Talk:Dartmoor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
Pending tasks for Dartmoor |
| WikiProject UK geography has identified ways in which Dartmoor can be improved. For tips on how to bring this article nearer to featured article quality see the guidelines and resources section of the WikiProject. | |
|
|
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] NPOV Issues
I know nothing about this, and therefore don't want to make any changes, but I can't imagine that "continually under threat from the industrial conglomerates..." is quite written from the neutral point of view. --LMS
Er, it's nothing short of factual. These outfits are continually trying to dig up Dartmoor (they've just made their fifth application in as many years to encroach (they're after about an eighth of the moor at the moment, and area of approx 45 square miles)) and damage a) the environment b) the archaeological and cultural heritage for ever for everyone else, for generations to come, in the interests of short term material gain. I think this represents a threat to me and pretty much everyone else who lives in the southwest.
Dartmoor is one of the great unsung wonders of the world. Their spoil tips look diabolical. They create waste and destroy wildlife. But then, I suppose if I were being entirely neutral, I would just accept their depradations; I was just being light on them. Maybe in the interests of neutrality I ought to be a little more hostile? Or should I be taking a line like 'Chernobyl represents an interesting contribution to Russian industrial history', or 'Waco was a change in direction for American policing strategies'? :-) sjc
- I would not dream of suggesting anything so absurd, and the fact that you think I might indicates to me that you fail to understand what I said. I simply want you to read neutral point of view and pay careful attention. If any sizable minority of the population--even, or especially, a minority that you disagree with strongly!--would disagree with how you have worded something, or what facts are selectively presented, then the best form would have you to "go meta" and describe what the different views of the situation are, in a way that everyone would be able to agree was fair and accurate. This is the most prudent way to write a collaborative, international encyclopedia that people of all sorts of different views will want to contribute to. See also talk:Creationism for a good discussion of these principles. Wikipedia is not the place for activism of any kind, if that's what you are engaged in (and I won't take a position on it--it just seems possible to me, that's all). --LMS
- No, I got you the first time, Larry, I was maybe being a bit too sardonic for my own good. I think that the only people who would disagree in this instance would be the directors and majority shareholders of the china-clay mining companies, and in my book they deserve pretty much everything they get. Even they're beginning to realise that they can't get away with it any longer themselves (see my note below). I fully intend to go meta on this one, in any case, but as I'm working in London and won't be at home in the south-west till next weekend, I can't really cite case notes till then.... sjc
I would side with sjc; I've seen such situations elsewhere and know that what sjc reports is nothing unusual. On the other hand, I think it would make the article stronger if it included some examples and elaboration on this. For example, listing 2-3 instances where the conglomerates have taken or attempted to take actions which would harm Dartmoor.
If I remember correctly, in England there is no government-backed national park system analogous to the US Park service, but instead, a group of private citizens banded together to create a trust to protect the natural areas of England, and these groups continue to fight, even to this day, to protect the natural areas. It would be worthwhile to make mention of how Dartmoor is being preserved, and by whom, and for what reason.
-- BryceHarrington
OK, I'll attach reference to the Dartmoor Preservation Society, and the laughable attempt (it's funny now, it wasn't at the time) to redirect the river Teign so they could dig up more china clay.... I'll also annotate their previous depradations in a separate article. sjc
And the good news today, Tuesday, 21st June 2001, is that both Imreys and Watts Blake Bearne have bowed to public pressure and agreed to renounce their licences. That just leaves English China Clay. sjc
Perhaps there could be a link to a NON-WikiPedia web page where activists (and those interested in the 'non-[[:|neutral point of view]]' side of things) could go to find out more about this? Does this violate the WikiPedia policy or community?
Er, we're not really activists, just trying to maintain the environmental status quo. But FYI you might like to look at the Dartmoor Preservation Association pages... These are at: http://www.dartmoor-preservation-assoc.org.uk/pages/objects.htm sjc
Thanks! I guess what I meant by 'activist' was 'person who wants to help'... and I think that it's quite within neutrality to say, as you have, "Here's a situation that could be better with your help". Now just get the presveration society to accept subscriptions from overseas (PayPal?), and we'll really help :-).
Given the general membership of DPA it is kind of miraculous that DPA have web pages at all! I will try and get it raised though, and thank you for your concern. As far as I am concerned, Dartmoor is one of the most beautiful places in Britain, perhaps the world. sjc
This article is definitely not NPOV. If a mining company has a legal right to extract resources from a given area, then thats all there is to it, regardless of your emotional attachment to their future strip mine. Vroman
I always felt that the amount of space devoted to this issue in the Dartmoor site was a little excessive. Most of my family live on Dartmoor, and I can confirm that it IS an issue, but one of many. However, the page has grown to the point where it is better balanced. On the other hand, it might be an idea to give this a page of its own, and link it to 'Dartmoor'. After all, the 'Dartmoor wildlife' and 'Dartmoor tin-mining' sections are separate, and both highly significant to the moor and its history. JonC
[edit] ACCESS LAND
NEW TOPIC 'Access Land' is similar to 'Open Country' in the Peak Park - this designation, which applies to major areas of Kinder Scout and Bleaklow amongst others, well predates my first outings there in the early 60s, and existed I think from the Park's inception. I have not edited (but may do sometime - now done). My Dark Peak map of circa 1972 for example shows a vast swathe of this part of the Peak designated as National Park Access Land Linuxlad 17:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Highest, Deepest, Longest...
(All good Guinness Book of Records stuff :-))
Warren House is very unlikely to be second highest pub in England. Tan Hill comes in first at 528m or so. One of the stronger claimants to 2nd place is the Cat & Fiddle at approx 510m, on the A537 road above Buxton, Derbyshire. (NB note that appropriately it's a Cheshire Cat, though only by about 50m over the county boundary). I have amended the claim to highest in SW England. Linuxlad 17:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Factual geography?
My knowledge of the area is little, but I would have thought a geography section appropriate:
- communications railways and roads(perhaps including a note about toll roads?)
- population figures
- land use
- industries past and present
Peter Shearan 07:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Commons
I've started a commons page but I dont know what template to put on the page. --βjweþþ (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup tag
I'm tagging this for cleanup, as the tone doesn't appear quite right for Wikipedia. Sections that need particular attention include the lead and the sections on myths and rivers. The problems should be jump out - if not, I'm happy to provide more detail. SP-KP 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Happy to do my bit as soon as I have time. There is obviously some POV which can be dealt with and some areas for improvement. Are there any 'best practice' geographical/topographical pages which could illustrate the way to take this forward? I looked at all the other UK National Park pages, and these all seemed inferior to Dartmoor (yet non of these have been tagged for clean-up). JonC
- I've had a go at cleaning up the introduction and rivers section. Waggers 13:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- As a best practice reference, Chew Valley Lake has Featured Article status, if that's any help. I don't tend to check quality of related articles when tagging things for cleanup on the basis that a cleanup need is a cleanup need. I'll check the other National Park articles and tag any which I think are also in need of work. SP-KP 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kind of looking at the geography thing and the previous comment the article makes no mention of the fact that much of Devon's water comes from the five reservoirs within the National Park. I do know a little about them and would happily help (with this and other aspects of Dartmoor) but my Wiki expertise at present is close to zero Nigel 12:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look at Dartmoor reservoirs. If you know a bit about this, why not update this section, as well as ensuring there are references within Dartmoor and Devon? JonC
- Thanks Jon - ok I should have look but I guess I feel there should be a link on the Dartmoor page (which at a quick glance I can't see). I'll look at the page some more over the weekend and see if I feel I can contribute anything, I'll certainly look at putting links in, possibly in pages for the towns originally supplied? regards Nigel 09:18, 7 July
[edit] Spam?
I've been pointed to discuss the recent edit on this and other national parks pages. In each case a link has been put in to "bedsearcher". At best I don't see it as useful (the link comes up with nothing found!), at worst it is at least a form of spam. Opinions sought thanks. --Nigel 08:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
OK in the end I went ahead and revoved the link after others had expressed the same opinion --Nigel 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flora and fauna?
Looking at little closer at the Dartmoor page and comparing it to some other National Parks pages it does strike me that this aspect is missing. Other than a list of things I've seen it is really out of my expertise. However I do know that it is a very rich habitat and important in many ways. Anyone interested?
Cheers --Nigel 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok found the wild life one (should have looked) but nothing on the flora that I can see?? -- Nigel 11:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion for page
Hi All (??)
I been looking at this for a while & wonder if the page could be tidier if we created some sub categories - Dartmoor Rivers, Dartmoor Villages and then linked that to the Dartmoor page rather than the current list approach? Could leave the main tors, rivers etc on the Dartmoor page with a "see also" for the rest. It should make the page a little sharper
Obviously comments welcome & thanks --Nigel (Talk) 12:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tone tag removed
I've had nothing to do with the creation of this page. After reading through the entire thing, I feel that the page is not longer in need of clean-up from a tone perspective. Good work to everyone who improved it! InvictaHOG 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Album cover piccy
I've removed this. It really does not seem really relevant to Dartmoor. I have not seen anything like that kind of wreckage on the moors (I wonder if it is a "created" photo, I can't find evidence for it). --Herby talk to me 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] River Dart
From the point of view of their journeys across Dartmoor I am inclined to create pages for both East & West Dart. They are certainly bigger rivers than some of the others mentioned here and their passage across the moors is not really dealt with. Any other views? Cheers --Herby talk to me 12:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dartmoor and the military
If you are watching this page this BBC link may be of interest to you [1] cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject
I think it's time there was a Wikiproject:Devon up and running. Anyone interested, come to my talkpage and we'll sort something out. I'm not much good at HTML but if we all put our heads together I'm sure we can get Devon articles the treatment they deserve. Totnesmartin 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Much of this article is currently unsourced. Fortunately, the Dartmoor National Park Authority have produced several factsheets which should help in finding sources for specific statements:
http://www.dartmoor-npa.gov.uk/index/learningabout/lab-factsheetshome/lab-alphabetical-listing.htm
--Safalra 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neolithic fire and references section
I added a bit of info on the role of anthropogenic fire in the creation of Dartmoor and moors in general, along with a references and notes section. Even though there is only one reference so far, I did it in the "Notes" and "References" method so you can give a full citation in References and then shorter footnotes and even little comments in the Notes section, like I did. I wanted to add the bit about fire because, having read it recently in Pyne's book, I was surprised and intrigued to learn how dramatically human use of fire has changed the landscape of... basically everywhere; back to Neolithic and probably Mesolithic times. But I'm not expert on Dartmoor, or moors at all really, so I hope my edits are not inappropriate or anything! Pfly 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) peter peter peter peter peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.4.65 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ownership percentages
just a moan but the percentages relating to ownership do not add up!
- Well, we can't have every landowner credited! there are loads of private homes and farms there, obviously. It looks like jus the owners with more than 1% of the land are mentioned, but it's not that clear. I'll just clarify it. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Problem solved - there was no mention of Common land. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
