Talk:Oldham Council

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

this council has a history of grooming / rape gang controversy which isnt mentioned

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-61863603 https://news.sky.com/story/oldham-grooming-report-finds-police-and-councils-failed-to-protect-some-children-from-sexual-exploitation-12637246 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-61968760 NotQualified (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have added a small paragraph for this NotQualified (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reverted edits

'I'm reverting this for lack of neutrality - it is clearly cherry-picking the sources to project a particular POV. Please discuss on the article talk page before restoring.'

so my earlier edits were taken down because of 'misrepresentation', now theyre down because of 'cherrypicking' when i instead virtually copy paste verbatim text from multiple sources. i disagree but the editor says i should post here. what i wrote is objectively true, all the quotes were made, labour did block investigations. i am not going to commit WP false balance to make labour look reasonable, they werent. every other party voted against it, and by quotes shown their disgust verbatim. the entirety of my edit was removed, which i find lazy and unreasonable. i have little to say here, i just need input from what other editors think.

" I'm reverting this for lack of neutrality - it is clearly cherry-picking the sources to project a particular POV "

what POV is appropriate? they did literally everything, condemned by every other party. what am i missing? what POV do you suggest? removing everything doesnt provide me with any info on what you expect or want? i, again, am not going to commit false balance, labour was universally slammed by the other parties for a reason, it was wrong.

i am not suggesting bad faith in the other editor! NotQualified (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if needed, i can provide quotes from labour councilors explaining their reasoning? not sure what is wanted here NotQualified (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

' i am not going to commit WP false balance to make labour look reasonable'

(as in i wont lie or falsify info to hide what they did, not that i wont report fairly) NotQualified (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not base decisions on appropriate content on what we consider to be 'reasonable', or on what we consider 'wrong'. Your personal opinion on such matters is of no relevance whatsoever, and frankly, your suggestion that it is makes me seriously question whether you should be editing such topics at all.

Incidentally, one of the sources you cited, from gbnews.com not only doesn't support your wording, but is highly unlikely to be accepted as WP:RS: see this discussion on WP:RSN. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Your personal opinion on such matters is of no relevance whatsoever, and frankly, your suggestion that it is makes me seriously question whether you should be editing such topics at all.'

no i clarified this, it's not that i wont report fairly but i wont lie and commit false balance. im not writing on opinion, i stuck to the wording.

the gbnews quote was literally a one line near verbatim? NotQualified (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'We do not base decisions on appropriate content on what we consider to be 'reasonable', or on what we consider 'wrong'.'

no, we go off of what reptuable sources say, which is what you took down because in your personal opinion was it wasnt 'appropriate content'.

'Your personal opinion on such matters is of no relevance whatsoever, and frankly, your suggestion that it is makes me seriously question whether you should be editing such topics at all.'

what i wrote was sourced. if your issue was you wanted to hear what labour said then you shouldnt revert what i factually wrote but add what you want. i feel like the person with an opinion on this matter, is you. this issue is a balance / due weight issue, in which case you shouldnt just scrap entire paragraphs of factual content because you feel it doesnt 'fit a [neutral] POV'? this is literally just your opinion, youre railing me for opinions and then espousing your own. if you want more to be added, then add it. what i wrote was covered by plenty of sources, the bbc even covered much of it. i didnt decide what was relevant, i went with the sources and stayed so razor sharp to them as not to be re-accused of misrepresenting them. do you know how frustrating it is trying to [fairly] document child abuse cases by people in power over and over and then being repeatedly shut down. if i source something, it's not fairly represented. if i paste it, suddenlty a verified reputable source is no longer valid. if i provide multiple, im now biased. what do you actually want me to say here that would make the POV 'neutral' in your eyes? adding a labour quote? explaining what they did (i did do that)? what do you want exactly here (that fits the sources). i will report fairly on what happened, im not trying to fix an agenda and im not going to commit wp unbalance because it's uncomfortable. NotQualified (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To pick up on your comment "when i instead virtually copy paste verbatim text from multiple sources" - this means that another editor has had to submit a request to have your contributions expunged from the article's history as clear copyright violation. You must not copy/paste anything from copyrighted sources. You should use them to support prose written in your own words. TBH you could use just the BBC source and sum up your whole contribution with a sentence such as "The council rejected an opposition demand to ask the government to hold a public enquiry." That's neutral, factual and concise. 10mmsocket (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'vitrually copy paste'. emphasis on 'virtually'. i have changed wording somewhat except for quotes. i was previously told i didnt properly represent sources so i stayed extremely close to what sources said, even now the same editor has said i misrepresented sources. youre putting me in a vice between saying i have not stayes true to sources and then that im too close to sources.

"The council rejected an opposition demand to ask the government to hold a public enquiry"

'neutral, factual and concise.'

what i wrote was factual.

conciseness needs to be justified by wp due weight, which it is not

if what i wrote seemed biased i need to see an alternative opinion, i will report fairly. this alternative opinion seems too small thats it's lying by omission to seem 'neutral'

i was told i cherry picked quotes to fit a narrative, but it appears what you wrote as well as my sources seem to agree with this 'narrative', cause it's just blatant fact. a public enquiry was repeatedly blocked and this was highly reported o by labour around child rape cases. now, if whats needed are labour quotes or reasonings, that can be provided. but saying 'The council rejected an opposition demand to ask the government to hold a public enquiry' is a good faith attempt at neutrality but obfuscates the reality. NotQualified (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you will see, your copyright violating copy/paste has now been fixed and is no longer visible in the article's history. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

were the block quotes a violation as well? surely those arent copyright? NotQualified (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the quotes from? How long were they? You can't just lift a couple of sentences out of a newspaper and put it in quotes to get around copyright. It would typically have to be quotes from a person. So you might paraphrase part of an article, and quote (as reported) what an individual actually said. It's also usual to quote from something like an official report, e.g. Burnham's investigation. There's more guidance and more authoritative at WP:QUOTE 10mmsocket (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

quotes from opposition leaders, not the newspaper. i dont see why theyre affected by this reverting? NotQualified (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything was reverted because it was tainted by the copyright violation. All your additions were reverted completely and then struck from the history. It doesn't mean they can't go back in, if appropriate. If you put the councillor quotes back in then obviously you'll need proper sourcing so what they said can be verified. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

right got it, if it's struck from history does that mean theres not even a hidden record where i can see what i wrote for reference so i can retrieve my sources? NotQualified (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Gone forever. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]