|WikiProject London||(Rated Low-importance)|
Why was the tree called "Oak of Honor" and not "Oak of Honour"? The article on American and British English spelling differences seems to indicate that -our endings in Britain go right back to the Norman Conquest. Mtford 12:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It is possible that the spelling could be a hang over from the 16th/17th century (about the time the oak was named) scholarly debate over the use of -our/-or ending on English words. In a nutshell some British scholars insisted that -or be used for words of Latin origin and -our for French loans; but in many cases the etymology was not completely clear, and therefore some scholars advocated -or only and others -our only. It was only later that the British formally adopted -our (as used by Dr Samuel Johnson in his Dictionary of the English Language (1755)) and the US –or (partly thanks to Noah Webster). By which time Honor Oak was stuck with an anachronism as far as the UK was concerned. Nshimbi 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Questioning the NPOV on restaurants and shops
The section on Amenities and Entertainment feels like it's turning into a classified ads section. Other than the reference against the Indian restaurant there is no supporting evidence for the statements made. I would suggest this information is better placed in a travel guide than an encyclopaedia and should be improved or deleted.
disagree - it's a list. the only opinion is the "highly rated" on le querce - reviews here http://www.hardens.com/restaurant-reviews/uk-london/31-01-07/le-querce-se23/ here http://www.london-eating.co.uk/34843.htm here http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186338-d788358-Reviews-Le_querce-London_England.html if someone could add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Highlighting one of the other restaurants has been reviewed is missing the point. I'm still not convinced that this section is a appropriate encyclopaedic material. It just seems to be a promotion of the specific establishments with little value to the overall article. It would be possible to find hundreds of restaurants with favourable reviews in London alone , but I don't think that constitutes noteworthiness for an encyclopaedia. I would propose Wikitravel London/Southwark-Lewisham would be a better place for this list and suggest a re-write of this section. Nshimbi (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
on the contrary - two hardens-listed restaurants in an outer-london postcode is a noteworthy occurrence worthy of any encyclopaedia. it gives a flavour of the district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Im removing the notice from this page. I think the above post presents a fair argument and has not been responded to in three months. Harden reference to "Le Querce" will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Ill-defined geographic area
The following has been removed:
"Honor Oak is a somewhat ill-defined geographical area, with debates especially regarding the boundaries with Forest Hill to the south - the name Forest Hill is sometimes used to describe a wider area that includes most of Honor Oak."
It does not help define the area and just weakens the paragraph re One Tree Hill being a central feature (this being pretty uncontroversial as it defines Honor Oak).
It is highly questionable whether Honor Oak is particularly ill-defined or remarkable if it is so - most areas in London have some debate on this toward the margins. If the citation link to a discussion board, which mostly relates to Forest Hill and defines the area according to postcode, is pertinent then a similar statement should logically apply to Forest Hill too. At the very least not a reliable reference to Wiki standards Morganfield (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)