Jump to content

Talk:Moss Side

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moss Side community

[edit]

Information deleted by middayexpress on community remains relevant and so I have reinserted. Also, the following paragraph was not adjusted, making it flow badly. There are not many Polish or Indian restaurants in Moss Side so have deleted . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorlomes (talk • contribs) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That text was original research; it's not at all asserted in the link [1]. It was also phrased in a pov fashion. So no, it isn't relevant. Middayexpress (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Middayexpress (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC) - I have responded to your point about references and referenced all points about ethnic communities in area. I have applied this to your point about Polish and Indian eateries - it is neither referenced, nor is it my experience - there are lots of Indian eateries in Rusholme. Not sure what you mean about Polish eateries - would be interested if you could substantiate this.[reply]
The Somali senior organizations are in Greater Manchester. There are though several Polish/Eastern European and Indian/South Asian restaurants and eateries in Moss Side specifically. I've clarified this point. Middayexpress (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium

[edit]

This article is wrong - Maine Road was in Rusholme, not Moss Side.

== actually.. ==The Stadium borders three wards, Moss Side, Rusholme and Fallowfield. the reason that it is generally accepted that the stadium is in Moss Side is due to the fact that "Maine road" is itself in Moss Side. However, the stadiums boundary on Parkfield street reaches Rusholme and the boundary on Thornton road reaches Fallowfield. However it is generally understood, that the edges of the stadium actually marks the boundaries with these other wards and Moss Side itself. cheers, Tanya

Race Riots

[edit]

The area was not plagued by race riots....the majority of the people who rioted were in equal proportion to the makeup of the local area...I was there as I owned and operated a community centre on Princess Road. There were as many white kids involved as there were black.

The riot was not racially motivated. It was after a series of clashes between young and inexperienced Police officers who were behaving carelessly and indiscriminately harrassing youth...both black and white. This came to a head and the community...mostly young people rioted.

Improving after money being pumped in

[edit]

The area was out of bounds to investors for many years and remained so until local artists and community leaders put the place on the map. I know many community leaders,artists and local religious leaders, besides myself, who lived and worked on the 'front line' of Moss Side and because of their selfless dedication, faith and bloody hard work, bringing together groups that had been disenfranchised over years and generations, investors began to see the place as interesting and offered help. My own self funded and volunteer center, along with many others in the area, brought together many different classes and cultures, rich and poor, black, brown, yellow and white...this led to new partnerships and new collaborations borne out of community....not the pity or charity of wealthy people!

Many different politically motivated groups who had sat on the sidelines for years, jumped on the bandwagon when Moss Side started to emerge as a trendy place ...as it has come to be known...to perpetuate the myth of government and NOT the people themselves bringing change to their communities. It was and always has been the people who live and work in an area who should get the credit for the changes they cause and create through years of sacrifice and hard work!

This type of reporting ...purporting to be factuual ...perpetuates many misconceptions and totally misleads people...one wonders who could have written this stuff! Certainly not a resident of the area!

I agree on the race riot point, the newspapers always blow these things out of proportion, just like the Brixton riot

The blocks of flats which were demolished were in Hulme, not Moss Side

Wikipedia Lets Some Idiots Edit Their Own Site...

[edit]

Why has the article of Moss Side mostly been about guns gangs and drugs when it's clearly not a problem there now in 2008 it has lines and lines and paragraphs about it when really people would just like to know the history about it such when it was first built and etc not all this fake media bullshit!! I say please remove large chunks of it cos it's really unnecessary!! And try filling it in with some nice things cos there LOADS and LOADS of nice things about Moss Side. And I do mean this I will come and check!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.180.251 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Yes there is a lot of a "nice things" about Moss Side, but airbrushing out (or indeed upplaying) the gun crime and criminality is not a fair representation of the area - any self respecting editor would expect material about this.
The official policy is that the threshold for inclusion is verifiabilty, so long as the material is attributed to a reliable, reputable source, then the material about gun crime is quite permissable.
This version of the page is quite a suitable version of Moss Side's work-in-progress, and can be used as an indication if this censorship has occurred again. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only mention of the 1981 riots is in a paragraph that's otherwise all about gang violence, which clearly indicates - falsely - that that was what the riots were about, rather than police racism. 86.170.66.187 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racism, contd

[edit]

The article states: "Creating new inclusive facilities which serve the Black community and others has been key to the regeneration of Moss Side, following a history which has included a considerable experience of racism and social exclusion."

No evidence to support this. In fact the article opposes this view with the history of inclusion starting with the Irish and than continuing to modern-day Somalia community. Why than has this sentence been included in the article when it is clearly false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.66.154 (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I'll remove this until some kind of reputable sourcing can be provided. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1970s - Let's Not Rewrite History!

[edit]

I note on the Moss Side feature that the 1970s are made to look very pleasant indeed and that certain information from the BBC had been twisted.

"Analysts say the city's modern gang culture began in the 1970s in deprived areas where it was often hard to make money through legitimate means."

is what the BBC actually wrote about Manchester - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5334510.stm

But on this site the origins were vaguely referred to (the 1970s were not mentioned) and there was then mention of a "1980s boom". A "boom" is usually when something is at its height, and that as far as Moss Side and gun crime is concerned, happened LATER than the 1980s.

I have made a small alteration to report what the BBC actually said.

Can we try to stick to facts? The 1970s were hard times for many, and certainly not a paradise to live in. It seems there is an agenda in this article (as in so many Wiki articles) to make the 70s out to be splendid and blameless - even if this means mis-reporting the BBC!


Sorry if I seem rude. I really don't mean to be. But it seems to me that 70s rosy coloured specs seriously blight Wikipedia's accuracy at times. Objectivity is surely the word!

Solidsandie (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Photo of tram

[edit]

Photograph of a vintage tram in Heaton Park - added 2010-02-25

Not sure this photo is suitable for article on Moss Side. It is misleading in that people will assume, though the text says otherwise, that it is somehow in Moss Side. Moss Side has no trams, at present. An historic picture of a tram in the area would be more suitable - but even so, such a picture would be better used with some discussion of trams in Moss Side, mabye some history of the old tram station which is located in Moss Side and is of some historic significance. Interesting though it is, this picture can be much better viewed in the article on Heaton Park in north Manchester.

For these reasons I believe this photo should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayking (talk • contribs) 11:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anorak writes: Actually Moss Side had a special relationship with trams: the depot on Princess road was built on the very edge of the city, and Moss side also had a tram of its' own - the 53, specially narrow to allow it to pass along Great Western Street. It was one of very few trams to venture into other authority areas, and one of even fewer to have a circular route. The length and complexity of its' route, and that of its' successor bus, led to it being called 'The African Queen', after the boat in the eponymous movie.86.12.129.12 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Moss Side

[edit]

The introductory section contains historical information which is reproduced in the same or similar form in the history section. It would improve the article if the introductory information were edited, with any reference to the history of Moss Side being combined and placed with that in the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isherking (talk • contribs) 08:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much Improved

[edit]

This article has improved massively in the last few months - congrats to all involved. The malicious racist editors appear to have been seen off as well. All in all, a great example of the Wiki principle at work. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Moss Side. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Moss Side. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moss Side. 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:

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) 07:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Moss Side

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Moss Side's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Almanac":

  • From List of parishes in the Diocese of Salford: Cooke, Fr. Michael; Fr. Francis Parkinson (2008). Salford Diocesan Almanac 2009. Salford: Gemini Print (Wigan). p. 232. Archived from the original on 2008-12-01.
  • From Newton Heath: Cooke, Fr. Michael; Fr. Francis Parkinson (2008). Salford Diocesan Almanac 2009. Salford: Gemini Print (Wigan). p. 232. Archived from the original on 2008-12-01.
  • From Moston, Manchester: Cooke, Fr. Michael; Fr. Francis Parkinson (2008). Salford Diocesan Almanac 2009. Salford: Gemini Print (Wigan). p. 232. Archived from the original on December 1, 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moss_Side&oldid=1195373938"