Talk:Saddleworth White Rose Society

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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,  has the society saying "we wish County Watch every success".  Morwen - Talk 10:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: May I raise some points?

message: 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".
 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Continued ethnic/cultural cleansing attempts