Talk:London/Archive 3

message: I rv'd London twice from User:JimmyGuano. See Talk:City_of_Manchester#Accuracy and the London Issue for more. Justinc 00:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your reasons for reverting something that spun off another discussion, but the conurbation thing in particular is a pretty serious point (IMO a clear innaccuracy) quite independent of anything to do with Manchester, so I've addressed it below.JimmyGuano 01:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: The article claims 1 canada square and 42 tower are both the tallest building.  which is it?
Tower 42 or Natwest Tower is the tallest building in the City Of London, which is an area of London. One Canada Square is the tallest building in the whole of London. :) Singerisbored 22:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tallest building 

message: The page was getting pretty heavy so I've shifted everything before mid-October into Archive 2.  Hope nobody disagrees too much with my decision... I'm fairly sure all the topics archived were dead... Deano 23:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Hi, nowhere in this article is there a mention of one of the most striking aspects of London and one if its sources of infamy, from the early 1800s till now - the large number of poor neighbourhoods and ghettoes that make up London. Since we're writing a modern, informative article, and not a touristy fluff piece, there's no need to be squeamish or genteel about these things, I think we ought to mention all the stuff that inspired Engels, Orwell, and other famous writers, and some of the problems that continue to plague the city. I'm trying to effect the same on other city articles. -- Simonides 23:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The London article is already long (not surprisingly). I would be inclined to replace the Business section with a better written (but still brief) Economy of London section which can mention some of these issues (and other important things), and a seperate more detailed article covering the history and current issues. I might at least make a stub for Economy of London (probably the best title?) as there is currently only a (rather sparse) :Category:Economy of London. But there is  lots to work with - I see Henry Mayhew has a short article which is good.  Justinc 00:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Tend to agree with you, (except that I wouldn't use the word ghetto too often. It's hard, I think, to find ghettoes in London in the strict sense of the word, which is not to say that they may not end up being created if care isn't taken.) Anyway, poor neighbourhoods, agreed. At the moment, I'm trying to make sure that we have some social housing photos on the Commons, but only have a couple, and the temptation is to show the sort of grand porticos that the older LCC estates often possess. (Oh, and I don't mean to imply that all tenants of social housing are deprived, usually it's a much better situation to be in than private rental, but we have a fair few problem estates up here in Hackney.) Some real grotty street pics would be handy too. Be nice to show the other side of the coin... Tarquin Binary 18:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is too vast a topic to deal with in this article but it is already touched on, and should be expanded on, in History of London. Any romantic idea about there still being ghettos of poverty in London, such as the East End should be dispelled right now. The real poverty, or social exclusion, in the UK is not in London at all; it is in rural places where there is no access to public transport and services. Where children and the elderly do not travel free (as they do in London). Where large estates are miles distant from good housing (and schools) - unlike London where social and private housing is adjacent in every borough from Tower Hamlets to Westminster. Where there is no access to large supermarkets with discounted prices, no access to any job markets, libraries etc. etc. MRSC 18:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'd have to say there were different indices of deprivation, so I don't entirely agree. Like on several, Hackney is counted in the top three most deprived areas in the UK, but on employment, no, you're right there. I would agree that I'd rather be poor in London (and I have been) than poor in rural Oxfordshire, say. It's cheaper to be poor here, for a start, as you pointed out :) And we should be clear that there are no ghettos. More social housing pix added, by the way, that I just happened to take today. Actually those are quite des res-type estates, in fact - I'm just working up to try to show that Hoxton isn't all YBAs, it wasn't really about poverty as such. :) Tarquin Binary 19:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "ghettos of poverty" have never been romantic. And travel in London has always been free to the poor - they walked. While Cornwall is I think technically the poorest part of the UK (and the only county without a University), London has always appeared on the EU lists of deprived places. Inequality is much higher. But unlike many cities poverty is not ghettoised by location, or less so. London is one of 9 areas in the UK that gets EU Objective 2 funding for example. But the main point is that we have no article about the economy of London, what makes it rich or poor. Justinc 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  London poverty, squalor 

message: I have corrected the following points in the introduction:
#"London is the largest, most populous city in the European Union"I have deleted "largest". Greater London (1,580 km²), if we consider it as a city (but that's another debate), is smaller than the city of Cáceres, Spain (1,768 km²).
#"with an estimated population on 1 January 2005 of 7,421,328 and a metropolitan area population of 13,945,000."I have replaced the 13,945,000 figure with a more neutral "and several million more living in the metropolitan area". I remind people that the UK Office for National Statistics does not define metropolitan areas, therefore there is no official figure for the metropolitan area of London. Private researchers have tried to give a figure for the metropolitan area, but none agree on the exact limit of that metropolitan area, therefore there are many figures that circulate. The estimates for the metropolitan area of London generally vary from a minimum of 11 million to a maximum of 14 million. Check for instance this research paper for a list of diverging figures for the metropolitan area of London: , page 2. To pick one of these numbers and present it as THE number is simply POV. To remain neutral we have to be somewhat vague and say "several million more", or if people prefer we can say that there are "between 11 and 14 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area depending on sources", either way.
#"making the capital the most linguistically diverse city in the world (London: Multilingual capital of the world, A Buncombe and T MacArthur, The Independent, London, 29 March 1999)."This statement is simply untrue, although it pretends to be based on a newspaper article, but then we all know that not everything that is written in newspaper is necessarily true. At the 1999 French census the INSEE conducted a language survey and found that 450+ languages were spoken in Paris. And in New York City or Los Angeles there are also hundreds of languages spoken by the millions of immigrants from all around the world that live there. I think it is a bit ridiculous to try to determine which city is "the most linguistically diverse". All the largest metropolises of the western world, such as NYC, LA, Paris, or London, are bound to have hundreds of languages, due to immigrant communities. What's more, it all comes down to the definition of the word "language". Are Serbian and Croatian two different languages or just two dialects of the same language? Is Bihari a dialect of Hindi or a separate language? You get the point. So I have replaced the statement with a more neutral "one of the most linguistically diverse cities in the world". Hardouin 13:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this last point.  London might be one of the most linguistically diverse cities in the world, but I am not sure that this claim is anything but civic boosterism.  How do you prove it?  What sources are there for it, besides a British newspaper article?  Moreover, how do you define "diverse"?  Is it purely a qualitative analysis (e.g. "there are native speakers of 324 languages living in London as of February 15, 2006")?  Or is it a quantitative analysis (e.g. "there are more languages widely spoken in London by significant linguistic communities than in any other city"). If there is only one person in town that speaks a rare inuit dialect, does that count towards the diversity?  Or is some sort of critical mass of speakers of that dialect required?  Further, in terms of each person, are we counting languages spoken at home, languages spoken most of the time, mother languages or all languages spoken to any degree?  I speak Polish, but overwhelmingly speak English in my life.  Do I count as an English speaker, or a Polish speaker, or both? When the United Nations Development Programme looked at cities with foreign-born population in 2004, London ranked 8th, behind (in order) Miami, Toronto, L.A., Vancouver, New York City, Signapore, Sydney and Abidjan ().  I know these stats are in no way determinative of linguistic diversity (most notably, someone could be domestically born and speak a "minority language"), and some cities on the list are likely far less linguistically diverse than London (e.g. Miami's foreign-born population overwhelmingly speaks Spanish or Haitian Creole).  However, the stats do suggest that there are other cities who can claim significant linguistic diversity on par with London. For these reasons, I have my doubts that this is a verifiable claim.  Skeezix1000 21:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected a few things 

message: I don't want to get bogged down in this argument again personally but can I remind those editing this page at the moment of the three revert rule. Thanks. MRSC 15:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous user 82.35.100.95, who has been editing this article repeatedly since November 11, never expresses him/herself, never gives a summary title to his/her edits, and never writes anything on the discussion page, therefore it is quite difficult to discuss this rationally with him/her. I suggest you check the history of his/her contributions to Wikipedia (Contributions:82.35.100.95). That says a lot about his/her obsessions. Hardouin 18:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR==

message: Please compile a list of requested articles here.  The list is references on the London Portal.  Deano 23:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested articles 

message: The internal links contained in this section point to non-existent sections. Either the article should have a list of museums and galleries under London tourist attractions separated from the places of interest or the Museum and galleries section and its contents should be removed. I note that the British Museum, the Natural History Museum, the Science Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the National Gallery and the Museum of London are all missing from the attractions list. The last is inexcusable considering the subject of the article! I suggest that the tourists attractions section should have a Museums and Galleries section even if items listed within it a linked elswhere in the section. Some users may go straight to that section. DavidCane 02:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[London#Museums and galleries|Museums and galleries]] 

message: The London Portal is now registering votes for next month's Featured Article and Featured Picture.  Please vote:
*Next Month's Featured Article
*Next Month's Featured Picture
Deano 10:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles/pictures 

message: Sport in London; I think a main article needs to be created for this area - there is clearly lots to be said but it is taking up far to much room here.  Anyone else agree?
 Deano 14:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, go for it. Grunners 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've expanded the section in this article and made a start at expanding Sport in London, but it's still pretty thin. Qwghlm 00:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sport in London

message: This has been mentioned before, but just riterating that Big Ben is the bell inside the clocktower, which itself has no official name. Have edited the photo caption accordingly. Grunners 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Ben

message: I needed a map showing where London is in England, but can't find one in the article.  Can someone add one?  Badagnani 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. There was one but someone saw fit to remove it. MRSC 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No map? 

message: should we put in the fact about london being twice the size of new york? billy turner
::probably not, because statistics like that are always liable to POV.  On what basis is it "twice the size"?  What defines the "size of a city"?  It's a no-go area.   Deano (Talk) 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok  billy turner
--He must be referring to the geographic area of Greater London. This contains about 7.4 million people within 1,500 sq km, while New York City has 8.2 million people within 830 sq km. Either way its not factual to say that London is twice the "size" of NYC, since size generally refers to a city's population. Also, the metropolitan area of New York contains almost twice as many people as the metro area of London. --Jleon 15:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  size 

message: In what way does the picture show "one of London's ethnic communities"? A better caption or picture would be good. JPD (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch. I agree. That's a not very good pic of mine depicting Kingsland Waste, this is a very ethnically mixed area, but that doesn't show on the pic. I didn't know it was here. I think I have better stuff to illustrate this, so I will replace it shortly. Tarquin Binary 12:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ridley Road one used instead and caption now altered. (Not right to describe the area as one 'ethnic community' when it's lots...) Not happy still, will try to get something better. Tarquin Binary 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also this site  has some language figures. Justinc 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics pic caption 

message: you know how it says football in the sports section of this article?
does it mean american football, or like 'soccer' football?MichaelHa 03:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the sports section 

message: Deleted fake from attempted bombings, as there is no evidence that the devices in question were fake 81.159.174.37 09:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed word fake from attempted bombings. 

message: The statement about Global cities should NOT be in the opening spiel of the article on London. This is a woolly subjective subject, and the only meaningful study on it was by a group of students at Loughborough university. London, Tokyo, Paris and NYC being the four global cities is not a fact, it's just someone's opinion. The balance of opinion in the previous discussion on this topic seemed to be that it should not be there either. Please can we try to resolve this issue. SteveRwanda 16:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case the information on the wikipedia article Global city is wrong.  Whilst the information remains as stated on the said page, surely it is perfectly justified to refer to it in this article.  DJR (Talk) 16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute the content of that article as well, but it's just slightly less mainstream than the London article and is also guarded zealously by a user called E Pluribus Anthony who won't hear of changes. The contention arises because information there and here is not wrong - it is the result of a survey which was made and published by a 'Global and World Cities group' and is hence 'verifiable', but I just don't give much time of day to such studies - they're totally subjective, totally POV, and in this case based solely on financial criteria, which gives them no right to be masquerading as 'the four global cities' as if this is an unarguable fact. That's all... My vote would be for dumbing down the Global Cities article and reducing it to, at most, a 'Trivia' footnote in the articles of the cities themselves. — SteveRwanda 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tread very carefully, SteveRwanda, before making any accusations or misrepresentations about editorial intransigence.  I, and other, editors have no objection to editing or improving the article: anyone reading the talk page and archives will observe that.  Through rhetoric and bluster, you and other detractors have not – and still not – demonstrated why germane information about this topic (e.g., the GaWC list) should be nixed.  All I see is haphazard analysis and wilful demands to change or remove disagreeable content: no valid criticism of the topic.  Moreover, your support of forking the article is a contorted way of skirting the issue.  If you have no "time" for such studies, and clarifying or improving upon information which already arguably conforms to the five pillars, editors should not afford more time in responding to your concerns about them.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I retract the personal comments. Apologies. The new phrasing in the article is somewhat better, although it now has a slightly weaselish look about it... Is it really 'widely regarded' as such? I don't know, but I'm not convinced. Google searches for "global cities" don't really show up very much of interest. — SteveRwanda 14:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added PoV tag 

message: I removed the "sister cities" section, since I don't believe either of the cities listed have a sister city relationship with London. The GLA website does not contain any mention of sister cities. JPD (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On further investigation, the New York City website does describe the NY-London relationship. However, London is not on the list of sister cities of the City of Sydney, and there is no body representing the whole metropolitan area in Sydney anyway. I don't know whether the single sister city NY is enough to justify a whole section of this article on sister cities. JPD (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister cities