Talk:Yorkshire/Archive 1

Untitled

This page archives Talk from the Yorkshire entry from October 2003–May 2008.
For Talk archives from June 2008–April 2009 see Talk:Yorkshire/Archive 2.
For current talk please see Talk:Yorkshire

Highest Point

Someone's obviously removed the reference to Mickle Fell being the highest point and, since this is an article about traditional Yorkshire, I've put it back in. It's a fact, not an opinion. Bkpip 10:19, 8 Apr 2007 (UTC)

Bigger Counties?

What are the two traditional English counties that are bigger than Yorkshire? It appears to be the biggest on the map at Traditional counties of England. -Nommo 19:38, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You are right, my brane malfunctioned. Morwen 19:39, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yorkshire dialect

This article is badly in need of some information regarding the Yorkshire dialect of English. I have little knowledge of it so can someone with more expertise do the work? Thank thee! :) --Hux 12:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Metcalfe

I've removed the following recently added text from the article:

One of Yorkshires most famous clans, the Metcalfes, are descended from the land of Wensleydale in the North West of the county. The Metcalfe Society hold records dating back to Metcalfes living in the area during the 14th century. They were one of the most prominet families in Yorkshire for over five centuries. Sir James Metcalfe (1389-1472) who was born and lived in Wensleydale was a captin in the army which fought with King Henry V in the battle of Agincourt in 1415. Metcalfe is still one of the most common surnames in Yorkshire.

This isn't really relevant to a definiton of Yorkshire. Yorkshire is indeed crucial to the history of this family, but I'm not convinced this family was crucial to the history of Yorkshire. This would be better placed in its own dedicated article, rather than here.

Question

The Omar Ebrahim bio says that this British opera singer was born in "Greasbrough, York, England." Does anyone know if this a neighborhood of York, or else a town elsewhere in Yorkshire? Badagnani 22:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Greasbrough is a separate town in Rotherham Metropolitan Borough. This puts it in South Yorkshire, so nothing to do with York. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 00:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The place of birth may have taken from census records which may have shown Yorkshire as the "County of York" or just "York". As a town in the County of York it obviously has everything to do with York. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the Internet Movie Database is wrong in saying that he's from "Greasbrough, York." They don't know their UK geography!  :) I've made a page for Greasbrough; can you see if it looks right? Badagnani 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 18:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshire's Ridings

County Council's were not introduced until 1888/89 (note when they were introduced they didn't always mirror the county boundaries) and the Ridings EXISTED prior to this. It is wrong therefore to state that just because the county councils of the West, North and East Ridings were replaced by monstrosities concocted by pen-pushers in Whitehall in 1974 that the Ridings ceased to exist.

The Ridings of Yorkshire (as geographical entities) were not created by an act of parliament (unlike County Council's and Unitary Authorities etc) and so, as such, cannot be abolished by an act of parliament. This is something successive governments have stated on many occasions over the last three decades.

It's the duty of every patriotic Yorkshireman to use the ridings instead of the administrative "counties" as government reforms of these administrative divisions have redistributed land away from Yorkshire or has deliberately attempted to damage the cohesiveness of Yorkshire, ultimately resulting in the "region" now being called "Yorkshire and the Humber". If they'd left Yorkshire intact with its three ridings and left Lincolnshire out of the picture we would have the prospect of a Yorkshire region, and with it the real prospect of devolved power, for the first time in centuries. They can take our civil government structure, but they'll never take our freedom! 194.203.110.127 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

although the Ridings still exist as histoic boundaries without which administrative boundaries could not be defined, and they are still used in many other areas.

Like what? --Camembert

yorkshire "west riding" shows that at least 18,800 peple use them, and that is only those on the internet. All the people I know from yorkshire both use and understand the ridings system, and to maintain factual accuracy in the article, I felt that this fact ought to be clarified. Before it read as if the Ridings suddenly "ceased to exist", and this is certainly not the case.

I'm from Yorkshire, and I don't use the ridings system or come across it in life very much. I only understand it because I've made the effort to do so. Maybe people who remember the ridings refer to them in conversation, but I don't think it's used for any practical purpose (apart from clubs and so on established before 1974). A look at the first few pages of the Google search reveals that the vast majority of the hits use the term in a purely historical context (quite a lot of them are genealogical sites). So really, I think the "many other areas" bit is misleading. I'm taking it out. --Camembert

I wasn't trying to mislead, but in my experience they are still used. It no doubt varies from place to place, however. I think it's a little disingenuous to disregard 18,800 hits as being mostly genealogical sites, but I won't replace the term. Incidentally, the various watsonian vice-counties of yorkshire are also directly based upon the Ridings, and WVCs are most certainly used in modern, scientific contexts. 80.255 21:53, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The west and north titles may have have fallen into disuse but in the east it is still used. If I recall correctly the road signs leading into East Yorkshire all read "Welcome to the East Riding of Yorkshire" and the council is called that too: [1]. Wiki-Ed 12:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quite, there is an East Riding Council. I think this is a unitary authority formed from the northern part of Humberside, excluding Hull, when the Humberside County Council was dis-established. It looks like this is included. Andreww 09:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have to say "Sheffield in South Yorkshire", "Leeds in West Yorkshire" etc. in the articles. The administrative counties set up were never supposed to replace the real counties, and this has been stated many times by the British government. We should be stating which counties places are really in. It makes a mockery out of the fact Lancashire play cricket in Manchester, and the Home Counties play in London if we don't recognise the real county names. So we should just say "Sheffield in the West Riding of Yorkshire" etc...

South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire are ceremonial counties of England. These are the most commonly used terms by people living in these areas and are also the terms that are used by the UK government (for example by the ONS). Whilst the city of Leeds could be correctly said to be in the traditional county of Yorkshire, the West Riding of Yorkshire was an administrative division of the traditional county that ceased to be in 1974. It would be incorrect for wikipedia to say that Sheffield is in the traditional county of Yorkshire as large parts of this city are actually in the traditional county of Derbyshire. As the UK government uses the current administrative and ceremonial counties (for example we have "West Yorkshire Police" and "South Yorkshire Police") I think that it is better that wikipedia uses these or nothing—note that the Sheffield article just states that "Sheffield is a city in the north of England" and does not include a county name at all. However, it is entirely appropriate for articles, having given the current administrative or ceremonial county of a particluar place, to, at some point within the article also state the traditional county. But just giving a former administrative division of the traditional county (i.e. the West Riding of Yorkshire) will only lead to confusion. JeremyA (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have to say "Sheffield in South Yorkshire"

Because 'tis, we here in the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire have declared ourselves free of the feudal oppression of "ridings" Gonzo 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

--Re JeremyA above: 'the West Riding of Yorkshire was an administrative division of the traditional county that ceased to be in 1974'.

Only the County Council's of the Ridings were abolished in 1974 NOT the Ridings themselves! Only HM Queen can abolish so-called traditional counties (and their constituent parts) by way of a Royal Decree (something HM has not done). Parliament itself has said many times that it cannot abolish what it did not create (unlike local government entities). Don't forget that the Ridings existed for a long time before aquiring County Council's in 1889! So by your logic (as stated above), prior to this, you're telling me the Riding's of Yorkshire did not exist as they did not have a governing body? Yorkshire has never had a single County Council governing it, yet no-one ever said that the County of Yorkshire did not exist. Any Yorkshireman worth his salt would disregard the 1974+ boundaries and names invented by minions in Whitehall. Profound changes that were introduced without any real consultation or subject to a vote by the people of Yorkshire. Changes that have totally undermined and confused essentially what Yorkshire is. A whole generation have grown up not knowing their true birthright. Duarcain (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here bloody here. A lot of people refer to Wikipedia, and it's a damn shame when semantics threaten cultural heritage! Bkpip (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Highest point?

Isn't Mickle Fell on the Durham-Cumbria border? Surely the highest point in Yorkshire is Whernside.

Nope. You are thinking of administrative areas. See List of traditional counties of England and Wales by highest point and Mickle Fell. To quote the latter: "It is the highest point of both the administrative county of County Durham and the traditional county of Yorkshire." Owain (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

This could do with being more succinct. A lot could move to the history section and be summarised at a high level in the intro. MRSC 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the population figure being given. Whilst, yes, about five million seems reasonable: the quoted figure is for the Yorkshire and the Humber region. We could, at a pinch, delete from this the populations of North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire, add the populations of the Yorkshire parishes now in Lancashire, Cumbria, Durham, etc etc : also the parts formerly in Cleveland. However this would still not be accurate and would anyway count as original research, I feel. What we need is for someone external to us to go through every census output area, assign a traditional county to it, and do lots of adding. To my knowledge nobody has done this - visionofbritain only seem to project current units back in time, not old units forward in time. Morwen - Talk 14:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision

I've tried to revise the content of the article to cut out duplication and add section headings to make the structure more "obvious".I shall be researching some of the added sections over the next few weeks and adding more content. I feel that the contentious issues of administrative reform have overtaken the subject matter. Let's have the debate by all means but Yorkshire is more than a few boundary changes. I am interested in writing a constructive and factual article about the geographical area of historic Yorkshire, past and present.--Harkey Lodger 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC) ==

Sounds good - see my assesment comments Talk:Yorkshire/Comments. Keith D 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to go through and edit the entire article. The grammar is confusing and there are too many run-on sentences. 18:33, 30 Nov 2007 (UTC)

Music

Brass bands and choral societies come to mind. Any offers!!?--Harkey Lodger 18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

romans

the romans foundeed the city of york, who cares about a bunch of vikings that came later? the romans are far more worthy of their own subsection than vikings. -- CalcioSalvo 09:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

More is known about what the Vikings did @ York, also was your a big Roman city or just a town? don't get me wrong the founders deserve a mention, but what are you going to put in that section? --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

more is not known about the viking period at all, the romans not only founded the city but built the York city walls right around it, one of the city's most famous feature even to this days. Constantine the Great, who was Emperor of entire empire of rome was proclaimed in the city and there is a huge statue of him near the minster, Roman emperors Septimius Severus and Constantius Chlorus both died in yorkshire.

read the history especially the 3rd century part which explains that for a while the roman empire itself was governed from york. it was also made the Capital of Britannia Inferior.(a map to give you idea of significance)

there are even Roman festivals in the city, just like there is for vikings. the vikings are only more familiar to day tripper tourists because of the Jorvik Viking Centre. --CalcioSalvo 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. much less is known about the Vikings than the Romans, in general. But in no way was the Roman history of Yorkshire more important than it's Norse equivalent. The Romans were foreign invaders who came here when it suited them, took off when it suited them, and left us nothing but a lot of pots and ruins. The Danes, however, settled permanently, left their culture, their language, and even their genes. Is the archaeology of Yorkshire more important than its people? I think not.Bkpip (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A subsection on the Romans in Yorkshire would be appropriate and perhaps an empty section would be a prompt, or encouragement, to those who know about this period of Yorkshire history to make a contribution. On the other hand it could, I suppose, look a little unprofessional. If nobody else makes a contribution about this era I will research and reinstate it when I have time.--Harkey Lodger 16:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the Yorkshire Article

This article seems to have lost its structure!! Please can we agree on what to include? (Bearing in mind that the article is about the historic county.)The article Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties seems relevant here. It cannot be regarded as a settlement, so the guidelines on the Wikiproject:Yorkshire page are not really relevant to this article. I am currently researching material for the page as it was previously structured and I would like to know how to include it.--Harkey Lodger 09:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Some significant sections appear have recently been duplicated in other articles (see Administrative reforms in Yorkshire, Culture of Yorkshire and Natural and geological history of Yorkshire) and I am wondering if the editor who did this is switching to summary style for some sections. Keith D 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They may be but what is left is not a summary. Take the Culture section, for example. What has been left is a random sentence not a summary. Pending the provision of proper summaries, restoration of much of the deleted material is in order. BlueValour 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am attempting to restore some of the structure and edit recent contributions without destroying them as a lot of work has gone into them. I shall continue to work at this restoration in line with the guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Some of the previously removed text was just a summary of longer articles that I was planning. eg The Geology of Yorkshire (and now could be deemed to be a stub). Yorkshire was a huge county and therefore would perhaps merit a larger article than is usual.--Harkey Lodger 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird map and removal of flag

The island that map shows looks nothing like Great Britain to me: can we get a proper map please? And why has someone removed Image:Flag of Yorkshire (Flag Institute).svg? 78.145.180.38 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Yorkshire is an English county after all, not a British one.

The English flag has never and hopefully will never, be part of the Yorkshire flag; the one you are linking was just something created by a guy on website, why should it be in here? Its not the traditional standard, its not flown anywhere and probably doesn't exist in the form of an actual flag anywhere... the only reason the flag with the blue background and the white rose isn't technically at "official" status anymore is because the county was "technically" made a historic one in 1974, however if a "Yorkshire flag" is flown in real life, its that one. NEVER the one you're speaking of.[2][3][4][5][6][7] - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the removal of the second flag should have been discussed. Since it has been designed by the flag institute, and since it is the official flag of the Yorkshire Dialect Society, I think it was well worth keeping, with the proper annotation of course. A little less trigger happy shooting please, and a little more discussion.Bkpip (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we have the flag back now that we've started discussing things a little more? Not in the info box, but later on in the article maybe?Bkpip (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Yorkshire Dialect Society have dropped all useage of the flag on their official website. So not only does the flag not exist in any form outside of pixels, but Yorkshire organisations don't use it either (because its just the invention of Michael Faul's non-Yorkshire website, decades after the English took away the fully functioning status of the county).

Perhaps YDS realised its a borderline insult to try and deface Yorkshire regional symbolism by putting a gross English flag behind the rose? If somebody on a website invented a "new" flag of Cornwall where it defaced their colours, exchanging them for English ones that wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia, so I don't see why this faux one should be any different. Personally I think the sun in splendor on it looks OK, and the sun is infact one of the symbols of the Yorkists, but the English flag has never been the regional representative on actual Yorkshire flags, as shown in the links provided above, the flags are always blue. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dammit...I guess I'm just going to have to lump putting up with flying Huddersfield Town colours! (Anybody for a claret background with an amber cross?)Bkpip (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Yorkshire should be slightly deparate from England as the "English" use the Red rose as their "logo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.153.208 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox question

The box has a proceeded by section which I can't fathom. Should it be preceded by or succeeded by? It looks like the areas mentioned were the ones that followed.--88.111.171.39 (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Danish/Viking

I've changed 'in Yorkshire...the only truly Viking territory on mainland Britain was established', to, 'the only truly Danish territory'. To be Viking was an occupation not a reference to race. Vikings were semi-nomadic plunderers, all men, who always returned to their homeland at the end of a campaign. The people who settled in Yorkshire were families, men, women, and children, who established farming communities and towns. These were Danish people living in Britain. In no way can they be referred to as Viking.
Bkpip 07:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, for much of the time, the Kingdom was passed on to Norweigans (most of the kings were from there, even Eric Bloodaxe) so its not just Danes. Generally they seem to be refered to as Vikings and infact that is something which is glamourised in the modern age, so the name doesn't carry the negative conotations of say "the Vandals" now have; even in Museums pertaning to them the name viking is used. I think for reasons of historics and clarity, and the name "viking" being specifically stated in the sources it should remain. - Yorkshirian 07:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave it for the sake of clarity, but I still insist the title of Viking is absolutely historically incorrect. Regarding the Norwegians, it's true that we had as many Kings from there as from Denmark, but they never settled in Yorkshire, favouring Cumbria instead. The Norwegian Kings of Jorvik were a minority over-class, and Vikings in the true sense, dominating a settled Danish majority under-class. Recent studies into genetic haplotype frequencies found the people of the city of York to be the Danes' closest cousins, but the Norwegians are barely represented at all.Bkpip (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Succeeded by

The 'Succeeded by' in the infobox implies that Sedbergh Rural District, Bowland Rural District and Startforth Rural District succeeded Yorkshire. This is clearly not the case as they were abolished in 1974. Perhaps it is best left as a link to the explanation article as this has all the complex details in full? MRSC • Talk 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections, I will make the change to a link. MRSC • Talk 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this again for a number of reasons:

1. The list is not exhaustive and misses out many successor areas
2. It implies that Sedbergh Rural District etc. existed within Cumbria
3. It is anachronistic to have Yorkshire and the Humber alongside entities created in 1974 as if they originated at the same time
4. It hides complexity, explained perfectly well in the article
5. It is not the best way to explain these changes, that is why we have a long article to do that.

Please engage here before reverting again. MRSC • Talk 08:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Folks can we stop having an edit war in this one and as MRSC suggested talk about it on the talk page before changing the article again. Keith D (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just changed the link back to what MRSC suggested. I feel that it complicates the issue if information is missed out, and the article it links to has a much more comprehensive list of what happened afterwards. That and "occupied by" does feel a tad wrong... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See also

This is unusually long for an article. Some elements can go in Template:Yorkshire, say forming a new line or two. Any ideas how this would best be organised? MRSC • Talk 08:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

gods own county

ive lived in yorksire all my life, and i have never heard this phrase once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.33.200 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it used once or twice. I guess it is probably not as frequently used now as it was in the past. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this many a time. And agree with it too :-) Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Peanut4, of course! Very true (not that I'm biased at all :D). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked! Where did you live not to have heard this before? Bkpip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.198.234 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

I would rather have used "an" before "historic county" in the first paragraph too but when I tried to find a jusification I couldn't.This was the only properly referenced quote:

The rule regarding the choice between "a" and "an" refers to the kind of sound that is made at the beginning of the next word. I prefer to say that if it is a vowel or vowel-like sound, choose "an". With the word you give us as an example, "historian," I would use "a" because the "h" sound prevails. Compare this to "hour." You would say "an hour" because you don't hear the "h" in that word; instead, it begins with a vowel sound (very much like "our," in fact). It has something to do with the way we breathe with that letter "h." Try these: ____ unusual picture; ______ usual routine. (The word "usual" begins how? With a vowel sound or not?)Authority: Student's Book of College English by David Skwire and Harvey S. Wiener. 6th ed. MacMillan: New York. 1992.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Peanut4 and myself have already talked about this - see my talk page. The use of "a" over "an", or "an" over "a", with words like this seems to be down to personal preference and probably not something to get too worked up over. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Harkey pretty much as per my conversation with JGXenite. Most words beginning with h ought to be a h---, but some are an h---. Honour is one and hour is another as Harkey says, though I don't think there's too many more. Generally it comes down to personal preference but to be correct it should be a historic in writing but probably an historic is more likely used in speech. Peanut4 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly let me just say that the examples of honour and hour, being preceded by a silent 'h', are irrelevent. It is, however, perfectly OK to pronounce the 'n' before an 'h' word where the word in question was stressed on a syllable other than the first. E.g., an hotel is OK as the stress is on the 't', an historic is OK as the stress falls on the 't' also. However, an housewife is not OK as the stress falls on the 'h'. Nowadays though, the pronounced 'n' prior to the 'h' is quite rare and it's really down to the preference of the writer which one s/he chooses to employ.Bkpip (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I expanded the infobox to include demographic data, with references, for 1831, 1901 and 1991. I was saddened to see this reverted by this edit. Is there an explanation for the removal of this information? MRSC • Talk 19:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the standard, already agreed upon box, with the flag at the top and the map how it is?... like the regions of all other countries on Wikipedia have it? The new one looks very ugly and does not improve the quality of the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by standard or agreed upon. Template:Infobox England historic county was only ever used on a few (maybe 10-20 articles) and was essentially a cut down version of Template:Infobox historic subdivision, which is currently transcluded on 321 articles. See here: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_historic_subdivision. The layout and design are very similar and both use class="infobox bordered". What is your objection to the extra demographic data? It surely adds some much needed information? MRSC • Talk 20:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, why do you feel the need to revert all changes that try to improve the article (except obviously, your own)? You do not own the Yorkshire article, and (within reason) others are allowed to make improvements to the article. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I "own the article" in any shape or form as this is an open encyclopedia, and I have not reverted edits anymore times that you JGXenite. I just happen to contribute to the article frequently and its relating pages, compared to the gruesome mess before my efforts and look to attain a high standard for the article. The infobox is fine now, my problem is when things aren't in following with the standard (as explained below, which MRSC's template wasn't at the time). Edits are suppose to improve the quality of an article, thats pretty much the whole point of Wikipedia been open. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've politely mentioned these concerns on his talk page. Although he has twice removed the comments [8] [9] and his reply was less than amicable. [10] I'm not sure how else to engage him on this article. MRSC • Talk 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from perhaps bringing in administrative intervention (since Yorkshirian seems to think they own the article) or intervention from the Yorkshire WikiProject, I'm not sure how else we can continue from here? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

May be you could use a request for comment as a way forward? Keith D (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Keith D, I stood back from trying to improve the article because my edits were reverted and my requests for information about and discussion of its structure were ignored. Even minor copy edits have been nulled.Perhaps some neutral comments on this users conduct would help.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Harkey Lodger: what you called a "copyedit" was actually the deletion of half of the article along with things essential to an overview of Yorkshire (mentioned in every other overview of the county), including the deletion of 10s of sources.[11] As for the claim that you were ignored when you messaged me, that seems rather dubious when you consider out of the four messages on your talk, one of them is clearly me responding to you. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to instructions, at least two users need to have attempted to reach a consensus with the user. So far, I think only MSRC has done this. Has anyone else tried to speak to Yorkshirian about this? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also with MRSC on this. In addition to some hints of WP:OWN (which seem to be in good faith), I'm not happy with some of the edit summaries too here. I'm going to remove the term "traditional" as in "traditional extent of Yorkshire" - its a loaded, ambiguous and POV term, with no proper scholarly basis with regards to territorial demarcation. It's one to be avoided. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried to speak with Yorkshirian about this, but I have observed his disregard for the need for discussion on many occasions. However, he is also a very valuable contributor to this article, and it would be a great shame if he were no longer able to put forth his tuppence ha'penny from time to time due to a vote of no confidence. All things in moderation, eh?Bkpip (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Map caption

The map image is clearly the ancient boundaries. I would like to add something like Yorkshire within England in 18xx, but I don't want to claim a year without some sort of evidence or rationale. Perhaps 1881 would be good year to put as it was the last census before the the LGA 1888? MRSC • Talk 07:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The metadata for the map doesn't elaborate. But it must be based on post Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 boundaries. Are we aware of any boundary reforms that took place for Yorkshire which involved exchanges of land? We could say something like "in the late 19th century"? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ancient" seems like a loaded Londoner/Lancashire (ironically, where you two happen to be from) anti-Yorkshire slur, to try and disparage the relevence of Yorkshire, when it was actually only done away with in the 1970s... traditional is fine, since they are known as the TRADITIONAL COUNTIES, the 1800s is considered as quite recent times in the scheme of things not ancient.

Note how Jza84 also edited out the fact that the term "Yorkshire" is fully known across the UK. Apart from that attempt to degrade Yorkshire, the article and the infobox is pretty much fine now, the infobox is now (it wasn't before) in following with all the rest on Wikipedia when it comes to local regional-esque type areas, with the symbol at the top and a proportioned map below (see, Texas, Valencian Community, Bavaria, etc) I would like to politely suggest, MRSC, if you are going to put yourself in a position where you think you WP:OWN all the templates, then please atleast check for things like this first, and make sure they are in following with all the other countries ones (like the ones cited above). Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpretting my actions as bad faith, possibily to justify your prefered version. My actions were neither intended or actually imply any such things that you mention here.

Firstly, that Yorkshire is "completely" familliar is nothing to do with hiding the so called fact that it is "fully known". Do you have a source that every single person in the UK knows what and where Yorkshire is? By completely, I assume you're advocating that infants, tourists, the impaired are included in this "fact" that everybody knows it? Even if they did, it's a grammatical redundancy - something to be avoided. Also, on this, the notion of "fact" is to be avoided: "Facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions." (Harold Geneen). The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, which your prefered statement breached.

Secondly, the term "traditional county" is problematic. By who's tradition exactly do they allude to? Is this term an official term? At what point did they become traditional? What traditional functions do they serve? Is Tetworth traditionally part of Berkshire, Huntingdonshire or Cambridgeshire? It's an ambiguous, point-of-view-term with dubious origin. Research has found it belongs soley to the Association of British Counties (a political pressure group) which asserts several bogus claims; they invented the term as a means to facilitate the spreading of their views. Certainly these are not part of my tradition, and they are not used in a ceremonial capacity, which is why I also personally object to the term. Scholarly research has revealed that documents refer to these as "historic" or "ancient" county boundaries, and so we cannot deviate from that.

I actually think that the ancient county system is important and deserves a prominent place within the encyclopedia. I've fought to have these mentioned in lead sections for settlement articles. They are particularly helpful there to avoid confusion, aid in historic context and help with genealogicial research. The views you display on your userpage coupled with some of the contributions you've made here, to me, imply that you may hold a cultural standpoint that isn't representative of source material and the editting and reading community. I believe you believe you have the article's best interests at heart, but I would urge you to consider that others (by which I mean published sources) are in conflict with your views which is why some appear to have caused this minor edit shuffle here. Try to avoid using Wikipedia to promote personal views. Certainly MRSC has cited his sources rather than push a personal point of view. I hope that clarifies my position on this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the abusive comments from Yorkshirian, which I have addressed on his talk page; I suggest we could use the caption Yorkshire within England in 1881. MRSC • Talk 03:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do "impaired" people understand the concept of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland any more than they understand the concept of Yorkshire or any of the traditional counties? IMO that its kind of a straw man argument when measuring how well known something is. Could you provide proof of the "research" showing that the Association of British Counties "invented" the traditional counties, this seems kinda baseless without such a presentation.

Look, on your page you say you think "nationalism" as a concept is "outdated" and I'm presuming the same goes for "regionalism"... the word ancient is POV because it clearly makes it sound like it is a fossil concept, as if the counties stopped existing around the time of the Beaker people or something, when they existed up until the 1970s. "Ancient" carries a negative conotation in that light. IMO that could be you promoting a personal view against nationalism/regionalism, when Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV.. so we have to provide a compromise and somewhere between the two, "historic" although repugnant in itself isn't as bad a "ancient"... however, I think the suggestion by MRSC would be suitable, Yorkshire within England in 1881 although England isn't a real country anymore, the map does infact show Yorkshire within the constituent "country" area of England in 1881 so its fair enough.

Though if anything good has come out of this dispute, apart from searching for a compromise, its you introducing me to the Association of British Counties: very interesting, despite the fact that you called some of its claims bogus. It seems when the subject of traditional counties come up, the oposition tend to prefer Yorkshire to have no official status at all (assuming good faith in this case of course), because when the traditional counties are in place, Yorkshire happen to be the most territorially endowed in Britain. Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ancient" may or may not carry negative conotations (how on Earth I do not know), but I'm afraid this is the term used in academic journals, gazetteers and books. It doesn't even imply redundancy; the ancient pyramids are still here afterall. It's not my fault this is a verifiable term, don't shoot the messenger. I'm merely reporting on source material, not introducing personal views. I'm also not advocating that the UK is "completely" familliar. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The real question as far as I see it is does Yorkshire exist or not? If we agree with the government and say it doesn't exist, then we instantly disregard the opinions of 5 million people who believe themselves to inhabit that imaginary place, as well as the beliefs of the rest of the population of England. If we agree it does exist, then how do we define it? There is no modern offical definition, and any attempt to impose one would be false. The only logical definition is that of Yorkshire before it was officially abolished. Any references to ancient, traditional etc, simply don't make sense in respect of this, as it implies, in direct juxtaposition to it's own attempt to provide information about the place, that it doesn't actually exist after all. We may as well write, 'Yorkshire is a non-existant county in the North of England. Five million people don't live there and its symbol isn't the white rose'.What I'm saying is, if we accept that Yorkshire is a real entity, we have to accept the traditional definition of Yorkshire, but we cannot refer to it as traditional Yorkshire because this would contradict its very existence.Bkpip (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring the Yorkshire article

I would still like to attempt to restructure the Yorkshire article in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties' At the moment I think that the history section is biased towards the early years before the formation of the shire and is a little disjointed in the later years. Also, I am concerned that the more rural aspects of the county have not been given appropriate emphasis.I apologise if my previous attempts to restore structure to the article offended you but I had tried to open a discussion about this on the talk page.I agree that the article had been too large and unbalanced but I had not wanted to alter it without consent and before adding more balanced viewpoints.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Theres nothing wrong with the structure and all of the history parts (especially early) are essential information in an overview of the county and are mentioned in all other overviews of the county off Wikipedia. What do you suggest we do, just like, skip the part about the Celtic people live in Yorkshire and talk about mud and rocks instead? The article is already structured so that it has parts on natural Yorkshire anyway, including the huge "Physical geography" part and then below it a "Nature" section, which also has a Natural and geological history of Yorkshire. Please point out it you could, which decent articles on counties put focusing on mud and rocks even more, over what actually happened ontop of it? - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your reply. I intended my remarks to be constructive. I really don't understand what you mean by "mud and rocks". Yorkshire does have a plethora of natural beauty (Is this mud and rocks?) as well as agricultural interests and (in the past perhaps) extractive industries.

I agree that most histories of Yorkshire do include sections on the history of the area before the formation of the shire county. This is anachronistic but inevitable as part of a tradition. My comment was meant to convey that pre Norman history seems to take up a large proportion of the text that is devoted to history. The Oxford History of England has 16 volumes, only three of which are devoted to the period before the Normans, for instance, and in his History of Yorkshire, David Hey devotes only two of his ten chapters to the pre Norman period. This would seem to suggest that around 20 percent would be adequate. Also,to add balance, the whole of the history section could be trimmed as there is already another article on the History of Yorkshire. --Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there will always be a natural bias to that period where Yorkshire is concerned, generally being considered the pivotal era in the county's evolution. Yorkshire custom, dialect etc, had fairly much been defined by the end of the eleventh century, and although the time after that is equally important of consideration, it more defines Yorkshire's role within England, whereas pre-conquest history defines the reasons that led to Yorkshire's famed and long standing sense of semi-independence, the reason, if you think about it, that a no longer existant county is still as commonly referred to as ever. I hope non-Yorkshire folk will show sensitivity to this historical and very much extant feeling of statehood, and not steam-roller the article with the dread indifference of homogeneity!Bkpip (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vernacular cultural regions

Please see here[12] for my further thoughts and attempts to clear up some misundertandings.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, and extremely reassuring to see grey areas being given their due, and such individual aspects of regionality consideration. However, I still feel Yorkshire to be overqualified as a VCR(?). It fulfills too many of the individual criteria of which only one is needed to justify VCR status. Also, you rightly comment, 'I thought that mentioning Yorkshire might confuse the discussion because it is both an historic county and a region with a strong regional identity.' True. However, you forgot one very important thing. Yorkshire, at the most crucial point of its development, the period which sired the most inherent aspects of the region and its people, was not just a county, but an independent Kingdom, with its own particular winds and ways. It is, I think, just one step up from a VCR.Bkpip (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Q.E.D.!--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to be sarky! Bkpip (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted Yorkshiremen

Just a small bugbear here for noted Yorkshiremen - has anyone ever heard of Naseem Hamed? Only a undisputed world featherweight champion in the mid to late 90s, nothing too spectacular! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.32.15 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Naz is mentioned in the Culture of Yorkshire#Others section, where it says;

"In other sports, people from that county have also had success. "Prince" Naseem Hamed from Sheffield, was one of the most famous boxers of the 1990s; he won world championships in the Bantamweight (EBU) and Featherweight (IBF, IBO, WBC and WBO) divisions." - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A1? M1?

Is the A1 really "the prime route from London to Edinburgh"? http://www.transportdirect.info, asked for a car route, specifies going M6, M74. I admit I was surprised that when I specified "via Scotch Corner" it came up with the A1, where I'd expected the M1! But surely the M1 needs a mention somewhere in this survey of major roads, as it comes through South and West Yorkshires and into the south of North Yorkshire? PamD (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My SatNav has a similar problem. I think these things are programmed to choose motorways over A roads, over B roads, etc. The route given via the M6 is maybe theoretically faster because the speed limits are greater.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Notoriety !?

Dictionary definition

notoriety

noun

Unfavorable, usually unsavory renown: infamousness, infamy, notoriousness

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This was posted in reply to this edit summary by User:Yorkshirian previous wording was better. the "world wide notoriety" which football and rugby league went on to have across the globe, makes more sense than "acclaim". --Harkey Lodger (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Yorkshire/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Thought I would get the rating moving - Needs some of the sections reworking for clarity e.g. a little difficult to work out the geography from the text especially for those with no prior knowledge Needs some detail on the topography/areas i.e Holderness Plain, Yorkshire Wolds, Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors. Needs more referencing Once addressed should go for GA assesment Keith D 10:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)