![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Google Earth very clearly allows under its copyright rules for fair use of its images including on the internet. I have therefore re-added the image to the commons and on the Clarawood page
Point taken on the fair use policy, I am new to this as you will appreciate Clarawood123 ( talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Clarawood123: Please read
WP:IMGSIZE. Thumbed images are preferred over fixed-width images. Note especially "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. 300px), which forces a fixed image width. [...] Where px is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays).
" The image resolutions that you have reinstated are too big; while you may be connected to high-speed internet, there are parts of the world where it still might take ages to download a Wikipedia page and large images are certainly not helping. Additionally, you have removed the
WP:Original research tag without solving the problems. Until they have been solved, the tag should remain in place. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
12:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of the image policies on Wikipedia are that large images are ok in the context of the article. I'm sorry you felt that I had made a personal attack on you, this was not the intention, my comment was designed to give constructive criticism on your content Clarawood123 ( talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The edits made by CDRL102 have been undone for several reasons. Firstly they removed a lot of information under the heading of a cleanup and also tags stating that the article had not been written properly and needed to be written by someone qualified to do so. The inference is namely therefore that the page was not written properly or by someone qualified to do so. The creator and author of the article is in fact not only qualified at degree level on the subjects concerned but is also a very long term resident of Clarawood with direct experience. Anything which was included in the article as originally written and now restored is not only factual but is referenced and able to be referenced under the Wikipedia accepted guidelines and practices, as has been previously discussed with another editor. I have, for the sake of not getting into an edit war, removed the anecdotal portion at the end. Please, if you have anything to discuss on the Clarawood article, raise a comment on the Talk page rather than editing blankly as it may be the case that your edit is unecessary. Thankyou Clarawood123 ( talk) 21:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
This article has been reinstated after a deletion review and relisted for AfD since it had been listed previously and closed out of process after only 1 hour. As mentioned in the AfD I would ask anyone participating or interested to ensure they read the full breadth of comments etc in various places before concluding anything. Over the next few days I intend to expand on the General Reference section substantially and this should satisfy the article's previous detractors. Clarawood123 ( talk) 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
User:CDRL102 has removed a portion of the opening text of the article citing that what was said was an opinion. CDRL102 very clearly did not check the reference for the edited statement which was to a report called "Poverty Amongst Plenty" which studied Clarawood and concluded that it was a working class area situated amongst more affluent ones such as those named. This was based on a pilot study of demographic and other measures which, as CDRL102 is clearly unaware, was the starting point for the development of what is now known in Northern Ireland as the Multiple Deprivation Measures and Targetting Social Need, which are the official Government demographic statistics which are used by every Government Department and Local Council to determine where and how to spend public money. In other words the edit was ill judged, the reason given was totally without foundation and fallacious and the statement as reverted to is absolutely and totally factual and demonstrable and was referenced to a solid academic report. I have absolutely no qualms about reverting the edit and CDRL102 can accuse me of acting like a page owner or simply reverting everything that another editor does, but before they make any further edits they should be ensuring that they know what they are talking about. They have demonstrated in this instance that not only do they not know what they are talking about and asserting, but that they cannot even read references. Clarawood123 ( talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC) You're incapable, that is all. CDRL102 ( talk) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Where in this ref http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/public/Home.aspx is the population figure of 1200 found? I looked and didn't find it there. Jytdog ( talk) 21:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the latest census information the estate population is about 1200. [1]
References
Also, what does this mean?
At present there is a low level of community mobilisation (2016). [1] [2]
References
Also we need to write encyclopedic content - nothing is "currently" in Wikipedia as this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or newspaper. Jytdog ( talk) 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the latest census information the estate population is about 1200.[30] However it has been identified by Clarawood Community Association that the census information is not accurate, for example in the 2001 census a significant number of people identified themselves as Pakistani when it is known that there were absolutely not this number of Pakistani people living in the estate. Also in the 2011 census there were only 571 homes meaning that almost 6% of the estate did not exist. This is statistically significant. Based upon direct local knowledge and estimates of the number of people living in Clarawood who might officially have an address elsewhere, and the number of people who revolve around the estate or who spend time there regularly with family, the population should be thought of as nearer 1400 or 1500. Demographically there are roughly 200 children & young people, roughly 300 pensioners and a fairly even mix of single people and couples. About 15 - 20 children are born each year and generally the same amount of people pass on, obviously there are fluctuations in these from year to year.
The estate is very predominantly white and Protestant, there are very small numbers of ethnic minorities mainly Black and Chinese (only about a dozen people) and a small Catholic population (about 50) the majority of whom are long term estate residents and fully accepted as part of the community. Small numbers of Eastern Europeans have moved in over the last few years, there are probably around half a dozen families.[24] Whilst sections of the estate have become middle class in recent years there remains an undercurrent of deprivation. On world terms the inhabitants are of course doing extremely well, however there is lots of hidden poverty and hidden societal problems. Those living in Clarawood still tend to be poorer, unhealthier, less educated and less upwardly mobile than those in the areas around them. At present there is a low level of community mobilisation (2016).[1][31]
When User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi edited the article (leaving it in breach of copyright) they removed portions of the article but retained others thus leaving the article seriously misreferenced and without the breadth of research on the topic. Your summary comments on your edits in relation to User:CDRL102's population edit demonstrates this. It would appear that neither yourself or CDRL102 or Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi appear to have any great knowledge of the subject area or the referencing aside from what yous have read in the article.
Perhaps a dictionary or thesaurus might assist you to understand community mobilisation. Regarding information which may change in time I would refer you to [1] [2] and other Guidelines. The NISRA website allows the user to find information on all areas in Northern Ireland at a range of administrative level. Competence is required to use it and extract the information, I would suggest reading the guidelines on their page before doing so. Clarawood123 ( talk) 09:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
so the 1200 number does appear to be original research and is not, at least at this time, verifiable from published sources. You are not going to take this well I reckon Clarawood123 but this is not how Wikipedia writing is done. What is in the content of an article, has to actually be verifiable from the source provided - that is what the verify policy is all about. The way to edit is to find reliable sources and summarize them here in Wikipedia, and cite the source you are summarizing. It appears that in the italicized content above, you described how you calculated the 1200 number, and you have now made it clear that you cited the census website just as a kind of "hook" and not a place anybody could go and find the information.
The following is a hard thing. The first eight sources used in the article are things like "Public Records Office of Northern Ireland, LA/7/12/AB/1 - MInute Book of the [Special] Housing Committee of Belfast Corporation 1948 - 53". These appear to be documents that are only available locally. (More recent minutes are available online at the Belfast City Council website - here is a search of their minutes library for "Clarawood"). In light of the discussion above by Clarawood123 of how they created the content about population and used (or didn't use) the sources cited for that, I have moved the content sourced to those local documents below, until at least one other experienced Wikipedian can get their hands on these documents and verify the content. I searched the Belfast City website, plain old google like this and this and the Belfast Telegraph webisite here and rewrote as much of this as I could...
Approval for a new housing development at what was known as the Clara Park site was approved in March 1949 and inspected by the Housing Committee of The Belfast Corporation in October that year. [1] Numerous housing estates were built by the Corporation after the war and Clarawood was part of a wider wave of construction which included Taughmonagh, Ballysillan, Annadale, Flush Park, Highfield and many others. By the time it came to be built it was in fact described as the last of the large housing estates. [2] Plans had been in progress for a while by 1949 and early on it was identified that a primary school would have to be part of the development. [1]
In February 1951 the first plans for the actual estate were presented and the final layout was decided in May 1952. [1] The construction of the various housing estates at the time required the approval and input of numerous committees and Government departments who could focus on their own particular realm of expertise. In the case of Clarawood this resulted in such things as using concrete for the roads rather than tarmac as the ground was soft and designing the layout to deliberately encompass open spaces and green areas. [2]
In early 1953 the first tender was put out for the roads and sewers and it was awarded on 20 February with work beginning shortly afterwards. [2] The total cost came in at around £600,000 for the original phases [3] [4] [5] [6] plus over £300,000 for Clara Way, [7] [8] equivalent to nearly £15 million today (2016). [9] In April 1955 as construction continued the Corporation celebrated the 5000th house completed since the end of the war and visited Clarawood to hand over the keys to the new tenant personally. [2]
In June 1965 the final go ahead for the multi - storey flats and maisonettes, otherwise known as Clara Park Extension No.1, was given along with permission for a road at Knockmount Gardens. [7]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 15:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (redacted for clarity Jytdog ( talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
Pulling this bit out too, until it can be verified:
A Tenants Hall was built in the 1960s, and was later extended and upgraded but was closed after various problems such as the "vigilantes" using them at nights. [1]
References
- Jytdog ( talk) 15:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The map in the Infobox UK place shows whole of Northern Ireland and isn't very useful in locating Clarawood. I tried changing the map_type parameter to Greater Belfast as suggested in the documentation but that had no effect. There is this map but it looks a bit different from most recent maps and we probably wouldn't want it as well as the one in the infobox. Is it possible to get a map of a similar area in the infobox? Cavrdg ( talk) 19:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Clarawood I have seen you write several times that there is COPYVIO in the article. Would you please identify precisely what content in the article you believe violates copyright, and from what source? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 11:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment It would seem from @ Clarawood123: comments that they are an Expert in United States copyright law. This absolutely wonderful and will help us avoid violating anyones copyright. So since you claim that there is a copy right violation please point out this copyright violation so that we can fix it accordingly. As we aren't experts in United States copyright law we need the exact violations pointed out that we can verify that there is a copyright violation. I know as an expert in the field of United States Copyrights you feel that this is beneath you but this is how wikipedia works. So just go ahead and point out the copyright violation so we can move on. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 10:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
As the creator and original author of the Clarawood article, and for those readers who are unaware of the saga of Deletion Requests, Deletion Reviews, Edit histories and ANI discussions, this article has been heavily changed from the original which I would urge readers to view here [3]. This has left the article innaccurate, misreferenced and in breach of copyright and I have urged for it to be restored to its previous state. However I have not done this myself as I have already been accused of Ownership and Disruptive Editing for doing so previously. The article as it now stands is a nonsense Clarawood123 ( talk) 10:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi - I had included the following to provide context for Clarawood's falling population in that section - it fell by half over the surveyed period.
That was removed in this dif with edit note: "prod pop of belfast irrelevant here" by User:Rwxrwxrwx.
thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 23:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It was referenced to multiple of the records of the Belfast Corporation, the Government body which built the estate and detailed it extensively (but you removed all of these as you are wrong on these offline sources having to be checked by another Wikipedian) and to information provided by Clarawood Community Association. As referenced clearly in the original article as I keep saying. I have been pointing out numerous errors for some considerable weeks now in the face of completely unwarranted hostility. I hope you at least are starting to accept that what I have been saying is correct. I could quite easily write things in such a way here to make people look like fools but I have tried not to do that and to be more reasonable Clarawood123 ( talk) 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Also Ormiston is a district which is only used by Belfast City Council in local government elections, if info such as this is used then the full context of other elective levels should be included. Belfast is actually a County in its own right and there is dispute amongst those who do not know this as to whether to use Co Antrim or Co Down, most use Co Antrim. You still retain info from the report regarding community make up - this is completely out of context as there are multiple newer sources for this including the census information for both 2001 and 2011 which in fact deal with it much more extensively as they have much more complete info. Including a mention of 100m cells means nothing without an explanation (which I do not believe you actually understand enough to give anyway). NIHE doesn't report any cottages in Clarawood, also it doesn't say 278 have been privatised, it says there have been 278 house sales which is different. If you do not understand the difference then you shouldn't be trying to deal with these stats. I recall someone previously saying "They work for you" was a poor reference (it was used simply as an accessible online version of the official Hansard record of the proceedings in Parliament)yet you have reused it again out of context. The Anne Napier Centre did not close in 2005, the park was not improved as it did not exist previously and I should note that your quoted source describes how Clarawood is an area of high deprivation. I recall distinctly that the entire affair of people rubbishing my article, starting deletions, accusing me of COI, bias, disruption, ownership etc etc etc started as an editor removed the opening statement of the article which described how Clarawood was a less affluent area than the ones surrounding it (fully referenced by the way) and I reverted it. In Clarawood 2012 was not the most severe year of flooding though it may have been in a wider NI context, the Greenway project existed before the East Belfast Flood Alleviation Scheme, Rivers Agency is not part of "city government" and including a section about Jim Gray shows a stunted knowledge of Clarawood and opens a door to a lot of controversy best avoided. I refer you and others once again to the article as I left it which you will find, as you grow in your knowledge of the subject, could not have been a more comprehensive, fair, balanced and encyclopedic article about Clarawood and every pertinent issue to it. Clarawood123 ( talk) 10:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This is what i had in the article and according to CW this is wrong:
References
Belfast/NI just went through a remapping a few years ago and according to this site they are going through another one so there seems little point in keeping this in the article. Jytdog ( talk) 08:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged the article again as despite the quite substantial previous discussions on this talk page and evidence that it is all of the things highlighted in the tags it remains in the same condition. I expect any editor interested to refute my tags with facts on this page. Otherwise I intend to substantially rewrite and repair the article in 7 days. (As an example Clarawood is not in the Knock Ward as Knock Ward no longer exists) Clarawood123 ( talk) 07:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Rhododendrites has failed to discuss his revert here so I will start the discussion. I reverted to the 22 March 2016 version because the edits since then have been largely unhelpful. They have changed the emphasis from community to sectarianism. If editors wish to write about sectarianism they should start a new article, not try to piggyback it on the Clarawood article. Heavyplantcrossing ( talk) 10:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Heavyplantcrossing ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The point still remain that they misapplied BRD as if it were a policy. And purpose of the removed content. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 15:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks to the Arbitration Committee for unblocking me. Without getting into a whole discussion I would like to reiterate that I am in no way whatsoever connected to any sockpuppet accounts or disruptive editors.
Please feel free to explain again but more clearly this time, how the sourcing of the content works, and while you are it please do explain how User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi edits here trimming your WP:OR left the article "in breach of copyright":
There are exactly 606 homes in Clarawood:
166 flats in 4 styles
32 maisonettes in 2 styles
120 semis in 4 or 5 styles
29 bungalows in 2 styles
4 detached houses
255 terraced in a number of styles with 109 of these being end terraces
All the flats are 2 bedroom, the bungalows are 1 bedroom, the maisonettes 3 bedroom and the rest a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom. There are two 4 bedroom homes in the estate. Two other maisonettes exist but their use was changed after a fire and there is 1 more flat used by the caretaker of Clarawood House. Most houses have gardens and almost all streets have open areas.
44% of homes are privately owned, the vast majority of the rest are rented from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), the government public housing body.
Over the decades the majority of NIHE homes have been regularly updated so that most have had new kitchens, rooves, porches, fences, bathrooms, heating and windows. 20 former bedsits in Knockwood Park were refurbished into ten new 3 bedroom houses in the 2000s and the bungalows at the bottom of the estate had extensions built on a few years ago. [1] [2] [3]
All the streetlights in the estate have been replaced and the paths have all been relaid (except for Clara Way). [4]
There are 7 other properties namely:
The shop
The Oak Centre
An empty retail unit
The Church
The Anne Napier Centre
The School
The Tenants Hall
According to the latest census information the estate population is about 1200. [5] However it has been identified by Clarawood Community Association that the census information is not accurate, for example in the 2001 census a significant number of people identified themselves as Pakistani when it is known that there were absolutely not this number of Pakistani people living in the estate. Also in the 2011 census there were only 571 homes meaning that almost 6% of the estate did not exist. This is statistically significant. Based upon direct local knowledge and estimates of the number of people living in Clarawood who might officially have an address elsewhere, and the number of people who revolve around the estate or who spend time there regularly with family, the population should be thought of as nearer 1400 or 1500.
Demographically there are roughly 200 children & young people, roughly 300 pensioners and a fairly even mix of single people and couples. About 15 - 20 children are born each year and generally the same amount of people pass on, obviously there are fluctuations in these from year to year.
The estate is very predominantly white and Protestant, there are very small numbers of ethnic minorities mainly Black and Chinese (only about a dozen people) and a small Catholic population (about 50) the majority of whom are long term estate residents and fully accepted as part of the community. Small numbers of Eastern Europeans have moved in over the last few years, there are probably around half a dozen families. [6]
Whilst sections of the estate have become middle class in recent years there remains an undercurrent of deprivation. On world terms the inhabitants are of course doing extremely well, however there is lots of hidden poverty and hidden societal problems. Those living in Clarawood still tend to be poorer, unhealthier, less educated and less upwardly mobile than those in the areas around them. At present there is a low level of community mobilisation (2016). [7] [8]
In light of Welfare Reform and the changes to both Government, the economy and public works in general; and based upon the evidence from England & Wales where some of these reforms have been implemented much earlier and have already taken root, estates such as Clarawood are likely to find themselves, in the not so distant future, under pressure in every sphere and slipping backwards. Almost 1 million people on the mainland are now relying on foodbanks and many have lost their homes and even their families. Health and mental health is declining, people are being forced into low paid menial jobs, opportunity is choking and the whole nature of society is changing. [9] Clarawood is likely to be affected by these same problems.
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Please do explain. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 10:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Clarawood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Google Earth very clearly allows under its copyright rules for fair use of its images including on the internet. I have therefore re-added the image to the commons and on the Clarawood page
Point taken on the fair use policy, I am new to this as you will appreciate Clarawood123 ( talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Clarawood123: Please read
WP:IMGSIZE. Thumbed images are preferred over fixed-width images. Note especially "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. 300px), which forces a fixed image width. [...] Where px is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays).
" The image resolutions that you have reinstated are too big; while you may be connected to high-speed internet, there are parts of the world where it still might take ages to download a Wikipedia page and large images are certainly not helping. Additionally, you have removed the
WP:Original research tag without solving the problems. Until they have been solved, the tag should remain in place. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
12:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of the image policies on Wikipedia are that large images are ok in the context of the article. I'm sorry you felt that I had made a personal attack on you, this was not the intention, my comment was designed to give constructive criticism on your content Clarawood123 ( talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The edits made by CDRL102 have been undone for several reasons. Firstly they removed a lot of information under the heading of a cleanup and also tags stating that the article had not been written properly and needed to be written by someone qualified to do so. The inference is namely therefore that the page was not written properly or by someone qualified to do so. The creator and author of the article is in fact not only qualified at degree level on the subjects concerned but is also a very long term resident of Clarawood with direct experience. Anything which was included in the article as originally written and now restored is not only factual but is referenced and able to be referenced under the Wikipedia accepted guidelines and practices, as has been previously discussed with another editor. I have, for the sake of not getting into an edit war, removed the anecdotal portion at the end. Please, if you have anything to discuss on the Clarawood article, raise a comment on the Talk page rather than editing blankly as it may be the case that your edit is unecessary. Thankyou Clarawood123 ( talk) 21:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
This article has been reinstated after a deletion review and relisted for AfD since it had been listed previously and closed out of process after only 1 hour. As mentioned in the AfD I would ask anyone participating or interested to ensure they read the full breadth of comments etc in various places before concluding anything. Over the next few days I intend to expand on the General Reference section substantially and this should satisfy the article's previous detractors. Clarawood123 ( talk) 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
User:CDRL102 has removed a portion of the opening text of the article citing that what was said was an opinion. CDRL102 very clearly did not check the reference for the edited statement which was to a report called "Poverty Amongst Plenty" which studied Clarawood and concluded that it was a working class area situated amongst more affluent ones such as those named. This was based on a pilot study of demographic and other measures which, as CDRL102 is clearly unaware, was the starting point for the development of what is now known in Northern Ireland as the Multiple Deprivation Measures and Targetting Social Need, which are the official Government demographic statistics which are used by every Government Department and Local Council to determine where and how to spend public money. In other words the edit was ill judged, the reason given was totally without foundation and fallacious and the statement as reverted to is absolutely and totally factual and demonstrable and was referenced to a solid academic report. I have absolutely no qualms about reverting the edit and CDRL102 can accuse me of acting like a page owner or simply reverting everything that another editor does, but before they make any further edits they should be ensuring that they know what they are talking about. They have demonstrated in this instance that not only do they not know what they are talking about and asserting, but that they cannot even read references. Clarawood123 ( talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC) You're incapable, that is all. CDRL102 ( talk) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Where in this ref http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/public/Home.aspx is the population figure of 1200 found? I looked and didn't find it there. Jytdog ( talk) 21:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the latest census information the estate population is about 1200. [1]
References
Also, what does this mean?
At present there is a low level of community mobilisation (2016). [1] [2]
References
Also we need to write encyclopedic content - nothing is "currently" in Wikipedia as this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or newspaper. Jytdog ( talk) 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the latest census information the estate population is about 1200.[30] However it has been identified by Clarawood Community Association that the census information is not accurate, for example in the 2001 census a significant number of people identified themselves as Pakistani when it is known that there were absolutely not this number of Pakistani people living in the estate. Also in the 2011 census there were only 571 homes meaning that almost 6% of the estate did not exist. This is statistically significant. Based upon direct local knowledge and estimates of the number of people living in Clarawood who might officially have an address elsewhere, and the number of people who revolve around the estate or who spend time there regularly with family, the population should be thought of as nearer 1400 or 1500. Demographically there are roughly 200 children & young people, roughly 300 pensioners and a fairly even mix of single people and couples. About 15 - 20 children are born each year and generally the same amount of people pass on, obviously there are fluctuations in these from year to year.
The estate is very predominantly white and Protestant, there are very small numbers of ethnic minorities mainly Black and Chinese (only about a dozen people) and a small Catholic population (about 50) the majority of whom are long term estate residents and fully accepted as part of the community. Small numbers of Eastern Europeans have moved in over the last few years, there are probably around half a dozen families.[24] Whilst sections of the estate have become middle class in recent years there remains an undercurrent of deprivation. On world terms the inhabitants are of course doing extremely well, however there is lots of hidden poverty and hidden societal problems. Those living in Clarawood still tend to be poorer, unhealthier, less educated and less upwardly mobile than those in the areas around them. At present there is a low level of community mobilisation (2016).[1][31]
When User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi edited the article (leaving it in breach of copyright) they removed portions of the article but retained others thus leaving the article seriously misreferenced and without the breadth of research on the topic. Your summary comments on your edits in relation to User:CDRL102's population edit demonstrates this. It would appear that neither yourself or CDRL102 or Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi appear to have any great knowledge of the subject area or the referencing aside from what yous have read in the article.
Perhaps a dictionary or thesaurus might assist you to understand community mobilisation. Regarding information which may change in time I would refer you to [1] [2] and other Guidelines. The NISRA website allows the user to find information on all areas in Northern Ireland at a range of administrative level. Competence is required to use it and extract the information, I would suggest reading the guidelines on their page before doing so. Clarawood123 ( talk) 09:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
so the 1200 number does appear to be original research and is not, at least at this time, verifiable from published sources. You are not going to take this well I reckon Clarawood123 but this is not how Wikipedia writing is done. What is in the content of an article, has to actually be verifiable from the source provided - that is what the verify policy is all about. The way to edit is to find reliable sources and summarize them here in Wikipedia, and cite the source you are summarizing. It appears that in the italicized content above, you described how you calculated the 1200 number, and you have now made it clear that you cited the census website just as a kind of "hook" and not a place anybody could go and find the information.
The following is a hard thing. The first eight sources used in the article are things like "Public Records Office of Northern Ireland, LA/7/12/AB/1 - MInute Book of the [Special] Housing Committee of Belfast Corporation 1948 - 53". These appear to be documents that are only available locally. (More recent minutes are available online at the Belfast City Council website - here is a search of their minutes library for "Clarawood"). In light of the discussion above by Clarawood123 of how they created the content about population and used (or didn't use) the sources cited for that, I have moved the content sourced to those local documents below, until at least one other experienced Wikipedian can get their hands on these documents and verify the content. I searched the Belfast City website, plain old google like this and this and the Belfast Telegraph webisite here and rewrote as much of this as I could...
Approval for a new housing development at what was known as the Clara Park site was approved in March 1949 and inspected by the Housing Committee of The Belfast Corporation in October that year. [1] Numerous housing estates were built by the Corporation after the war and Clarawood was part of a wider wave of construction which included Taughmonagh, Ballysillan, Annadale, Flush Park, Highfield and many others. By the time it came to be built it was in fact described as the last of the large housing estates. [2] Plans had been in progress for a while by 1949 and early on it was identified that a primary school would have to be part of the development. [1]
In February 1951 the first plans for the actual estate were presented and the final layout was decided in May 1952. [1] The construction of the various housing estates at the time required the approval and input of numerous committees and Government departments who could focus on their own particular realm of expertise. In the case of Clarawood this resulted in such things as using concrete for the roads rather than tarmac as the ground was soft and designing the layout to deliberately encompass open spaces and green areas. [2]
In early 1953 the first tender was put out for the roads and sewers and it was awarded on 20 February with work beginning shortly afterwards. [2] The total cost came in at around £600,000 for the original phases [3] [4] [5] [6] plus over £300,000 for Clara Way, [7] [8] equivalent to nearly £15 million today (2016). [9] In April 1955 as construction continued the Corporation celebrated the 5000th house completed since the end of the war and visited Clarawood to hand over the keys to the new tenant personally. [2]
In June 1965 the final go ahead for the multi - storey flats and maisonettes, otherwise known as Clara Park Extension No.1, was given along with permission for a road at Knockmount Gardens. [7]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 15:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (redacted for clarity Jytdog ( talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
Pulling this bit out too, until it can be verified:
A Tenants Hall was built in the 1960s, and was later extended and upgraded but was closed after various problems such as the "vigilantes" using them at nights. [1]
References
- Jytdog ( talk) 15:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The map in the Infobox UK place shows whole of Northern Ireland and isn't very useful in locating Clarawood. I tried changing the map_type parameter to Greater Belfast as suggested in the documentation but that had no effect. There is this map but it looks a bit different from most recent maps and we probably wouldn't want it as well as the one in the infobox. Is it possible to get a map of a similar area in the infobox? Cavrdg ( talk) 19:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Clarawood I have seen you write several times that there is COPYVIO in the article. Would you please identify precisely what content in the article you believe violates copyright, and from what source? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 11:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment It would seem from @ Clarawood123: comments that they are an Expert in United States copyright law. This absolutely wonderful and will help us avoid violating anyones copyright. So since you claim that there is a copy right violation please point out this copyright violation so that we can fix it accordingly. As we aren't experts in United States copyright law we need the exact violations pointed out that we can verify that there is a copyright violation. I know as an expert in the field of United States Copyrights you feel that this is beneath you but this is how wikipedia works. So just go ahead and point out the copyright violation so we can move on. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 10:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
As the creator and original author of the Clarawood article, and for those readers who are unaware of the saga of Deletion Requests, Deletion Reviews, Edit histories and ANI discussions, this article has been heavily changed from the original which I would urge readers to view here [3]. This has left the article innaccurate, misreferenced and in breach of copyright and I have urged for it to be restored to its previous state. However I have not done this myself as I have already been accused of Ownership and Disruptive Editing for doing so previously. The article as it now stands is a nonsense Clarawood123 ( talk) 10:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi - I had included the following to provide context for Clarawood's falling population in that section - it fell by half over the surveyed period.
That was removed in this dif with edit note: "prod pop of belfast irrelevant here" by User:Rwxrwxrwx.
thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 23:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It was referenced to multiple of the records of the Belfast Corporation, the Government body which built the estate and detailed it extensively (but you removed all of these as you are wrong on these offline sources having to be checked by another Wikipedian) and to information provided by Clarawood Community Association. As referenced clearly in the original article as I keep saying. I have been pointing out numerous errors for some considerable weeks now in the face of completely unwarranted hostility. I hope you at least are starting to accept that what I have been saying is correct. I could quite easily write things in such a way here to make people look like fools but I have tried not to do that and to be more reasonable Clarawood123 ( talk) 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Also Ormiston is a district which is only used by Belfast City Council in local government elections, if info such as this is used then the full context of other elective levels should be included. Belfast is actually a County in its own right and there is dispute amongst those who do not know this as to whether to use Co Antrim or Co Down, most use Co Antrim. You still retain info from the report regarding community make up - this is completely out of context as there are multiple newer sources for this including the census information for both 2001 and 2011 which in fact deal with it much more extensively as they have much more complete info. Including a mention of 100m cells means nothing without an explanation (which I do not believe you actually understand enough to give anyway). NIHE doesn't report any cottages in Clarawood, also it doesn't say 278 have been privatised, it says there have been 278 house sales which is different. If you do not understand the difference then you shouldn't be trying to deal with these stats. I recall someone previously saying "They work for you" was a poor reference (it was used simply as an accessible online version of the official Hansard record of the proceedings in Parliament)yet you have reused it again out of context. The Anne Napier Centre did not close in 2005, the park was not improved as it did not exist previously and I should note that your quoted source describes how Clarawood is an area of high deprivation. I recall distinctly that the entire affair of people rubbishing my article, starting deletions, accusing me of COI, bias, disruption, ownership etc etc etc started as an editor removed the opening statement of the article which described how Clarawood was a less affluent area than the ones surrounding it (fully referenced by the way) and I reverted it. In Clarawood 2012 was not the most severe year of flooding though it may have been in a wider NI context, the Greenway project existed before the East Belfast Flood Alleviation Scheme, Rivers Agency is not part of "city government" and including a section about Jim Gray shows a stunted knowledge of Clarawood and opens a door to a lot of controversy best avoided. I refer you and others once again to the article as I left it which you will find, as you grow in your knowledge of the subject, could not have been a more comprehensive, fair, balanced and encyclopedic article about Clarawood and every pertinent issue to it. Clarawood123 ( talk) 10:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This is what i had in the article and according to CW this is wrong:
References
Belfast/NI just went through a remapping a few years ago and according to this site they are going through another one so there seems little point in keeping this in the article. Jytdog ( talk) 08:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged the article again as despite the quite substantial previous discussions on this talk page and evidence that it is all of the things highlighted in the tags it remains in the same condition. I expect any editor interested to refute my tags with facts on this page. Otherwise I intend to substantially rewrite and repair the article in 7 days. (As an example Clarawood is not in the Knock Ward as Knock Ward no longer exists) Clarawood123 ( talk) 07:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Rhododendrites has failed to discuss his revert here so I will start the discussion. I reverted to the 22 March 2016 version because the edits since then have been largely unhelpful. They have changed the emphasis from community to sectarianism. If editors wish to write about sectarianism they should start a new article, not try to piggyback it on the Clarawood article. Heavyplantcrossing ( talk) 10:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Heavyplantcrossing ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The point still remain that they misapplied BRD as if it were a policy. And purpose of the removed content. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 15:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks to the Arbitration Committee for unblocking me. Without getting into a whole discussion I would like to reiterate that I am in no way whatsoever connected to any sockpuppet accounts or disruptive editors.
Please feel free to explain again but more clearly this time, how the sourcing of the content works, and while you are it please do explain how User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi edits here trimming your WP:OR left the article "in breach of copyright":
There are exactly 606 homes in Clarawood:
166 flats in 4 styles
32 maisonettes in 2 styles
120 semis in 4 or 5 styles
29 bungalows in 2 styles
4 detached houses
255 terraced in a number of styles with 109 of these being end terraces
All the flats are 2 bedroom, the bungalows are 1 bedroom, the maisonettes 3 bedroom and the rest a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom. There are two 4 bedroom homes in the estate. Two other maisonettes exist but their use was changed after a fire and there is 1 more flat used by the caretaker of Clarawood House. Most houses have gardens and almost all streets have open areas.
44% of homes are privately owned, the vast majority of the rest are rented from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), the government public housing body.
Over the decades the majority of NIHE homes have been regularly updated so that most have had new kitchens, rooves, porches, fences, bathrooms, heating and windows. 20 former bedsits in Knockwood Park were refurbished into ten new 3 bedroom houses in the 2000s and the bungalows at the bottom of the estate had extensions built on a few years ago. [1] [2] [3]
All the streetlights in the estate have been replaced and the paths have all been relaid (except for Clara Way). [4]
There are 7 other properties namely:
The shop
The Oak Centre
An empty retail unit
The Church
The Anne Napier Centre
The School
The Tenants Hall
According to the latest census information the estate population is about 1200. [5] However it has been identified by Clarawood Community Association that the census information is not accurate, for example in the 2001 census a significant number of people identified themselves as Pakistani when it is known that there were absolutely not this number of Pakistani people living in the estate. Also in the 2011 census there were only 571 homes meaning that almost 6% of the estate did not exist. This is statistically significant. Based upon direct local knowledge and estimates of the number of people living in Clarawood who might officially have an address elsewhere, and the number of people who revolve around the estate or who spend time there regularly with family, the population should be thought of as nearer 1400 or 1500.
Demographically there are roughly 200 children & young people, roughly 300 pensioners and a fairly even mix of single people and couples. About 15 - 20 children are born each year and generally the same amount of people pass on, obviously there are fluctuations in these from year to year.
The estate is very predominantly white and Protestant, there are very small numbers of ethnic minorities mainly Black and Chinese (only about a dozen people) and a small Catholic population (about 50) the majority of whom are long term estate residents and fully accepted as part of the community. Small numbers of Eastern Europeans have moved in over the last few years, there are probably around half a dozen families. [6]
Whilst sections of the estate have become middle class in recent years there remains an undercurrent of deprivation. On world terms the inhabitants are of course doing extremely well, however there is lots of hidden poverty and hidden societal problems. Those living in Clarawood still tend to be poorer, unhealthier, less educated and less upwardly mobile than those in the areas around them. At present there is a low level of community mobilisation (2016). [7] [8]
In light of Welfare Reform and the changes to both Government, the economy and public works in general; and based upon the evidence from England & Wales where some of these reforms have been implemented much earlier and have already taken root, estates such as Clarawood are likely to find themselves, in the not so distant future, under pressure in every sphere and slipping backwards. Almost 1 million people on the mainland are now relying on foodbanks and many have lost their homes and even their families. Health and mental health is declining, people are being forced into low paid menial jobs, opportunity is choking and the whole nature of society is changing. [9] Clarawood is likely to be affected by these same problems.
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Please do explain. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 10:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Clarawood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)