Talk:Lancashire/Archive 1

message: The mediation case discussed at Talk:Traditional_counties_of_England#Mediation also refers to this page. --Fasten 14:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: The current list in the Settlements section of the article is in a bit of a state: it purports to list the main townships in Lancashire, whilst still having room for Knott End-on-Sea, Shaw and Crompton and Brindle (an animal coat colouring, it appears!).  It's also a hopeless mess of places in the current county, and those in the pre-1974 county, with no distinction given.
My first reaction would be to ditch the list entirely and simply redirect to List of places in Lancashire; however, this only lists those places in the ceremonial county, and I think there is a need for a list of places that were within the pre-1974 boundary in addition. So here are my six preferred options (in descending order of my personal preference):
# redirect to List of places in Lancashire; include separately at the bottom of that a list of those places in the pre-1974 county.
# redirect to List of places in Lancashire; with the pre-1974 places in-line but demarcated by asterisk.
# create a new list of those places in the pre-1974 county under a clear title, redirect to both lists (ie, shunt the current list to a new page of its own and tidy it up). Make the difference between the lists clear in the article.
# demarcate pre-1974 places by asterisk in the current list, prune back to places over a certain population figure
# demarcate pre-1974 places by asterisk in the current list, no pruning.
# leave everything as it is. 
For comparison, at the Yorkshire article, they redirect to the List of places in Yorkshire page which is a list of all the places in the pre-1974 boundary (with no demarcation).
There's similar confusion in the Category:Towns in Lancashire which currently contains Wigan etc.; can I suggest we restrict inclusion in those categories to those places in the current ceremonial county, and say so at the top (much like the current List of places in Lancashire)?
All thoughts and suggestions welcome. Aquilina 16:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would welcome the changes for one. I think they bring the page in line with other counties (e.g. Yorkshire) like you say. Furthermore, a distinction should definiately be made between the pre and post 1974 local government reformed counties. The Wikipedia encyclopedic |Official Naming Conventions stipulate that their must be a distinction and marked context between the two differing versions of Lancashire. I would wholly concur with Aquilina proposals, I should imagine most users would also be in agreement, and not mind the changes which I believe would improve the article. I vote for number 1 with preference, or 2 failing that. Hope that helps, thanks Jhamez84 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote 4, subject to my demarcation of settlements in Yorkshire.  I think we need a list of the major towns in Lancashire on the main page, with a more detailed list on a separate page.  86.2.0.204 09:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Barnoldswick & Earby, outside the traditional county though currently within the county, with clarification in the key. If anyone disapproves, please feel free to slap me on the hand and revert :-) Theelf29 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With pops of 12k and 5k I don't think they are big enough to warrant inclusion in this list.  If we include all towns of this size I think it will get a lot bigger than the current 60 towns.  I've tried to keep it to around 20k+ with a few exceptions.  See list of places in Lancashire for a more detailed list covering the ceremonial county.  Lancsalot 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be feasible to make up a table of all towns above a certain size that are in Lancashire or have ever been in Lancashire.  Then have columns for each of the categories, it could even cover most of the different periods of the boundaries that way.  In the event of yet another local government reorganisation (we must be due for one) then another column could be added.  --jmb 11:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of Places in Lancashire 

message: When I look at the Lancashire page on a 1024x768 screen I notice that the "Duchy Palatine of Lancaster" info box overlays onto the Settlements' section, so that some of the Settlements' information is obscured. Is anyone else having this problem, or is it just me? Road Wizard 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also notice that on the same size screen 'edit' buttons for "Industry", "See also" and "Rejected options for change" also appear in the middle of the Industry section's text. As this is next to the "Duchy Palatine of Lancaster" box, I am wondering if the box has been coded correctly. Road Wizard 12:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlay 

message: It is an established fact that traditional and administrative counties have separate legal identities.  This has been confirmed by the government on numerous occasions eg.
"The new county boundaries 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 despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties."
Government Statement quoted in The Times 1st April 1974
Michael Portillo, then Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities, in a reply of 11 July 1990 to a letter about the status of the County of Avon wrote “I can confirm that the government still stands by the statement ..... that the local authority areas and boundaries introduced in April 1974 do not alter the traditional boundaries of counties.  The 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, and need not affect long-standing loyalties and affinities.”
This article needs to differentiate clearly between the two.  84.9.x.x is trying to push a POV that the traditional county of Lancashire no longer exists.  This is factually incorrect.  Lancsalot 11:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish.--84.9.194.132 11:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional vs administrative counties 

message: Before making any further edits, re-read the agreed naming conventions for this sort of situation.  One of the agreed acceptable examples is the following:
:Southwark is a village in the London Borough of Southwark in Greater London. It is in the traditional borders of Surrey.
Please merely substitute the relevant town names and county names into the above template; eg
:Ashton-under-Lyne is a town in the metropolitan borough of Tameside in Greater Manchester. It is in the traditional borders of Lancashire.
That's the agreed wording, formed after an unbelievable amount of strife and argument; please use it to the letter wherever possible. Aquilina 12:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was formed after a group of bullied everyone else. Your version does not conform to the standard. The traditional counies do not exist. They do not hav eborders so nothing can be within them. It is perfectly clear, places that in the past have been in Lancashire but now are not, are simply no longer in Lancashire. It's just a fantsy of some reactionary regrsives.--84.9.210.236 12:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I regard myself to have been born in, and currently reside in Greater Manchester rather than Lancashire. However, I don't see what the problem is with mentioning that a location or event happened within the traditional boundaries of Lancashire, especially when such an event happened or a location was built at a time when it was inside the traditional boundaries. Sprouty76 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greater Manchester was abolished in 1986.  Which cricket team do you support?  Lancsalot 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greater Manchester was no more abolished in 1986 than Lancashire was in 1976. Greater Manchester County Council was abolished but the administrative county of Greater Manchester certainly still exists. Sprouty76 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it still exists as a ceremonial county but all this means is that there is a Lord-Lieutenant of Greater Manchester.  The majority of people probably don't even know what a L-L is, let alone which one covers their particular locality.  Lancsalot 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said below, it exists in legislation as the collection of quasi-unitary authority metropolitan boroughs that used to fall under that council's jurisdiction.  All official references to Bury for example will be to Bury, Greater Manchester and never to Bury, Lancashire - even if no reference is made to the Lord Lieutenancy per se. Aquilina 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's pretty obvious that 84.9 is a serial vandal and troublemaker and should be banned forthwith.  How can the traditional counties be a fantasy of reactionaries and regressives when their continued legal existence has been confirmed several times by the government?  Given this fact, why the wording "within the traditional borders of Lancashire" rather than "in the traditional county of Lancashire"?  And why can we not make clear that the post-1974 counties are administrative only, as the government has confirmed?  Lancsalot 12:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had several wars with this particular user, who starts calling everyone "CountyWatch vandals". I agree that your wording is better and there should be a certain degree of flexibility. Given that we have articles about traditional counties where we call them as such it seems petty not to allow the phrase to be used in articles that refer to them. Owain (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that one of the trolls seems to be involved with a Wiki page on "Marketing Manchester" if you look in the history of his edits.  --jmb 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop the edit war now

message: I'd like to collect a few comments together to give people entering this debate on WP for the firet time a taste of what is going on.  I'm not the greatest expert on these issues, but I've dealt with them quite a lot.
# 84.9.x.x is banned - it is the IP of User:Irate = User:IanDavies = User:Pick-A-Low = ... As a banned user, any edits he makes are automatically vandalism, and may be reverted on sight by any user.
# All the required information on how we refer to the "traditional"  (I prefer ancinet and geographic, or historic, as per the Office of National Statistics) county is on this page, with the discussions preceding the convention here. For anyone wishing to delve further into this, this is required reading.  The crux is that as the post-1974 counties have legal definition and standing they are our primary reference frame.  However, due to the long history of previous borders we may in addition refer to those.  The agreed formulation was that we use the template "X lies in the traditional borders of Y" (or even better "Z lies in the pre-XXXX borders of Y" - borders are in a constant state of flux, so it is best to be precise and add a date)
# Reliable sources are very hard to come by - where possible use the albeit ambiguous wording of the Local Government Acts relevant.
# The counties of Greater Manchester, Merseyside etc. do still exists - only their councils were abolished in the 1980's.  They remain as ceremonial counties and as collections of their constituent metropolitan boroughs.
# "administrative counties" as a technical term no longer exists, and it is best not to use this term.  The word "county" has myriad clashing and contradictory uses, but it is the term used in the legislature, and should be the term we use here in all its ambiguity.  The article Traditional counties of the British Isles explains some of this.  You could use the formulation "counties used for administrative purposes", but aren't all counties used for that to some degree? The best way to specify a county is by the date its borders were established, or by the act which established them.
# WP:V is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia; if content is challenged you must be able to quote sources explicitly.  The famous Portillo letter is one example - this is referred to in may third-hand accounts, but I have never seen its full text in an impartial source.  Until this is found, accoridng to WP:V we cannont use it as an informaiton source.
Hope that all helps, Aquilina 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  In relation to your last point, how about the 1st statement quoted from The Times 1 April 1974?  Or this debate from Hansard, which mentions both the 1974 statement and the Portillo letter (col 116)?  Lancsalot 14:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources have been brought up in debate before (I'll try and find the link) - it's interesting, but it's only a statement from a parliamentary under-secretary, and most importantly it does not seem it was actually acted upon - no official statement was drafted, or legislation passed.  It is fine to use this source to say that the question was debated and that the informal answer given was as quoted in Hansard, but we cannot say anything stronger than that.  It would, however, be interesting to write to the MP concerend and verify the basis for his remarks, and see if the sources can be chased up. The full text of the Portillo letter would be allow a lot of statements in the articles to be strengthened, also; anything other than primary sources will tend to be strongly challenged on this topic. Aquilina 15:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The current situation

message: :Main article Lancashire (ceremonial)
For ceremonial purposes, a Lord-Lieutenant as appointed... more from the other article...
This way each 'fork' could have explicit links to relevant articles in each fork, whereas disambiguation-style links would lead to the main page with a excerpt from each relevant fork. I don't see why such forking would be a bad idea given that we are talking about three different areas used for different purposes that just happen to share the same name. Owain (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceremonial

message: When was the county established? History of Lancashire says 1182, but this page says 1183 since an anonymous editor changed it in April 2005. Which is correct, and is there a source for this statement? I see Morwen was the one that originally added the year. /81.228.148.20 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of establishment 

message: I have no idea whether this has been before discused, but I wonder whether it would be better to split the article into Traditional county of Lancashire and the ceremonial, administrative county, much like with the Yorkshire articles. I.e. North Yorkshire vs. North Riding of Yorkshire. Although this is a slightly different situation, it would help to remove the mass of infoboxes along the side, and would allow the improvement and clarrification of the two different entities. Lofty 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before (see above).  It would definitely improve things although WP policy is apparently to only have one article I've noticed some Welsh and Scottish counties have two.  Lancsalot 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think a separate page covering political and administration for each administrative area (like the modern emasculated Lancashire, Great Manchester, Merseyside etc) and then one page for the traditional county of Lancashire to cover history, food, famous people etc most of which might be common to several of the modern administrative areas.  People interested in the customs, culture, history etc of Lancashire can then concentrate on improving and updating that page without continuous changes by the politically correct and saves having to move everything that some bureaucraty decides to "improve" things yet again.  --jmb 21:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it'd be worth a try to see whether we can get it split. How can I propse a split? Just by sticking on a Proposed split tag? Lofty 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous argument that stymied sucha move would be that the new articles would be POV forks.  The reason that Yorkshire does have such an article is that there is no current administrative unit called Yorkshire, so the overlaid counties of W,N and S Yorkshire are effectively entriely new.  The line taken at WP:NAME is the following: if the name doesn't change, then the "new" county is merely a minor alteration of the "old" county, and so should be treated as the same entity.  If the name changes, then you have two different entities.  Whether that is a logically consistent position is something to argue over at WP:NAME... It seems bizarre that there are the split articles for Yorkshire and not for Lancashire even though the division was performed at the same time ain the same manner - but this is sometihng that needs to ne agreed for every county beforehand for consistency - creating double articles for just one or two counties would not help anyone. Aquilina 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article

message: This article is up for peer review. Please feel free to comment on the nomination - see the top of the page for the link. --TheM62Manchester 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Is this current usage? Any sources? (the palentine bit specifically). Also the article opens stating that Lancashire is a duchy but doesn't refer to Duchy of Lancaster. Should there be a link? MRSC 05:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Duchy of Lancaster/county palatine of Lancaster is a palatine territory in which crown rights go to the Crown in right of Duke of Lancaster.  I think this covers the ancient boundaries, but i was unable to find a reliable source actually addressing that issue.  county palatine or duchy palatine certainly shouldn't be used for the modern borders.  For some purposes - such as the appointment of Lord-Lieutenants and justices of the peace the Duchy has special rights in the area of the ceremonial counties of Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester. I think the term "duchy palatine" was a neologism.  There is also the issue of the liberties of the Duchy of Lancaster in other counties and how they were treated.  Morwen - Talk 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it for now as it is not explained properly in the intro. But I feel this needs to be expanded elsewhere in the article. The only reference to the duchy is to the variant The Loyal Toast. It doesn't explain at all how the two relate. MRSC 09:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Lancashire is a county palatine.  Palatine status was conferred in 1351 by royal charter which is equivalent to an act of parliament. This is referred to in Halsbury's Laws vol 8 paragraph 1523 and is irrefutable legal proof of the existence of the traditional county.  I invite User:Mrsteviec, when he has recovered from his marathon 8 hour POV pushing session, to amend the article accordingly.  Lancsalot 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take offence from the last comment. If you think providing eight hours worth of quality prose, thoroughly backed up by citations drawn from a wide range of credible sources is a "POV pushing session", you misunderstand the scope and purpose of the Wikipedia project. MRSC 08:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You claimed earlier in an edit summary "county palatine is a modern administrative division, legally separate from the traditional county".   Now you claim the opposite?!   Morwen - Talk 17:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - the law defines the palatinate with reference to the traditional county, which obviously existed before it became a county palatine.  Lancsalot 17:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of a "traditional county" didn't exist in 1351, I think you will find.  Morwen - Talk 17:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  duchy palatine 

message: This edit violates the naming convention by talking about a place being in a "traditional county" in the present tense. MRSC 10:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: :Also, it is a straightfoward falsehood that metropolitan counties were abolished in 1986.  In fact, they have been redefined slightly since, even! this order, for example, varies the border between West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. Morwen - Talk 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit was particularly bad form as it made the citation appear to support nonsense. MRSC 10:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a straightforward falsehood that traditional counties were abolished in 1974.  Yet you are editing as if this was the case.  Lancsalot 11:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation? MRSC 11:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is indeed true that the county of Lancaster was not abolished by the Local Government Act 1972, i suspect you are alluding to that.  However, the county of Lancaster included Wythenshawe.   Morwen - Talk 11:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive "minor" edit

message: I feel the section about the police force is excessively long.  It warrants probably a sentence somewhere. Morwen - Talk 11:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most British police forces, those of the Lancashire Constabulary are not habitually armed, but armed response teams are on patrol around the county armed with G36 assault rifles and GLOCK pistols. should be removed. The rest could get added somewhere. The transport police is probably irrelevant too, Lancs is no special case in this respect. MRSC 11:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Constabulary

message: In order to suggest a "source is clearly unreliable" it is usual to, at the very least, provide an alternative source. MRSC 12:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: This edit is pure disruption. This article has a wide range of sources to back it up (more than many featured articles). Citations have been alluded to, but not provided, for the "alternative" point of view. What are the motivations for such edits. It seems far beyond the scope of writing a credible piece of encyclopedic work. MRSC 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruption

message: All the settlements listed at Saddleworth are in the Oldham post town so, on the basis of the rules of following the post town county, they would postally be in Lancashire. This confirms it had postal link to Manchester (and therefore Lancs) in 1872. MRSC 13:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Postal county for Saddleworth

message: Is there some way these sections could come together? They seem related. MRSC 13:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuisine and identity

message: What on earth is this supposed to mean?  Changing the date of the creation of Lancashire from 1182 to 1889 and an edit comment saying "per Morwen"?  And without changing the citation - does George D. state that it was founded in 1889?  This is really starting to border on WP:POINT.  It's barely worth  noting I seriously doubt that User:Lancsalot believes that Lancashire was founded in 1889 - therefore he is delibarately making a false edit to prove some kind of point, I suppose he is trying to imply I said that somehow?  I object to people putting words into my mouth like that. Morwen - Talk 23:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation that is being paraphrased is: The county was formed rather later, after most other counties, in 1182. There is no possiblity it could be misconstrued to read 1889! Furthermore, this is the third edit in 24 hours that has changed the meaning of a phrase directly attributed to a citation, disruptively changing the meaning to something totally different. What motivates someone to do this? MRSC 06:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest nonsense

message: This edit attempts to show places that were, and places that are, in Lancashire on a like-for-like basis and this is not the case. It is clearer, and in keeping the way other articles are written to show a clear distinction. MRSC 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt you will be accused of POV-pushing for this.  If you were, of course, the thing to do would be to remove the list of places that aren't in Lancashire from the article entirely.  Morwen - Talk 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm would be minded to remove them entirely or possibly move to History of Lancashire. MRSC 17:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine as it is, and History of Lancashire isn't really the place for lists of places in that format.  If it gets too big we could make it a summary-list (ie the list as it is now) and find some article to spin it out to.  Morwen - Talk 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The current layout, and location, provides the right level of information in a suitable format. MRSC 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Settlements

message: This edit by User:Lancsalot with edit summary "rv POV-pushing Londoner" is a direct personal attack and I take personal offence from it. This edit "User:Mrsteviec, when he has recovered from his marathon 8 hour POV pushing session" (in reference to copyediting and the addition of 20+ academic citations) is also personally offensive. Is this level of personal abuse and disruption likely to continue? I was under the impression there was a zero-tolerance to this kind of thing on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a process that should be followed to prevent further personal abuse and general disruption?  MRSC 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is disheartening that an apology was not forthcoming. MRSC 16:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsuitable edit summaries and other comments

message: Some interesting snippets of an article about Lancashire and identity in Spectator with mixed views on boundary changes:
FIRST, it is important to recognise what Lancashire is. Despite the worst efforts of local government reorganisation in 1974, which created the metropolitan counties and yoked together such different places as Herefordshire and Worcestershire, the County Palatine of Lancaster remains in the minds of all true Lancastrians. The southern boundary separated it from Cheshire, and the northern territory stretched as far as Ambleside. In other words, Lancashire includes most of Greater Manchester, much of Merseyside and a mighty chunk of the southern Lakes. That part has gone for ever, alas, submerged in `Cumbria', while poor old Westmorland was done away with altogether.
[snip]
Strictly speaking, Liverpool is not really Lancashire at all, and Lancastrians have been quite happy with that arrangement. It has always been more of an independent city state, with laws and customs of its own. When Alan Bennett, from the other side of the Pennines, wrote that `every Liverpudlian seems a comedian, fitted out with smart answers, ready with the chat and anxious to do his little verbal dance', he struck a gong that resonates far beyond the Mersey. `They are more like cockneys than Lancashire people, and it gets me down. 
It's a useful distinction because Lancashire folk are funny, indeed the funniest in England, but not in a self-advertising way; they are not easily deceived, either, but they are less likely to parade their practicality than their neighbours to the east. Yorkshire has more land, more money and a greater sense of self-importance, but those qualities are not always universally admired. Lancashire people, to put it plainly, are widely liked for fairly obvious reasons. `Gradely folk' may be a cliche, but it is true for all that. 
[snip to end]
It's not an `obvious' or a fashionable county. People who take their holidays in Umbria and Perigord would feel terribly out of place under Pendle Hill in winter, or riding a Fleetwood tram. But within its diminished boundaries Lancashire contains the most decent, warm-hearted and generous folk in the kingdom. 
Source: Henderson, Michael. "Lancashire. (Best Of British)." Spectator 288.9057 (March 9, 2002). MRSC 23:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in Spectator

message: This edit appears to make the section and article contradict, speaking in a mixture of tenses about former and current county boundaries. MRSC 12:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This text: "The whole of the Coniston group lies within Lancashire" remains in the article. It is clearly put there to try to prove a point (being against the established naming convention) or is another opportuinity to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. The Furness Fells are located in Cumbria. It is also not particularly relavant to the section subject of "county top" as this is already detailed without this information. MRSC 18:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, how come the article doesn't mention The Pennines?  They are kind of an important thing to mention in an article about Lancashire, one would think.  the 'county top' subsection is a bit odd. Morwen - Talk 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The physical geography section is quite short. The two subsection titles could probably be removed and the whole section given a good copyedit. MRSC 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: The opening paragraph gives one set of boundaries for the county palatine and then later two sets of boundaries are presented. The text in the introduction should either summarise the unclear position or be removed - it is covered later in good detail. MRSC 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed references to its area from the introduction and moved all the citations to the Duchy section where they can be presented with equal weighting. MRSC 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at Traditional counties of the British Isles it contradicts all the attempt to rationalise and remove the fantasies.--84.9.193.208 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More contradiction

message: There have been some edits saying the Palatine gained land from the boundary changes, citing the duchoflancaster site saying the palatine comprises Greater Manchester etc.  While it is true Greater Manchester includes areas of Yorkshire that were not included in the palatine, this reference does not provide explicit confirmation that the palatine includes all of Greater Manchester.  This could simply be a reference to the parts of GM that were already a palatine.  Indeed, there is a reference on the page to a parliementary debate that explicitly states the boundaries for the palatine have not changed.  88.104.88.173 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some citation/reference to state that there hasn't been any changes to the County Palatine of Lancaster's boundaries? Cayden (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - check ref #27 (duchy of Lancaster section, 2nd paragraph): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1992-06-15/Writtens-2.html 88.104.88.173 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lord Lieutenant of Greater Manchester is appointed by the Duchy of Lancaster. The website also states it comprises of Lancs, Gtr Mcr, Msd & Furness - thus Altrincham and Saddleworth are under the executive power of the duchy. Jhamez84 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't actually say that though - it says Greater Manchester comprises the Palatine and does not say if it is all or part of Manchester.  If you are going to say the boundaries have changed then we need an expliciti statement like "all of Greater Manchester" 88.104.88.173 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, by logic Greater Manchester is just that - Greater Manchester! It doesn't need to say "all of"! Look at it this way, it states it includes the Furness part of Cumbria - it's explicit with it's boundaries there, it does not state part of GM or Merseyside. Jhamez84 18:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with you, bizarrely.  On the map it looks like teh whole of Manchester but the problem is that we have an explicit counter reference which says the boundaries having changed.  I'm include to believe we are both right:  The estate only draws income from the old area, but appoints a lord lieutenent for GM, meaning that on some levels the boundaries have changed and on some levels they haven't.  Idealy this section nees to be expanded, but at the moment we don't know exatly WHAT has changed so I think the section should give equal balance to both schools of thought.  If you want to reword the section to your liking be my guest, but I request you keep an equal balance. 88.104.88.173 19:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a possiblility, but someone could come along and add it back in.  I personally think the whole section needs a overhall if it's going to stay since there are contradictory sources about its borders.  Ultimately the article is about lancashire so an alternative would be to state that its "historic boundaries were the same as the County Palatine of Lancaster, but now its modern boundaries means it only forms part of the county palatine".  Views?  88.104.88.173 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: County Palatine