Talk:Radical Routes

Points

Several points:

• It would be great to include the RR logo, though it is unclear to what extent they have adopted new logo (green, with banner and houses – as opposed to the fishes) and I can't find it on the RR website.
• According to the mutuals register, New Education Housing Co-operative Limited has changed its registered office several times, and is currently registered in Swansea. All a bit unclear.
• All the sources I can find state RR started in 1988, bar that one source stating 1986.
• I've added the list of member co-ops, primarily lifted from the RR website. I've excluded housing co-ops with no properties as their membership/existence is much more variable – primarily because it's seemingly so difficult to secure cheap finance to buy properties in most cities.

MikeJamesShaw (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@LittleDwangs It seems all of your points have been addressed. Logo is there, registered address not listed but perhaps that's fine, references date of legal formation and removal of your list. DougInAMugtalk 14:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

@Graywalls added the 'Primary sources' template on the 26th of October. At time of writing, 3 of 16 references are to www.radicalroutes.org.uk. 2 of these support "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." per WP:PRIMARY: number of member coops and that Radical Routes publishes booklets on its topic matter. A further 2 references are to rootstock.org.uk, which seems close enough to qualify as primary. These references are also seemingly conforming to WP:PRIMARY. The 'Primary sources' template should be used to "to tag information or analysis that you believe is improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source" — I would ask @Graywalls to justify this claim, otherwise I plan to remove the template.

@Graywalls also removed a 'Limitations' section I added in two installments, 1, 2, citing WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. The report upon which this sections was based in indeed (mostly) a primary resource. As previously discussed, this is not an immediate cause for disuse. I do not understand the original research claim. I would be interested to hear whether @Graywalls finds the reference completely unusable, or only in the format I used it. DougInAMugtalk 15:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Graywalls I have added back the limitations section and removed the 'Primary sources' template. DougInAMugtalk 21:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The section was for some reason removed without discussion so I restored it. Douginamug your rationale works for me. Mujinga (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)