This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Isn't the latest addition: The association also seems uncertain about how traditional to be. The map shown on its homepage and a larger scale version accept the 1889 reform of local government in Scotland. The separated parts of various counties are not shown. Thus, Ross and Cromarty are shown as one unit. Likewise Morayshire is not cut in two by a large exclave of the County of Inverness. Of the many mainland counties having detached parts, only Dunbartonshire is shown as having two separate areas, a situation left unchanged by the 1889 local government reform. a little POV? Doesn't the map on the ABC web site also show large detached parts of Worcestershire and Flintshire? Owain 13:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've reverted the last edit and removed the following text:
The ABC is very clear on its website that its map excludes most exclaves for convenience, and that "Ross-shire and Cromartyshire are show as one unit" (for purposes of a simple map), not that "Ross and Cromarty" is a county in itself. I don't know why it doesn't show the large exclaves of Morayshire - probably cartographical laziness. If you read the "postal directory" section of the website, it is clear to the ABC that Aviemore lies in a detached portion of Morayshire; this portion is not shown on their map "for convenience". The simple map is simply that - a rough impression of the Counties. It isn't a 'manifesto'. Read the text if you want the 'manifesto'. This sort of speculative mud-throwing about "being unsure" is complete poppycock. People should read and understand the ABC's position before trying to extract alleged inconcsistencies from a map that is displayed with the clear warning that it makes no claims to small scale accuracy and only shows a few named exclaves for graphical convenience. 80.225.40.210 18:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article seems to lack balance.-- IanDavies 03:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Exile 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a revert-war going on regarding the membership size of ABC -- as if to say it's irrelevant as an entity due to the membership size not being known. This assertion is ludicrous; the size of ABC is not an important fact therefore not knowing the size is even less useful! MonMan 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:JzG - I removed the sentence "The size of the group is not known or stated", because I don't think we can quite say that yet - until we have a statement which can be rigorously defended by evidence, it will be continually reverted. Of course, I think the NPOV tag should stay at least until we have sorted out a rephrasing for this.
My problems with it are the following:
There's a difference between information being available, and us actually having it. There's a difference between what we don't know and what we can't know.
My date of birth is not stated on my user page (or anywhere else on the web) - but it is publically available, and certainly is known!
If only we were to ask the ABC about their membership, they might well tell us! - we're just too busy sorting out edit wars instead... if they were to refuse to tell us however, then we could fairly say the information is not publically available, but until we do so (or we find documentary evidence saying this info has been withheld previously, say), we can't honestly say.
That the membership isn't available on the website is incontrovertible, but somewhat unnotable - but I personally wouldn't object to it being included if people insist, however Aquilina 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this keeps coming up -- this is an article about a group that lobbies for something that some people may find contentious, but surely this article itself is perfectly neutral and eminently factual? Can someone explain how this article--as it stands--is anything but neutral? I'd really like to know. MonMan 04:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
<-- Should we be linking to a website which per the article only works part time? Seems a tad less than professional to me. -- kingboyk 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like an article about a very minor pressure group and its beliefs etc. " Traditional counties of the British Isles" is much more problematic. It seems to present the believes of the group as if commonly accepted fact. Looks to me like " Traditional counties of the British Isles" should be a redirect to " Association of British Counties". Laurel Bush 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
I was about to suggest giving it a new title, instead of maing it a redirect, to make clear that it is very POV, but the only new titles I can come up with are " Association of British Counties" and " ABC counties". Laurel Bush 10:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
English Democrat Party manifesto [1] contains no mention of counties. UKIP [2] ditto. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hard for whom to ascertain? Should an encyclopaedia article provide data from which to 'ascertain significance', rather than patronising the reader in this way?
What exactly is the "traditional counties movement"? Where has it 'claimed successes'? If no-one can define what this 'movement' is, it shouldn't be mentioned. Where is the evidence?
Does this imply the ABC has a role? This passage reads as an unsubstatiated remark about an undefined 'movement' and then states that there is no provable connection with that 'movement' to the subject of this article. What redundancy!
Who contends it? Evidence?
Who characterises it thus? And who claims it might be more justifiable? Evidence?
Refering to the scare quotes article: "an author who uses the term scare quotes to describe them generally does so disapprovingly" - thus how exactly is this sentence NPOV?
If this point is debatable, who debates it? Either someone or group should be quoted, or it is basically original research. What is the 'evidence of county identification in natives of counties with long-standing rivalries such as Yorkshire and Lancashire'?
If it states this, why is it necessary to have this long preceeding passage speculating on local Government changes that the ABC would bring about, if it itself states (with real, quoted evidence) that it wouldn't:
It clearly isn't relevant if the previously mentioned sentence taken from the ABC's FAQ is true.
Again, what is the 'traditional counties movement'? What defines it? And who claims what successes it has had? Evidence?
It seems that the majority of this article lacks substance. Unless someone wants to provide better sources, the article should be rewritten with only what can be substantiated in a NPOV way. 82.26.198.108 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
In view of someone trying to revert my edits to this article, I have removed/changed the following for the following reasons:
Not NPOV. Full stop.
By the 1880s, OS had virtually finished its second edition. The first edition (the "old series") was started at the end of the 18th century and completed by the 1850s. Thus I have removed "c.1880" as it's nonsense.
Promoting the idea? What exactly is the 'idea' of traditional counties? Do counties have ideas? This is simply bad English!
He might also own an old English sheepdog and a farm in Wales. A manorial title is completely irrelevant, and belongs, if anywhere, in the Russell Grant article. I have removed it.
UKIP's last (2005) local government manifesto [5] states, as a manifesto commitment, that it will "Dismantle regional government and r eturn powers to traditional county and borough councils". Therefore the original text is blatantly untrue, and I have changed it to reflect this.
Exile 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The Act did specifically create entities called 'adminitrative counties', and these entities were refered to as such in law until 1974, when a new act created new entities which it just called 'counties'. This isn't an 'allegation', it's a simple fact. So I have removed the word 'allege', as it is redundant.
So? How is this relevant to the ABC? It belongs in the article about this particular royal mail file, not in this one. Please discuss any disagreements here, and don't turn this into an edit war. Thank you. 82.26.198.108 20:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the juxtaposition of the words "traditional" and "county" in the UKIP manifesto [www.ukip.org/pdf/localmanifesto.pdf] discussed above, the following alternative interpretation does not appear to have been considered. UKIP's assertion that, if elected, they would
could well mean that they want to return to the traditional, two-tier system of local government, using counties and boroughs. It doesn't make any claim that they would use the "traditional counties" discussed at length on this page, or their boundaries. The fact that the words "traditional" and "county" are adjacent would therefore be just a coincidence, and doesn't suggest a manifesto commitment to, for instance, moving Southport back into Lancashire. -- RFBailey 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Clearly it cannot mean restoring ALL abolished county councils as some of them overlap, e.g. Huntingdonshire County Council and Huntingdon and Peterborough County Council. Perhaps the manifesto itself is ambiguous but various UKIP blogs maintained by UKIP members leave the reader in no doubt that they do want traditional counties restored for administrative purposes. Owain ( talk) 16:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
i have updated the copyright status of this picture in line with a comment found on the organisation's website: "The map may be copied and used freely. However, the Association of British Counties would appreciate an acknowledgement and a link to our site. "
as a link to the site is included both in the main article and on the picture page, the requirements of the creator are clearly met.
the above quote can be found at the the bottom of the page here:
[8]
Rich 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The list of aims in the article do not match those currently advertised by the Association on its web site. Its Aims page ( http://www.abcounties.co.uk/aims.htm) was apparently updated last November. In particular, with no current mention of their desire for the Government Office Region boundaries to be re-defined, there is now no need for the long following paragraph explaining what consequences this would have. There is now also no mention of lobbying the OS for county boundary inclusion or altering the lieutenancy area boundaries. In fact, apart from its own activities, the only things the ABC wants others to do is the altering of local authority names. However, I think it needs to be highlighted that it seeks to 'persuade' (though it doesn't specify how) media, the government and private organisations to use traditional county boundaries when talking about everything except central and local government.
Most of its aims seem to revolve around its own promotional activities, direct from itself to the public.
I believe the Other Policies section therefore needs to be comprehensively re-written.
Heavens To Betsy 11:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that these people seem to be in denial of the local government reorganisation to the point of neurosis. Do they still deny the fact that the world is round?
Not only is their page heavily biased but (looking through various talk pages) contibutors to this page appear to vandalise any reference to 'new' counties made by anyone else.
Any article on a town or village in the United Kingdom should give the reader some basic information which should include the current administrative county.
Whether the ABC like it or not, people living in these new counties pay their Council Tax to that county and their public services (schools, children's homes, homes for the elderly, roads, libraries, leisure centres, refuse collection, etc.) are provide by that county. The traditional counties have only historical relevance to the people living in those counties today. -- maelor 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The following are confirmed County Watch Vandals. User:Lancsalot. User:Owain, User:Yorkshire Phoenix (194.203.110.127). Talk:Merseyside should give you some idea of the state of these people thinking.-- 87.75.131.88 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Bleedin' Nora, people. Can't any of you see how ridiculous this particular section is? This is meant to be the discussion page of the article, not a place to vent personal angst for editors' actions on other articles or start slanging matches. Further, while I may disagree with the tone and content of some of these fairly threatening and insulting paragraphs in here, I do agree with 87.75.131.109 (or whatever IP they're currently using) that posts on discussion pages like this should not be reversed. If someone posts an insulting remark or even a pleasant remark that's completely off-topic, why can't people just ignore it instead of adding fuel to the fire by goading others? And I'm directing that to editors on both sides of the argument. To try and follow my own advice, therefore, would anyone mind replying to the section I started at the bottom a month ago? I did try to keep it relatively neutral, but I'd welcome anyone pointing out where I've erred. - Heavens To Betsy 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that as a reader of this article I found it to have a strong undercurrent of hostility to the traditional counties point of view throughout. It's enough to make me wonder if Wikipedia, with its stated commitment to a neutral point of view, attributing opinions to their sources, is disproportionately edited by people with an anti–traditional counties agenda. 86.136.3.91 17:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I just wondered if anyone could clear up a couple of things for me.
Thanks for reading. - Heavens To Betsy 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
When did ABC start? It doesn't seem to have existed when local government was reorganised in 1972 - 74 or 1985 - 86, at least it didn't appear in contemporary media. The earliest reference i can find is in the times of 20th July 1991, where they are described as having been "formed by about thirty county pressure groups". I'm not aware of 30 such groups existing today: maybe half a dozen: Friends of Real Lancashire, Yorkshire Ridings Society, Huntingdonshire Society, Saddleworth White Rose Society, there used to something called Voice of rutalnd, i think and some sort of Middlesex society, but they don't turn up on Google. Lozleader 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The BNP in their 2005 manifesto contains some mention of traditional counties - [12] - mention this or not? They have their language not quite conforming with ABC-speak, so it's unclear what they really mean. (i doubt, if pressed, they would really wish to see Huntingdon and Peterborough reinstated). Morwen - Talk 15:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this article is duplicating Traditional counties of the British Isles? Perhaps that could redirect here. What little extra content is located there is covered elsewhere in places like Historic counties of England. MRSC 08:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Where are they based? Pressure groups usually at least have a contact office for press enquiries etc. MRSC 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[13] It appears you don't need to read the white paper to prepare a response. MRSC 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Since this edit [14], the article has stated that Peter Boyce is the chairman of ABC. I can find no source for this: not even ABC's own site. Where did this info come from ?
I reverted the majority of this edit with edit summary "trimming dead wood". It introduced a number of claims without citations and removed much of the article without explanation. I left in founded in 1986 - would be good to get a source for that. MRSC • Talk 10:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I’m sorry to do something as crass as a “revert”, particularly when it’s my fault for not citing my sources. I have tried to put some of your contribution back. I want to make sure we have the most accurate material.
As ABC’s concerns, I added the Northern Ireland counties because the ABC’s published Aims and Objectives (also on their website) [1] are:
“1.1 ABC exists to maintain, enhance and promote the identities of the Counties of the United Kingdom and their role in the cultural life, geography and history of the nation.”
(I shall contact the ABC and mention the error on their front page. Elsewhere the site varies between all-UK and GB-only. The six counties of Northern Ireland are in ABC’s published Postal Directory [2].)
For the date of the ABC’s foundation, the founder Chairman, Michael Bradford, told me personally (although I mistyped the year as “1986”). (I have added more detail now, which Mr Bradford gave me over the telephone this evening.) The Yorkshire Ridings Society was certainly at the founding meeting.
As to changes in local government terminology, I believe you have misinterpreted the material. All the ABC’s own material that I have seen suggests that proposals to change local government terminology are to avoid ambiguity in the use of the word “county”, not to pay tribute to an 1888-1972 civil service wording! That is explicit in their Aims and Objectives (4.6). Your revert also restored an unsupported statement that the ABC wants the government Regions in England to conform to traditional counties; I cannot see that anywhere in the ABC’s material. The Aims and Objectives do though include the aim (4.3) of ensuring fair funding arrangements for bodies based on traditional counties, which is what I had put in.
I excepted Huntingdonshire from the “lacking public support” for unitary status because in that case it did gain majority support according to the official report. (54% in aggregate between two “separatist” options I think, but I can’t find a copy. I lived in Cambs at the time so I remember it. If I find a copy I’ll add a citation.) I have no knowledge of the level of support elsewhere.
I referred to degrees of support from individual MPs because that is patent; the next section cites parliamentary support (& I see that several MPs are patrons of the Friends of Real Lancashire, an affiliated group). I took reference to BNP policies out because the BNP policy quoted seems to be about local government and nothing to do with historic county heritage. As to the UKIP one, I’ll see if I can find anyone connected with UKIP to supply that missing citation.
Apart from that, I accept your concerns!
(Sorry; you had reverted my revert before you saw this; I'm going to have to re-revert. Don't take it as a hostile. I don't belive in revert-wars, but I do have the first-hand material.)
Howard Alexander ( talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As above, the earlier version contained errors in the ABC's published Aims and Objectives. The source is the very ABC webpage the earlier wording referred to and mistook! The one citation which MRSC requested (quite rightly) was on the dat the ABC was founded. I happen to know the founder chairman so I telephoned him this evening. If you know a better source than someone who was there at the time and chaired the organization for 15 years, tell me!
This exercise is meant to be about ensuring that readers of Wikipedia have the most accurate informatiuon possible. I do not want to put my interpretations there, but when we say "the ABC believes..., why not rely on their own statements? My corrections have been simply to copy those from those pages. I have not added any opinion about the merits or failings of the organization in question nor its beliefs.
If you believe I have actually misinterpreted something from the original source, tell me where; please don't just revert every word, good and bad.
Howard Alexander ( talk) 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Right-o. What I'll do in a bit, if it's all right with you chaps, is to correct the foundation date from "1986" to "1989" (which was my error in the first place) and to fix the deadlink.
If I come across any primary sources to fill citations I can look at filing them in. It's all fascinating stuff.
Howard Alexander ( talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This edit added some links that are just other domains registered by ABC with similar content, not relevant for the purposes of the article. MRSC • Talk 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you are only interested in which authority empties the bins etc. But others are culturally rather more sophisticated. Please try to understand this. Lancsalot ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This gets removed from time to time. Here are the definitions:
Insider pressure groups have strong links with decision makers and are regularly consulted. Insider pressure groups are the groups that the government - local or national - considers to be legitimate and are, therefore, given access to decision makers. For example, insider groups might be included in regular meetings with ministers or civil servants and they might be included on lists for circulation of new government proposals. The fact that insider groups are part of the consultation process enables them to use direct methods in order to exert influence. Insider groups tend to be very powerful and long-term in terms of political influence. It is more common for sectional rather than promotional groups to be insiders, although this is by no means always the case.
Outsider pressure groups have none of the advantages of insider groups. They cannot expect to be consulted during the policy-making process, nor can they expect to gain access to ministers and civil servants. Rather, they have to work outside the governmental decision making process and, therefore, have fewer opportunities to determine the direction of policy.
I've also added they are "single-issue" group - these are also known as a "promotional" group. Either wording is ok. MRSC • Talk 05:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The reasons editors retract from discussions with Yorkshirian is well documented in the various attempts at dispute resolutions in a variety of forums that have failed, and are now progressing to a higher level. It is your abusive, adversarial and confrontational talk page and edit summaries that have caused editors to be wary of discussions with you.
It is unclear how a perfectly well understood academic term of political science is a "neologism". The link I provided to Google Books was not intended to be used in a "numbers game" of hits. It simply shows that it is an academic term. In political science terms, this group are known as an "outsider" group based on their influence and a "promotional" group based on their objectives. This is not POV. As for third party commentary, it is hard to find *anything* written about this group as they are so inherently non-notable to academic and wider discourse. MRSC • Talk 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would add that outsider or insider are technical terms and they cannot be derogatory, unless you want to read it that way. Outsider groups have less influence, but are more able to be independent and critical of government. Insider groups on the other hand have strong influence, but cannot be as outspoken. This is clearly a group in the first category. MRSC • Talk 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
To Yorkshirian: I note the personal attacks you have made in this discussion. I took a look at your editing history today as a result, and found numerous examples of bad-faith assumptions in material you have edited and edit summaries, including an allegation on a TfD comment that was certainly unacceptable. I am advising you publically now that if you persist in doing this, you will be blocked until you give an undertaking to stop your personal attacks. I will copy this message to your talk page. If you feel the need to send a message to me, it should necessarily include as a major part of it words to the effect of "I apologize" and "I promise not to indulge in personal attacks again", and such sentiments should also be included in messages you leave to the editors you have treated like this. DDStretch (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The group's name implies to me an official status so the term 'outsider' is of a definate use. I broadly support the ABC's aims and do not see the term as being derogatory far from it in fact. If can be established whether presure groups are insider or outsider it ought to be added. Bevo74 ( talk) 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Slightly odd question, but does anyone know the ABC's position regarding the status of Hexhamshire (the only traditional county to be abolished before 1965)? The flying pasty ( talk) 16:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"Our definition of the historic counties matches that in the Historic Counties Standard produced by the Historic Counties Trust 9see www.historicountiestrust.co.uk for full details of this. We also list this in précis in our AIMS and Objects which can be found on our web site. Essentially, we don’t consider the counties to have been altered by any LG legislation (from 1888 onwards), but consider them to be as first mapped by OS in the nineteenth century. The counties had been stable for many centuries prior to that. Under our definition Hexhamshire isn’t considered a traditional county. This, of course, does not mean that we don’t value its historic identity".
I think this should clear this up. The flying pasty ( talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If they clash with the 1888 boundaries they won't value them. Bevo74 ( talk) 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the ABC website. Their own description of the orgainsation is "The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a society dedicated to promoting awareness of the continuing importance of the 86 historic (or traditional) Counties of Great Britain." This is my suggestion for the lead;
"The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a non-party-political outsider pressure group that promotes the Historic counties of England and Wales, and the Counties of Scotland."
Here is Jza84's preferred version;
"The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a non-party-political outsider pressure group that promotes what they assert to be the traditional counties of the United Kingdom."
There is no need for "what they assert". It is self-evident that they are asserting it and the phrase is used here to suggest that there are some other entities that are the true traditional counties - which there aren't. The phrase is being used in a POV attempt to undermine the organisation (of which I am not a member or supporter). My version is referenced directly to the ABC website. Unless the "what they assert" can be adequately referenced I will revert to the first-listed version in due course. Blacklans ( talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The ANC website seems to have disappeared. Before we remove the dead link, does anyone know what's happened - is this just temporary? --15:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The map only shows Great Britain. What about county broders on the green island? John Anderson ( talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the word "outsider" as it appears no longer to be correct. Previous objections to it concerned the tone: no other advocacy body is labelled "outider" and it suggests a mocking tone. It was argued however that "outsider" is a technical term. I am no sociologist, but it was given as:
Outsider pressure groups have none of the advantages of insider groups. They cannot expect to be consulted during the policy-making process, nor can they expect to gain access to ministers and civil servants. Rather, they have to work outside the governmental decision making process and, therefore, have fewer opportunities to determine the direction of policy
Now however the founder and patron of the ABC, Russell Grant, is a voluntary adviser to Eric Pickles and his Department, the Department for Communities and Local Government, borrows county flags from the ABC for its weekly flag displays. Whatever the arguments before, the ABC is "outsider" no longer.
Howard Alexander ( talk) 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Association of British Counties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcounties.com/aims.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Association of British Counties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcounties.com/ABC_PR_Northumberland_Nov07.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcounties.com/ABC_PR_Shropshire_Nov07.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcounties.com/ABC_PR_Wiltshire_Nov07.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content3?catId=400086&mediaId=56000695When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Isn't the latest addition: The association also seems uncertain about how traditional to be. The map shown on its homepage and a larger scale version accept the 1889 reform of local government in Scotland. The separated parts of various counties are not shown. Thus, Ross and Cromarty are shown as one unit. Likewise Morayshire is not cut in two by a large exclave of the County of Inverness. Of the many mainland counties having detached parts, only Dunbartonshire is shown as having two separate areas, a situation left unchanged by the 1889 local government reform. a little POV? Doesn't the map on the ABC web site also show large detached parts of Worcestershire and Flintshire? Owain 13:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've reverted the last edit and removed the following text:
The ABC is very clear on its website that its map excludes most exclaves for convenience, and that "Ross-shire and Cromartyshire are show as one unit" (for purposes of a simple map), not that "Ross and Cromarty" is a county in itself. I don't know why it doesn't show the large exclaves of Morayshire - probably cartographical laziness. If you read the "postal directory" section of the website, it is clear to the ABC that Aviemore lies in a detached portion of Morayshire; this portion is not shown on their map "for convenience". The simple map is simply that - a rough impression of the Counties. It isn't a 'manifesto'. Read the text if you want the 'manifesto'. This sort of speculative mud-throwing about "being unsure" is complete poppycock. People should read and understand the ABC's position before trying to extract alleged inconcsistencies from a map that is displayed with the clear warning that it makes no claims to small scale accuracy and only shows a few named exclaves for graphical convenience. 80.225.40.210 18:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article seems to lack balance.-- IanDavies 03:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Exile 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a revert-war going on regarding the membership size of ABC -- as if to say it's irrelevant as an entity due to the membership size not being known. This assertion is ludicrous; the size of ABC is not an important fact therefore not knowing the size is even less useful! MonMan 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:JzG - I removed the sentence "The size of the group is not known or stated", because I don't think we can quite say that yet - until we have a statement which can be rigorously defended by evidence, it will be continually reverted. Of course, I think the NPOV tag should stay at least until we have sorted out a rephrasing for this.
My problems with it are the following:
There's a difference between information being available, and us actually having it. There's a difference between what we don't know and what we can't know.
My date of birth is not stated on my user page (or anywhere else on the web) - but it is publically available, and certainly is known!
If only we were to ask the ABC about their membership, they might well tell us! - we're just too busy sorting out edit wars instead... if they were to refuse to tell us however, then we could fairly say the information is not publically available, but until we do so (or we find documentary evidence saying this info has been withheld previously, say), we can't honestly say.
That the membership isn't available on the website is incontrovertible, but somewhat unnotable - but I personally wouldn't object to it being included if people insist, however Aquilina 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this keeps coming up -- this is an article about a group that lobbies for something that some people may find contentious, but surely this article itself is perfectly neutral and eminently factual? Can someone explain how this article--as it stands--is anything but neutral? I'd really like to know. MonMan 04:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
<-- Should we be linking to a website which per the article only works part time? Seems a tad less than professional to me. -- kingboyk 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like an article about a very minor pressure group and its beliefs etc. " Traditional counties of the British Isles" is much more problematic. It seems to present the believes of the group as if commonly accepted fact. Looks to me like " Traditional counties of the British Isles" should be a redirect to " Association of British Counties". Laurel Bush 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
I was about to suggest giving it a new title, instead of maing it a redirect, to make clear that it is very POV, but the only new titles I can come up with are " Association of British Counties" and " ABC counties". Laurel Bush 10:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
English Democrat Party manifesto [1] contains no mention of counties. UKIP [2] ditto. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hard for whom to ascertain? Should an encyclopaedia article provide data from which to 'ascertain significance', rather than patronising the reader in this way?
What exactly is the "traditional counties movement"? Where has it 'claimed successes'? If no-one can define what this 'movement' is, it shouldn't be mentioned. Where is the evidence?
Does this imply the ABC has a role? This passage reads as an unsubstatiated remark about an undefined 'movement' and then states that there is no provable connection with that 'movement' to the subject of this article. What redundancy!
Who contends it? Evidence?
Who characterises it thus? And who claims it might be more justifiable? Evidence?
Refering to the scare quotes article: "an author who uses the term scare quotes to describe them generally does so disapprovingly" - thus how exactly is this sentence NPOV?
If this point is debatable, who debates it? Either someone or group should be quoted, or it is basically original research. What is the 'evidence of county identification in natives of counties with long-standing rivalries such as Yorkshire and Lancashire'?
If it states this, why is it necessary to have this long preceeding passage speculating on local Government changes that the ABC would bring about, if it itself states (with real, quoted evidence) that it wouldn't:
It clearly isn't relevant if the previously mentioned sentence taken from the ABC's FAQ is true.
Again, what is the 'traditional counties movement'? What defines it? And who claims what successes it has had? Evidence?
It seems that the majority of this article lacks substance. Unless someone wants to provide better sources, the article should be rewritten with only what can be substantiated in a NPOV way. 82.26.198.108 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
In view of someone trying to revert my edits to this article, I have removed/changed the following for the following reasons:
Not NPOV. Full stop.
By the 1880s, OS had virtually finished its second edition. The first edition (the "old series") was started at the end of the 18th century and completed by the 1850s. Thus I have removed "c.1880" as it's nonsense.
Promoting the idea? What exactly is the 'idea' of traditional counties? Do counties have ideas? This is simply bad English!
He might also own an old English sheepdog and a farm in Wales. A manorial title is completely irrelevant, and belongs, if anywhere, in the Russell Grant article. I have removed it.
UKIP's last (2005) local government manifesto [5] states, as a manifesto commitment, that it will "Dismantle regional government and r eturn powers to traditional county and borough councils". Therefore the original text is blatantly untrue, and I have changed it to reflect this.
Exile 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The Act did specifically create entities called 'adminitrative counties', and these entities were refered to as such in law until 1974, when a new act created new entities which it just called 'counties'. This isn't an 'allegation', it's a simple fact. So I have removed the word 'allege', as it is redundant.
So? How is this relevant to the ABC? It belongs in the article about this particular royal mail file, not in this one. Please discuss any disagreements here, and don't turn this into an edit war. Thank you. 82.26.198.108 20:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the juxtaposition of the words "traditional" and "county" in the UKIP manifesto [www.ukip.org/pdf/localmanifesto.pdf] discussed above, the following alternative interpretation does not appear to have been considered. UKIP's assertion that, if elected, they would
could well mean that they want to return to the traditional, two-tier system of local government, using counties and boroughs. It doesn't make any claim that they would use the "traditional counties" discussed at length on this page, or their boundaries. The fact that the words "traditional" and "county" are adjacent would therefore be just a coincidence, and doesn't suggest a manifesto commitment to, for instance, moving Southport back into Lancashire. -- RFBailey 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Clearly it cannot mean restoring ALL abolished county councils as some of them overlap, e.g. Huntingdonshire County Council and Huntingdon and Peterborough County Council. Perhaps the manifesto itself is ambiguous but various UKIP blogs maintained by UKIP members leave the reader in no doubt that they do want traditional counties restored for administrative purposes. Owain ( talk) 16:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
i have updated the copyright status of this picture in line with a comment found on the organisation's website: "The map may be copied and used freely. However, the Association of British Counties would appreciate an acknowledgement and a link to our site. "
as a link to the site is included both in the main article and on the picture page, the requirements of the creator are clearly met.
the above quote can be found at the the bottom of the page here:
[8]
Rich 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The list of aims in the article do not match those currently advertised by the Association on its web site. Its Aims page ( http://www.abcounties.co.uk/aims.htm) was apparently updated last November. In particular, with no current mention of their desire for the Government Office Region boundaries to be re-defined, there is now no need for the long following paragraph explaining what consequences this would have. There is now also no mention of lobbying the OS for county boundary inclusion or altering the lieutenancy area boundaries. In fact, apart from its own activities, the only things the ABC wants others to do is the altering of local authority names. However, I think it needs to be highlighted that it seeks to 'persuade' (though it doesn't specify how) media, the government and private organisations to use traditional county boundaries when talking about everything except central and local government.
Most of its aims seem to revolve around its own promotional activities, direct from itself to the public.
I believe the Other Policies section therefore needs to be comprehensively re-written.
Heavens To Betsy 11:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that these people seem to be in denial of the local government reorganisation to the point of neurosis. Do they still deny the fact that the world is round?
Not only is their page heavily biased but (looking through various talk pages) contibutors to this page appear to vandalise any reference to 'new' counties made by anyone else.
Any article on a town or village in the United Kingdom should give the reader some basic information which should include the current administrative county.
Whether the ABC like it or not, people living in these new counties pay their Council Tax to that county and their public services (schools, children's homes, homes for the elderly, roads, libraries, leisure centres, refuse collection, etc.) are provide by that county. The traditional counties have only historical relevance to the people living in those counties today. -- maelor 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The following are confirmed County Watch Vandals. User:Lancsalot. User:Owain, User:Yorkshire Phoenix (194.203.110.127). Talk:Merseyside should give you some idea of the state of these people thinking.-- 87.75.131.88 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Bleedin' Nora, people. Can't any of you see how ridiculous this particular section is? This is meant to be the discussion page of the article, not a place to vent personal angst for editors' actions on other articles or start slanging matches. Further, while I may disagree with the tone and content of some of these fairly threatening and insulting paragraphs in here, I do agree with 87.75.131.109 (or whatever IP they're currently using) that posts on discussion pages like this should not be reversed. If someone posts an insulting remark or even a pleasant remark that's completely off-topic, why can't people just ignore it instead of adding fuel to the fire by goading others? And I'm directing that to editors on both sides of the argument. To try and follow my own advice, therefore, would anyone mind replying to the section I started at the bottom a month ago? I did try to keep it relatively neutral, but I'd welcome anyone pointing out where I've erred. - Heavens To Betsy 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that as a reader of this article I found it to have a strong undercurrent of hostility to the traditional counties point of view throughout. It's enough to make me wonder if Wikipedia, with its stated commitment to a neutral point of view, attributing opinions to their sources, is disproportionately edited by people with an anti–traditional counties agenda. 86.136.3.91 17:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I just wondered if anyone could clear up a couple of things for me.
Thanks for reading. - Heavens To Betsy 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
When did ABC start? It doesn't seem to have existed when local government was reorganised in 1972 - 74 or 1985 - 86, at least it didn't appear in contemporary media. The earliest reference i can find is in the times of 20th July 1991, where they are described as having been "formed by about thirty county pressure groups". I'm not aware of 30 such groups existing today: maybe half a dozen: Friends of Real Lancashire, Yorkshire Ridings Society, Huntingdonshire Society, Saddleworth White Rose Society, there used to something called Voice of rutalnd, i think and some sort of Middlesex society, but they don't turn up on Google. Lozleader 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The BNP in their 2005 manifesto contains some mention of traditional counties - [12] - mention this or not? They have their language not quite conforming with ABC-speak, so it's unclear what they really mean. (i doubt, if pressed, they would really wish to see Huntingdon and Peterborough reinstated). Morwen - Talk 15:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this article is duplicating Traditional counties of the British Isles? Perhaps that could redirect here. What little extra content is located there is covered elsewhere in places like Historic counties of England. MRSC 08:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Where are they based? Pressure groups usually at least have a contact office for press enquiries etc. MRSC 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[13] It appears you don't need to read the white paper to prepare a response. MRSC 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Since this edit [14], the article has stated that Peter Boyce is the chairman of ABC. I can find no source for this: not even ABC's own site. Where did this info come from ?
I reverted the majority of this edit with edit summary "trimming dead wood". It introduced a number of claims without citations and removed much of the article without explanation. I left in founded in 1986 - would be good to get a source for that. MRSC • Talk 10:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I’m sorry to do something as crass as a “revert”, particularly when it’s my fault for not citing my sources. I have tried to put some of your contribution back. I want to make sure we have the most accurate material.
As ABC’s concerns, I added the Northern Ireland counties because the ABC’s published Aims and Objectives (also on their website) [1] are:
“1.1 ABC exists to maintain, enhance and promote the identities of the Counties of the United Kingdom and their role in the cultural life, geography and history of the nation.”
(I shall contact the ABC and mention the error on their front page. Elsewhere the site varies between all-UK and GB-only. The six counties of Northern Ireland are in ABC’s published Postal Directory [2].)
For the date of the ABC’s foundation, the founder Chairman, Michael Bradford, told me personally (although I mistyped the year as “1986”). (I have added more detail now, which Mr Bradford gave me over the telephone this evening.) The Yorkshire Ridings Society was certainly at the founding meeting.
As to changes in local government terminology, I believe you have misinterpreted the material. All the ABC’s own material that I have seen suggests that proposals to change local government terminology are to avoid ambiguity in the use of the word “county”, not to pay tribute to an 1888-1972 civil service wording! That is explicit in their Aims and Objectives (4.6). Your revert also restored an unsupported statement that the ABC wants the government Regions in England to conform to traditional counties; I cannot see that anywhere in the ABC’s material. The Aims and Objectives do though include the aim (4.3) of ensuring fair funding arrangements for bodies based on traditional counties, which is what I had put in.
I excepted Huntingdonshire from the “lacking public support” for unitary status because in that case it did gain majority support according to the official report. (54% in aggregate between two “separatist” options I think, but I can’t find a copy. I lived in Cambs at the time so I remember it. If I find a copy I’ll add a citation.) I have no knowledge of the level of support elsewhere.
I referred to degrees of support from individual MPs because that is patent; the next section cites parliamentary support (& I see that several MPs are patrons of the Friends of Real Lancashire, an affiliated group). I took reference to BNP policies out because the BNP policy quoted seems to be about local government and nothing to do with historic county heritage. As to the UKIP one, I’ll see if I can find anyone connected with UKIP to supply that missing citation.
Apart from that, I accept your concerns!
(Sorry; you had reverted my revert before you saw this; I'm going to have to re-revert. Don't take it as a hostile. I don't belive in revert-wars, but I do have the first-hand material.)
Howard Alexander ( talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As above, the earlier version contained errors in the ABC's published Aims and Objectives. The source is the very ABC webpage the earlier wording referred to and mistook! The one citation which MRSC requested (quite rightly) was on the dat the ABC was founded. I happen to know the founder chairman so I telephoned him this evening. If you know a better source than someone who was there at the time and chaired the organization for 15 years, tell me!
This exercise is meant to be about ensuring that readers of Wikipedia have the most accurate informatiuon possible. I do not want to put my interpretations there, but when we say "the ABC believes..., why not rely on their own statements? My corrections have been simply to copy those from those pages. I have not added any opinion about the merits or failings of the organization in question nor its beliefs.
If you believe I have actually misinterpreted something from the original source, tell me where; please don't just revert every word, good and bad.
Howard Alexander ( talk) 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Right-o. What I'll do in a bit, if it's all right with you chaps, is to correct the foundation date from "1986" to "1989" (which was my error in the first place) and to fix the deadlink.
If I come across any primary sources to fill citations I can look at filing them in. It's all fascinating stuff.
Howard Alexander ( talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This edit added some links that are just other domains registered by ABC with similar content, not relevant for the purposes of the article. MRSC • Talk 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you are only interested in which authority empties the bins etc. But others are culturally rather more sophisticated. Please try to understand this. Lancsalot ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This gets removed from time to time. Here are the definitions:
Insider pressure groups have strong links with decision makers and are regularly consulted. Insider pressure groups are the groups that the government - local or national - considers to be legitimate and are, therefore, given access to decision makers. For example, insider groups might be included in regular meetings with ministers or civil servants and they might be included on lists for circulation of new government proposals. The fact that insider groups are part of the consultation process enables them to use direct methods in order to exert influence. Insider groups tend to be very powerful and long-term in terms of political influence. It is more common for sectional rather than promotional groups to be insiders, although this is by no means always the case.
Outsider pressure groups have none of the advantages of insider groups. They cannot expect to be consulted during the policy-making process, nor can they expect to gain access to ministers and civil servants. Rather, they have to work outside the governmental decision making process and, therefore, have fewer opportunities to determine the direction of policy.
I've also added they are "single-issue" group - these are also known as a "promotional" group. Either wording is ok. MRSC • Talk 05:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The reasons editors retract from discussions with Yorkshirian is well documented in the various attempts at dispute resolutions in a variety of forums that have failed, and are now progressing to a higher level. It is your abusive, adversarial and confrontational talk page and edit summaries that have caused editors to be wary of discussions with you.
It is unclear how a perfectly well understood academic term of political science is a "neologism". The link I provided to Google Books was not intended to be used in a "numbers game" of hits. It simply shows that it is an academic term. In political science terms, this group are known as an "outsider" group based on their influence and a "promotional" group based on their objectives. This is not POV. As for third party commentary, it is hard to find *anything* written about this group as they are so inherently non-notable to academic and wider discourse. MRSC • Talk 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would add that outsider or insider are technical terms and they cannot be derogatory, unless you want to read it that way. Outsider groups have less influence, but are more able to be independent and critical of government. Insider groups on the other hand have strong influence, but cannot be as outspoken. This is clearly a group in the first category. MRSC • Talk 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
To Yorkshirian: I note the personal attacks you have made in this discussion. I took a look at your editing history today as a result, and found numerous examples of bad-faith assumptions in material you have edited and edit summaries, including an allegation on a TfD comment that was certainly unacceptable. I am advising you publically now that if you persist in doing this, you will be blocked until you give an undertaking to stop your personal attacks. I will copy this message to your talk page. If you feel the need to send a message to me, it should necessarily include as a major part of it words to the effect of "I apologize" and "I promise not to indulge in personal attacks again", and such sentiments should also be included in messages you leave to the editors you have treated like this. DDStretch (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The group's name implies to me an official status so the term 'outsider' is of a definate use. I broadly support the ABC's aims and do not see the term as being derogatory far from it in fact. If can be established whether presure groups are insider or outsider it ought to be added. Bevo74 ( talk) 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Slightly odd question, but does anyone know the ABC's position regarding the status of Hexhamshire (the only traditional county to be abolished before 1965)? The flying pasty ( talk) 16:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"Our definition of the historic counties matches that in the Historic Counties Standard produced by the Historic Counties Trust 9see www.historicountiestrust.co.uk for full details of this. We also list this in précis in our AIMS and Objects which can be found on our web site. Essentially, we don’t consider the counties to have been altered by any LG legislation (from 1888 onwards), but consider them to be as first mapped by OS in the nineteenth century. The counties had been stable for many centuries prior to that. Under our definition Hexhamshire isn’t considered a traditional county. This, of course, does not mean that we don’t value its historic identity".
I think this should clear this up. The flying pasty ( talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If they clash with the 1888 boundaries they won't value them. Bevo74 ( talk) 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the ABC website. Their own description of the orgainsation is "The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a society dedicated to promoting awareness of the continuing importance of the 86 historic (or traditional) Counties of Great Britain." This is my suggestion for the lead;
"The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a non-party-political outsider pressure group that promotes the Historic counties of England and Wales, and the Counties of Scotland."
Here is Jza84's preferred version;
"The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a non-party-political outsider pressure group that promotes what they assert to be the traditional counties of the United Kingdom."
There is no need for "what they assert". It is self-evident that they are asserting it and the phrase is used here to suggest that there are some other entities that are the true traditional counties - which there aren't. The phrase is being used in a POV attempt to undermine the organisation (of which I am not a member or supporter). My version is referenced directly to the ABC website. Unless the "what they assert" can be adequately referenced I will revert to the first-listed version in due course. Blacklans ( talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The ANC website seems to have disappeared. Before we remove the dead link, does anyone know what's happened - is this just temporary? --15:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The map only shows Great Britain. What about county broders on the green island? John Anderson ( talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the word "outsider" as it appears no longer to be correct. Previous objections to it concerned the tone: no other advocacy body is labelled "outider" and it suggests a mocking tone. It was argued however that "outsider" is a technical term. I am no sociologist, but it was given as:
Outsider pressure groups have none of the advantages of insider groups. They cannot expect to be consulted during the policy-making process, nor can they expect to gain access to ministers and civil servants. Rather, they have to work outside the governmental decision making process and, therefore, have fewer opportunities to determine the direction of policy
Now however the founder and patron of the ABC, Russell Grant, is a voluntary adviser to Eric Pickles and his Department, the Department for Communities and Local Government, borrows county flags from the ABC for its weekly flag displays. Whatever the arguments before, the ABC is "outsider" no longer.
Howard Alexander ( talk) 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Association of British Counties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcounties.com/aims.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Association of British Counties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcounties.com/ABC_PR_Northumberland_Nov07.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcounties.com/ABC_PR_Shropshire_Nov07.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcounties.com/ABC_PR_Wiltshire_Nov07.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content3?catId=400086&mediaId=56000695When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)