Talk:London Borough of Camden/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about London Borough of Camden. 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 |
Cartoon
Re: "07:40, 3 September 2006 Ben W Bell (Talk | contribs) (rv. ........ a link to a political cartoon page not directly related to the Borough of Camden." Thank you for your observation about an unfinished site - now kindly re-read the site (always after doing a 'refresh/reload' since it is developing) and undo your vandalism, forthwith. Thank you
Neutral point of view
Thank you for the recent flurry of edits to the article, improving the article on Camden is something we'd all like to see. However, some text seems to violate two wiki policies, that of neutral point of view and no original research.
This article is meant to be encyclopaedic, i.e. while it is acceptable to quote such viewpoints from an established source (say, a national newspaper), it is not appropriate to make statements and then support them from a partisan website (ratepayers' campaign). A national newspaper would put the material in context - for instance, how do the pay and benefits received compare to other boroughs/organisations of a similar size. I suspect from the tone, that there may also be a conflict of interest in putting forward only a campaigning viewpoint.
This is not to censor what you're saying, or deny in wiki that there is ever any conflict, merely to ask that you cast it in a form appropriate for an encyclopaedia, rather than a campaign. It is up to us to provide the evidence for a reader to make up their own mind, not to direct them to a viewpoint. Thank you. Kbthompson 09:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you be specific? I have to disagree with your view. Can you also just state that you have no political relationship to the matters (Neutral Point of View.) (I for one have none at all, which I would like to point out) I think the corruption references are encyclopaedic in relation to the Corruption issues, under that heading. That's what is required. It lists the serious catalogue of abuses which continues. The Corruption in this Borough is decidedly the major feature that is reported about the local authority. Pretty much everything is backed by appropriate references. I don't think there is any campaign so much as an aggregation of concerns which date back 30 years, and which bland reporting of buildings of note and local history just doesn't serve. I have tried to find references where the local authority etc. defends these matters but there are none! Please point some out if you have them, and I will be very happy to write them in. (will provide email address if necessary)
I can't see how any of the individual matters of corrupt conduct can be criticised but obviously open to suggestion! Prison sentences are prison sentences. Obviously national newspapers don't deal in issues of local administration except on a broad basis, as you'll be aware. I have researched the Ratepayers Campaign in some depth to see if their material was likely to be accurate - and it is pretty respectable. They have given evidence to HOC select committees etc. and are frequently quotes in the National in general terms. Indeed, they are the only organisation in the Country doing this research, while local autorities have done their best to restict information and refuse FOIA 2000 requests. I have no relationship to them, for clarity!
I think the tone expresses real concern about governance of this and other urban Boroughs, and is actually the major feature of a couple of London administration at this time. It is in fact a travesty that there is not a single mention of this in some of the other London Borough entries. (I will set about altering that situation now you have pointed it out to me!)
Please therefore remove your dispute symbols, and I will (hopefully with your expert help) find some sites than argue that Camden is well run, competent and combating corruption! Remember - La Vérité. Thank you
Monophysite 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there, I have no axe to grind in respect of your criticisms of Camden council. There are a number of claims made in the article at the moment which without being couched in terms of So-and-so said this ... ref This publication, this date /ref appear to amount to libel. This is an encyclopaedia, a work of reference, not a soapbox, and so such claims need to be supported by reputable external sources - particularly one's that the reader can look at for themselves. I would suggest you read the wikipedia policies and try to follow the guidance in them. Kbthompson 23:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
We'll get there. This is mid-creation so give us a break! Would be good if creator of Parking section could put in refs - I don't know about much of it. If not I will see what I can find. Tidying my typos too!
Monophysite 03:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Again,it's great to see the article being improved!! I've tried to do my bit, I have to share KB's concerns about the POV - there are many many references taken from Camden New Journal - I'm not familiar with it other than what I've read from here, but it should be noted that even if a reputable source like a newspaper doesn't follow WP:NPOV it doesn't mean we can use the same wording. I've also tagged where appropriate, weasel words and missing refs.Paulbrock 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
CNJ is the local quality Free Paper whether particular editors have heard of it or not. Newspaper of the Year I believe 4 times, for investigative work, and numerous national awards. It's top notch and treated as such, and described here as the "real Ombudsman" in an era when government regulation is frankly laughable. The Gazzette and Ham and High do the same but the material I'nt on the web to link to which is a shame. The Ham and High is broadsheet and Times like, but mostly not available - (is anyone from the Ham and High reading??) I haven't used anything contentious or denied by the local authority, and most of the scandles which are known about are not here. Weasle words, perish the very thought. It will improve... I'd rather folks did some work on this that just mess around with it.
I'm going to take on Geography, Geology and History. I can't believe that all the critics sit there and write... nothing! - is this normal on Wikipedia, or are London editors a particular breed? If you know something why isn't it here? If you don't then why are you....! In respect of recent edits I have looked for citations and can find them easily? I would ask editors to work rather than moan which when in fact it is easier. Interestingly looking at the other traditionally Labour dominated/now Liberal etc Boroughs here, the same standards seem not to be applied? An editor thinks that a politician altering his own Wikipedia entry is not relevant....! Could any Political Memberships please noted please! I have none at all..... I believe most people would disagree with that, and strongly. Please revert, or I will do so. Some of the edits seem to change meanings and significance which is of concern.
The Ref style is very good though, and I will try to follow it.
Monophysite 10:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- To respond to your particular points, I didn't find the citations because for me the priority was to point out the concerns about the article. I hope I will have time to return and help fill in the refs, but by tagging them it makes it easier for many contributors to know what needs improving. You will find that not everyone who disagrees with you is part of Camden Council - for the record, I also do not have a political agenda here, merely wishing to ensure the article complies with WP policy. (I don't wish to have to state this on every page I edit!!) If it helps, my car was towed by Camden a few years back, when parked legally!!
- wrt Keith Moffitt's editing of his own article, he added that he spoke Portuguese, and corrected a link. It doesn't seem to be in the same category as this. I've not been able to find a source that reports on it, and I can't see the relevance to mentioning it in an article on Camden Council, anymore than listing everying speeding offence by every employee of the council. Paulbrock 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Re Mr Moffitt, agreed it is not a serious inflation, but simply inappropriate to add that an apparent higher status to an organisation he held office in, and to add to the scope of his apparent qualifications. In particular when the original article was one of a group of members from the same party. It is relevant to the general concern about the standard of honesty in politics locally and elsewhere. Such editing is not something that should be seen as acceptable in my mind. I will revert - when I find out how to do it accurately! The whole purpose of adding issues of corruption and governance is that they are just that - serious issues.
Sorry about the car - one of many thousands ticketed, removed and even damaged ny operatives. This is a national issue now - and so is the fact that many Boroughs are still tax farming. In a commercial environment it might be conspiracy to defraud - It is not POV to point out such a situation - it is a fact. It's just a controversial and uncomfortable one. The democratic process is THE major feature of an elected body and totally appropriate and vital in this context. The rest is tourism. (Discuss....!)
I do think doing hundred of these sorts of edits may be less constructive than filling in the spaces. It takes a lot of work to put the material together (while being careful to avoid defaming people), and it doesn't help to have people sniping at (less than) half finished work without helping the process. I guess that is why I understand so few people will write these things now?
Monophysite 11:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at the recent edits quite carefully, they seem in places to destroy the coverage of corruption which is concealed into links etc., remove some significant issues of corruption altogether etc. In at least one case a citation is removed and then then demanded! These are not merely style points, and the edits go too far. I am going to try to revert most of those causing concern to indicate the seriousness of the events, which are of national significance - but without damaging improvements to formatting. To me, these edits approach vandalism bearing in mind the incomplete nature of the articles.
I am also now considering whether any purpose is served by editing this material, when clearly other editors (who claim to have no agenda) will immediately attempt to reduce its value and edit it out of necessary genuine and informative positions. It is noted that the same editors do not contribute any significant material to the pages of their home East End of London Boroughs, which bearing in mind the positions taken is surprising. There is an obvious need for comprehensive material about governance in the most corrupt Boroughs - it may be that Wikipedia is not able to hold such material in these circumstances which needs to reside in more specialist web publications.
Monophysite 13:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking at reverting to replace citations and restore the meanings. The items really need to be started again from scratch to repair destructive editing of incomplete work. I cannot justify that effort, and will not be working on this any further. Thanks to the people who gave me material. Reluctantly I conclude that editing by folks without overview/knowledge or with destructive/partial agendas in specific area renders much of Wikipedia of reduced value. Certainly not worth adding any geology, physical geography or archaeology which would doubtless be reduced by the same.
Monophysite 14:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Monophysite 14:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again, I've edited extensively in the East End, and throughout London in developing some templates for boroughs. That's why this page ended up on my watch list. Paul is also a very experienced editor. This isn't so much a case of local knowledge, which I would not deny to you. It is an issue of what is and what is not allowed on wikipedia. That's why we raised concerns, and why I tried to direct you towards editing the article in a way that is acceptable to wiki. There are clear guidelines in wikipedia on WP:NOR, WP:VER and WP:COI - all three of which I think you may be breaking. We are essentially helping you to create an article in a form that is acceptable to wikipedia rules. Note the first thing I said to you is that we are not questioning what you say, but how you say it. It needs to be written with the style and validity of an encyclopaedia. That means quoting from reputable sources, and quoting the conclusions others draw; not making of it what you will. You need to step back from it, you are clearly too involved. Kbthompson 14:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Since you've said you're not making any more edits, I've marked the page for cleanup - please do not remove this notice, as tags such as this are a system indication that review is required. Kbthompson 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sabotage? The point is editing others people's original work is a really skilled job in a proper environment requiring knowledge of the subject in order to properly deal with issues. Obviously this is an online encyclopaedia which allows people with no relevant knowledge whatever to edit. In this case, that has led to edits which completely destroys the proper effect and meaning. Your point that this is about style is thin at best.
Not only that but you have piled in edits in a work under process - which is specifically referred to in editing rules which I have received a couple of mails about from people who have watched this develop with some concern. That is inappropriate and (deliberately?) destructive. They have now used various groups to warn people off editing London articles, on this basis. I believe there will be few takers of any note, learning or achievement - which is most regrettable.
I don't want to go personal on this (But nonetheless xe did anyway. Personal attack by Monophysite (talk · contribs) removed. Please address the issues of verifiability and no original research. Uncle G 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
Monophysite 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack by Paxsilvestris (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Destructive editing
Original destructive editing by used kbthompson is discussed above. For remainder see below.Paxsilvestris 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I added three maintenance tags to the article (check history). Kbthompson 09:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack by 86.27.118.10 (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This Article has been destructivly edited on 04/06/2007 70% of the article has been deleted, and the page needs to be reverted with any new material worked in. This has been done by user MRSC- See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.118.10 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 4 June 2007.
- Attempts were made (on this page) to encourage the editor to correct their edits in respect of WP:Policy. This was not done, if the editor wants to develop an acceptable article on these subjects, that should be done in their Sandbox, not on the main article page. Subsequently, another editor decided that much of the content of the edits conflicted with WP:LIVING, and rightly removed them. This is not a guideline, or something that is negotiable. It is an official policy. Kbthompson 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- The text (which has been re-added) contains libelous material and (specifically relating to the housing section) is anachronistic, alleging the council was responsible for decisions made up to 20 years before its inception. It is a wholly unbalanced and random collection of information and not at all a succinct summary, which is what this this article should be. MRSC • Talk 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that libellous material and rants need to be replaced with a well written NPoV summery, this is not the same as and does not justify removing entire sections altogether.81.107.65.89 18:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
81.107.65.89 Please sign thanksPaxsilvestris 07:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well write it! Am I missing something? Rants? libel? Not that I can see. I have looked at each and every instance of corruption cited, and they are all proven by the Court etc. ? Please provide example of a rant or a libel? I think we need to get some involvement from actual Camden citizens affected by the listen corruptions in this discussion. I will advertise for that Paxsilvestris 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Factual accuracy/neutrality warning
I have added a combined factual accuracy/neutrality warning to this page. I personally have no strong feelings regarding this article, but it is apparent that the contents of this article are disputed and that much of the article lacks proper references. Do not remove the warning until consensus is reached regarding the content of the article. Dr. Submillimeter 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Very few points in the original material were without reference. Some deleted by original editors altering material that was being put together by other users. See the editors names in the history. Article is now, however vandalised. See material above, which is clear.
Please provide example of disputed factual inaccuracy - or I will immediately revert to neutrality only. Paxsilvestris 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article contains multiple "citation needed" tags. That is sufficient to warrant the "factual accuracy" tag. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
VANDALISM and POLITICAL EDITING
Isn't it extraordinary how posting a simple list of proven corruption at London Borough of Camden has caused such a storm! Check the original list - references. They are all beyond dispute.
Personal attack by Paxsilvestris (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
BUT, the scandals are all out there, full reported, with Camden offices in prisons, being sacked, resigning and being forced to obey the law - there are letters and articles in the national and local press - clearly - demonstrating ALL of the issues, with I gather many more to come. The references are clear.
All of the matters I have seen in the previous versions, and reported here are correct, and proven. I have looked at all the refs, and NOT one is false.
The original article has more references than any other London article, (Personal attack by Paxsilvestris (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
These corruptions are the defining features of public adminsitration in the Borough as stated by another user.
Personal attack by Paxsilvestris (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Paxsilvestris 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Could all interested parties please note this is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a piece of investigative journalism. Please take some time to read about the aims of the project, which will hopefully explain why these additions are unsuitable for this article. MRSC • Talk 17:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed MRSC. The original work if you look at before political and shameless editing and vandalism. provided a break down of proven frauds etc. with references. There is nothing investigative as you indicate, and nothing journalistic. The encyclopaedic - but modern - nature of this work is that it can include reference material about matters like governance - which is the essnece of an entry about the DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS. That's covered well above, please read. I'm sorry if that doesn't suit you. Paxsilvestris 20:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article is still a random and unbalanced collection of information and contains large sections which need to be removed. MRSC • Talk 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Legal threat by Paxsilvestris (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack and ad hominem argument by 193.82.16.42 (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Corruption and Scandals/Governance
Is corruption and information about the quality of governance information that should be included in an assessment of democratic institutions? Should quality/assessments of institutions be included in an encyclopaedia, i.e material from Ofsted, Audit Commission etc? If so, then why? If not, then why not? Paxsilvestris 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia and the Real World
Lived in Camden 25 years and still comeback. Been watching with gathering amusement the battle between the supervisors at Wikiopedia and what I guess would be the traditional people of Camden.
Now I see that material that wouldn't turn a hair in the Borough is edited out! I have huge sysmpathy with the older correspdontent (sorry, perhaps senior, correspondent - look at the history, most amusing) are the people appointing themselves as "being in charge" here the right people? If its true as he sais that most of the people on the project are no in possession of knowedledge, and any such comment is censored what is there to rely on in Wikipedia. For myself, I want the old chaps comments restored, and having followed this - Wikipedia is really censoring material that certain editors don't like - and that is enforced by other editors! Well so be it...thats politics in any group. I do agree about all the smug "in" comments. Real turn off, including the new ones.
But you can't expect the rest of us to take it seriously round here, when "the real people" are cut out because they know their stuff and it's not very comforatble for some of the others! Shame on you all.
What is Citizenpedia - there seems to be nothing there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.84.114.145 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 June 2007.
My earlier post deleted by someone, and not in the history? That looks bad? I am told that the editor who states openly he is a left wing politics student is now editing this! and anyone who does agree has been blocked? The origoinal problem was political editing - now we have soemone who obviosuly beleives in mass council housing and will support the regime at Camden ovr the last 30 years. We kicked them out here, I'm afriad. Lots of people saying they have put stuff here and its missing and not in the history? Not looking good. Again, we need proper knowledgeable editors for this article, with real knowledge. We need honest editing.
No account and proud.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.13.68 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 June 2007
Yes indeed. I was told I should have another look. Same problems but worse. Unbeleiveable in fact.
1. The useful material has all been deleted. All of it. That is above all the history of the public architecture. There is no one at the London group that I have seen who is adequately qualifiesd to produce material about Camden architected or Political or Social History. Some editors have just destroyed the things they don't agree with or don't like. That is unacceptable, but at the end of the day the real material will end up in a new project.
2. Censorship. All negative comments about this website have been removed, and omitted from the history. The only things left in the history are the things they want? This must have happened at a senior level in this project. Who did that and why? Is it allowed to conceal history? Is that not dishonest?
3. The experts in Camden have been blocked by the people who have put themselves in charge.
4. Any mention of another online encyclopedia has been immediately removed or edited to be unfavourable. Citizenpedia I understand. Thats the name alright. I am looking at is now and it is aimed at having qualifies expert edting. That is right and proper.
4. Censorship is something we fought hard to get rid of in the 1960's. Do you know in China you can't look at the BBC website, and probably not this either, despite the liberalisation? Shame on you, indeed.
4. Also, The knowledgeable people of Camden are setting up another internet site. I will be happy to write for that. It wil be necessary to submit material to be be looked at first, and names wil be known - with addresses. I like the idea of "Londonpedia"? Good idea.
5. I'm sure that like my earlier material, this will be deleted....
6. My offer to host some of the young editors to see Camden was ignored. Eventually in life you need real relationships and real community or life will be pretty miserable. Take that piece of advice from an experienced person.
J 6th June 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.16.50 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 June 2007
I'm a visitor in London but a Wiki at home, and came to see what was here. The Camden article is very basic compared to US entries, and seems to have been vandalised and cut up, then reverted to what is more or less a stub. Looking at the history - the people of Camden right here are the obvious source, and I support that.
The HISTORY - Who has been editing the history? Can I ask Uncle G if it is not you - please look into this? If it is you, Please explain on your user page and I will check in a couple of days.
As far as my experience goes that is unacceptable, and is taking editorship to censorship. We don't do that and action must follow.
Various links
Here are the links that were added to the range of claims about Camden Council. Some of these might be very useful to constructing a balanced article (instead of an "attack piece"), although some will not be suitable for WP:A policy, others appear to be broken. MRSC • Talk 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)