Talk:Top Ryde City

Parts of the article seems to be lacking neutrality, particularly the Community Concerns - with little in the way of references and an overly critical tone. --110.175.245.214 (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Much of the Community Concerns has verifiable references. Rather than being overly critical it is restrained considering the documented impact on the local residents. Even in the Re-Development section the criticism of the vehicle exits is substantiated by a reference, however none of the promotional content is referenced. eg: tower construction with no end date and much now is in the past tense. In fact a large part of the Re-Development section is outdated and I intend to remove most of it soon. Note the 4 references and named persons that support the Community Concerns section. An alternative view would be that other parts of the article read like an advertisment. Perhaps some mention of the environmental impact on local wildlife during construction would be appropriate such as the near annihilation of the local Aphid population attracted to the unshielded bright hot construction lighting (awaiting a reference from the authorities to which this has been reported) or the harassment of the local possum community. I have a camera video of the out of hours unauthorised work by illegal workers taken as immigration and workcover swoop that I should find time to post. Perhaps the local community would get a response from Bovis-Lend Lease. But hey, lets not worry about these concerns as long as you have the (incorrect) Trading Hours and Major Stores listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV stuff re: Top Ryde City#Workplace Safety and Community Concerns

I've editted most of the content out of the section Top Ryde City#Workplace Safety and Community Concerns, because a lot of it was unreferenced, and the language was highly loaded. If you want to re-add, then those claims have to be referenced properly. -danjel (talk to me) 04:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your vandalism. Much of Workplace Saftey and Concerns has verifiable references. If you have an issue with the references then consult an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?!? The text that you're proposing is flagrantly in breach of WP:NPOV. For example:

...the developers have sought to avoid responsibility so as to protect the investment. Most notably a severe backlash from local residents has resulted in noise and traffic complaints.

...isn't even vaguely hinted at in the reference [[1]].

Neither is your quote from Malcolm Harrild, neither is your quote from Steven Borger.

A lot of the rest of your language, such as "plagued", "avoid responsibility", "excessive", etc. are not Neutral. You've also used WP:WEASEL words and phrases frequently, such as "Fire Services are a daily presence...", "...severe backlash from local residents..." and "...totally inadequate..."

Read Neutral Point of View, Words to Watch, and Verifiability, gather your citations, then come back and propose what you'd like to edit in. -danjel (talk to me) 12:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Others have edited the article with a similair point of view. IE: Safety and community concerns exist. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings, this is information that should be in the article as it is relevant to the topic. Wikipedia is not an advertising forum for the developer. I have added a referenced and neutral paragraph to the concerns. If you want to remove unreferenced statements the start by removing this line .... "Towards the end of the centre's life it was almost a dead mall " (says who?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still not neutral to describe something in the way that you suggest. Think about it like this: if someone had no experience with Top Ryde and came along and read your edits, would they leave with a positive impression, a negative impression or a neutral impression? The answer's obvious. The rest of the article is fairly neutral, your edits aren't. Such statements aren't given in similar articles, for example Warringah Mall, Sydney Central Plaza or Westfield Bondi Junction (even though the latter, at least, has more significant issues in these regards).

I'll agree on that point regarding "dead mall", if you'd like to highlight it as contentious using {{fact}} or simply remove it then go ahead. -danjel (talk to me) 00:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.

... therefore I have reverted my latest edit and asked for editor assistance in the meanwhile please refrain from removing referenced statements pending mediation as it is likely vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am telling you that your edits are NOT neutral, you seem to be scandalmongering. Repeatedly putting up content that is subject to dispute is WP:EDITWARRING. Following WP:BRD, you have proposed "bold" content, I have reverted, we're now at the discussion stage.

Look through the other examples I gave you above; there is nothing similar to what you're proposing for this article. -danjel (talk to me) 06:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No. You do not have a case to impose your POV without independant review. I have reverted. You are a vandal. I refer you again to the editorial guidelines ... As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

... and its good you cleaned up the references. Perhaps if you feel we are still able to discuss the text and sources in dispute while still at the discussion stage, you could enlighten us to exactly what upsets you about highlighting dangerous road safety practices during the construction? Surely as a reputable sourced comment (the Ryde Chamber of Commerce newsletter) it is worthy of inclusion in regard to the article content. Wikipedia is after all, a respected source of information and not just an advertisment - No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthemore much of the pre-history could be re-written (and abbreviated based on the Ryde Council article at http://www.ryde.nsw.gov.au/toprydecity/history and related pages ... at least it would be sourced rather than just your guesswork.

http://www.ryde.nsw.gov.au/toprydecity/revitalisation

http://www.ryde.nsw.gov.au/toprydecity

... do go ahead and add these sources.

110.174.23.139 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly pointed out the problems that I have with the content that you're putting forward. It's not neutral, the references you are using are either not reliable or you are attributing undue weight to them. It seems biased, because it is.

As for the article being an "advertisement", there is no difference between it, and other similar articles, for example the three I gave above. Except that they're much more neutral than this one.

If, as you say, we're at the "discussion stage" now that you have breached 3RR, then you'll undo your last revert. -danjel (talk to me) 10:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If perhaps I was screaming loudly that the developers were involved in some deliberate attempt at unsafe practices that would be different. However that is not the case as you have quite rightly removed some of the more emotive terms previously used.

It is a simple statement of fact that dangerous road safety practices were monitored and action taken during construction. The statement is referenced to a suitable source. Your attempts to remove it are as much an edit war as perhaps mine are to include it.

Rather than introduce a bias to the article, it provides further information regarding the construction to what would otherwise be simply an advertisment promoting the shopping center.

Without any discussion you have removed other referenced statements simply because you believe that either the source was not suitable or you perceived a bias. Just because content may be seen as unfavourable to the subject is not a reason on its own to delete edits.

110.174.23.139 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance request

Heading added by Danger (talk) to improve readability

To editor assistance ... I add this referenced and seemingly NPOV and another editor keeps removing it. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is permissible to have critical content in an article, but, like all other Wikipedia content, it should be attributed to reliable sources. Such critical content does have to be neutrally worded. In this case, I don't think that the sources provided by 110.174.23.139 support all of their claims and I agree with Danjel that the content was not neutrally written. In an ideal situation, the content added by 110.174.23.139 could be toned down and unsupported claims removed without having to revert wholesale; I appreciate though that there isn't always time to do that.

I'm not going to address the full original text added because, without sources and since it's being contested, I don't think there's much point. So I'll take each source by itself. I think Weekly Times source supports the idea that citizens have expressed some concern about accessibility (safety is not mentioned in either letter), but not that there aresafety concerns. In my view, the writers of these letters have no expertise in pedestrian or driver safety but they do have expertise on their own opinions. The wording "some citizens have expressed concerns about pedestrian and vehicular access to the centre" or something like that seems supported. It's neutral, it's not surprising (what building hasn't has such concerns expressed about it) and it's supported by the source.

The ABC News source supports reporting that there was a collapse and that a safety expert believed it could have been much more serious. From the context, it appears that the expert is referring to the accident specifically and not the structure itself when he says "potential here is quite significant for most serious injury". "Near fatal workplace accident" implies that someone was actually injured, but recovered, but it's pretty close to a good wording.

The Cumberland News source supports the assertion that a hit and run occured on the building site, but not the issue of pedestrian or worker safety. Hit and run incidents can happen anywhere and there's no indication in this source that it had anything to do with the building site. I would leave this out of the article, since it has no real significance to the shopping center.

The Chamber of Commerce source supports the assertion that safety concerns were raised during the building and that the contracts with the offending parties was terminated, I think. The sentence as is seems pretty well supported.

I would suggest integrating the supported statements into the sections on construction of the new facility. Criticism sections are generally frowned upon because they attract non-neutral additions and unbalance the article. I also thought that 110.174.23.139's suggestion of sources for expanding the history sections were good; focusing on those could really improve the article and provide an opportunity for you to collaborate. This article has a lot of potential. I'm sorry this was so long, but I wanted to cover everything. Comments or thoughts?--Danger (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your third opinion! I agree with toning it down, as I have advocated all along. Including it in the section on construction seems more reasonable, so I'll do that now. Danger's assessment of the sources (with the exception of the letter one; I think that a couple of letters to a local paper is just too isolated and WP:FRINGE, people who write letters to tabloid and local newspapers are generally just to the West of crazy) also seems reasonable. -danjel (talk to me) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've re-written the intro so that its accurate and referenced. I'll edit and add references for the history after this change has settled (or not)! 110.174.23.139 (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's a problem with the text that you added in the lede paragraph. Whether it was your intent or no, the sentences are copied from the Ryde City government site. This is plagiarism, even with the source cited. Writing for Wikipedia (and for anything else, actually) must, in most cases, be in the author's own words. This can be especially difficult when one is relying on relatively few sources for information, like in this article. Does this make sense?

I am going to revert that change, because copyright and plagiarism is pretty serious, but I strongly encourage you to try to add the information in those sources in your own words. Best, Danger (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note before i try figure out how to make the change but the Ryde council at ref 1 says that Stage 2 opened in March 2010 and not February 2010 as indicted in the box on the right hand side of the article. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reworded. -danjel (talk to me) 08:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections here... Didn't know that it was the largest retail space in Australia! Good edit. As to dates, I can't remember when it opened... Actually. I'd go with what it says on the reference.

You know, you should WP:REGISTER. If you can draft a good version that is substantially more detailed than the current version, you might be able to get it to WP:DYK. -danjel (talk to me) 07:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK is an unreasonable goal for this article because it would require a factor of five expansion of the article text from its present state and I don't think there is that much material out there. Plus the time requirements. Good article is a more reasonable goal. --Danger (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK Check gives:

Prose size (text only): 3308 characters (535 words) "readable prose size"

5x that is 16540 characters... Yikes. Yeah you're right. It's still a cool fact. :) -danjel (talk to me) 09:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I understand the issue of plagiarism and it was not intentional. I'm not sure with Danjels edit that the references actually mention the stores and so I feel that the Danjel edit may be misleading. Besides at this time there is Not a bowling alley. So, at risk of seeming petty I've edited the opening paragraph yet again. Also was there not a consensus that stores generally do not get listed in this type of article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore Danjel, you have simply worn me down with what seems to be little or no discussion regarding changes you want to make. I don't even get a chance before you jump in or revert my edits without even a discussion. No need for blocks or strange Wiki Speak, I'll leave this article to you. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)