Talk:Clarawood/Archive 1

Archive 1

Regarding Aerial View of Clarawood

Google Earth very clearly allows under its copyright rules for fair use of its images including on the internet. I have therefore re-added the image to the commons and on the Clarawood page

Wikimedia Commons, where the file was located, does not allow merely fair use images. Anything there must be free for use elsewhere, including commerical redistribution. See Commons' fair use policy. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Point taken on the fair use policy, I am new to this as you will appreciateClarawood123 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Image size and so on

@Clarawood123: Please read WP:IMGSIZE. Thumbed images are preferred over fixed-width images. Note especially "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. 300px), which forces a fixed image width. [...] Where px is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays)." The image resolutions that you have reinstated are too big; while you may be connected to high-speed internet, there are parts of the world where it still might take ages to download a Wikipedia page and large images are certainly not helping. Additionally, you have removed the WP:Original research tag without solving the problems. Until they have been solved, the tag should remain in place. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You clearly haven't understood the original research page you direct me to as it very clearly says that while information must be attributable it does not have to actually be attributed in the article. I can assure you that all information on the Clarawood Wikipedia page is attributable. As you are clearly not well informed enough on the subject of Clarawood to know this my recommendation for you would be to stick to editing pages on subjects you actually know about and are able to make informed decisions about.

Whilst there may be parts of the world where the bandwidth etc causes delays with large pictures, the vast majority of people viewing the Clarawood page will be high speed broadband users mainly from Clarawood itself. That is why I have reversed your edits.

PS you describe yourself as a Grammar Nazi, I found the English grammar on your page not quite perfect, also if you are a linguistics expert you will know that Sanskrit actually emanates from Europe in the first place not Asia

First of all, I'd like you to read the Talk page guidelines, in particular the section about "Layout". Secondly, you do not own this page; anyone is allowed to edit it. My contributions are focussed more on the Wikipedian "looks" of the page, rather than contents. Finally, you are disregarding mobile users who have tiny screens, no broadband, and might have to pay a lot, depending on their provider. PS, your PS is an example of a personal attack and is just uncalled for. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of the image policies on Wikipedia are that large images are ok in the context of the article. I'm sorry you felt that I had made a personal attack on you, this was not the intention, my comment was designed to give constructive criticism on your contentClarawood123 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Why changes to the Clarawood page by another editor were undone

Extended content

The edits made by CDRL102 have been undone for several reasons. Firstly they removed a lot of information under the heading of a cleanup and also tags stating that the article had not been written properly and needed to be written by someone qualified to do so. The inference is namely therefore that the page was not written properly or by someone qualified to do so. The creator and author of the article is in fact not only qualified at degree level on the subjects concerned but is also a very long term resident of Clarawood with direct experience. Anything which was included in the article as originally written and now restored is not only factual but is referenced and able to be referenced under the Wikipedia accepted guidelines and practices, as has been previously discussed with another editor. I have, for the sake of not getting into an edit war, removed the anecdotal portion at the end. Please, if you have anything to discuss on the Clarawood article, raise a comment on the Talk page rather than editing blankly as it may be the case that your edit is unecessary. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I'm trying to help this page, blatant trivia and irrelevant comments about street lights will get it deleted, there are street lights everywhere, we don't mention them. But I can't break the revert rule so it'll just have to go to review, if it stays, OK, if it get's deleted, too bad. CDRL102 (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD, Deletion Review, edit back to previous state, referencing, notability etc

Extended content

This article has been reinstated after a deletion review and relisted for AfD since it had been listed previously and closed out of process after only 1 hour. As mentioned in the AfD I would ask anyone participating or interested to ensure they read the full breadth of comments etc in various places before concluding anything. Over the next few days I intend to expand on the General Reference section substantially and this should satisfy the article's previous detractors. Clarawood123 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of latest edit by CDRL102

Extended content

User:CDRL102 has removed a portion of the opening text of the article citing that what was said was an opinion. CDRL102 very clearly did not check the reference for the edited statement which was to a report called "Poverty Amongst Plenty" which studied Clarawood and concluded that it was a working class area situated amongst more affluent ones such as those named. This was based on a pilot study of demographic and other measures which, as CDRL102 is clearly unaware, was the starting point for the development of what is now known in Northern Ireland as the Multiple Deprivation Measures and Targetting Social Need, which are the official Government demographic statistics which are used by every Government Department and Local Council to determine where and how to spend public money. In other words the edit was ill judged, the reason given was totally without foundation and fallacious and the statement as reverted to is absolutely and totally factual and demonstrable and was referenced to a solid academic report. I have absolutely no qualms about reverting the edit and CDRL102 can accuse me of acting like a page owner or simply reverting everything that another editor does, but before they make any further edits they should be ensuring that they know what they are talking about. They have demonstrated in this instance that not only do they not know what they are talking about and asserting, but that they cannot even read references. Clarawood123 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC) You're incapable, that is all. CDRL102 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Population and community mobilisation and history

Where in this ref http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/public/Home.aspx is the population figure of 1200 found? I looked and didn't find it there. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

moving population here for now, til the verification is sorted:

According to the latest census information the estate population is about 1200.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, what does this mean?

At present there is a low level of community mobilisation (2016).

References

Also we need to write encyclopedic content - nothing is "currently" in Wikipedia as this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• The original article was worded as follows

According to the latest census information the estate population is about 1200.[30] However it has been identified by Clarawood Community Association that the census information is not accurate, for example in the 2001 census a significant number of people identified themselves as Pakistani when it is known that there were absolutely not this number of Pakistani people living in the estate. Also in the 2011 census there were only 571 homes meaning that almost 6% of the estate did not exist. This is statistically significant. Based upon direct local knowledge and estimates of the number of people living in Clarawood who might officially have an address elsewhere, and the number of people who revolve around the estate or who spend time there regularly with family, the population should be thought of as nearer 1400 or 1500. Demographically there are roughly 200 children & young people, roughly 300 pensioners and a fairly even mix of single people and couples. About 15 - 20 children are born each year and generally the same amount of people pass on, obviously there are fluctuations in these from year to year.

The estate is very predominantly white and Protestant, there are very small numbers of ethnic minorities mainly Black and Chinese (only about a dozen people) and a small Catholic population (about 50) the majority of whom are long term estate residents and fully accepted as part of the community. Small numbers of Eastern Europeans have moved in over the last few years, there are probably around half a dozen families.[24] Whilst sections of the estate have become middle class in recent years there remains an undercurrent of deprivation. On world terms the inhabitants are of course doing extremely well, however there is lots of hidden poverty and hidden societal problems. Those living in Clarawood still tend to be poorer, unhealthier, less educated and less upwardly mobile than those in the areas around them. At present there is a low level of community mobilisation (2016).[1][31]

When User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi edited the article (leaving it in breach of copyright) they removed portions of the article but retained others thus leaving the article seriously misreferenced and without the breadth of research on the topic. Your summary comments on your edits in relation to User:CDRL102's population edit demonstrates this. It would appear that neither yourself or CDRL102 or Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi appear to have any great knowledge of the subject area or the referencing aside from what yous have read in the article.

Perhaps a dictionary or thesaurus might assist you to understand community mobilisation. Regarding information which may change in time I would refer you to [1][2] and other Guidelines. The NISRA website allows the user to find information on all areas in Northern Ireland at a range of administrative level. Competence is required to use it and extract the information, I would suggest reading the guidelines on their page before doing so. Clarawood123 (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's rather academic, of course. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well yes Fortuna it is academic and that is the entire point. It is academic in the sense that there are established and attributable facts which you and others have removed from the article (you seem completely unconcerned about leaving the article in breach of copyright by the way - a Wikipedia basic). It is not academic in the sense of a silly argument over points of view, which is what I take your comment to mean Clarawood123 (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Clara, I meant the discussion is academic, since the community has (repeatedly?) condemned the insertion of the material. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like Foruna removed a bunch of WP:OR, which is good. On the "currently" thing, Clarawood123 please see WP:RELTIME. And since you have no answer on the population thing, I am moving that from the article to here, until it can be verified. Jytdog (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no original research in the article it was entirely based on existing and fully referenced sources. These references have been deleted and the remaining ones messed up. If yourself, Fortuna and others are unaware of how the article is now in breach of copyright I would suggest this is indicative of incompetent and disruptive editing not a problem with the sources or their attribution which was done in full legal form when I wrote it. Regarding the statistics for Clarawood and the population it would appear you are not competent to use the NISRA site Clarawood123 (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have an idea, User:Clarawood123, you walk around Clarawood, count the exact number of houses / flats and knock every door and find out how many people live in that house, then come post the statistic. Pretty sure you said the population was 1200 by the way. CDRL102 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ermmm...was that a serious suggestion? It is of course, original research. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Then compare it to sources and see which is most reliable source. CDRL102 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I will not be drawn into this. You have suggested that another editor should edit-in material that would clearly violate WP:OR - one of our core policies. You may wish to take action to withdraw from that suggestion. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"About 1200", I think it was, but Clarawood is not named in the census and it looks like its boundaries don't match a statistical area or combination of statistical areas. Areas that appear to be entirely within Clarawood have a usually resident population of 1067 but that excludes most of Knockmount Gardens and possibly a few other homes so I would guess at around 1150, although 1200 is plausible. A published source is needed and "2011 census" isn't specific enough to verify; it's also unlikely that the census would use "about 1200". Peter James (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I cannot, and will not, assist people who constantly question material without plainly reading that material or acknowledging the sources it is based upon. I refer yous to the quote above from the article as I left it Clarawood123 (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You added the reference (Agency, Northern Ireland Statistics and Research. "statistics". www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk. Retrieved 2016-02-13.). I've looked at the population statistics there ("usual resident population") and there wasn't an area or combination of areas from which a population figure could be obtained. Is it listed under another table on the site? Peter James (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As you say the stats for Clarawood can be difficult to isolate due to the various areas and administrative boundaries used at various levels for various things. The reference to the NISRA site was given as the portal to the majority of Government and census information. That is why it was explained in the original article that their figure is about 1200. The original article treats the discussion further though and I have already referred to it above Clarawood123 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

so the 1200 number does appear to be original research and is not, at least at this time, verifiable from published sources. You are not going to take this well I reckon Clarawood123 but this is not how Wikipedia writing is done. What is in the content of an article, has to actually be verifiable from the source provided - that is what the verify policy is all about. The way to edit is to find reliable sources and summarize them here in Wikipedia, and cite the source you are summarizing. It appears that in the italicized content above, you described how you calculated the 1200 number, and you have now made it clear that you cited the census website just as a kind of "hook" and not a place anybody could go and find the information.

The following is a hard thing. The first eight sources used in the article are things like "Public Records Office of Northern Ireland, LA/7/12/AB/1 - MInute Book of the [Special] Housing Committee of Belfast Corporation 1948 - 53". These appear to be documents that are only available locally. (More recent minutes are available online at the Belfast City Council website - here is a search of their minutes library for "Clarawood"). In light of the discussion above by Clarawood123 of how they created the content about population and used (or didn't use) the sources cited for that, I have moved the content sourced to those local documents below, until at least one other experienced Wikipedian can get their hands on these documents and verify the content. I searched the Belfast City website, plain old google like this and this and the Belfast Telegraph webisite here and rewrote as much of this as I could...

History and construction

Approval for a new housing development at what was known as the Clara Park site was approved in March 1949 and inspected by the Housing Committee of The Belfast Corporation in October that year. Numerous housing estates were built by the Corporation after the war and Clarawood was part of a wider wave of construction which included Taughmonagh, Ballysillan, Annadale, Flush Park, Highfield and many others. By the time it came to be built it was in fact described as the last of the large housing estates. Plans had been in progress for a while by 1949 and early on it was identified that a primary school would have to be part of the development.

In February 1951 the first plans for the actual estate were presented and the final layout was decided in May 1952. The construction of the various housing estates at the time required the approval and input of numerous committees and Government departments who could focus on their own particular realm of expertise. In the case of Clarawood this resulted in such things as using concrete for the roads rather than tarmac as the ground was soft and designing the layout to deliberately encompass open spaces and green areas.

In early 1953 the first tender was put out for the roads and sewers and it was awarded on 20 February with work beginning shortly afterwards. The total cost came in at around £600,000 for the original phases plus over £300,000 for Clara Way, equivalent to nearly £15 million today (2016). In April 1955 as construction continued the Corporation celebrated the 5000th house completed since the end of the war and visited Clarawood to hand over the keys to the new tenant personally.

In June 1965 the final go ahead for the multi - storey flats and maisonettes, otherwise known as Clara Park Extension No.1, was given along with permission for a road at Knockmount Gardens.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (redacted for clarity Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC))

Pulling this bit out too, until it can be verified:

A Tenants Hall was built in the 1960s, and was later extended and upgraded but was closed after various problems such as the "vigilantes" using them at nights.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Firstly I refer you once again to the discussion on population in the article as originally written. There is no original research. Second I refer you to WP:VERIFY where it states "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access" and WP:OFFLINE where it states "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and even though editors are increasingly using online sources and e-journals, printed books and paper journals that are not available online are still a reliable source". As I have also previously mentioned numerous times, the article has gradually, under the recent edits by various people including yourself, become more and more innaccurate and misreferenced and is in clear breach of copyright in multiple places. Clarawood123 (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You have made it clear through your editing and your comments here that you do not understand the policies you are referencing. We have no reason to trust that the content cited to this documents will actually be verified by them. It may be that the content will be verified, but we need someone experienced to check that. Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Location map

Clarawood

class=notpageimage|

Location of Clarawood in Belfast

The map in the Infobox UK place shows whole of Northern Ireland and isn't very useful in locating Clarawood. I tried changing the map_type parameter to Greater Belfast as suggested in the documentation but that had no effect. There is this map but it looks a bit different from most recent maps and we probably wouldn't want it as well as the one in the infobox. Is it possible to get a map of a similar area in the infobox? Cavrdg (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've mentioned it at the template's talk page. The documentation mentions Greater Belfast, but the option for different map types has been added to Scotland and not Northern Ireland in the template, possibly a mistake. Peter James (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Putative COPYVIO

Clarawood I have seen you write several times that there is COPYVIO in the article. Would you please identify precisely what content in the article you believe violates copyright, and from what source? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The silence indicates, none... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The silence indicates a life with more important issues. If the various editors who left the article in breach have no knowledge of how it is in breach then I would venture to suggest it indicates a distinct lack of expertise in the subject area and in editing and attribution of sources in general, and that the edits which left the page like that should never have happened and ought to be reverted Clarawood123 (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not an answer. Please respond to the question and identify the content that violates someone's copyright and the copyrighted work, or strike your accusations that people have violated that policy. It is a very serious thing to violate copyright in Wikipedia, and a serious thing to accuse others of that. So please answer directly. Jytdog (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment It would seem from @Clarawood123: comments that they are an Expert in United States copyright law. This absolutely wonderful and will help us avoid violating anyones copyright. So since you claim that there is a copy right violation please point out this copyright violation so that we can fix it accordingly. As we aren't experts in United States copyright law we need the exact violations pointed out that we can verify that there is a copyright violation. I know as an expert in the field of United States Copyrights you feel that this is beneath you but this is how wikipedia works. So just go ahead and point out the copyright violation so we can move on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I have dealt with this below as Jytdog has removed so much content and referencing that the violations no longer apply. The legally required attribution for references from both PRONI and CCA had been removed Clarawood123 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits by User:Jytdog and current condition of the article

As the creator and original author of the Clarawood article, and for those readers who are unaware of the saga of Deletion Requests, Deletion Reviews, Edit histories and ANI discussions, this article has been heavily changed from the original which I would urge readers to view here [3]. This has left the article innaccurate, misreferenced and in breach of copyright and I have urged for it to be restored to its previous state. However I have not done this myself as I have already been accused of Ownership and Disruptive Editing for doing so previously. The article as it now stands is a nonsense Clarawood123 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Again please identify the specific copyright violations. Jytdog (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Today I tagged the article as shown here [4]. User:Jytdog then removed the tags describing their addition as a disruptive edit as shown here [5]. The tags were added as a result of the following:

1. The article as it stands does indeed provide very limited context and information about Clarawood. This is demonstrated by comparing it to this [6].

2. The article will indeed be very confusing to readers, its accuracy is severely disputed as I will now show and it is misleading. The section labelled Population gives a number of supposed statistics and demographic information about Clarawood supplied by the Housing Executive. Firstly, the information was not given by the NIHE, it was a collation of certain information by the authors of the particular report cited, which is a completely different thing. This information was drawn not only from some info given by the NIHE, but also from census information and other demographic information publicly available. This is made very clear, and extensively so, in the body of the report from pages 2-15. The methodology isolated a number of households from the 100m Grid Square Product however it is clear that due to various considerations including the necessity to anonymise delicate information such as that on religion or community background this is not comprehensive demographic information. In fact the statistics provided by User:Jytdog simply show that there were only 248 households in 2001, in the targetted 100m grid squares, which were clearly held by the NIHE and which could be used for this study. The comparison with 1991 and 1971 is only a comparison of this block of households and the only things therefore shown by these stats are that average household size has reduced over time from there being almost 1000 people in these 200-odd houses in 1971 to there being about half that number in 2001, and that home ownership has risen (as described and referenced in the original article). The number of homes has changed from 239 to 252 to 248 in the grids being analyzed because several NIHE houses were taken out of use between 1991 and 2001, and because accurate figures were not available for 1971, there also being several new houses built since then. In short the supposed stats show nothing and are a totally inaccurate source. They do not even give an accurate count of the total number of houses in Clarawood, extrapolated from the ownership percentages, as again they do not include full information from the 100m Grid Square Product. The original treatment of the demographics of the estate were provided in the article as shown in the diff at point 1 above, and were to be understood in the context of the facts and figures of the estate as shown in that article eg the absolutely accurate details of the number of houses etc.

The demographics of the estate are quite clear. Clarawood is a defined area and is comprised, on the NISRA / NINIS website, of a series of Small Areas (SA) and Output Areas (OA) along with 1 more street. These in turn are sub strata of Super Output Areas (SOA) and others. It is possible, if you are in fact aware of the physical boundaries and situation of Clarawood, to use both Postcode and Street Name information to extract the details. This is not original research, it is simply putting already available data together, and it has been done locally on a number of occasions, by a number of groups and people and for various reasons. The original article cited its sources but these were not only rejected but removed by several editors without foundation as I have previously described and argued in various places including a Deletion Review and ANI.

Firstly on the number of houses in the estate, the original article stated there were 606. This was based on exact information both from the official records of the construction of those houses (which goes into very great detail) and from local information. The conclusion was made that census stats show approx 1200 population but it was outlined that this was incomplete as this related to only 571 households. At Ward level in Knock in 2011 there were 4827 people in 2083 households, extrapolated directly this equates to approx 1400 people in Clarawood's 606 households [7]. At SOA level there were 1604 in 763 [8] extrapolating to almost 1300 for Clarawood. As discussed it has been identified locally that there are numerous people with offical addresses elsewhere who actually live in the estate, this is a common practice in Northern Ireland when unmarried couples have their lives organised in the best way possible for the maximisation of Tax Credits, Benefits, Child Support Payments, Housing Benefit and other issues ie even though they in reality live together in Clarawood as a married couple with children, in fact the partner will have his own address elsewhere and supposedly lives apart from the family. A broad assessment of demographics and population for Clarawood will therefore provide exactly what I already put in the original article - giving the various positions and outlining the background along the way. The current treatment of population and stats in the article is completely and utterly misleading, factually wrong, discounts already provided information and sources and shows amateurism and inexperience from the editor concerned.

The Facilities section of the article presents information about only a small part of the estate's actual facilities and does not give a comprehensive or accurate background or history to the ones it does mention. I would refer once again to the original article as shown in the diff in point 1 above and the various references provided in it, some of which have been reused but out of context.

The Environment section again presents innaccurate details regarding the park, clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the subject, and the inclusion of the link to Jim Gray shows a stunted and misinformed assessment of news stories relevant to the estate. It will be noted that paramilitarism was mentioned clearly in the original article but as this subject can be very confrontational, controversial and of hotly disputed positions and opinions, it was deliberately not entered into in any way. Using news stories of murders and other events on the estate in a particular way could also stir up a hornets nest as most of these stories relate to individuals and quite simply, it is an ground best left untrodden. Especially to someone who has no wider knowledge other than certain news stories they might find online.

One of the tags I added said the article might be slanted to recent events. This was included as it is clear from their edits and discussions that User:Jytdog and others such as User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi had never heard of Clarawood until the recent ANI discussions and that they have no expertise whatsoever in the subject they are dealing with.

I did not tag the article as a Copyright breach as Jytdog has removed so much information in the latest edits, wrongly stating that certain offline references need to be checked by a trustworthy Wikipedian before they can be used, that the references no longer exist in the latest incarnation of the article.

I stand by my adding of the tags, I am reverting User:Jytdog's removal of them, this comment is to explain that, and I hope that my sensible, rational, reasoned and factual discussion above will be taken on board by the relevant editor(s). Clarawood123 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"This is not original research, it is simply putting already available data together" -- Yes, that's not WP:OR (which Wikipedia disallows). It's WP:SYNTH (which Wikipedia also disallows). EEng 10:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

well seeing how WP:SYN is just a section of and form of WP:OR, it is both. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It is neither as original research would be going and counting the houses or doing a survey of population and publishing it here. Synth is not putting together available information, which is what Wikipedia is all about, it is putting it together selectively or in such a way that it appears to uphold a new theory or position which is not held by the breadth of research or the available facts Clarawood123 (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR, Don't mean to be disrespectful but no one is going to read these walls of texts - You need to be short and to the point ....., I've removed the tags as the article's fine and doesn't need to be tagged to death. –Davey2010^Talk 18:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

1, No one is going to read all of that. 2, The article is fine, you're the problem, that's been pretty clear from the beginning.*Treker (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is NOT fine, you need to read the above, and this is now going to ANI again. Clarawood123 (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Scroll back up and read what they just said. Your comment is to long and they didn't read it. So fix it. In a simple small paragraph explain why your over excessive tagging is justified. Why does it lack sufficient context, why is it confusing and unclear, what are you actually disputing, how is it slanted towards recentism, what misleading parts, and what missing parts? Justify your tags. Be clear, concise, and be brief. If you can't then drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The only reason you think the article isn't fine is because of your obvious bias. Spamming an article with a bunch of tags is disruptive. Yes, please take it to ANI so they have to deal with you. Also, learn to format a text, people usually learn that in the first couple of years of school but appreciably you ignored all that.*Treker (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

note, i fixed the formatting in this dif Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is significantly better now _ the removal of information as to whose dog pissed on whose rosebush is a marked improvement. I understand that the subject is dear to the hearts of certain editors, but we do need to remember that this is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not an advert or a travel guide. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Population of belfast

Hi - I had included the following to provide context for Clarawood's falling population in that section - it fell by half over the surveyed period.

Between 1971 and 1991, the Protestant population of Belfast overall fell by around 100,000.(source){{rp|16}

That was removed in this dif with edit note: "prod pop of belfast irrelevant here" by User:Rwxrwxrwx.

thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The relevance was not clear, so if you restore it, maybe a note could be included pointing out the population drop in Clarawood and how it reflects the general trend. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, no drama. :) let's see what others say. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As written there is no clear relevance or rather Rwxrwxrwx position is reasonable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it is not clear there is any link between the two. The religious ratio in the estate seems to have stayed roughly constant. Though I would wonder about the statistics, since Google Street View shows little/no evidence of dereliction. Maybe Clarawood123 could help us out here, if he is in the mood. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not worth drama. Let it stay out. The purpose was to show that the population of Clarawood declined along with that of Belfast.

The population numbers are from the housing authority itself and there is no reason to doubt them.Jytdog (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I already dealt with it extensively above (which has been ignored) but perhaps Jytdog etc can explain why in its latest housing investment plan found here [9] the NIHE states on page 80 that there are 591 properties in Clarawood - 313 in their hands and 278 which have been sold? How does this square with the figures in the article as it stands? Also there is another street not included in this data. The accurate details, as I have been saying for some time, were in my original article Clarawood123 (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

What would you like me to explain? This is a great source to describe the count of housing units; it is nice parallel to the count of people already in the article. I'll add this. Nice find. Jytdog (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

done here. Jytdog (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You really don't get it. The NIHE figures I just quoted above are in direct contradiction to the 3 previous sets of figures you added to the article (which I tagged correctly as non factual, misleading and out of context) which say that in 1971 there were 237 NIHE houses, in 1991 there were 173 and in 2001 there were 127. Yet the NIHE themselves say there are 591 properties of which they still control 313 as of 2015. You previously berated me quite extensively accusing me of COI, bias and inability to look at myself. You seem to be incapable of reading basic facts and statistics and admitting you are wrong Clarawood123 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Also might I point out that the NIHE says there have been 278 house sales in total. This is more than the entire number of houses your figures claim there to have been in existence. Doh! Clarawood123 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The figures in the population section are counts of people, not housing units. The figures in the 2015 Belfast Housing Investment Plan are counts of housing units, not people. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I do hear you that the numbers sit oddly together and I have not found a source that weaves them together. What is in our article, is what the sources say. If you have a source that tells a bigger story that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• I need to spell this out for you - you added 3 sets of data drawn from a report which was actually commissioned for a completely different reason. I already explained extensively above why these should not be used. In your stats in 1971 you quote 239 existing properties in Clarawood of which 99%, or 237, were NIHE. In its latest figures the NIHE says it has in total up to 2015 made 278 property sales. How could the NIHE have possibly sold more properties than were in existence? And STILL have even more than that amount in its current control? There must be a fault at some point. The fault is exactly as I have previously outlined and I have already referred you and others to the treatment of the subject and the stats for the housing and the population as outlined in the original article which was fully referenced. I should also comment that the NIHE's figures themselves are not completely accurate, this is a result of them measuring different things in different ways over many years and using different computer systems. They are currently working on a single method of recording information in order to resolve these problems. There have only ever been a maximum of 573 NIHE properties in Clarawood as there are exactly 606 homes with 3 void and of these 609 36 have always been privately owned. NIHE did not even start selling its properties until the 1980s as this was when the "Right to Buy" policy was introduced by Margaret Thatcher. This was all outlined in the original article. You continue to blindly ignore the facts I have now outlined multiple times and the Clarawood page continues to be factually wrong, misleading, incomplete, out of context and a nonsense Clarawood123 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what you are saying now! You are saying the "households" in the population section = housing units. That makes sense. What is the source for the other things you are saying there about 573 properties etc? Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Just make corrections to the population section, leaving just the numbers that were the purpose of the report; thanks for pointing out the errors. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break

It was referenced to multiple of the records of the Belfast Corporation, the Government body which built the estate and detailed it extensively (but you removed all of these as you are wrong on these offline sources having to be checked by another Wikipedian) and to information provided by Clarawood Community Association. As referenced clearly in the original article as I keep saying. I have been pointing out numerous errors for some considerable weeks now in the face of completely unwarranted hostility. I hope you at least are starting to accept that what I have been saying is correct. I could quite easily write things in such a way here to make people look like fools but I have tried not to do that and to be more reasonable Clarawood123 (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Also Ormiston is a district which is only used by Belfast City Council in local government elections, if info such as this is used then the full context of other elective levels should be included. Belfast is actually a County in its own right and there is dispute amongst those who do not know this as to whether to use Co Antrim or Co Down, most use Co Antrim. You still retain info from the report regarding community make up - this is completely out of context as there are multiple newer sources for this including the census information for both 2001 and 2011 which in fact deal with it much more extensively as they have much more complete info. Including a mention of 100m cells means nothing without an explanation (which I do not believe you actually understand enough to give anyway). NIHE doesn't report any cottages in Clarawood, also it doesn't say 278 have been privatised, it says there have been 278 house sales which is different. If you do not understand the difference then you shouldn't be trying to deal with these stats. I recall someone previously saying "They work for you" was a poor reference (it was used simply as an accessible online version of the official Hansard record of the proceedings in Parliament)yet you have reused it again out of context. The Anne Napier Centre did not close in 2005, the park was not improved as it did not exist previously and I should note that your quoted source describes how Clarawood is an area of high deprivation. I recall distinctly that the entire affair of people rubbishing my article, starting deletions, accusing me of COI, bias, disruption, ownership etc etc etc started as an editor removed the opening statement of the article which described how Clarawood was a less affluent area than the ones surrounding it (fully referenced by the way) and I reverted it. In Clarawood 2012 was not the most severe year of flooding though it may have been in a wider NI context, the Greenway project existed before the East Belfast Flood Alleviation Scheme, Rivers Agency is not part of "city government" and including a section about Jim Gray shows a stunted knowledge of Clarawood and opens a door to a lot of controversy best avoided. I refer you and others once again to the article as I left it which you will find, as you grow in your knowledge of the subject, could not have been a more comprehensive, fair, balanced and encyclopedic article about Clarawood and every pertinent issue to it. Clarawood123 (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

fixed cottages, "sold" instead of privatized. On the date of the Anne Napier center closing, the only source i found that says anything about that is this one from 2009 which says "after five years the news that an agreement has been reached " So I made the date "around 2004" (as it should have been, not 2005 which was a typo.) If there is a better source for that, great. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

on the park, this source says "improved in 2000". If you have a source that says something else, would be great to see it. Jytdog (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wards etc

This is what i had in the article and according to CW this is wrong:

• It is in the Knock ward of Belfast's Ormiston district and in the Pottinger police district.

References

Belfast/NI just went through a remapping a few years ago and according to this site they are going through another one so there seems little point in keeping this in the article. Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Page tags

I have tagged the article again as despite the quite substantial previous discussions on this talk page and evidence that it is all of the things highlighted in the tags it remains in the same condition. I expect any editor interested to refute my tags with facts on this page. Otherwise I intend to substantially rewrite and repair the article in 7 days. (As an example Clarawood is not in the Knock Ward as Knock Ward no longer exists)Clarawood123 (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it is not clear what content you are unhappy with, exactly. We can fix the Knock thing, sure. What ward is it in and what is the source for that? This can be very simple. Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have tagged this article in good faith and have ALREADY described in substantial detail on this talk page above a number of areas where it is factually wrong, out of context, misleading and omits information. You have now reverted my tags twice within the last few minutes. I am reverting your revert once more to put the tags back in place. I warn you that if you remove them again I will take this elsewhere as your action will be disruptive and will not have taken consideration of the information you have been supplied with. You will recall that the ANI thread about this was closed with the advice to raise issues on the talk page and act civilly. I have already (though it was very difficult as you simply did not understand) demonstrated and proved once that you were completely wrong. Please do not act as you have previously if you are genuinely interested in the article and the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC) PS it is in Sandown Ward as you would know if you had researched properly

Working in good faith just means working simply and concisely. You have written a lot but not provided sources, and sources are what we need to take action. Please just be simple. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You have previously, on this page, berated me for not understanding Wikipedia policies. Clearly you do not understand what good faith means. You also have clearly absolutely no regard for the 3 revert rule and therefore no regard for accepted Wikipedia protocols. Rather than run to admin pages or dispute resolution I will let it go and simply repeat that I will be rewriting the article and correcting the omissions, mistakes, inaccuracies etc in a few days Clarawood123 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

BRD 11 May 2016

User:Rhododendrites has failed to discuss his revert here so I will start the discussion. I reverted to the 22 March 2016 version because the edits since then have been largely unhelpful. They have changed the emphasis from community to sectarianism. If editors wish to write about sectarianism they should start a new article, not try to piggyback it on the Clarawood article. Heavyplantcrossing (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Heavyplantcrossing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So what? Heavyplantcrossing (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that the edits were unhelpful. You can't just undo a huge amount of edits because you disagree with how the article should be. Also, what you're doing is susspissioulsy like what Clarawood123 usualy does.*Treker (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no connection with Clarawood123. If you have any evidence in support of your allegation, please start a sockpuppet investigation. If not, please withdraw the allegation. Heavyplantcrossing (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

How about the fact that you show up from nowhwere and all your edits are trying to suport what Clarawood123 was doing, using the exact same arguments? Clarawood was an incredibly possessive editor and I wouldn't put it past them to create a sockpuppet.

I'm not going to withdraw my allegations but I don't know how to start a sockpuppet investigation. I'm probably going to ask for help from someone who knows how to when I have the time.*Treker (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your wish is my command: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clarawood123 — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Err and mine too User:Rwxrwxrwx it seems great minds think alike... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I really don't understand how people think they will get away with such obvious sock-puppetry.*Treker (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting the misapplication of BRD, Clarawood123 recently learned about BRD in the most recent ANI. This is a misapplication of BRD. BRD is a process not a policy. The majority of the removed was either poorly sourced or not sourced. Per WP:V it was removed and properly. There's your conversation about BRD heavyplantcrossing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Could you link to the ANI conversation?*Treker (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: [10] _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.*Treker (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Pardon, I've mistaken a prior ANI with another user for this one where BRD was explained.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok. I haven't had time to read it yet anyway. I've been busy with some other things.*Treker (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

D'oh! -that means I too linked to the wrong thread. Of course, it means that User:Rhododendrites' comment below is even more apt: they knew about BRD without a previous discussion! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The point still remain that they misapplied BRD as if it were a policy. And purpose of the removed content.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, my response is sort of redundant to the above at this point, but I reverted because I saw a brand new user revert a month and a half's worth of edits, citing a relatively obscure Wikipedia essay [inappropriately] to justify removing 18k from an actively edited article. Nothing else needed. New users editing in good faith don't throw out references to obscure policies and processes in order to game the system. Whether or not you're a sock puppet, you're obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Validity of sources

Many thanks to the Arbitration Committee for unblocking me. Without getting into a whole discussion I would like to reiterate that I am in no way whatsoever connected to any sockpuppet accounts or disruptive editors.

As per previous discussions I am very concerned at the state of the Clarawood page and as per Arbcom's advice will be seeking consensus on this Talk page for any repair edits. Another editor above suggests tackling issues one step at a time.

It has been stated by several editors who have commented on this page and who have made edits to the Clarawood article that sources which I provided were "poor", "crap", "irrelevant" or indeed that other items were "unsourced" or either "opinion" or "original research". In order to establish a consensus on what sources are acceptable on Wikipedia and therefore on the Clarawood or any other article, I would like to ask interested parties to comment on the below, having due regard to the appropriate Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies.

1. The original version of the article referenced the official Government accounts & records of the construction and development of the Clarawood Estate written by the body which built it, namely The Belfast Corporation, which are held in the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) - the official Northern Ireland Government depository for public documents. Does the community consider these to be valid references or are they indeed "crap" and "irrelevant" as described by other contributors? PRONI is akin to The National Archives at Kew or the Library of Congress in Washington. An example is this LA/7/12/AB/1 - Minute Book of the [Special] Housing Committee of Belfast Corporation 1948 - 53

2. It also referenced material provided by Clarawood Community Association, a local charity. Does the community also think that this is a poor source? Bear in mind that CCA is even mentioned and referenced in the current version of the article.

3. A major bone of contention, which started all the previous nonsense, was that the opening statement of the article as originally written said that Clarawood was a working class area situated within more affluent ones. Is the reference for this a valid one or not? Poverty Amongst Plenty: Surveys of Taughmonagh and Clarawood Estates 1992. Belfast: CDPA Steering Group. 1993. (Currently available on Amazon for £14.99).

I hope that the community will respond with a proper and reasonable discussion of the above. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back. Would you like to be reminded by the community as to how your future edits are reflected in your previous ones? _Muffled ^Pocketed 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

My issue with hyper-local sources like Belfast city records and the CCA was stated above: "The following is a hard thing. The first eight sources used in the article are things like "Public Records Office of Northern Ireland, LA/7/12/AB/1 - Minute Book of the [Special] Housing Committee of Belfast Corporation 1948 - 53". These appear to be documents that are only available locally. (More recent minutes are available online at the Belfast City Council website). In light of the discussion above by Clarawood123 of how they created the content about population and used (or didn't use) the sources cited for that, I have moved the content sourced to those local documents below, until at least one other experienced Wikipedian can get their hands on these documents and verify the content." In general Clarawood123's uses of sources has been questionable and I am not comfortable with them introducing content based on those sources unless an experienced Wikipedian can review them and verify what they say. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how your position fits with WP:VERIFY where it states "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access" and WP:OFFLINE where it states "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and even though editors are increasingly using online sources and e-journals, printed books and paper journals that are not available online are still a reliable source". Could you refer me to the section in the Wikipedia accepted Guidelines and Policies where it says sources such as these have to be personally verified by someone such as yourself Clarawood123 (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I wrote that in awareness of what V says on local sources. That's one of the reasons why I said it is hard; I said nothing about me being the person and I don't intend on visiting Belfast anytime soon. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• WP:PRIMARY applies, in any case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: " I strongly suggest that you get consensus for any possible controversial edits." May I suggest that in the interests of your future long career with WP, you consider- for your own wellbeing- every single one of your edits to be potentially controversial? Cheers. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything that would suggest the CCA are a reliable source. Simply being mentioned in the article doesn't make them a reliable source for anything. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I quite simply do not understand either the relevance or meaning of User:Jytdog' s statement "it is hard". Either the sources are valid to be used as references or they are not. Which is it, according to the Wikipedia community accepted Guidelines & Policies, agreed by common consensus?

Again I do not comprehend how User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's statement on WP:PRIMARY is relevant. This Policy states very clearly "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge...A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources". The primary source material for items referenced to various Minute books and records of The Belfast Corporation would have been the particular department's files such as bills, requisitions, letters, plans, accounts, etc etc..these were then summarised and presented to the appropriate supervising committees who produced an official record which could then be described as a secondary source. In any case, the Policy clearly states that it is fine to use primary sources as long as the details from them are purely factual. If I am interpreting the Wikipedia community accepted Guidelines & Policies incorrectly in this matter, could somebody please clearly show me this with reference to fact rather than their own assertion?

Also, User:Serialjoepsycho, could you explain to me what there is to suggest that CCA is an unreliable source?

Nobody has mentioned Poverty Amongst Plenty. Is this a valid source or not? Clarawood123 (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It is hard, because what I am saying is looking at your prior editing, we cannot trust you to generate content that is supported by sources. Almost nothing I found in the work you did was actually supported by the source you provided - when I could get hold of it, and your description above of how you arrived at the population figures, shows you didn't actually use the sources you cited. As WP:V and WP:RS make clear, primary sources have to be used very carefully, without interpreting them. You want to bring primary sources that none of us can see, and that just doesn't sit well. I can't recall that I have ever invoked WP:IAR but this would be a time for that. Others may think differently, of course.

With regard to Poverty amongst Plenty that is a book this is held by two libraries in the world, apparently. Again if somebody else can get their hands on it to verify content you want to generate from it, it seems reasonable to me. But only in that instance. I have no power to bar you from doing anything, but I cannot support you using sources no one else can see. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What makes it an unreliable source? Better question, what makes it a reliable source? Looking at wikipedias definition of a reliable source I don't see how it meets that. Feel free to make your case on how it does.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be a report by a quasi-governmental body or NGO (?); ~could ~ be a useful primary source, if we were able to verify what it says and see that it was being used without interpretation. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You could call it an NGO. You could call it a primary source. The question is if it is a Reliable source. Seems that it is a self published sourced created by an entity that solely exists to promote a minor populated housing estate in Belfast that we are talking about maybe using.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I found it cited in some scholarly articles. It is a primary source. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a primary source, which I've said above "You could call it a primary source." Is it however a reliable source? Being a primary source, secondary source, or tertiary source doesn't imply reliability. This goes without noting that the specific CCA source we are discussing is unclear. Which reliable and published source by them are we discussing? Using the CCA as a source in the article at all seems highly suspect to me at the moment. It really sounds like we are discussing some internal document by them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like we are on the same page. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

With your focus on primary sources I openly question that. The reliability of a source as far more important, wouldn't you agree? Primary sources can be used with care. Unreliable sources can't be used at all.

Clarawood123, The other two sources discussed are primary but are much less suspect. I don't have a question of their reliability. As it has been stated here many times they are primary sources. You have to take care with primary sources to avoid original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog you suggested above that I had written a misreferenced article. The edit history shows that your first edit on Clarawood was done on 16th April and you then proceeded to undertake numerous edits both minor and major up until 6th May. I have previously, in several places, including right back in April at the time, advised that the article had been edited in such a way that it was seriously misreferenced from the first line. A lot of the misreferencing you found when you arrived was as a result of mainly Fortuna's prior editing, not mine. I did advise this. To blame me is a mistake and to say I am untrustworthy because of it is also a mistake, because it was not me who left the article misreferenced. And there were several things which you clearly made errors on. You removed a reference to Clarawood School's own website for example, saying the link did not back up the information. The reference was there to show that Clarawood School - the item being discussed - existed. Another link was removed with the suggestion it did not reference the Anne Napier Centre. It was actually added to reference the fact that the former school was closed. Other sources you proceeded to mess up due to your lack of knowledge eg: the Park etc. I have discussed extensively above the fact that much of the stuff you added is nonsense and I have been ignored. For example the section headed population in the article does not give any population statistic whatsoever. Items such as what is said about the Greenway and the Rivers Agency remain unfactual despite my highlighting them a long time ago. A few weeks ago I notified my intention to rewrite and as we all know I was then, somehow, made out to be a sock by what to me at least seems to be a very dodgy series of events. Arbcom have unblocked me after my appeal to them over the affair and I am now back here to (hopefully)fix, or get fixed, an article which as I have previously described, is a nonsense and does not give encyclopedic or accurate or comprehensive information about its subject. My starting point is to try, by rational discussion and factual argument, to get agreement from a number of the people who have been involved on the validity of sources which as far as I, as a reasonable member of society with a certain level of intelligence and understanding, can see are perfectly valid - and I am glad Serialjoepsycho agrees at least with that in part. Others however seem to be ready to reject anything I say or do no matter what it is, or how well backed up by Policy, or how right, and to continue to paint me as disruptive and untrustworthy. By assertion and opinion, not evidence I must add. Jytdog, you also comment that my discussion of population etc shows I didn't use the sources cited - in actual fact it shows that I very clearly used those sources. I continue to hope that parties who have been involved here will be reasonable in their discussions and hold on to some integrity rather than blindly continue to try to make me out to be a fool. For example the continued inference that I did not use sources correctly but put in original research. I did not. The problem was not the sources or the information based on them but some editors' rejection of those sources - wrongly as I have argued consistently. Is the issue here to jump on me or is it to get the article as factual, comprehensive and good as it can be? It now looks like there is some acceptance that many of the sources originally used for the factual information in the original article are fine. This is a good development but I await comments from others on the same issue. Clarawood123 (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to explain again but more clearly this time, how the sourcing of the content works, and while you are it please do explain how User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi edits here trimming your WP:OR left the article "in breach of copyright":

There are exactly 606 homes in Clarawood:

166 flats in 4 styles

32 maisonettes in 2 styles

120 semis in 4 or 5 styles

29 bungalows in 2 styles

4 detached houses

255 terraced in a number of styles with 109 of these being end terraces

All the flats are 2 bedroom, the bungalows are 1 bedroom, the maisonettes 3 bedroom and the rest a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom. There are two 4 bedroom homes in the estate. Two other maisonettes exist but their use was changed after a fire and there is 1 more flat used by the caretaker of Clarawood House. Most houses have gardens and almost all streets have open areas.

44% of homes are privately owned, the vast majority of the rest are rented from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), the government public housing body.

Over the decades the majority of NIHE homes have been regularly updated so that most have had new kitchens, rooves, porches, fences, bathrooms, heating and windows. 20 former bedsits in Knockwood Park were refurbished into ten new 3 bedroom houses in the 2000s and the bungalows at the bottom of the estate had extensions built on a few years ago.

All the streetlights in the estate have been replaced and the paths have all been relaid (except for Clara Way).

There are 7 other properties namely:

The shop

The Oak Centre

An empty retail unit

The Church

The Anne Napier Centre

The School

The Tenants Hall

According to the latest census information the estate population is about 1200. However it has been identified by Clarawood Community Association that the census information is not accurate, for example in the 2001 census a significant number of people identified themselves as Pakistani when it is known that there were absolutely not this number of Pakistani people living in the estate. Also in the 2011 census there were only 571 homes meaning that almost 6% of the estate did not exist. This is statistically significant. Based upon direct local knowledge and estimates of the number of people living in Clarawood who might officially have an address elsewhere, and the number of people who revolve around the estate or who spend time there regularly with family, the population should be thought of as nearer 1400 or 1500.

Demographically there are roughly 200 children & young people, roughly 300 pensioners and a fairly even mix of single people and couples. About 15 - 20 children are born each year and generally the same amount of people pass on, obviously there are fluctuations in these from year to year.

The estate is very predominantly white and Protestant, there are very small numbers of ethnic minorities mainly Black and Chinese (only about a dozen people) and a small Catholic population (about 50) the majority of whom are long term estate residents and fully accepted as part of the community. Small numbers of Eastern Europeans have moved in over the last few years, there are probably around half a dozen families.

Whilst sections of the estate have become middle class in recent years there remains an undercurrent of deprivation. On world terms the inhabitants are of course doing extremely well, however there is lots of hidden poverty and hidden societal problems. Those living in Clarawood still tend to be poorer, unhealthier, less educated and less upwardly mobile than those in the areas around them. At present there is a low level of community mobilisation (2016).

In light of Welfare Reform and the changes to both Government, the economy and public works in general; and based upon the evidence from England & Wales where some of these reforms have been implemented much earlier and have already taken root, estates such as Clarawood are likely to find themselves, in the not so distant future, under pressure in every sphere and slipping backwards. Almost 1 million people on the mainland are now relying on foodbanks and many have lost their homes and even their families. Health and mental health is declining, people are being forced into low paid menial jobs, opportunity is choking and the whole nature of society is changing. Clarawood is likely to be affected by these same problems.

References

Please do explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Folks, we are just going backwards. Clarawood123 you need to be clear, concise, and brief about which sources from PRONI you wish to use and how you wish to use it. The CCA is to suspect of a source to use at all, feel free to take that to RSN. Poverty Amongst Plenty: Surveys of Taughmonagh and Clarawood Estates 1992. Belfast: CDPA Steering Group. 1993. is also a primary source so please show how you wish to use it. Jytdog, WP:RX might be a good place to start on your end.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho I explained above how the sources can be accessed and already spent a great deal of time trying to locate them and a great deal of time actually looking for the sources I found and used to try to build reasonable content about this little community. Before you point me to Wikipedia 101 stuff try to locate them yourself. You watch this article, Serialjoepsycho - you actually spend time on it. I am unwatching it. See you around. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already argued my point that the CCA is highly suspect as a reliable source. The article is no longer on my watchlist. With your concerns WP:RX seems the most apt place to take care of them. If you are tired of boring wikipedia 101 my apologies. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if they will pick up on this as they are no longer watching but in reply to Jytdog - this [11] shows the difference between the article before and after Fortuna's editing and shows that a lot of factual info had been simply removed. Other items were reworded to suit Fortuna rather than in the interests of good grammar. It was in breach of copyright (as you already know because I already highlighted it a long time ago) as the required attributions for both PRONI and CCA had been removed. The referencing was also out of sync. This was when you then came in and further edited profusely - a comparison before and after is here [12] and there were of course a lot of interim edits by yourself and others such as new photos being replaced by old ones. Regarding the population and demographic discussion it is clearly referenced to NISRA - the official NI Government agency which deals with these things - and to CCA. You rejected NISRA as when a search is made for information on it the inserted link only shows the homepage and you lacked the knowledge and competence to do it yourself. This does not make the information from NISRA invalid (I could have - and still could - refer you to the original spreadsheets of raw data for the census and for the Multiple Deprivation Measures and other statistical streams however NISRA presents these most effectively through the tools on its website to which the ref was inserted). Serialjoepsycho doubts the reliability of CCA. This seems to be the crunch issue at present as the other (rejected) sources seem to now be accepted. The other references in the demographic discussion back up the information supplied eg: NIHE refs show that indeed "Over the decades the majority of NIHE homes have been regularly updated", the DRD ref shows the paths etc were redone and the CPAG report shows that the discussion of Welfare Reform etc is an entirely accurate assessment. In response to Serialjoepsycho I would like to use the PRONI refs etc to put back into the article much of the absolutely and clearly factual information which was deleted such as that concerning the history and construction of the estate. It may be that some of this needs reworded. For Poverty Amongst Plenty it was used to reference the opening statement of the article in which Clarawood was described as "less affluent" than the areas surrounding it and that it was more "working class". This was a very basic factual description of Clarawood and was said by CDRL102 to be my opinion and the reverting of their removal of it was my edit which kicked off the whole saga of nonsense over the article and the multiple accusations made against me. This fact can be further backed up with multiple references from multiple reliable sources including raw statistical info from the Government. Even one of Jytdog's refs regarding the Park (even though Jytdog's summary is innaccurate) says Clarawood is a deprived area Clarawood123 (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You could try to be concise. You are not likely to get a consensus like this. I've not discussed the reliability of the CCA. I've discussed the CCA as a reliable source by wikipedia standards. I do not know or even care if they are in anyway generically reliable in some sense. The contention is that simply do not meet Wikipedia standard for sourcing. Proni at a glance seems to be a reliable primary source, however they are of limited use. You can't bulk up the article based on them (see WP:PRIMARY) as the article has to be based primarily on secondary sourcing. And again you can't synthesize, interpret, analyse, or evaluate the primary sources. What the sources say is what you can say and you can't put them all together in a mish mash to say something that isn't said. This was your prior issue. There's nothing wrong with Fortuna's editing, you should drop the stick and move on. And don't expect to fluff up an article on your home town. If you can't depersonalize this it may become an issue.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Serialjoepsycho. Clara, you seem like a passionate girl. That's good. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Do you know that Clarawood123 is female? And even if they are, I wouldn't use the word "girl".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

NISRA btw, the raw data from there, that's a primary source.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not female as Fortuna well knows - they have an agenda to try and annoy me with minor little comments in various places which they seem to think I will bite at. They do not know me too well if this is what they think. I refer to my extract above regarding primary sources. Also, just for clarity and information, an edit which leaves an article in copyright breach and misreferenced would not be a sound edit in any reasonable person's judgement and I never at any stage synthesized anything or made them say something that wasn't said. This was never my prior issue - it was the issue which several others claimed to be a problem based on their own lack of expertise, their jumping to conclusions on matters such as was I an SPA or did I have a COI (all wrong), and the perpetuation of these myths by several editors who jumped on the bandwagon. You once again seem to be trying to portray me as something I am not. Your suggestion that I need to "depersonalize" fixing the Clarawood site is an insult to my integrity Clarawood123 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So what you are saying is there's a conspiracy against you that everyone is in on? An insult? It wasn't intended as one. This matter is perceptively personal to you. You choose your user name based off of it. You created the article. You've done nothing unrelated on wikipedia. It's reasonable to suggest this is personal to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said any such thing; it may not have been intended but that's what it is; Arbcom knows why I haven't done anything else so far; it's not reasonable as my focus for some considerable time has been on the content of the page Clarawood123 (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course, what ArbCom knows is irrelevant, isn't it? _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

An argument to authority? Arbcom's only action was to reverse your ban for sock puppetry. The only presumable statement that could be attributed is they did not see that you were a sock. To move on, there is no conspiracy against you. As for synth never being a prior issue the revision history doesn't agree. This conversation is an exercise in beating a dead horse. Consider using your sandbox to show the proposed changes you wish to make to the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clarawood. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160508030004/http://www.etini.gov.uk/index/inspection-reports/inspection-reports-special-education/inspection-reports-special-education-2013/focused-inspection-clarawood-school-and-outreach-services-belfast.pdf to http://www.etini.gov.uk/index/inspection-reports/inspection-reports-special-education/inspection-reports-special-education-2013/focused-inspection-clarawood-school-and-outreach-services-belfast.pdf

When 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)