Talk:Haslingden

Haslingden Halo website Spam

This article (and related articles about Rossendale, Rawtenstall and Haslingden) are being defaced with the inclusion of links to website about the Haslingden Halo. This website is not official (and does not appear affiliated with any official organisations). Additionally, the quality of the content is very poor with low resolution photos, and poorly written content (with no source or citations). It seems somewhat plausible (although speculation) that this website is commercially motivated, with numerous adverts. Therefore, inclusion of this link is unhelpful, and lowers the quality of the respective Wikipedia entries.

Manners

As the person who created the Haslingden_Halo Wiki page in the first place, however 'unsuitable' by the above submitters standards, it would seem like only good manners to not 'hijack' the page and redirect it without at least mentioning the site as a reference page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haslingdenhalo (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Manners

It is not a case of bad manners, however, rather that the HaslingdenHalo.com website is poor source. There are other sources of information which would serve better as references such as the Midpennine Arts website. Additionally, as the author of the above site it seems somewhat evidential that you would have this biased opinion, and your assertions do not guarantee that your work has sufficient quality.

Haslingden Amendment

The page on Haslingden discribes the town as being in the Rossendale Valley.It is in fact on top of a hill,any map will clearly show this.However Haslingden is in the Rossendale Borough I have therefore amended the page so it is more factual.The Rossendale Valley is the Valley of the River Irwell.In this area the towns that have the River Irwell clearly running through them are Bacup,Haslingden and Ramsbottom.Verified on any map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Thompson02 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Haslingden amendment.

'On top of a hill'? The picture that accompanies the article clearly shows the camera looking down onto the town, in a valley, the picture was taken near the 'Halo' with the Hutch Bank quarry in the distance.

Still insufficient citations?

I've been adding reference citations and would encourage others to add as I notice the more footnotes template message has been in place since 2009.

It could be that the message is no longer justified. Do any other editors have a view on this?

Bob (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bobf: The sort answer is yes I'm afraid. Pretty much all of the content of the article should be verifiable in reliable sources, and at the moment a lot of it is not. The quickest way to get to a point to legitimately remove the banner is to remove the un-sourced content. Otherwise more refs are needed. The good sources that are already in the article likely could be used more widely. These are the township entry in A History of the County of Lancaster volume 6, 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and 2011 Census data at Nomis. Citing these again can easily be achieved by copy and pasting one of the following:<ref name=Townships/>,<ref name=EB1911/>,<ref name=2011Census/>

Otherwise happy searching. TiB chat 20:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: OK, thanks for the comments. I'll find some time and work further on this. Bob (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

St James's Church

In the section on St James's Church there's a rather dubious statement that "The church is considered to be the highest parish church above sea level in England". Firstly, "considered to be" sounds a bit wooly. Either it is or it isn't. The reference cited, the church's own website, states "St James' Church is the highest church above sea level in the country", so the qualification as highest parish church seems to be Wikipedia's interpretation. The claim by the church is demonstrably untrue. The OS map shows it at about 255m, whereas within Rossendale there's a church in Bacup at 285m, and further afield there are churches in Nenthead, Cumbria, at 450m and in Flash, Staffordshire, at 460m and 465m. There is no indication from the map if these are parish churches. What does seem clear is that the cited source doesn't support the claim made, and that the church website cannot be taken as reliable. Is there a better source we can cite? Or should this claim be removed from the article? --Helmshore (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: the church at 460m in Flash appears to be St Paul's Church, Quarnford, which is a parish church, so the claim made for Haslingden does appear to be incorrect. --Helmshore (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm maybe just having a conversation with myself here, but since nobody else has replied I'm going to remove the claim. I'll also try to do something about the inconsistent use of the possessive. MOS:POSS seems to favour "St James's Church", but cautions against changing away from official forms. In this case, since the church website itself is inconsistent, I will assume there is no officially preferred form. --Helmshore (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been off-line for a few weeks but coming back to the page I agree with Helmshore about the claim with regard to St. James's. I always had my doubts about it when making edits recently, but never got round to double-checking beyond the fact that it was a claim made on the church website. Bob (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

September edits reverted

I have reverted all the edits that were made in September. At first I just reverted the one that was an obvious grammatical error, but on looking closer I have doubts about the others too, because they are changing the facts without changing the reference supporting them, and have no explanatory edit summaries. I have no access to "local libraries" to check the reference, so I am assuming the previous text was a reasonable representation of what it says about the ancestry of the communities of South Asian heritage, in which case the changed version probably isn't. Any additional thoughts on this would be welcome, particularly if anyone has access to the source. --188.28.144.140 (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)