Skip to main content

Talk:Milton Keynes

Talk:Milton Keynes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleMilton Keynes has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
May 6, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 12, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "one of the biggest concentrations of Bronze Age gold known from Britain" was found in archaeological investigations during the development of Milton Keynes?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 23, 2016, and January 23, 2021.
Current status: Good article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.

The 'Culture, Education, Media & Sport' tab should be split into separate tabs[edit]

In my opinion, the 'Culture, Education, Media & Sport' tab should be spilt into separate tabs as in my opinion it would make the article easier to follow. User:Xboxsponge15 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, just go ahead and change it Abcmaxx (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How? Each topic is too small in itself. The government uses "Culture, Media and Sport", with Education separate: would that do? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-jigged the sections a little bit, as there was quite a bit of duplication and some of the sections seemed to be a little odd, especially if you compare it to articles on other cities. There are still only 10 level 1 subheadings, which is not a lot considering the size of the article. I did not add or remove any information though. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional point, the fact that the government uses a certain phrase does not convince me, as the government does lots of unusual and illogical things which do not work well. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added up to date info on the radio stations Fishplater (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twinning / partner cities[edit]

Expanded the section, but the sources although reliable could be a lot better, if anyone knows where to find this information then please do not hesitate to add it. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if these belong at the Borough article? Otherwise we need to include the twins of the constituent towns, like Ploegsteert with Wolverton (if I remember correctly). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman As far as I found, these belong to the twinning of Milton Keynes itself. I think the German borough-equivalent of Bernkastel-Wittlich is twinned with the Borough of Milton Keynes, which is where Bernkastel-Kues is which is twinned with Milton Keynes. However, at this point though I'm happy to be corrected where necessary. Although as Milton Keynes expands, the distinction between borough and the city will be ever more blurred, I would argue that the cases of Newport Pagnell, Bletchley, Wolverton, already has blurred the divisions. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, accepted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to check the citations but how current are they? I remember researching the twin town issue a few years back and couldn't find any evidence of a current formal twinning arrangement with any other city. Almere was mentioned specifically as a 'partner' city with common interests but no more. The arrangement with Bernkastel had completely lapsed. If we are giving this list as current information then the citations need to be no more than a couple of years old, IMO. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I tried looking for sources which would even discuss twinning but could not find any, also tried to see whether any of them lapsed, also could not find any mention anywhere. It all seems very unstructured to be honest. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twinning was "a thing" last century. Very BI (Before Internet). So at best, this section is very minor history, but IMO it is just clutter. Given the work you've put in, I'm sorry but I have to vote for delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: I disagree, maybe so in the UK but in other parts of the world twinning is still a big part of cultural exchange and inter-city development. Rather than deleting outright, how about changing it to prose, better reflecting the reality? Abcmaxx (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work better: narrative would give it context whereas a list leaves too much to the imagination. My concern is really about any suggestion that these relationships are active or at least recognised by both sides (something on miltonkeynes.gov.uk, for example). The Bernkastel one has definitely lapsed and the Almere one never became formal. I know there is a lot of Chinese interest in MK, they are creating a lot of new cities (they don't get out of bed for less than a million). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman done as discussed, I tried to keep it coherent and true to the sources at the same time. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcmaxx: yes that is a big improvement. I edited it slightly because the word city just invites the trolls in. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Large" town[edit]

user:37.152.231.40 objects to the adjective "large" as in "large town" to describe MK. This style has been used in this article for many many years without comment. The same usage may be seen at Reading, Berkshire: Reading [...] is a large, historic market town in Berkshire, South East England.

Wikipedia is written for a worldwide readership. In most of the world, a settlement of well over 200,000 people would be called a city. City status in the United Kingdom explains why British usage differs. A "town" can be anything from few hundred individuals to hundred of thousands. WP:think of the reader rather than wiki-lawyering: a qualifier is essential. Do I really have to find a citation that says that MK is 'large'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this BBC report, MK is a "large town" by some margin, since the threshold set by the reliable source is 135,000.[1] So what makes a random Wikipedia editor's opinion more valid? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Large' does not define itself and as such should be avoided without some sort of qualifier. 'Reading is a large town compared to other settlements in the county' is fine, but 'Reading is a large town' is not. There are indeed places where anywhere above say 40k is a city, and a settlent above 2k is a large town - it is all relative. I think the IP has a valid point and I am surprised this has not been picked up before. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So would your concern be satisfied by providing a definition of "large", citing the BBC report? (In the case of this article, using the footnote [b] in the opening sentence that explains why the term "city" can't be used, despite local usage. The equivalent for Reading may need a bit more thought.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to avoid introducing disputable size descriptions into all settlement articles, except as part of an expanded discussion of the settlement's size, within the body of the article (i.e. it's not OK in the lead sentences of an article to just summarily describe a settlement as "large" or "small" or whatever). One person's "large" is another person's "average" and so on. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The lead should always avoid subjective judgments such as "large", "small", "affluent" – especially in the lead. The body of the article can address these by quoting actual population figures and or other suitable statistics such as "... the 10th town in England by population ..." — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this general principle but here we have a reliable source, the Centre for Cities, giving a clear definition of what "large" means. So, specifically and exclusively as framed by that definition, how is it 'disputable'? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you arguing that because a certain source defines the word "large" in a particular way, for their own particular purpose, then you can use that definition as if it is something factual? That is most certainly not the case. I very much agree with the arguments others have made for not using an unquantified relative adjective. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am arguing that the Centre for Cities, the nationally recognised centre of expertise on large settlements in the UK, is unarguably a reliable source; that it defines the term "large town" as one with a "population greater than 135,000"; that it describes Luton, Middlesbrough, MK, Northampton, Reading and others as "large towns" as measured that metric; and that here, as in everything else, we should follow the sources. In this context "large town" is not a relative term because the RS gives a precise definition of "large town". Provided the article cites that source and quotes its definition, it is an absolute term not a relative one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of the Centre for Cities, nobody recognises them as having any expertise on the meaning of the word "large", and they are not a reliable source on dictionary definitions. In the context of their own publication which defines the terms they use, "large town" has the meaning they give it. Here, it does not. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have never heard of the Centre for Cities, that says more about you than it does about them. I suggest you read the article. Their public reports about urban economies are widely cited. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They might be widely cited within the academic field of urban studies, but this is a general encyclopaedia. You cannot take a technical definition used in a publication by an obscure organisation and present it as some kind of generally accepted fact. That is ridiculous. I really don't get what your aim is in arguing this. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Centre for Cities is not a reliable secondary source - it is primary! I think so many of the disputes on WP arise from people misunderstanding, misquoting and generally misusing sourses. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I have very often seen people insisting that a particular word or phrase must be used, because a source uses it; and (as here) arguing that a subjective statement should be presented as if factual, because a source uses it. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source I cited was a secondary, the BBC.[1] But of course it will be argued that, since the BBC article was written by CforC staff, it doesn't count. I would have to go look for other secondaries but to be honest, I won't waste my time unless any new contributors to the discussion consider the game worth the candle.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ a b "Housing crisis: Where are the most new homes being built?". 25 February 2020.

Meanwhile[edit]

Recognising the emerging consensus, I have changed the article so that now it reads "the largest town in Buckinghamshire" (rather than "a large town in Buckinghamshire"). The revised edition is objectively true though rather more stolid. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worst page on the wiki ?[edit]

Basically starts with 'for MK see a completely different page' (For Milton Keynes, the original village, see Middleton, Milton Keynes)

Why can't we have a page entitle MK actually be about MK ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.1.35 (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are three places all called Milton Keynes. Many articles have this kind of redirection up front, it saves a lot of arguments. See for example Boston. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Milton Keynes is not Milton Keynes[edit]

I reverted an edit by DragonofBatley because it is at odds with reality. I appreciate that editors from elsewhere have difficulty getting their heads around the way that MK works. It is fully parished. It has six town councils as well as many parish councils: all are subsidiary to Milton Keynes Council. Central Milton Keynes is just the central business district: in accordance with the law, it declared itself to be a town. In a poly-centric settlement, it is first among equals but is a town centre, not the town centre. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the article is about MK, not CMK, which is a part of MK (and is not MK itself), regardless of political status, and thus that citation isn't useful at all anyway.
Secondly, yes the issue of what MK is has come up a lot, and (very reasonably) people don't understand all the nooks and crannies about MK that make it different from probably most other places in the UK. For one, there are only two political entities that can be called "Milton Keynes", that is the Borough of Milton Keynes, and the Milton Keynes (civil parish). Within the former lie seven areas (including Olney) with either a town council, town charter, or both (CMK does contain both). Those are the official "towns." The New Town designation order was just that, a designation order, whose area is more akin to an urban development area as opposed to an actual entity in and of itself (same could be argued for Telford). In reality, MK is (not) as much of a town, as it is (not) as much of a city. It is referred to either only as a matter of practicalities rather than technicalities. Anyway, the word "settlement" avoids this confusion, so I think its better to stay that way. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economy, finances and business[edit]

The Centre for Cities have redesigned their web page so that the raw economic data is less accessible. Fortunately, Archive.org has captured earlier versions so I will be working on this section over the next few days to put some dates on the statements and broaden the perspective. Advice here will be welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, those who questioned the statements in the article citing wp:NPOV and WP:OR should read those policy articles again. The only challenge that looks to me as having any basis is wp:SYNTH. But as a local editor, I suppose Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies so I won't pursue it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, these are the historic data

  • 2014 data, archived 14/11/15:
    • GVA per Worker (£) 2014 = 63,650.87 (4/62)
    • Patents granted (per 100,000 of population) 2014 = 8.49 (9/63)
    • Business Start-ups (per 10,000 population) 2014 = 75.42 (3/63)
    • Business Closures (per 10,000 population) 2014 = 46.49 (3/63)

  • 2017 data, archived 09/11/18
    • GVA per worker (£) 2017...72,980.72 (3/62)
    • Patent Applications (per 100,000 of population) 2017 = 16.2 (20/63)
    • Business Start-ups (per 10,000 population) 2017 = 78.69 (5/62)
    • Business Closures (per 10,000 population) 2017 = 68.78 (5/62)

  • Live version as of today, 8/2/22 (2020 data)
    • GVA per hour (£) 2020 = 43.9 (7/62) average 35.1
    • Patent Applications (per 100,000 of population) 2020 = 27.0 (11/63) average 17.8
    • Business Start-ups (per 10,000 population) 2020 = 66.4 (6/62) average 53.3
    • Business Closures (per 10,000 population) 2020 = 74.6 (?/62) average 47.2

The problem now is how best to summarise this data without being accused of POV and OR? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Updated to add 'league table' positions found on spray diagram. --11:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have inserted POV inferences from primary sourced material and POV language -- even "productive" is unsourced -- in this article. Perhaps you can propose text with references here and we can all workshop it. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the primary source is the ONS. The Centre for Cities is a secondary. And the current version (at least) says Productivity: GVA per hour (£). I'm afraid you will have to point out the POV wording, I'm not seeing it. [M R-D again!] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Successful economies" ? Not even sure what that might mean. It doesn't have its own isolated "economy" and economies do not have a purpose that can be graded for success. Etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the logic in that but struggle to think of a succinct way of saying essentially the same thing. "... performs significantly above national average on a range of economic indicators" is maybe more accurate but talk about deathly prose! Never call a spade a spade when you can call it a bi-pedal regolithic excavation implement. Suggestions, anyone?
Just to complicate things, having found where they've moved the 'league table' positions, I see that the 2020 data is not as 'significantly above average' as were 2014 and 2017. So maybe the lazy solution is to let readers draw their own conclusions but it still needs an intro sentence.
(BTW, lest I be accused next of cherry-picking, also on my to-do list is to add something about Skills and Educational Performance from the same C4C report. And public/private jobs ratio.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Bradwell Blitz - a myth?[edit]

I haven't been able to find any citations online for this event, but it may be in a book that someone has? If so, would they please update the New Bradwell article and/or leave a note at talk:New Bradwell#New Bradwell Blitz - a myth?. TYVM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milton_Keynes&oldid=1075984719"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Image
Obol (coin) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Unit of Ancient Greek Coinage For the modern Greek currency, see the Ionian obol ; for the British currency, see the halfpenny ; for the brachiopod genus, see Obolidae . Not to be confused with Obelus . Obols through history Six rod-shaped obols discovered at the Heraion of Argos (above) . Six obols forming one drachma . Silver obol of Athens, dated 515–510 BC. Obv. Gorgoneion Rev. Incuse square. Charon's obol . 5th–1st century BC. LUCANIA, Metapontion. c.  425 –350 BC. Æ 21 mm. An obol of the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius , 12  mm in diameter. A 19th-century obol from the British-occupied Ionian Islands . The obol ( Greek : ὀβολός , obolos , also ὀβελός ( obelós ), ὀβελλός ( obellós ), ὀδελός ( odelós ). lit.  "nail, metal spit"; [1] Latin : obolus ) was a form of ancient Greek currency and weight. Cont
Read more

Jacques Rancière

Image
Jacques Rancière From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from Jacques Ranciere ) Jump to navigation Jump to search French philosopher Jacques Rancière Born ( 1940-06-10 ) 10 June 1940 (age 81) Algiers , French Algeria (present-day Algiers, Algeria ) Nationality French Alma mater École Normale Supérieure Era 20th- / 21st-century philosophy Region Western philosophy School Continental philosophy Structural Marxism Institutions University of Paris VIII Main interests Political philosophy , aesthetics , philosophy of history , philosophy of education , cinema Notable ideas Theories of democracy, disagreement, the Visual, [1] "part of no part" [2] Influences Plato , Aristotle , Marx , Althusser , Foucault , Lacan , Lyotard , Badiou , Arendt , Lefort Influenced Laclau , Žižek , Critchley , Bernard Aspe , Kristin Ross , Todd May , Levi Bryant , Jodi Dean , Gabriel Rockhill Jacques Ra
Read more

2000–01 California electricity crisis

Image
2000–01 California electricity crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from California Energy crisis ) Jump to navigation Jump to search Chronology [1] [2] [3] 1996 California begins to modify controls on its energy market and takes measures ostensibly to increase competition. September 23, 1996 Pete Wilson signs Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890) and it becomes law. [4] April 1998 Spot market for energy begins operation. May 2000 Significant rise in energy prices. June 14, 2000 Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area during a heat wave . August 2000 San Diego Gas & Electric Company files a complaint alleging manipulation of the markets. January 17–18, 2001 Blackouts affect several hundred thousand customers. January 17, 2001 Governor Davis declares a state of emerge
Read more