or it is basically original research.
What is the 'evidence of county identification in natives of counties with long-standing rivalries such as Yorkshire and Lancashire'?
:However, it also states on its FAQ:
:Q. Does ABC seek further local government reorganisation ? 
:A. No, but we do wish to see reforms to certain parts of local government terminology. ''
If it states this, why is it necessary to have this long preceeding passage speculating on local Government changes that the ABC would bring about, if it itself states (with real, quoted evidence) that it wouldn't:
:Currently the border between the London region and the South-East and East regions straddles numerous former county borders - so these regions would probably need to be merged. Some areas not part of Yorkshire and the Humber would be moved to a different local authority in order that they could be part of this region, as region boundaries never split authorities. Also North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire would become part of the East Midlands Region, where the administrative county of Lincolnshire is located. [etc.]
It clearly isn't relevant if the previously mentioned sentence taken from the ABC's FAQ is true.
:Successes for the "traditional counties movement" are claimed to include:
Again, what is the 'traditional counties movement'? What defines it? And who claims what successes it has had? Evidence?
It seems that the majority of this article lacks substance. Unless someone wants to provide better sources, the article should be rewritten with only what can be substantiated in a NPOV way. 82.26.198.108 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unsubstantiated claims

message: i have updated the copyright status of this picture in line with a comment found on the organisation's website: "The map may be copied and used freely. However, the Association of British Counties would appreciate an acknowledgement and a link to our site. "
as a link to the site is included both in the main article and on the picture page, the requirements of the creator are clearly met.
the above quote can be found at the the bottom of the page here:  
Rich 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re. picture copyright status 

message: It appears to me that these people seem to be in denial of the local government reorganisation to the point of neurosis. Do they still deny the fact that the world is round?
Not only is their page heavily biased but (looking through various talk pages) contibutors to this page appear to vandalise any reference to 'new' counties made by anyone else.
Any article on a town or village in the United Kingdom should give the reader some basic information which should include the current administrative county.
Whether the ABC like it or not, people living in these new counties pay their Council Tax to that county and their public services (schools, children's homes, homes for the elderly, roads, libraries, leisure centres, refuse collection, etc.) are provide by that county. The traditional counties have only historical relevance to the people living in those counties today.
--maelor 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly have no idea what the ABC's objectives are. They do not wish to see further local government reorgansiation but want people to detach their notions of "where they are" from the ever-changing pattern of local government. This is all clearly explained in their FAQ. Many places in the UK don't have a "new county" as you put it, but unitary district/borough/city authorities, which is who they pay thir council tax to, &c, but is of absolutely no geographical value whatsoever. This is what infoboxes are for — they explain who the police force are, who the local council is, what the Parliamentary constituencies are, &c. These are all important and very different areas which are all given in the articles. There is no flat-eart society here, as you would realise if you bothered to read the FAQ. Owain (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why the ABC feels that the counties of Scotland should be those that were organised in Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 which replaced, reorganised or at least renamed most of Scotland's districts/counties? Is the ABC merely trying to preserve the 19th century legislation passed regarding local government like Local Government Act 1888 and the 1889 Scotland act. If so, it would surely realise that the Local Government Acts of the 1880s was only further reorganisation of local government, which is rather a transient and changes over time. (I am looking at this from a Scottish perspective and am rather ignorant of how the Acts effected England) Benson85 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say that the LG(S)A 1889 replaced, reorganised or renamed most of Scotland's counties. Look at a map from 1888 and one from 1890. Do you see much difference? Owain (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Some map's do not differ, but local administration in Scotland changed, for example Dundee which had been a "County Corporate" became part of Angus. There are Shires that related to the Sheriff Courts (also Lieutenancy areas), but in terms of the actual administration of burghs, parishes and districts LG(S)A 1889 did replace a lot. Benson85 22:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The World is Round 

message: The following are confirmed County Watch Vandals. User:Lancsalot. User:Owain, User:Yorkshire Phoenix (194.203.110.127). Talk:Merseyside should give you some idea of the state of these people thinking.--87.75.131.88 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please can this unregistered user justify why our edits are "vandalism" and his reverts aren't?  Many people think the 1974 local authority boundaries are "counties" that replaced the historic ones because they don't know any better.  I have no idea what motivates people like 87.75.131.88 who do know better to try to deny the existence of the historic counties.  194.203.110.127 10:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't put forward a single argument. You just an old duffer that want things your way. Judging by the page decribing your self. Your not very bright but very stubbourn and despite the rest of the country and world having moved into the 21 century some 6 years ago ou trying to regress to the 17th. That your from Yorkshire is a no interest to anyone. That you think it's important say's a lot about you and your lack of understanding of yorkshire insignificance in the world.--87.75.131.88 11:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ignore 87.75.131.88. His arguments consist of personal attacks, bad grammar and nonsense. Oh and he's a banned user as well. Owain (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can someone advise me on how to report this and get the IP address 87.75.131.88 blocked? This mug is resorting to personal abuse behind the safety of a anonimity. Face to face he wouldn't say these things to a 29 year old soldier and martial artist. Personal attacks of this nature are actually a trait of people who are "not very bright", whereas I have a politics degree and back up everything I say. 194.203.110.127 11:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only just noticed this "old soldier and martial artist" is a threat. Which really is a sign of someone not very bright. It also if you are a soldier breaks queens regs. 'politics degree'= toilet roll from the wrong university. Also Mr Phoenix you seem to be anon yourself unless your name really is Yorkshire Phoenix again to claim I am any less nonymous than you is again NVB.--87.75.131.109 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you have multiple options. If you want an unofficial resolution to your problem, you can file a case at the Mediation Cabal, which is a group of users who deal with messy situations. If you feel you need to take more drastic measures, there's the Mediation Committee (official mediation) and, if all else fails, try the Arbitration Committee(A drastic last resort). -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 11:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: He uses IPs in the 87.75 and 84.9 range used by bulldogdsl.com.  The trouble is they are constantly changing so banning individual IPs won't have any effect.  But since he is banned (User:Irate) you can revert his edits any number of times without it counting towards 3RR.  Lancsalot 11:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake.  I don't think there will be any need if he's already banned and we can ignore WP:3RR.  I'd delete this section, but as it reveals his psychological flaws I might just keep it.  194.203.110.127 12:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like 194.203.110.127 is User:Yorkshire Phoenix (194.203.110.127) BTW. Oh err. You lot cannot back anything up. "psychological flaws", you demonstrate everything that is wrong with Wikipedias editorial rules.--87.75.130.248 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *innocent cough*, yes yes well... it would seem there's still some... heh, hurt feelings and broken hearts, so my presence still might be needed. If anyone would love to fill me in on the problem, I'll act as a neutral 'mediator' of sorts. After all, mediating is sort of my 'job' here at Wikipedia. How may I help? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 21:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Irate acquires a new IP each day and uses it to deliberately circumvent his ban and all of the rules.  Please take a look at Birkenhead (I know I broke WP:3RR yesterday: I was under the impression reverting edits from banned users didn't count but will desist, see Talk:Birkenhead).  Yorkshire Phoenix 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: County Watch Vandals

message: I'd just like to say that as a reader of this article I found it to have a strong undercurrent of hostility to the traditional counties point of view throughout. It's enough to make me wonder if Wikipedia, with its stated commitment to a neutral point of view, attributing opinions to their sources, is disproportionately edited by people with an anti–traditional counties agenda. 86.136.3.91 17:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas I find it unconscionably flattering to them - so that's alright then :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it suggests that you are one of these people with an unfortunate inability to accept that many of the views espoused by the traditional counties movement are pretty well-founded (e.g., their practice of reminding everyone that traditional counties have never been formally abolished, which if you check the relevant legislation you'll find they haven't) and supported by a large section of the public. The article should neither endorse nor condemn the ABC, but should seek to represent it in a reasonable manner. This looks like a poorly-executed rebuttal by the anti–traditional counties brigade of the ABC's views, or a poorly-executed attempt at investigative journalism by someone such as yourself trying to expose the 'nutters' you would doubtless claim constitute the membership of the ABC! 86.136.3.91 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the above user just made statments without backing them up. Produce the documents which created Traditional Counties--84.9.194.191 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No documents are needed as evidence the historic counties were created: a number of them pre-date the Norman conquest!  As far a legislative evidence (for their existence, not their creation) is concerned they are used by the Local Government Act 1888 as a geographic reference for the boundaries of the new administrative counties.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So no evidence of the creation of Traditional Counties so you cannot say they continue to exists if you cannot show that entities called Traditional Counties were ever created. The rpoblem is that it is the bigotry of the pro traditional counties people that is showing. NOthing else. You claim that the counties pre data the Norman conquest. Which ones and evidence that they continued please and evidence of there creation aswell. You lot have never provided any of these things. You are simply trying to force your regressive and dishonest view of history on to everyone else.--84.9.194.191 09:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this very slowly: their creation pre-dates written legislation, but legislation such as the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1972 relate to them, which is legislative evidence that they do exist.  Furthermore there are of course the government statements in 1974, 1986 and 1996 (all available in Hansard) that the changing local government boundaries do not effect the historic and geographic counties themselves.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you that needs to read slowly. Produce evidence of the pre 1066 existance. That can be anything references quotes from the Romans stuff in chronicles saga etc. You do not have any of this because it is a fantasy. Produce quotes from legislation and references to the text not just a reference to a large document. I suspect you have neve seen evidence of either but are simply repeating claims made by other which happen to fit you percular set of views of the world.--84.9.194.191 10:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best source I can manage at the moment is from a history book.  I think expecting me to find primary sources such as 9th century Danelaw legislation is a tad ambitious!  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 11:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should at least be able to provide the names of the documents. When you've read the books and can back up your claims then we have a basis for discussion but at the moment all we have is claims.--84.9.194.191 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone knows there were counties before 1888.  I don't need to waste any more time proving something that's common knowledge, especially to a permanently banned user like you, Irate!  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hostile tone

message: Hello, I just wondered if anyone could clear up a couple of things for me. 
#Can someone explain why the association is described as an outsider pressure group. I’m not entirely certain what the adjective is trying to convey in this sense. Aren’t all pressure groups outside the general political will? It was added back in May when the interest group link was added.
#Is it worth defining the term ‘mainstream political parties’? If no editor can find evidence of explicit association with the ABC, then shouldn’t this be ‘no political parties’ until such evidence is found? I don’t see any problem with this and, in the future, if evidence is found that a political party has always supported them or if a political party starts to support them, this can then be changed.
#“ ... it would rather see an official distinction made between current administrative units known as counties, and those areas known as counties prior to the Local Government Reforms of 1974 ...” - Shouldn’t this date be altered? I thought the areas which ABC was trying to promote were those known as counties prior to the local government reforms of 1890. Those known as counties prior to 1974 were all legally abolished in that year, but were just another form of what are known as counties today (i.e. areas specifically designated as areas of local government). The ABC isn’t pushing for the recognition of the North Riding administrative county of pre-1974 (which was explicitly abolished), but the North Riding of pre-1890 (which doesn’t appear to have ever been). At least, that’s my understanding.
#“”traditional counties movement”” - I agree that, since there is obviously more than one group with similar aims and that they try to advocate policies with the public and other bodies (policies that exist now but which did not before), this can be described as a movement. However, giving it a specific name like that I don’t feel is our place if it has not already been described as such or defined at all elsewhere. Does anybody have any feeling or information on this; on giving it such a label that we can’t prove we didn’t make up ourselves? Trouble is, I’m not sure what else to call it without giving it a rather cumbersome descriptor like, say, “the collection of similar personal and corporate policies associated with identifying legal parity between existing areas of local government and previously-defined, popular areas of geography”.
Thanks for reading. - Heavens To Betsy 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help required and a couple of suggestions

message: The BNP in their 2005 manifesto contains some mention of traditional counties -  - mention this or not?  They have their language not quite conforming with ABC-speak, so it's unclear what they really mean. (i doubt, if pressed, they would really wish to see Huntingdon and Peterborough reinstated). Morwen - Talk 15:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say mention it (and I see you already have), if only because other information exists on this article quoting the English Democrats and UKIP. However, as none of these actually mentions the ABC, I think they, along with the other 'successes', should be removed since no connection can be made from any of them to the association, and it's the association that this article is meant to be about. Heavens To Betsy 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me - along with other such material - but where to move to?  Morwen - Talk 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BNP

message: I wonder if this article is duplicating Traditional counties of the British Isles? Perhaps that could redirect here. What little extra content is located there is covered elsewhere in places like Historic counties of England. MRSC 08:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone else suggested this, but I don't think this should be re-directed here. The former is an article on the perceived entities themselves, while this is an article on an association of people. I agree, however, that there is some over-arching information on here not specifically about the association. Until such time as an article on the movement gets created, maybe that information belongs in a separate section on the Traditional counties of the British Isles article which discusses the movement. Although, as said before, I'm not sure it's our place to give the movement a name. Heavens To Betsy 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is that there are not any academic texts that purport to the existence of "traditional counties" as promoted by ABC. As both articles deal with the claims made by ABC (with considerable repetition) it would be more logical and concise for them all to go in one place. MRSC 06:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your first sentence, but not the second. I was always under the impression that they're not identical. ABC hold one specific view of how they feel the traditional counties should be perceived. They're not just saying, "There once was/is a county called Yorkshire in the North of England". They're saying, "We're telling you that this is Yorkshire, here are the specific boundaries, we are the authority, our view counts, other definitions are wrong". My view of the Traditional counties of the British Isles article is that its intention is to describe them as the general, non-ABC adherent population understands them; as areas that have changed immensely over time, that don't conform to any one definition, that had influence on the emergence of modern local government and culture. However, even though I'm fairly certain that's the general population's view, you're right that there doesn't seem to be any source for the non-ABC view of the traditional counties. I say 'traditional counties' in the 2006 sense, though of course it would be easy enough to go far enough back and find a source for the counties published, say, 150 years ago. - Heavens To Betsy 09:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate

message: It appears you don't need to read the white paper to prepare a response. MRSC 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say it's a response?  I think they're trying to influence the White Paper.  Yorkshire Phoenix   11:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: White paper

message: Since this edit, the article has stated that Peter Boyce is the chairman of ABC. I can find no source for this: not even ABC's own site. Where did this info come from ?
:Come to that I can't anything except wikipedia and wiki derived sites that states Russell Grant is the ABC's president. Lozleader 22:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprised : that early version was very poorly sourced.  May or may not be true.  Morwen - Talk 11:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairman? 

message: This edit added some links that are just other domains registered by ABC with similar content, not relevant for the purposes of the article. MRSC • Talk 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. At least one of these was exposed as a front for ABC (see here). The addition of the others seem to breach points 2 and 4 of Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and present a conflict of interest. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A front for ABC? Please get a sense of perspective. They are obviously relevant. The gazetteer at least is discussed in the article. Lancsalot (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The gazetteer is a promotional tool for ABC. For the purposes of an encyclopedia article describing this group it is not required. MRSC • Talk 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The database has been licensed by the Royal Mail for the "traditional county" field in the alias file so you are wrong again. It also contains up-to-date information on local government. Please try to restrain your POV. Lancsalot (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds very effective. MRSC • Talk 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This does not help Lancsalot. You have been warned about being more courteous to others within the last 24 hours(). Please take note of WP:CIVIL. Implying that others are not cultrally sophisticated is neither helpful, or acceptable and a breach of Wikipedia's standards. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Please refer to the ABC website. Their own description of the orgainsation is "The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a society dedicated to promoting awareness of the continuing importance of the 86 historic (or traditional) Counties of Great Britain." This is my suggestion for the lead; 
"The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a non-party-political outsider pressure group that promotes the Historic counties of England and Wales, and the Counties of Scotland."
Here is Jza84's preferred version;
"The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a non-party-political outsider pressure group that promotes what they assert to be the traditional counties of the United Kingdom."
There is no need for "what they assert". It is self-evident that they are asserting it and the phrase is used here to suggest that there are some other entities that are the true traditional counties - which there aren't. The phrase is being used in a POV attempt to undermine the organisation (of which I am not a member or supporter). My version is referenced directly to the ABC website. Unless the "what they assert" can be adequately referenced I will revert to the first-listed version in due course. Blacklans (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I object, and No consensus = no change. You have no evidence to support your change. --Jza84 |  Talk   22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What sort of evidence might be acceptable? Blacklans (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WELCOME. A third-party neutral source would help you achieve consensus. --Jza84 |  Talk   22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Terms such as "traditional" and "historic" are both open to a wide range of interpretations.  Although many of the so-called "historic" counties do have their origins around the 9th century or earlier, many others date from as recently as the 16th century.  The ABC list derives from their particular interpretation of "tradition" and "history", and thus represents an assertion of a specific non-neutral POV.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence 

message: The ANC website seems to have disappeared. Before we remove the dead link, does anyone know what's happened - is this just temporary? --15:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated a couple of the links to http://www.abcounties.co.uk/index.htm - haven't changed the text.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Web site gone?

message: The map only shows Great Britain. What about county broders on the green island? John Anderson  (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the ABC's aims and objectives state: "ABC exists to maintain, enhance and promote the identities of the Counties of the United Kingdom...." none of their other material or maps seem to make any reference to Ireland, only to GB.  The article on Counties of Ireland doesn't suggest that any parallel organisation exists in Ireland.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Their current map on their website does include Northern Ireland, but it is not free of copyright. The Historic Counties Trust uses an ABC map with Northern Ireland included, but I can't see if there is copyright permission to use it here. If someone wants to e-mail them to ask if it can be used, it might solve that ambiguity. Howard Alexander (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland (or at least Northern I.)? 

message: I removed the word "outsider" as it appears no longer to be correct. Previous objections to it concerned the tone: no other advocacy body is labelled "outider" and it suggests a mocking tone.  It was argued however that "outsider" is a technical term.  I am no sociologist, but it was given as:
Outsider pressure groups have none of the advantages of insider groups. They cannot expect to be consulted during the policy-making process, nor can they expect to gain access to ministers and civil servants. Rather, they have to work outside the governmental decision making process and, therefore, have fewer opportunities to determine the direction of policy
Now however the founder and patron of the ABC, Russell Grant, is a voluntary adviser to Eric Pickles and his Department, the Department for Communities and Local Government, borrows county flags from the ABC for its weekly flag displays. Whatever the arguments before, the ABC is "outsider" no longer.
Howard Alexander (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insider / outsider - again 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Association of British Counties. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.abcounties.com/aims.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080107061130/http://www.communities.gov.uk:80/news/corporate/575159 to http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/575159
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Association of British Counties. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.abcounties.com/ABC_PR_Northumberland_Nov07.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.abcounties.com/ABC_PR_Shropshire_Nov07.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.abcounties.com/ABC_PR_Wiltshire_Nov07.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813205647/http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/onecouncil.nsf/open/5C1558DA2BC687458025722F0043885F to http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/onecouncil.nsf/open/5C1558DA2BC687458025722F0043885F
*Added  tag to http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content3?catId=400086&mediaId=56000695
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525141047/http://www.ukip.org/pdf/localmanifesto.pdf to http://www.ukip.org/pdf/localmanifesto.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929172346/http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/principles.php to http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/principles.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610002126/http://www.sussexassociation.webs.com/ to http://sussexassociation.webs.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified