This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nocton Dairies controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep, refocus, and move to 2010 Nocton Dairies controversy. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another planning application is likely to be submitted soon. The facebook group continues to grow in size. Media interest may be low at the moment but I would not be surprised if it spiked again as the story unfolds. This issue may have an impact on the historical record because it could mean a substantial shift in the way cows are farmed in the UK. Good point about Wikipedia not being an outlet for campaign groups. But at the same time when something historical is happening, take a great example like the American Civil Right Movement, isn't a tool like Wikipedia great for informing people about meaningful developments as they happen? OliverCopsey ( talk) 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Am trying to edit this page - but can't find the preview button - basically the Telegraph report that the plans have already been submitted is incorrect. I would like to enter the following: Despite an inaccurate report in The Telegraph that Nocton Dairies had resubmitted their plans [1] as yet no further application has been made and Peter Wills has stated the company's intention to resubmit in September 2010. [2] Deborah
References
Considering the new planning application (November 2010), I propose that this page is moved to Nocton Dairies controversy as the controversy is likely to continue well into 2011. Please see the linked background above to the AfD discussion as to why it was moved away from Nocton Dairies. Any alternative suggestions or objections? Fæ ( talk) 09:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Nocton Dairies is the name of the company, but do we need the word "controversy" in the article title? Seems highly POV. Whilst I accept there is a debate to be had over the construction of the mega dairy - not in favour myself - and that the article should reflect the different points of view, surely the tile just needs to be the name of the company? Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 21:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted these changes as they appear to remove several valid sources. I would support any improvement ensuring all viewpoints are represented in the article, however removing current material in this way needs discussion and the normal approach for expanding alternative views is to add material to the text rather than replacing current text already supported by valid sources. Fæ ( talk) 11:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fæ
Apologies if this has been done incorrectly - the rationale was to try and present an update of the situation and remove some bias where negative press articles have been used as sources rather than eg the planning application itself. Some sources seemed extremely tenuous as well. Here is the rationale.
In conclusion I feel my updates have been carried out in good faith to add more objectivity and facts to the controversey as the debate has expanded. I beleive the resulting content has been improved throughout, the sources have been attached to more appropriate parts of the text, and a couple have been removed that I can find no basis for including. I hope you willreview the amendements having read this and see what I was trying to do. please let me know what you think. pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteboat ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nocton Dairies controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep, refocus, and move to 2010 Nocton Dairies controversy. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another planning application is likely to be submitted soon. The facebook group continues to grow in size. Media interest may be low at the moment but I would not be surprised if it spiked again as the story unfolds. This issue may have an impact on the historical record because it could mean a substantial shift in the way cows are farmed in the UK. Good point about Wikipedia not being an outlet for campaign groups. But at the same time when something historical is happening, take a great example like the American Civil Right Movement, isn't a tool like Wikipedia great for informing people about meaningful developments as they happen? OliverCopsey ( talk) 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Am trying to edit this page - but can't find the preview button - basically the Telegraph report that the plans have already been submitted is incorrect. I would like to enter the following: Despite an inaccurate report in The Telegraph that Nocton Dairies had resubmitted their plans [1] as yet no further application has been made and Peter Wills has stated the company's intention to resubmit in September 2010. [2] Deborah
References
Considering the new planning application (November 2010), I propose that this page is moved to Nocton Dairies controversy as the controversy is likely to continue well into 2011. Please see the linked background above to the AfD discussion as to why it was moved away from Nocton Dairies. Any alternative suggestions or objections? Fæ ( talk) 09:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Nocton Dairies is the name of the company, but do we need the word "controversy" in the article title? Seems highly POV. Whilst I accept there is a debate to be had over the construction of the mega dairy - not in favour myself - and that the article should reflect the different points of view, surely the tile just needs to be the name of the company? Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 21:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted these changes as they appear to remove several valid sources. I would support any improvement ensuring all viewpoints are represented in the article, however removing current material in this way needs discussion and the normal approach for expanding alternative views is to add material to the text rather than replacing current text already supported by valid sources. Fæ ( talk) 11:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fæ
Apologies if this has been done incorrectly - the rationale was to try and present an update of the situation and remove some bias where negative press articles have been used as sources rather than eg the planning application itself. Some sources seemed extremely tenuous as well. Here is the rationale.
In conclusion I feel my updates have been carried out in good faith to add more objectivity and facts to the controversey as the debate has expanded. I beleive the resulting content has been improved throughout, the sources have been attached to more appropriate parts of the text, and a couple have been removed that I can find no basis for including. I hope you willreview the amendements having read this and see what I was trying to do. please let me know what you think. pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteboat ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)