Content-Type: text/html

# Dartmoor/Talk

HomePage | Dartmoor | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project

I know nothing about this, and therefore don't want to make any changes, but I can't imagine that "continually under threat from the industrial conglomerates..." is quite written from the neutral point of view. --LMS

Er, it's nothing short of factual. These outfits are continually trying to dig up Dartmoor (they've just made their fifth application in as many years to encroach (they're after about an eighth of the moor at the moment, and area of approx 45 square miles)) and damage a) the environment b) the archaological and cultural heritage for ever for everyone else, for generations to come, in the interests of short term material gain. I think this represents a threat to me and pretty much everyone else who lives in the southwest.

Dartmoor is one of the great unsung wonders of the world. Their spoil tips look diabolical. They create waste and destroy wildlife. But then, I suppose if I were being entirely neutral, I would just accept their depradations; I was just being light on them. Maybe in the interests of neutrality I ought to be a little more hostile? Or should I be taking a line like 'Chernobyl represents an interesting contribution to Russian industrial history', or 'Waco was a change in direction for American policing strategies'? :-) sjc

  I would not dream of suggesting anything so absurd, and the fact that you think I might indicates to me that you fail to understand what I said. I simply want you to read NeutralPointOfView and pay careful attention. If any sizable minority of the population--even, or especially, a minority that you disagree with strongly!--would disagree with how you have worded something, or what facts are selectively presented, then the best form would have you to "go meta" and describe what the different views of the situation are, in a way that everyone would be able to agree was fair and accurate. This is the most prudent way to write a collaborative, international encyclopedia that people of all sorts of different views will want to contribute to. See also Creationism/Talk for a good discussion of these principles. Wikipedia is not the place for activism of any kind, if that's what you are engaged in (and I won't take a position on it--it just seems possible to me, that's all). --LMS
  No, I got you the first time, Larry, I was maybe being a bit too sardonic for my own good. I think that the only people who would disagree in this instance would be the directors and majority shareholders of the china-clay mining companies, and in my book they deserve pretty much everything they get. Even they're beginning to realise that they can't get away with it any longer themselves (see my note below). I fully intend to go meta on this one, in any case, but as I'm working in London and won't be at home in the south-west till next weekend, I can't really cite case notes till then.... sjc

I would side with sjc; I've seen such situations elsewhere and know that what sjc reports is nothing unusual. On the other hand, I think it would make the article stronger if it included some examples and elaboration on this. For example, listing 2-3 instances where the conglomerates have taken or attempted to take actions which would harm Dartmoor.

If I remember correctly, in England there is no government-backed national park system analogous to the US Park service, but instead, a group of private citizens banded together to create a trust to protect the natural areas of England, and these groups continue to fight, even to this day, to protect the natural areas. It would be worthwhile to make mention of how Dartmoor is being preserved, and by whom, and for what reason.

-- BryceHarrington

OK, I'll attach reference to the Dartmoor Preservation Society, and the laughable attempt (it's funny now, it wasn't at the time) to redirect the river Teign so they could dig up more china clay.... I'll also annotate their previous depradations in a separate article. sjc

And the good news today, Tuesday, 21st June 2001, is that both Imreys and Watts Blake Bearne have bowed to public pressure and agreed to renounce their licences. That just leaves English China Clay. sjc

HomePage | Dartmoor | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Last edited June 22, 2001 12:43 am (diff)
Search: