Talk:Goole

Centreport

I know it's not just me who thinks this is getting a bit trivial now. The whole idea about wikipedia is having no point of view, i.e. not a soapbox. This is why me (and a couple of others) are attempting to preserve the integrity of this resource. This isn't our site, it's everybody's. TomiG 10:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with factually correct data, then it would have been more in keeping with the wiki if you had contacted the author before removing their input.

As long as there is a reference to centreport which is inaccurate, there will be a correction to that information. Please ensure that you have the correct facts before posting.

BTW the entry we made is not an opinion it is the actual verifiable facts of the situation substantiated by reference to the relevant government bodies and photographic evidence.

If you don't like to hear the truth then do not post articles that are factually incorrect.

There's nothing wrong (really) about what you're saying. As ever, it's not what you say, but how you say it. The reason we (read: I) reckon it's too biased are because:

• What's basically being written is completely against the council's decision, there is no other point of view on the issue. It could be re-written to say something along the lines of: "...despite opposition from local residents, such as allegations that... etc etc"

• The external links have been changed, again erasing the counter-argument. This could be seen as spamming as you're changing links to (what I assume is) your own website. External links are there for information, users can then view both sides of the argument and make their own judgement.

Also – and this isn't meant to sound as it is written – you've deleted the original discussion and haven't signed with the four tildes (~~~~). TomiG 19:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Here from the RfC, tried to do a 3rd party NPOVing on the text (I assume the contentious bit). I'm partly curious why the local dispute is here - most towns (including citizens who are part of disputes) seem to want to keep their dirty laundry out of Wiki. I'm not certain that external links for either side would really be beneficial - this is Wikipedia & that sort of stuff would be more appropriate IMHO on Wikinews. OTOH, if you're gonna have one side, and the other side is a significant minority view, then it deserves it's link as well.Bridesmill 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Folks, making th elinks look like that & flopping them about looks peurile & does zero to represent Goole as having anything living there that you'd want to visit - more like 'let's stay the heck away from here' - remember the purpose of WP - & that is not to publicize the petty politics of every ville in the world - just what audience are you trying to raise this issue to???Bridesmill 14:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be that nobody has a clue who's right on the links issue: Should both sides of the coin be represented or not? I think they should, personally. TomiG 14:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, both sides should be - but the BOLD comment on the one is a bit off-putting, and frankly the 'sucks' website IMHO adds not much - it doe not explain at all what is wrong with the development - I would suggest leaving it off until it is a bit more matured; right now it dfoes not look either like a 'significant minority' view, it looks more like a 2 or 3 pissed off folks view, which is not WP (This may not be so, but the website sure makes it look like that to this colonial).Bridesmill 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad at least some of us are seeing eye-to-eye on this. The trouble is, within about ten minutes of me changing the links back around (which I've just done), things will be changed back again. Is this just a fact of life? Thanks for your opinion, much appreciated. TomiG 17:08, 23 April 2006

(UTC)

I'm assuming it's NoHiding who is putting this on - please put on only links whihc provide a 'value added' - this site does not even really appear to protest the development except in the site name, and only confuses outside visitors like me. If this is a 'widely held' view, please provide substantiation (major newspaper article which describes widespread dissent, for instance) Otherwise, other editors have option of raising issue with administrators. - You can't just change stuff without discussing it, and changes need consensus support and/or substantiation.Bridesmill 00:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The link that you've just removed identifies the site as being in a flood plain. The link identifies the risk through the environment agency, it is there to raise awareness to potential occupiers that they are at risk of being flooded out. I hope that you can accept reponsibility if somebody is put at risk because you have not let them view information that concerns them. If a potential occupier knows the facts they can apply conditions to protect their facility ond their own security.

Why don't you just move on to the next subject, if these issues are addressed in due course there is no reason why the wiki cannot be ammended. It is not a static piece of work Nohiding4u 10:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to be rude; RfC was made, I'm here commenting. WP is more than just those who live in Goole, & sometimes those outside the prob provide a neutral view. It does not take the website to figure out that this is a floodplain, and if this is all the website does, it's not much - what I'm saying is for the website to provide a value added it needs to a. represent the view of a significant minority (not a few who are really pissed). If that significant minority exists, that should be easy to cite with newspaper refs etc. b. the website needs to be a useful one, which as it stands it isn't - maybe people in Goole would get something out of it, but those from outside certainly don't. And if other editors don't want it there, the only legitimate way to get it on the page is to provide a good reason for it to be there, as I've outlined. Wikipedia may not be static, but it is also not so fluid as to be Wikinews. Also, if the website is yours, read WP:BAI; if you put your own stuff up, odds are you have a bit too much conflict of interest to be objective as to its encyclopedic value.Bridesmill 14:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now that I've read up a bit more; firstly, protest against this development is undetectable on Google - only some small mention on gatewaygoole (perpelxed that this is not on the protest website - which speaks to its lack of completeness). Secondly, you mention the significance of floodplain - but all of Goole is on a floodplain, so there is zero news in saying this is a floodplain, unless you are protesting all development, in which case this is not a Goole topic but an anti-development topic. Unless you can provide some evidence that this is more than just a few pissed off individuals, I would suggest that this falls into the realm of 'non-notable'.Bridesmill 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help on this issue. As someone who doesn't live in the place, I just guessed that 5,000 jobs and quarter of a billion quid being spent would be worth a

Drug detail

I have removed the following from the lead as it is not sourced. If it can be sourced correctly then return it to the article but not to the lead which is for a summary of the rest of the article.

, which achieved notoriety two years ago for having the highest proportion of drug-related deaths in Britain - 13 times the national average. Although only 2 per cent of the population of the county lives there, the town is home to 12 per cent of the region's heroin users

Keith D 21:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is now cited via The Observer online newspaper, sorry but the article did happen and it was reported on by our own Goole Times and Courier, I have put the comments back on because sadly people have to be aware that the town is a dangerous place with a very serious drug problem. Keith if you want you can place the comment in a new heading lower down called Concerns for Goole or Goole's Problems or something like that, but it needs to be in there to not mislead people about the town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.100.6 (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have switched the reference to use the {{Cite web}} template and corrected it as the date of the article is 2002 so 2 year previously would be 2000 and not 2005 as implied by the statement 2 years previously. Though I think you need to reword the information because as it stands it is a copyright violation of the published article and may be removed because of that. Keith D 20:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Furthest inland port in the World"

I removed this claim. It ought to be fairly self-evident that the statement is untrue, but just to prove it: Iquitos on the Amazon is over 2,000 miles from the sea. Somehow I don't think Goole can beat that! Whether or not it's the furthest inland in Britain is another question: Gloucester and Selby might argue, and I suppose it depends on how you define "furthest inland". Either way, such a statement should not go back in without a solid reference (not a vague term like "is widely recognised to be"). 86.136.251.18 00:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The present claim of "UK's furthest inland port" is not supported by the citation so I have flagged as dubious. (The citation is from its operator so not a reliable, third-party source.) What rivals to the claim are there - Gloucester, Gainsborough? Nedrutland (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Premier Port? suggestions for compromise

Hi,

In response to the edits regarding the addition of 'Britain/East Coast Premier Port' in the first sentence, I'll open a discussion here. I don't think that

Goole (East Coast's Premier Port) is a town, civil parish...etc.

is a particularly brilliant way to start an article. I am also unsure whether the source is particularly reliable. [1]. It seems like a biased point of view to me, and one previous editor has already removed (Britain's Premier Port) citing "unnecessary marketing speak". If notability of Goole's status as a UK port is required, may I suggest:

Goole is a town, civil parish and port located approximately 45 miles (72 km) inland on the River Ouse in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England. The port is "highly versatile", and is capable of handling nearly 3 million tonnes of cargo per annum, making it one of the most important ports on the east coast of England.

Goole is twinned with Złotów, Poland (and was twinned with Rostock, northern Germany in 1969 although this seems to have lapsed). Goole was suggested to be twinned with Gibraltar in the 1960s, at that time Gibraltar Court was named in Goole and Goole Court was named in Gibraltar (Although formal twinning never occurred). Goole achieved notoriety in 2000 for having the highest proportion of drug-related deaths in Britain - 13 times the national average. Although only 2 per cent of the population of the county lives there (a population of 17,600in 2001), the town is home to 12 per cent of the region's heroin users.

The above still doesn't feel quite right, but it is an idea for discussion. –MDCollins (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

MDCollins put whatever you feel fit, it is Goole's only claim to fame and should be in the article somewhere. I shall leave it to you to decide where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewstu (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the ABP pages for Goole[2], Hull[3] and Immingham[4], annual tonnages seem to be about 2, 10 and 55 million tonnes respectively. It is difficult to see how Goole can reasonably be said to be "one of the most important ports" around the Humber, let alone the rest of the east coast of England. --Rumping (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Goole page work

Just tried to embelish the page a little, added some detail and new images. The page could do with some more sources, inparticularly with regards to often contencious subjects such as governance and history. I will try and see to this when I have time. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Indeed the article needs further expansion. As a town of about 18,000 inhabitants, it's quite little to read at the moment... --Dionysos1988 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

'Goole was informally twinned with Gibraltar in the 1960s, at that time Gibraltar Court was named in Goole and Goole Court was named in Gibraltar.'

Could someone please tell me what this actually means? Thanks, MrTranscript (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume it means that due to twinning, in the 1960s, there was a street in Goole named Gilbraltar Court, and a street in Gibraltar named Goole Court. Maybe it means that the streets were named then, and still exist...? Not a very well constructed sentence, I'll agree. And it needs referencing anyway.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DMOZ solution implemented

Due to excessive numbers of external links - most of which fail WP:EXT - I have today implemented the DMOZ solution that has been implemented on other such articles, including Fowey and Tenby, by: (1) Removing all but official and WikiTravel links, (2) adding the link to DMOZ, where you can add your link and get a backlink credit. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Goole/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. References need to be changed to inline using one of the {{Cite}} templates Additional references required Population figure - what does the figure relate to? Needs sectionalising to allow for expansion Copy-edit for WP:MOS Keith D 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goole. 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/20130520064552/http://capitolparkgoole.co.uk/ to http://www.capitolparkgoole.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201230029/http://www.heyday-mo.com/catalog/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=7861 to http://www.heyday-mo.com/catalog/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=7861

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) 04:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Zeppelin Attack

It seems odd that the Goole wiki doesn't mention the 1915 German Zeppelin Raid. It's probably the most significant event in Goole's history. I've never edited a wiki page so I thought I'd just bring it up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.196.131 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

May be you could point to suitable references to use for this. Keith D (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-33840606

https://sites.google.com/site/thegooleexperience/goole-at-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.216.137 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Origins

You mention a new village called "Goole" created in the 17th century. But you give a date of 1362 for the earliest mention. Valetude (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that is to distinguish between what is now "Old Goole" and Goole itself. Keith D (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Keith. I feel it needs to be made clear in the article that there are two parts to Goole, the old and the new. Valetude (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)