Talk:West Country
Page contents not supported in other languages.
England Mid‑importance | |||||||
|
Bristol High‑importance | |||||||
|
"the further West the less Easterly one would consider part of the region"um. right. Jafafa Hots 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I snipped a lot of information out which may seem dramatic, but here are the reasons why:
1. The historical info is very interesting, but strictly speaking irrelevant to an article about the West Country, and certainly irrelevant to a section defining what counties the West Country includes. It should be in an article on Cornish history. The same applies to whether or not Cornish people consider themselves English. It assumes that to be part of the West Country is to be English. Cornwall is indubitably part of England, so I don't see how that works.
2. I found the wording of the paragraph hard to understand. It states that Cornwall (I assume its people) have a "distinct view", but it doesn't say what this view is. Also, what does "the exclusivity of what defines a West Country county" mean? I suspect (with no offence to the writer) that these are words for words sake.
I trust no one is offended by the change, and I apologise for any offense caused. 219.89.19.187 (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gloucestershire is in the Midlands. The guidelines are generally considered to be historical and modern cultural: Gloucestershire was never a core shire of the Kingdom of Wessex unlike the other counties (excluding Cornwall), and indeed the northern border of Wessex was generally held to be the River Thames and the Bristol Avon. Moreover, all but very southern Gloucestershire receives Midlands local broadcasting.
IMHO any talk of "Wessex" on here is a complete red herring...we are talking about a modern reality and not something that existed 1000+ years ago. It's a nice idea but to subscribe to the idea of any exact boundaries to something which by its very nature has for a millenium been amorphous borders on farce. I mean anyone in the rest of England knows what the West Country is and that has nothing to do with a "concept" which would include counties such as Oxfordshire or Berkshire.PS As a Gloucester person form a Goucester family I've never heard anyone seriously contend that the county is in the Midlands...whatever next Norfolk is in Yorkshire..well if we're going to talk rubbish we might as well extend it to the rest of the country... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.127.188 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gloucestershire is not in the midlands, it is in the South of England. Not only that, but it is very much a part of the West Country sub-region of Southern England.
Gloucestershire is in the South and in the West Country, is are Bristol and Bath. Denying these facts is nothing short of ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.33.158 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such county as Avon anymore. Cardinal Wurzel 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The area is mostly rural, with a few notable cities (principally Plymouth)"
Hmmm. What about Bristol, Exeter(Devon), Bournemouth/Poole(Dorset)?
It cannot be resricted to just cities as Truro, Plymouth and Exeter are the only cities in the westcountry. (for whichever fool listed bristol as within the westcountry go look at an atlas!!!!) --Greatestrowerever 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I look up this word recently, a dictionary says West Country is "west of a line between Southhampton and the River Severn". This is a common definition that should be in Wiki article, or not?
Gloucestershire is not in the west country, wiltshire is not in the westcountry, bristol and bath are not in the westcountry, whoever wrote this article is a fool. ----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 11:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted, as vandalism, changes made by Greatestrowerever. This user removed most of the content in the article relating to his/her dispute as set out in this section. Removing text, against the consensus of the other editors is vandalism, plain and simple - especially given this editors history of disruptive edits. --TimTay (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some controvercy over the term Weat Country? It appears to only include the South West of England and not the West Midlands or the North West. I am from the West Midlands (region) which is in the west of England and I prefer to use the term South West when I am just refering to the South West. Also I don't know where the term West Country comes from. So do the South Westerners think of themselves as better than other Westerners or what? (Tk420 (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'd certainly consider Herefordshire more West country than Midlands, culturally at least. The accent's the same, and there's also the strong link to cider. I've lived there most of my life and never felt any social tie with the Midlands. Depends how you define the West Country, really. Is it purely geographical, or cultural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.76.130 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone from Wiltshire or Gloustershire or Bristol says that they are from the Wes Country doesn't mean they are. I could just as easily claim that Cornwall is part of Wales, and get some companies to mention it on their products, and set up some websites about it, and even have some journalists refer to it as a region of Wales. This doesn't make it correct!The Westcountry is Devon, Cornwall and Western parts of Somerset and Dorset. Just because many inhabitants of bordering areas try to hop on the bandwagon doesn't mean they are. (And obviously there are going to be more sources from Bristol, Wiltshire etc.. as there are more people that live in these borderlands than there are in the West Country.)Ghmyrtle and TimTay both seem to have a vested interest in keeping references to these areas in this article - i would imagine that they are just these types of hangers on, probably from Bristol or Bournemouth, who want to try and make where they live seem more exciting by getting in with the West Country as opposed to not really coming from anywhere - a bit sad really. They also both strike me as the type of person who thinks that Colombo is the capital of Sri Lanka - just because some other people think it is - with out ever bothering to find out the truth! ----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 21:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What criteria is being applied for the inclusion of towns in the notable towns and cities section? I see, for example, that Lyme Regis which has a population under 5,000 is included, as is Tewkesbury with a population of around 10,000. Can we agree on some clear criteria then review the list to ensure the right settlements are included?
I also suggest the section should be renamed to "Notable settlements"
Opinions? --Simple Bob (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So here's my suggestions:
The advantage of using the latter is that it does not let the list length get out of control and it also ensures that principal settlements in more sparsely populated counties get featured. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the database above, I applied the rules I suggested to come up with the following list. To be honest I'm quite impressed - it doesn't seem to give any particular glaring errors to me. Note: I have included unitary areas within their respective ceremonial counties. I have also used Bristol in the strict city definition leaving its urban area (most notably South Gloucestershire) within their respective ceremonial counties. An asterisk means it is a city or county town (show for clarity, I'm not suggesting it should go into the final version.
What do you think? To me it is certainly better than the one that is in the article at the moment. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bournemouth and Poole are not West Country towns. They are far removed from the actual West Country, both geographically and culturally. Their inclusion in Dorset is not synonymous with inclusion in the West Country - they have only been part of Dorset since the 80's, so it would be foolish to suggest that they are suddenly part of an informal region that is primarily defined by its cultural aspects rather than any real border.
As the article itself states, the border for the West Country is not defined and is in fact open to debate. I have seen no good evidence to suggest that Bournemouth and Poole is part of the West Country, so I have taken it upon myself to remove them from the "notable towns" section. I hope that the editors here are reasonable and do not revert this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is deeply flawed, Simple Bob. I can assure you that the vast majority of people from these two towns, as well as the vast majority of British citizens in general, would contest your opinion that they are part of the West Country.
Again, the West Country's boundary IS NOT set in stone, and it CERTAINLY isn't defined by the source of cheese ingredients (for the record, food with the label "British meat" is partially imported from Europe, I suppose that might qualify the continent for inclusion in the UK by your logic?). Dorset may be regarded as part of the West Country, but that does not mean ALL of Dorset is part of this undefined region. You have to realise that, as the boundary is known by all to be undefined, any manufacturer that attempts to use entirely West Country-sourced ingredients and materials for its goods has to be lenient on what is and what is not part of the West Country, as the only way they could completely ensure that they are not using non-West Country ingredients would to be exclude the counties on the periphery. If there aren't any proveable boundaries they have to use a catch-all criteria for what is and what is not viable, so the inclusion of all of Dorset cannot mean anything.
On to my next point. In Bournemouth's case, it is utterly vital to remember that this town has only been part of Dorset for a few years, and its changeover from Hampshire to Dorset is convenience-based and arbitrary at best. Are you honestly telling me that a town that has been a non-West Country town by any standards for several hundred years, is suddenly included in a region without ANY borders whatsoever because it swapped counties a few years back? Nonsense. Dorset itself is not the boundary of the West Country, there is no boundary, so to use it as such for this article is erroneous.
I will repeat myself - the boundaries of the West County are non-existent in any real sense and is wholly opinion-based, the region is totally informal and the West Country is at best defined by its culture - not an ounce of which is present in either of the towns I am contesting. and the There is no border for this region any town on the peripheries can be legitimately contested, especially if they bear no resemblence whatsoever to the rest of the region and do not recognise themselves as such. In fact, Bournemouth and Poole could not be more different to rural Dorset, including accents, architecture and even drink of choice. I fail to see how such vastly different places could be called one and the same, especially seen as they are not officially or legally recognised as such.
Bournemouth and Poole are not part of the West Country, they are not considered as such by any reliable source (tenuous inclusion as a potential source for cheese ingredients hardly counts) and so I have corrected your error on the article. Please do not change this back, for I am not willing to waver in my decision, and should this go to ANI I'm sure your undefined, unsourced and opinion-based argument will go down nicely.
Ghmyrtle, I whole-heartedly agree that these sections should not be included. If the inclusion of any information is wholly opinion-based then it has no part in this article. I would be happy with such a reasonable outcome and I support your proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very few definitions include Poole, and I have seen none that include Bournemouth and Christchurch. None that hold any water anyway - the only reason Bournemouth is believed (incorrectly) by some to be part of the West Country is that it has recently been moved into Dorset. However, as the West Country's border is totally undefined, and because Dorset was only seen by some as a possible boundary BEFORE Bournemouth became part of Dorset, Dorset's border cannot possibly be considered one and the same with the West Country's, by ANY stretch of the imagination. After all, this entire region has no real definition whatsoever, it has NO solid boundaries, and the term "West Country" only exists due to the cultural differences between this region and the rest of England. Therefore, a town that has NOT been a part of the West Country for centuries cannot suddenly become a part of a culturally distinct and non-political region because it changed hands between counties. Remember now, the West County isn't a POLITICAL region, it is a CULTURAL one - Bournemouth may have changed counties but its culture remains the same, and it is this culture that had prevented Bournemouth from being included in just about any definition the West County prior to it switching counties. So I ask you, how could an arbitrary border change for a county possibly qualify this town for inclusion in a distinctly different cultural region?
Poole is not part of the West Country for this very reason. It is culturally distinct, and as the West Country is not a political region and there is no legal definition for it, it is therefore a cultural region. I strongly suggest you look up the definition for "cultural region", there's an article about it right here on wikipedia in fact - cultural regions are defined by their culture alone, NOT by any legal borders, and these legal borders are often found to bear little resemblance to what is and what is not deemed a part of said cultural regions. This is the same for countless examples all over the world, and even elsewhere in England (for example, the South/the North/the Midlands are ALL undefined, non-political cultural regions and are not bound by county borders). Considering that there isn't an ounce of West Country in the entire Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch connurbation, it's fair to say that they are not part of it.
As for views on what makes the West Country, views certainly DO carry weight here as this is an undefined cultural region. We have nothing but viewpoints for constructing any form of definition, so views certainly do carry weight.But as I said, there's nothing distinctly "West Country" about this connurbation. Needless to say, the Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch area isn't the typical rural farm/village/market town/ so synonymous with the image of the West Country, nor has it ever been related to typical West Country trades such as fishing, but it in fact bears little resemblance to the major cities of the region. The architecture is strikingly different from similarly-sized settlements such as Exeter, there are no pastries being made or sold within the towns, there is no fondness for clotted cream and there is no adoration of cider - there's not a single brewery in any of the three towns, nor even one pub selling West Country scrumpy to my dismay. These towns are so far removed in fact, that people are often surprised that Dorset has its own accent - it's practically unheard of, and instead the populace sounds just like the rest of southern England. There's not even the slightest hint of the distinctive West Country twang anywhere in the three towns; the accent instead bears a much closer resemblance to the people of London. There's even a coach service in Poole which advertises that it goes TO the West Country, and that alone says alot.
As for threatening to take it to ANI, it's fair enough to do that as I'd like to get this over quickly. In addition, consensus is no substitute for sources - in an article that cannot be sourced and one that is based on opinion, any argument pushing something that is nothing short of POV is destined for failure, and so the content shall be removed. That is what I am proposing, and that seems to be the conclusion we've all reached.
As for "my decision", I meant that I have decided to continue to revert this article until it is as impartial and unopinionated as it needs to be. I do not have total control obviously, but I have made the choice to put my efforts into relentless debating to ensure that this article about an undefined cultural region becomes as neutral as possible. That is what I was referring to, not control of the article.
I don't think there's much left to discuss here really - as we've all agreed to omit an exhaustive list of towns from the article, the status of Bournemouth et al is now a moot point, so hopefully we can now all move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already soundly deflated your arguments for the inclusion of Bournemouth in this article over a year ago, Simple Bob - please do not use a new account to continue to insert unfounded claims upon this page. It has already been made very clear why Bournemouth is not a part of the West Country, and your continued insistence upon its erroneous inclusion highlights your bias. Ignoring this discussion whilst introducing an unfounded claim which goes against a clear consensus is disruptive POV-pushing, and overall bad practice.
You have already been told to stop, and I am telling you again. Bournemouth is not a part of the West Country as per the reasons raised in this discussion and a clear consensus has been reached, and so there is no grounds for its inclusion.
I urge you to reconsider your position; I do not want to tell you a third time. 82.26.33.158 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In no sense is that a threat. I am merely stating that I do not want to have to chastise you for your disruptive actions yet again.
Could you please read the discussion again - a consensus was most certainly reached. Not only that, but I only have to continue to point out the fact that Bournemouth is not a part of the West Country simply because you continue to push your point of view upon the article by making highly disruptive edits.
The consensus is in this discussion. Not only that, but valid reasons have already been made which clearly show that Bournemouth is not a part of the West Country in any way, shape or form. Please take the time to read the discussion carefully before you continue instigating an edit war. 82.26.33.158 (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, "wtf" yourself. It is hard enough to believe that someone is genuinely trying to include Bournemouth in an article about the West Country, but it beggars belief that you continue to POV-push when we have already personally discussed this and come to a conclusion on the matter over a year ago.
I have already explained the situation to you clearly, so why am I suddenly having to do this again? 82.26.33.158 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your attempt to be neutral by prefacing Bournemouth's inclusion with "various definitions", but the fact of that matter is that no definition includes Bournemouth. Not one. If it is to be included, you must come up with a reliable source, because as it stands the phrase "various definitions" refers to your personal, subjective, and incorrect definition of what constitutes the West Country.
Simply using sources which say "Dorset" does not hold any water either. The boundary of the West Country is taken to be the historic county of Dorset, not its arbitrarily-changed state. Bournemouth trading counties between Hampshire and Dorset - a political change - does not warrant its inclusion in a cultural region, and thus, due to its centuries of history of not being part of the cultural West Country region, it cannot simply become a part of such a region by a very recent and entirely arbitrary political change. Therefore, sources which cite Dorset as being part of the West Country cannot be used to justify Bournemouth's inclusion in any way, as political decisions do not influence cultural regions. Such sources can only be taken to refer to the historic county of Dorset, not the entirety of its current state, and either way are utterly useless in backing up your claim as they are wholly open to interpretation. After all, who is to say that saying "Dorset is in the West County" includes the non-historic regions of Dorset set apart from the West Country both historically and by culture? The boundaries of the West Country were taken to be around the historic border of Dorset, and so any sources claiming Dorset as part of the West Country can only be said to confirm that its borders extend into Dorset, not that it incorporates the entirety of it. So, while you say that some definitions include the Bournemouth in the West Country by citing Dorset-relating sources, I am pointing out that - for the valid reasons stated above - these sources cannot be said to include Bournemouth in the West Country unless otherwise stated. Therefore, if your claim that "various definitions include Bournemouth in the West Country" relies solely upon mentions of Dorset, Bournemouth cannot be said to be part of the West Country as such definitions cannot be said to include Bournemouth (and could only be used to do so via your own subjective interpretation, which can be outright ignored). Therefore, if this is the only argument you can muster to defend your view, Bournemouth is fated to be removed.
If Bournemouth is to be included in this article, then it is imperative we find a reliable source that directly states it as being part of the West Country. The rules of Wikipedia state that any controversial, debatable and/or subjective information (all of which apply to Bournemouth's inclusion here) MUST be reliably sourced to warrant its inclusion, or else it is to be removed. As it stands, there is no evidence whatsoever that Bournemouth is a part of the West Country by any definition other than your own, and any and all use of sources relying on Dorset's status as part of the West Country cannot be used as they are completely open to subjective interpretation, and are thus useless in this discussion.
And no, I must not prove that no sources contain Bournemouth, that is nothing short of nonsensical. It is impossible to prove a negative, and with that logic I could say that you must prove that there are no sources stating that Shakespeare was Norwegian before removing a statement on his article claiming that he might be Norwegian "under various definitions". Please consider the general rule of thumb known as "innocent till proven guilty", which is essentially the groundwork for all logic, morality and law as we know it. Just as I cannot be said to be an especially verbose kangaroo until you can prove it is so, we cannot say that Bournemouth is part of the West Country until we can conclusively prove that it is (and for reasons already mentioned, your subjective interpretations of Dorset-related sources are not enough).
Instead, if a claim is contentious and its veracity in question (which yours is), you must provide a reliable source to back it up, or else the information is to be removed as per the rules of wikipedia. Please check the rules if you do not believe me - a debatable and unverified statement must be proven via a reliable source to be included in an article. No-one must ever prove a negative in order to remove content, or else we could write whatever we wanted and no-one would be able to do a thing about it.
No, I do not have an exact definition of the boundary of the West Country, nor do I need one by any stretch of the imagination. The boundary of the Midlands is also wholly undefined, but I can state with authority that London is not within its borders. Likewise, while I cannot pinpoint the exact blade of grass at which the West Country ends, I can clearly state that Exeter is within its boundaries and Bournemouth is not. After all, Bournemouth has not been included under any definition of the West Country for centuries, so how can a recent political change redefine its cultural standing? It cannot, simply put, and unless you can show me a source stating that its culture has changed significantly enough for it to be considered a part of the West Country region, it cannot be included under any terms.
And no, I do not have a single definition in mind. I am aware that there are many, however I am pointing out the fact that there are no definitions including Bournemouth in the West Country any more than there are for Southampton. If some definitions include Bournemouth, then show me them - and once again, sources claiming Dorset cannot be used as the historic county of Dorset is what has been used as the boundary of the West Country, not the parts that used to be in Hampshire, and any sources referring to Dorset cannot be said to include all of Dorset in its current modern form unless explicitly stated. Any and all attempts to use sources referring to Dorset being in the West Country to back up your claim are unjustifiable as this is based solely upon your personal interpretation of the sources. A source stating "Dorset is in the West Country" does not automatically mean the parts that used to be in Hampshire; the historic county of Dorset is taken to be the border (and is by far the closest we are going to get to a distinct boundary of the West Country) and due to arbitrary political changes not supervening upon historic cultural boundaries, any attempts to use such sources to back up your claim cannot be used as per the rules of Wikipedia. You must - and I repeat must - find a reliable source explicitly stating that Bournemouth itself is part of the West Country or else its inclusion in this article is unsourced and unverifiable, meaning we would have to remove it unless a source can be found. If we can simply included unverified and subjective claims without sources, however, then I can quite happily include Portsmouth and claim that some definitions claim it is part of the West Country without any need to source this claim. I could also say that in "various definitions", the West Country doesn't even exist - shall we include that too?
Furthermore, claims based on Dorset being part of the West Country can still be easily contested. The West Country is a cultural region, not a political one, and its inclusion is based solely upon culture as opposed to which town belongs to what county. The historical county of Dorset most certainly do reside in this region, but that which historically belonged in Hampshire - namely Bournemouth and the surrounding regions - was not a part of the West Country in any way, shape or form. It may have changed counties, yes, but this is a political change, not a cultural one, and thus such a change does not warrant automatic inclusion in a cultural region unless otherwise stated. Therefore, even if you set aside the fact that you are using such sources based on your personal subjective interpretation of them (and that alone deflates your present argument), then I can quite rightly point out that such sources are too unreliable for use as they have failed to take into account what defines the boundaries of a cultural region (i.e. not political boundaries). So again, you must include a source that directly and clearly supports your view (as opposed to the indirect, subjective and unreliable ones you are currently using) or withdraw your claim.
As it stands, Bournemouth's inclusion is still utterly unjustifiable. Once again, you must provide a reliable source explicitly stating Bournemouth's status as a West Country town, or concede that it is not a part of the West Country and accept the consensus achieved. I have explained why it does not deserve to be included in this article many times now; please do not make me explain this to you again. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now look. That list of significant towns and cities is not exhaustive, and for a good reason - it is impossible to create an exhaustive list for a region that has a blurred boundary, and as we all already agreed over a year ago, attempting to create such a thing would be highly problematic and very contentious. Therefore, the list only mentions some - but not all - notable examples. After all, where's Bath? Where's Dorchester? Where's Weymouth, or Newquay or Truro? They're not there, because they do not need to be. Bournemouth's inclusion is no more necessary than theirs, as the list only mentions some examples and excludes many notable ones.
So, what point is there entering into a discussion that will go on for months (and return annually, it seems) when there is absolutely no need to include Bournemouth either way? We are looking at having a very deconstructive and immensely lengthy dispute over something that either has no business being in the article, or whose inclusion isn't required anyway. As a rule, articles with intense arguments and edit wars raging are of inferior quality than those without such things, and it is very difficult to constructively improve an article when those who edit them refuse to co-operate. This is all very unnecessary over a single word you cannot even prove has a place in the article.
So, I make an appeal to reason. There is currently no evidence that Bournemouth is a part of the West Country by any definition; it is an unverified, debatable, contentious and unsourced claim (and thus its unsourced inclusion goes against the rules of wikipedia); its inclusion is going to cause no end of arguments, and risks causing major problems for the article as a whole; and even if it were in the West Country (which as yet has not been successfully argued for or sourced), it does not need to be included in the article due to the list being required to be non-exhaustive. All in all, I think it's fair to say that it is best if it were removed, and I'm sure that any impartial parties reading this would agree.
Now, if you can find a reliable source explicitly stating that Bournemouth is in the West Country, then it can be included. However, if you cannot find any sources other than ones that only back up your claim under certain interpretations (i.e. sources referring to Dorset that are most likely referring to the historic boundary of Dorset, and cannot be shown to be stating otherwise), then for the sake of neutrality we should remove the mention of Bournemouth from the article.
I hope that you can see reason. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you agree; I have always thought that a list of this nature is unnecessary, especially as it cannot be exhaustive due to the nature of cultural regions having blurred boundaries. I would agree with any decision involving the removal of specific mentions to specific towns, and will help in finding a more reliably-sourced map, preferably one showing a historical, traditional and more generally accepted outline of the West Country.
I do apologise for being irritating, but considering we've done this before I felt it best not to hold back in my push for reestablishing consensus. Besides, Bob Re-born's attitudes thus far have been considerably worse.
As for the admin fully protecting the article, this was, in all fairness, actually due to Bob Re-born's actions. Looking at the logs, RFP request and talk page discussions, it seems that article was originally partially protected to prevent the likes of me from making further edits (I had just reached the 3RR limit) with the intention of directing all parties to the talk page while still allowing some users to edit. I attempted to re-instigate the debate here, but not only did Bob Re-born ignore the discussion and the consensus, he outright blanked the messages I left on his talk page, along with blanking messages from another user with regards to Bristol's status in the West Country (something which should also probably be removed from the article, yet the messages of this user had also been ignored and it seems Bob Re-born continued with his edit war instead). Worse still, Bob continued to make edits relevant to the dispute in question, which is nothing short of abuse of the partial lock. His actions were brought to the attention of the admin by another user, and as the lock was intended to inspire discussion (which had failed due to Bob obstinately ignoring all attempts at discussion), it seems he was forced to initiate a full lock.
To be honest you can thank Bob for having a lock in the first place - I repeatedly informed him of the discussion we had had here and reminded him of the established consensus, yet instead of openly discussing it he rashly requested a lock without even bothering to warn me. Not only that, but you can thank Bob for having this dispute in the first place - not only was he the one pushing his own unsourced point of view upon the article over a year ago but he has been doing the exact same thing this time around, all the while ignoring the consensus that he himself helped establish. This could have been much easier without things like that.
Anyway, I am glad that you agree we should remove the list of towns. Hopefully we can establish a consensus soon, and if so, I'll be sure to implement the change once the lock ends. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I aggree with VoiceOfReason922 and i'd also be in favour of removing any references to Gloucestershire as they are not backed up by the majorty of the citations in the area boundries section. (Nor are Bristol and Bath really but that is a disscussion for another day) --95.180.16.79 (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great news. I would also agree that the inclusion of Gloucestershire and Bristol is pretty nonsensical, and Bath's inclusion is also highly contentious seen as the main reasoning for its inclusion seems to be that it is located in Somerset (which, as I've demonstrated, isn't grounds for inclusion at all). Perhaps once this is finished we can begin discussion on whether or not to remove these from the article as well.
So, with 3 users agreeing to remove Bournemouth and the list containing it from the article, and with Bob Re-Born yet to cast his vote, we have re-established the consensus agreed upon last year. Come December the 6th, I shall be removing Bournemouth and the list of towns from the article - and should Bob Re-born continue his vandalism (or should anyone instigate another edit war, for that matter), I shall waste no time in reporting the issue on ANI.
I don't think there's much left to discuss here really - we've all agreed to omit the list of towns from the article, so hopefully we can now all move on. Remember to do that this time now bob. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new consensus - as well as the old consensus clearly established last year in April - has now been enforced. Bournemouth has been rightfully removed, along with the unnecessary list of towns and cities (including Bristol). The article is now thankfully free of vandalism and subjective interpretations, returning this page to the neutrality established by the previous consensus.
I strongly recommend that simple bob/bob re-born does not continue to wage his edit war here. Consensus has clearly been established, just as before, and so any further attempts to vandalise the page by introducing Bournemouth or ignoring consensus again shall result in the guilty user being reported to ANI.
I hope we do not have to go through this for a third time. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact they don't have a clue. Imagine having Bristol as part of the Westcountry!!!! It is laughable. Next they will be arguing that Newcastle is in scotland or that Brussells is in France--Westcountry4ever (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it and the map is not in keeping with the article. The article says that the westcountry is Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset while SOME people regard it to be a wider area. The map should reflect this by having the westcountry proper in one colour and the borderlands in another shade. At the minute a casual observer could just click on the page and see the map and assume that everywhere in it is part of the westcountry. P.S Gloucester and Swindon - you are having a giraffe!--Westcountry4ever (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The long-established wording of the opening paragraph was as follows:
The West Country is an informal term for the area of south western England roughly corresponding to the modern South West England government region. It is often defined to encompass the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, and the City and County of Bristol, while the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire are also often included. Some usages of the term include wider areas, while others are more specific, though with little consistency of definition.
This was changed here by Zacwill16 to:
The West Country is an area of south western England, roughly comprising the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, as well as Gloucestershire and Wiltshire in some definitions.
... and through subsequent discussions and edits to:
The West Country is a loosely defined area of south western England, roughly comprising the counties of Bristol, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, as well as Gloucestershire and Wiltshire in many definitions.
But, that wording is inadequate, and the alternative wording now in place is this:
The West Country is a loosely defined area of south western England that roughly corresponds to the modern South West England government region. It is often defined to encompass the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, and the City and County of Bristol, while the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, and the Isles of Scilly, are also often included. Some usages of the term include wider areas, while others are more specific, though with little consistency of definition.
The point at issue is not to do with the historic counties (though they are important) - it is to do with the need to emphasise that there is no consistent definition, and indeed that different organisations use conflicting definitions. Attempting to shorten the opening paragraphs in the way that Zacwill16 suggests would give insufficient weight to the need to emphasise the variation in definitions. More important than those considerations is the need for the edit-warring parties to come to this page to discuss the matter, rather than attempting to win the argument through edit summaries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article must remain as it is. The article explains exactly what needs to be explained in as concise a manner as possible; in no way shape or form is it "overly stressing" anything, and any edits to the current status quo are nothing more than mistakes. Edits such as yours clearly indicate a bizarre pro-West Country POV - you are far too eager to claim large swathes of the southwest as inarguably part of the West Country, and my editing shows a clear dedication to neutrality and reason. As said before, everything in the article is required or else we are underplaying a point that it is vital to make, and removing this is an unacceptable error. It is not treating anyone as an idiot - removal of it would inevitably lead readers to come to a false conclusion, irrespective of their level of intelligence, because your edits fail to inform them of all the facts. Notice how other articles, such as the Highlands, don't have issues such as the differences between current and historic county boundaries to contend with - as for making the point "half a dozen times", it is mentioning it exactly as many times as is necessary and in exactly the right way. Nothing is dead weight - removal of anything is bad grammar at best, and completely omits key facts and misleads readers at worst.
As said before, the Highlands don't have issues such as the differences between current and historic county boundaries to contend with, so in the case of the West Country we must go a step further. As for the other mentions of inconsistent boundary definitions, I'm afraid to say that articles failing to deal with the issue in the manner that we have done here have made an error, and cannot be held up as good examples.
For the record, you aren't making a good case for repetition of a point being needless considering that we've explained this to you a dozen times yet you still insist on POV-pushing. I'll spend a lifetime explaining it to you if you want, but either way, the article will stay as it is. 82.26.33.158 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The West Country is a loosely defined area of south western England, often defined to encompass the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, and the City and County of Bristol, while the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, and the Isles of Scilly, are also often included. Some usages of the term include wider areas, while others are more specific, though with little consistency of definition.
PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]The West Country is a loosely defined area of south western England, often defined to encompass the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, and the City and County of Bristol, while the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, and the Isles of Scilly, are also often included.
The edits are acceptable, with the exception of the omission of the term "historic county" - as previously made abundantly clear, the term is in no way redundant as the historic and modern county boundaries are different in this case. Removal of this term is highly misleading and is therefore unacceptable, and so it shall be re-inserted as per the discussion, which you have once again failed to address.
Furthermore, there were not three people in agreement when you removed the term "historic". In fact, there were three of us in agreement to KEEP it, so your edit is a clear example of POV-pushing. You also summarise your edits as "per talk" when you outright ignore valid points raised in the discussion in addition to ignoring the clear consensus of three users.
Deceitfulness is not a trait of a good editor. I would strongly recommend you improve your conduct before you continue to edit wikipedia. (This is the previous IP user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.189 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a user's behaviour is problematic and preventing reasonable discussion, it is right to point that out. Nothing ridiculous about that, quite the opposite actually.
And I strongly recommend that people remember that POV-pushing and deceitfulness is significantly worse than addressing problematic editing, especially when previous, more restrained attempts have failed to have any impact. Such things cannot go unsaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.189 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, when I have had to deal with zacwill's repeated bad behaviour, I reserve the right to take moral high ground. I deserve your support, not your criticism. 213.205.194.189 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I suggest you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia protocols. Issues can be addressed before taking them to ANI - if not, what on earth do you think you are doing attempting to lecture me? With regards to edit-warring, I have been maintaining a long-established consensus from edits that outright ignored it, as well as being demonstratively POV-pushing. I would be quite safe on that front, whereas zacwill would not be so lucky due edit-warring against users maintaining the consensus-supported status quo without bothering to take things to the talk page as he should have done. As for personal attacks, care to point them out? I have pointed out bad conduct and poor editing practices, not personal flaws, and I am well within the rules to do, especially considering that I have explained their validity quite clearly. No weakening of any claims I might make there. zacwill, once again, would struggle due to his initial suggestion that my edits were influenced by personal tragedies, and your ironic suggestion that I "cut out the holier-than-thou" might not be received too kindly either - and even if it is, mine shall not fare any worse considering we're doing the exact same thing in the exact same manner.
My edits will continue to be appropriate to the situation and within the rules. I suggest you moderate your own comments lest someone start to think you're falling prey to your own criticisms. 86.13.104.229 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have clearly demonstrated that another user has been deceitful and is POV-pushing. This is merely highlighting bad editing practices, not attacking the character of an individual. I also never used the word "arrogant" or anything like it, that is merely something that you have wrongly assumed. Of course I will disagree, as these are clearly not personal attacks. And I am glad that this shall not be continued.
Also, just in case anyone is confused, as previously stated I am IP user 213.205.194.189. 86.13.104.229 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And if you actually bothered to read the 3RR page, you would see that my edits fall under the exemptions, namely reverting obvious vandalism - we have established consensus for a third time, so reverting breaches of this by a previously-disruptive editor passes as an exemption. Once again, it's time for you to stop being disruptive. 86.13.104.229 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I've only reverted 3 times in total anyway, which is clearly not in breach of the 3RR even if I wasn't already covered by the exemption. You really aren't any good at this. 86.13.104.229 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really denying that repeatedly breaching well-established consensus is obvious vandalism? You have completely and utterly failed to explained your reason as you have not even addressed the reasoning for including it in the first place, merely arrogantly ignoring it. Even if you have gained his approval - unlikely considering he has agreed with me for about 4 years and in 2 other similar situations on this very topic - it would still be a 2:2 split, meaning we revert to the previous consensus which concluded with the inclusion of the word "historic". You have already stooped to far greater levels, that of deceitfulness, arrogance, bullying tactics, POV-pushing and a refusal to properly discuss the topic. You have continuously ignored consensus from the get-go, making you nothing more than a disruptive vandal, and I have merely upheld consensus. It is not arrogant to state that the article shall remain as is - there is no good reason for its removal, and the fact that you continue to fail to address the facts behind its inclusion suggests that you know this already. 213.205.194.49 (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?
The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.
The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.
Work on any of the items at:
or other articles relating to the area.
There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:
To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 15:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle: I have removed the pictures. The previous version was almost entirely unreferenced, and I had corrected that. Please do not abuse roll-back. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use rollback. I reverted you, which is not the same thing. Please do not accuse other editors of things they have not done. It is quite wrong to use a map of the recognised South West region to illustrate this article - unless you explain more clearly how it relates to the article. The West Country does not necessarily relate to the South West region - it is a term that means different things to different people and organisations, and the article discusses that. It would be misleading, and quite wrong, to attempt to define the West Country in this article as a geographical area - although some would regard it as broadly equating to the SW region, others would most definitely not, and you may want to take a look at the often heated previous discussions on that point. For the same reason, it is misleading to include pictures of places that may, or may not, be of places that some people regard as being within the West Country. The most notable feature of the term "West Country" is the imprecision of its definition, and the article should continue to reflect that. You are quite correct that the article, and its referencing, need to be improved, and I am happy to help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved per WP:PRESERVE:
The West Country is mostly rural, with only a few sizeable towns and cities. Tourism and agriculture, especially dairy farming, play a significant role in the economy. The landscape is principally granite moorland in the west, and chalk and limestone downland and clay vales in the east. Historically, tin mining and the fishery were sources of income and employment in the west of the area, but less so today, although the latter still contributes to the economy. The region is traditionally famous for its production of cider, clotted cream, and pasties, and in modern times has also become well known for the Glastonbury Festival and other attractions.
L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it can be included, as the references are available. if i have time i may do this, as it is a valid section for a fairly short article.A Guy into Books (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Herefordshire and Worcestershire are West Country. There is a West Country culture there, and this is the area that the West Country accent really begins. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is as follows:
The West Country is a loosely defined area of south-western England. The term usually encompasses the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, and often the counties of Bristol, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, in the South West region. The region is host to distinctive regional dialects and accents.... Apart from the Bristol Channel and English Channel, the West Country's boundaries are not precisely defined and as a consequence there are a number of different definitions used. Some definitions are roughly synonymous with the administrative South West Region, while others use it more specifically to refer to just the southwestern part.
I think that's fine, but if it is to be amended slightly it could say:
The West Country is a loosely defined area of south-western Britain. The term usually encompasses the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, and often the counties of Bristol, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, in the South West region of England; other areas are sometimes included. The region is host to distinctive regional dialects and accents.... Apart from the Bristol Channel and English Channel, the West Country's boundaries are not precisely defined and as a consequence there are a number of different definitions used. Some definitions are roughly synonymous with the administrative South West Region, while others use it in a wider sense, or more specifically to refer to just the southwestern part.
The change from "south-western England" to "south-western Britain" is in line with the cited source, and can be taken to refer to a wider area (as Britain is larger than England). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this change as it is an entirely unnecessary duplication of elements of the section that immediately follows it. Of course there are different definitions of the "West Country", and the text explains some of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources seem to use the term "West Country trading ketch" to refer to a particular type of boat - but, I have not yet managed to find a specific definition anywhere. If one can be found, it should be added to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirects West England and Western England has thus listed them for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#West England until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous editor has taken the time to actively edit this article to change "counties" to "historic counties" multiple times, and I've only now seen that this is perhaps related to the discussion "Edit warring over opening paragraph", where this came up but seems to have been lost amongst other discussion about the wording of the introduction. From their edit summary, this user's argument appears to be that "there's nothing to say that you can't define it as being specifically the historic counties". But this is not an argument for going out of our way to include it in the introduction to the article. There is equally nothing to say that it can't be defined as ceremonial counties, or non-metropolitan counties -- that's the nature of it being a "loosely defined region". People have different definitions of it. And that is adequately covered by the word "counties" -- the ambiguity of the term being perfectly fitting for an ambiguous region. Inserting the word "historic" is inappropriately specific, implying that other meanings of "county" don't apply, when they might.
The anonymous user has now hit the 3 revert rule, so I am going to hold off implementing this for the moment, but I am inviting them, and anybody else, to make the case here for why they think it is appropriate to limit the definition of the West Country to one specific definition of counties -- and more importantly, to provide a credible source (not one that simply copypasted the text from this article) that the West Country is typically defined by historic counties vs any other definition of counties. Joe D (t) 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What if we said something like:
I think including "parts of" could enhance the accuracy and clarity of the paragraph. Without "parts of", the wording perhaps implies that definitions always include a discrete set of counties. But I know in my head when I think of "West Country" it only really includes a bit of Wiltshire, fading out somewhere around the the western slope of Salisbury Plain. Other people in the discussions have claimed that Poole is not West Country but other bits of Dorset are. And in the "specific uses" section of the article, many of the definitions include "parts of" counties. This wording would surely also render any discussion over historical counties redundant? Joe D (t) 22:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]