Talk:Bow, London/Archive 1

Archive 1

V1 & geographic confusion

The V1 rocket located in Grove Road, is more properly Mile End. There's a lot more to history in Bow, I shall revisit it. Kbthompson 14:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What definition of Bow are you using? The article doesn't really define the area at the moment, and the rocket did land in the Bow West ward, as far as I can tell. JPD (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, there's a can of worms! I consider Bow to be to the East of Bow Common Lane, and generally below the Mile End Rd. West of BCL is more traditionally associated with Mile End Old and New Towns, and more a part of Stepney proper (historically). The centre of Bow was around the old church (destroyed by the A102), which was the convent of St Mary-le-Bow (from, I think Mary-le-Beau/Bonne, not from the shape of the bridge). If one used the old Metropolitan boro, then indeed this would be part of Bow. Perhaps consideration should be given to the overall division of the boro, before trying to write about it. I'd have to hit the reference books before committing myself. I would tend to the following schema:

medieval villages->boros->modern boroughs

tends to keep the historical location correct, and show ensuing changes. (for instance, then Mile End is a historical place, but subsumed into the metro boros of Stepney and Bow) ... taking parishes, I think historically Bow used to be its own small parish around the convent, with Stepney taking a huge chunk of TH and Hackney, so not much use ... Sorry if this is unclear, the areas tend to blend into each other over time. The idea is to use a granularity that makes fairly clear where things actually happened, but also to relate it to places people today would actualCommunly know about. Kbthompson 15:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Any idea what 'the French school of bow' is about, only google I get is related to cellos! Kbthompson 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea about the French school. The historical "Bow" info is interesting and very important to the article, but I was thinking of modern usage. The Met. Bor. of Poplar was made up of the parishes of Poplar, Bromley and Bow, so Bow must have been fairly large even then. Now, most maps seem to have the Bow label on or north of Bow Road, and have the area near Bow Common Lane labelled "Bow Common". The Bow East and Bow West wards make up the are of Tower Hamlets east of Regents Canal and north of Mile End Road/Bow Road. South of the road are the Mile End East and Bromley-by-Bow wards. As usual, nothing seems to be particularly consistent

Yeah, this area is a bit cartographically challenged, after all. Stratford crossed a river, migrated a mile up the hill! I checked a 1745 map, and Mile End Old Town is centred on Stepney Green, up to about the modern Mile End. The new town is around Mile End gate (the old toll booth), what we'd now term Whitechapel. Stratford moving seems to have made everything shuffle eastwards (although, that's partly the effect of the tube station naming).

Bromley Common is to the west of Bow Common, but the maps a bit useless after that. Now, do you known Bromley-by-bow health centre? There's a small park just up from there, with a destroyed church in the middle. That was the old convent land. The manor house still exists, but it's on the other side of the motorway (Bromley Hall). I think the bridge has gradually migrated north from by the manor to its current site (the river has also been canalised). That's Bow, go further north and you're into Old Ford. Is a good resource. Kbthompson 12:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got it. Bow didn't exist in the middle ages, but was a separate parish for the bridge alone, served by the church of St Katherine on the bridge. The rest of the area was the parish of Bromley-St-Leonard, which was served by the old convent church. Bromley was split to create the parish of Bow; the two become confused because some idiot called somewhere in south London Bromley ... Kbthompson 12:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this V-1 preamble - don't know where you went with the V-1 discussion, actually, but I put my pic of the V-1 plaque on Grove Road on the Mile End article yonks ago, for the simple reason that all the people I used to know who lived nearby considered that they lived in Mile End. Never heard anyone there talk about living in Bow, though further south (south of the Mile End Road that is, though not until you got to the next railway bridge) there was some ambiguity about the Mile End/Limehouse border. Tarquin Binary 11:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know where I went with it! I used to pass it on the way to work at Queen Mary. I agree Mile End, if you look at the article, most of the confusion was created with the introduction of Bow neighbourhood (which died, but has left a remnant in Bow west and east wards), this was based on the postcode and stretched to Globe Road. Unfortunately, it has little to do with Bow - and subsequent edits have attempted to snatch Mile End, Old Ford and Bromley-by-Bow into the area. I think it's about right now in the geo section, but if you could cast your beady, it would be appreciated. Those bloody neighbourhoods rode roughshod over Tower Hamlets - incorporating (for instance) off island parts into the Isle of Dogs.

Part of Poplar comes between Mile End and Limehouse, surely? 89.243.221.206 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that none of these localities are well defined. I used to live not far at all from the V-1 plaque, and thoguht I lived in Bow - probably only because of the E3 postcode. It's all very well to say that historically it's not Bow, but Mile End, but then again, originally Mile End was much further west, as Kbthompson says above. It's real life that's in a mess, not just this article. JPD (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I hate to point this out yet again (sorry, I've gone on about it elsewhere) - shouldn't it be real life that takes precedence over spuriously precise geographic schemas no matter what their historical basis? In which case, WP articles should acknowledge the messiness and fuzziness (which is a truly encyclopedic thing to do), not try to create a bland impression of certainty where none exists. Or should WP set out to reform reality :)

I know I'm always the first to argue that you can easily have next-door neighbours who believe that they live in different districts - *and who are both right*. But it needs to be said. Tarquin Binary 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely! I was saying that trying to impose a fixed idea of what "Bow" is to the exclusion of other real life ideas is not a good idea. As you say, WP should describe the fuzziness. However, that approach is relatively easy to take when describing what area the name describes, but doesn't really help us decide which landmarks, etc, should be mentioned in the article. JPD (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well we have the wonderful irony that Poplar Town Hall (yeah, it's the Met Borough, I know) is generally regarded as being in Bow, as stated in the article (I just added a not very wonderful pic of that, but the only architectural one I have - I was actually interested in the reliefs and mosaic). As is the Minnie Lansbury clock. I suppose one could arbitrarily take the Poplar borough boundary marker as a limit, which is about halfway between Mile End Tube and the Town Hall as the boundary between Mile End (which was Met Borough of Stepney, of course) and Bow in Poplar. Here it is, on Bow Road: http://www.flickr.com/photos/albedo/188385416/ (not geotagged, sorry, must do that), so that's the western boundary sorted, at least along the Bow Road. East is the Lee (yeah, OK, Three Mills is a minor prob) so that leaves the southern boundary with Poplar proper/Bromley and the debatable northern limits.

But that's the tricky bit, as Victoria Park is often described as being in Bow when it's not being wrongly assigned to Hackney - which can easily cut Old Ford out of things. But you don't really have to go there to do Bow - it unambiguously has a number of landmarks, however you cut it. Apart from those above, there's Bryant & May, Gladstone, Bow Church, the very wonderful flyover (all already in the article) and that's just Bow and Fairfield Roads. I don't think it needs too much sympathy, it's poor old Mile End (and Old Ford) I'm apt to fret about :) But Actually, you know, given its significance, it's Stepney that I think is one of the worst-served TH entries on WP. And having said that, we need more on the impact of The Blitz on these areas. Stepney borough had more of its housing stock (20%) literally destroyed, not just damaged, than any other borough in London - or the UK. Bethnal Green and Poplar didn't do too well either, of course. Tarquin Binary 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're takign Coborn Rd as the western boundary? I wonder where you'd say I lived now. Anyway, Vic Park being described as in either Old Ford or Bow doesn't mean it isn't in the other - my instinct is along the lines in the Old Ford article, that is is considered part of Bow. I don't see the harm in it being mentioned in more than one article, either, if we are going to have separate articles on all these overlapping ill-defined localities. But you are right that most of these articles need improvement in the areas of history and general description, more than sorting out which landmarks belong where. I ought to take my camera out, too - any suggestions? JPD (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mile End (UK Parliament constituency) is one of the reasons for the confusion. It was abolished in 1950 and split between whatever combination of Stepney and Bethnal Green, or Poplar and Limehouse was existent at the time.

I remain pragmatic about boundaries, but the aim should be for clarity in what's being talked about. Kbthompson 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, to clarify my view, I have no probs about something being in more than one district. I mentioned a few core elements in Bow that are quintessentially Bow, but peripheral stuff can appear elsewhere too. (The obvious example, for me, of this kind of thing (which you will recognise, KBT) is Sutton House in Hackney - Homerton or Hackney Central? Both - IMO. I have a more controversial one, but not now.) Yeah, JPD, I think some of us are agreeing, but this is mostly a diversion - I happen to think that what these pieces need are some serious content provision, including copy and images - there are plenty of people who will be happy to throw the bits up in the air, systematise and quibble over tiny infelicities later on. Getting London district articles beyond stub status to starter has generally been my mission, you see. Tarquin Binary 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mile End tube station is located in Mile End New Town, the original settlement being around Stepney Green. I think the current intro to this article summarises the confusion. As to the other, I think WP:Reality probably deals with that ... it's certainly not easy to define a district that has no formal boundaries. I think historic places have a reality and you need to tell that story. You also have to be pragmatic about the pattern of modern settlement and it's development, particularly around tube stations! (it inexplicably logged me out above, so that anon IP was actually me). Kbthompson 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Plan for Improving this article

This article does not follow the recommended good practice for settlements - which can be found here [[1]]

I think some of the issues about how to define Bow and write about historical Bow and present day Bow would be resolved if the template were to be followed. I'll come back and revisist from time to time

Also there's no reference to Kingsley Hall and Gandhi staying in Bromley by Bow. Cosmopolitancats 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, you're probably right, however, I added a historical section to Bow, as it had quite an important history. Before that, it looked a lot more like the Newham pages, such as Canning Town; but without any of the content. As far as I am aware, I didn't excise anything from the article.

There is a particular problem of granularity about the London pages, in that some of the items recommended in the recommended good practice for settlements would appear at another level, for instance borough. The overall intention of the WPLondon project is to provide a write up of at least 800 words on each locale in London, detailing its place in history and some notion of the locale's modern features and importance.

This is a locale, and as such was a parish (no parish article) until 1900, then formed a part of the Metropolitan Borough of Poplar (where population 1800-1961 is detailed), modern population for the succeeding authority is detailed at the borough level. Its difficult (for me) to understand where you feel this article is deficient, in terms of the template, perhaps you'd care to expand on that.

I'm glad to help in anyway in the improvement of any of the London pages.

There is no reference to Kingsley Hall, as this is in Bromley-by-Bow, a separate locale in LBTH. Kbthompson 10:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In which case rather a lot of the references to Matilda and the bridge also need to be excluded as these are also Bromley by Bow. Is the issue that there needs to be decision about how the localities within Tower Hamlets area dealt with. Or have I missed something?Cosmopolitancats 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Matilda fell at Old Ford, that was why the bridge was built. Bow bridge gives its name to eh, Bow ... So, I think it's really quite relevant, perhaps not so relevant to your E3 PoV. Kbthompson 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In other parts of UK geography article writing the practice is that if a locality warrants it then it gets the treatment accorded to a 'place' as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. There's such a lot to Tower Hamlets one could argue that keeping certain aspects to the borough level would lose the richness of the detail. One approach is for the borough to build up its profile using links to the localities - which then avoids duplication.Cosmopolitancats 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just been for a quick reminder of what the Tower Hamlets article looks like - and it looks in need of nourishment to me! Cosmopolitancats 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed in great need of nourishment. Kbthompson 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Geographic confusion resolved ...

In 1986, a coalition of Liberals and SDP councillors won control of the council. They instituted a policy of devolving council powers to 7 local neighbourhoods, formed of 2-4 wards. Confusingly, these neighbourhoods were given the names of historic areas that were not conterminous with their original boundaries. One such was Bow Neighbourhood, which was bounded on the south by the A12, on the east by the Lee, on the north by Hackney/Victoria park. (Hence included Old Ford, half of Mile End, and lost the area running into Bromley, St Leonard to Poplar Neighbourhood). Maps

Expensively, the coalition, rebranded all street signs in the boro', and closed the town hall (still empty, untenanted and undemolishable, as its listed); the Lib Dems lost power in 1994, and these neighbourhoods were abolished. A note on neighbourhoods.

Thereby is explained the geographic confusion. The flying bomb (that started the conversation) fell in the historic ward of Bethnal Green East (adjacent to Grove ward; which became incorporated in the shortlived Bow Neighbourhood, and is now known as Bow West!).

Although LBTH has excised all notion of neighbourhoods from their website, much of the branded street signage remains in place. Kbthompson 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How to write about settlements

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements provides guidance on how to improve this article. In a nutshell, there are quite a few issues which have not been addressed at all. In summary, the suggested headings for sections are as follows:

• Geography and administration
• History - the article has a lot of material but there are gaps and it could be better organised. It might even warrant a sub-article if all relevant material were to be collected. Once the coverage of the area has been determined.
• Landmarks
• Demographics
• Economics
• Places of Interest
• Culture
• Present Day (Communal facilities, Transport, Education, Industry & Commerce, Sport)
• Notable Residents (ie people who meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)

On this basis, quite a lot needs to be done to improve this article. I'm happy to get it started using this recommended template if others will chip in around individual sections.

Click the link to the guide to see more details about wat sort of things should be included in each action Cosmopolitancats 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are aspects of the template that should, of course, be included, however this is a small district of London, without any formal status, and as such, most will be dealt with at another level in the hierarchy. What will you say for 'Sport' - traffic dodging on the Bow Road? Better, at the boro level to describe sports facilities. While, as a place, it has a historical significance, its modern significance is within that of a wider area - where most of these matters should be dealt with. A good example is education. Here, it is irrelevant, as entry to primary and secondary schools are dealt with across the boro, so the most appropriate place for it, is there; avoiding duplication. Much of what you seek to achieve is better placed at the boro level, dealing with it at a local level when it is significant. You've already added details of council services that are handled in shop fronts on a short lease, are you going to keep these up to date? Kbthompson 10:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am stating the Wikipedia guidance for writing about places which has been adhered to elsewhere without problem - and has contributed towards articles being assessed as being of a good standard. Otherwise articles continue to have the standard of a 'stub'. So far as I am aware none of the articles in the Tower Hamlets area has been assessed, and the article for the borough as a whole is woefully inadequate. My concern is to improve the standard of articles.

This article also needs to be just as much about the present day as it is about the past. The Wikipedia standard for defining areas is to use the most recent defined area in administrative terms while noting the existence of previous arrangements. Bow is not a small district without any formal status. It currently has formal status across various public agencies and other local stakeholders in relation to the Local Area Partnership - which is also about recognising deficits which exist and improving the area.

Articles working with the Wikipedia guidance also in practice include as much verifiable information as exists. The data developed for ward profiles and area partnerships within the context of Local Strategic Partnership is prime material for inclusion in articles about places. Schools (and their inspection reports and websites) can be included at a local level - and are - because people live in local areas and are interested in the facts of their local area. I'm sure local people in the future will also continue to update this article as appropriate within the context of the guideline. I for one shall continue to work on this article (and the borough one) from time to time and apply the guidelines which exist and the standards which have been achieved elsewhere. Why not see how much of the guidance can be followed rather than being so apparently negative about it?Cosmopolitancats 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know much about schools at a local level if you think local people will get entry to them - people change religion here to get into good schools, and they may well be several boro's away. I would suggest that if you want to apply standards, you begin by not copying other people's websites verbatim. Copyright violation is not encouraged by wikipedia. I'm sure you can be of great assistance in improving articles, I'd just like to see you apply guidelines appropriately, why else would I engage you in discussion of the matter. I can also be wrong, so go on, surprise me. Me, negative? Moi? Kbthompson 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounding rather negative and POV to me. Can we concentrate on verifiable facts and not opinions? What I've included elswhere is name of school, address, link to website and link to the inspection report. Such info can usually be lifted directly from the council website - which is the verifiable source. My practice when including new material is to find a source, copy the info over and then reword. I think you may have found one where I had to finish before I could complete the rewrite. I am not a novice at editing and am perfectly well aware of the standard - discussion closed I think. I'd appreciate it if the pot shots finished too - I'm here to help improve the article - are you?Cosmopolitancats 00:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Notables

None of the notables listed to date have any source or citation for their association with Bow - which is not described either. I therefore propose that all should be removed until such time as:

• the nature of the association is identified
• a verifiable source of information is also identified.

Would anybody who included any of the notables like to do this in (say) the next fortnight. You can always reinstate after removal once a reference source has been identified. Cosmopolitancats 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The only one I added was Sylvia, and her link with the area is well established. The others' claim to notability appears to rest on celebrity, and that's a brief flickering candle that you can feel free to snuff out. Kbthompson 10:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern here is that we appear to have people scattered throughout the article and a decision really needs to be taken about how best to include them. Elsewhere, historical figures with an association with the area are included under the Local Notables section and then have a pointer in the history bit. But I think it really depends on the quantity of information as to the best place for them. I absolutely agree that Sylvia Pankhurst needs to be included - and in this instance I think she needs to be in twice ie include her name again under local notables and reference tje suffragettes para above. George and Minnie Lansbury should also be included given the landmarks - but I don't know where they lived. Asquith also has an association with the area which can be sourced but I think it might strictly speaking be Limehouse rather than Bow.

I have absolutely no problem with celebrities being identified if their wikipedia profile also identified their association with an area and has a verifiable source - otherwise IMO any assertion has the standard of 'hearsay' and has no business being in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, I personally wouldn't have a problem with a generic type of statement which referred to the area being home to a number of well known people in the television and music business - and leave it at that. It's then sufficient to deter random additions. The wikipedia guidance is explicit that local notables must also have a verifiable source of any data included. If we stick to this then all names that cannot be sourced have to be excluded. I usually put up citation notices against each name for a month - and then remove the name if nothing is forthcoming - and explain why in the talk pages.

In general, the standard developed elsewhere is to include the name, state the specific nature of trhe association briefly and include a reference. (returned to add signature) Cosmopolitancats 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cosmopolitancats (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I believe the Lansburys lived in the southern part of Poplar - ie not here, I have a book, I can check. Limehouse is a long way from here. Celebrity additions tend to be drive-by-editors who, either saw it in a newspaper - but don't know where - or, just add random facts to keep people up late at night. Kbthompson 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I for one am not a "drive-by editor". I take on projects to improve groups of articles associated with areas in which I have some expertise - not that I'm claiming to know it all of course. I'll be around for quite a bit. BTW, Limehouse is the ward is the south side of Mile End Road and is immediately adjacent to Bow. How do you explain the Lansbury landmark memorials being within a (longish) stone throw of one another in Mile End Road? There's got to be a reason. Cosmopolitancats 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cosmopolitancats (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, congratulations on your amazingly powerful research capability. First off, the memorials, Minnie's grand clock and George's rather crappy little stone (he deserves better) are not on Mile End Road, they are on Bow Road, once again east of the old Poplar borough marker by St Clement's Hospital. Secondly, KBT has already pointed out quite eloquently that TH council wards are nugatory - the *district* of Limehouse does not start, or even go anywhere near the *district* of Bow, they are so totally not contiguous. Council wards, council 'neighbourhoods', postcodes and dialling codes - all useless in this debate.

But to cut to the chase on this 'celebrity' point, we've generally elsewhere in London changed 'residents' to 'notable people associated with the area' or suchlike, which allows much more inclusion. It would be ridiculous, based on their street address, to leave the Lansburys out on this piece, given their extremely close association with the area. (See Metropolitan Borough of Poplar and Poplarism). But, gosh, I must admit I am quite baffled as to your puzzlement about the close proximity of their memorials given the existence of Poplar Town Hall on Bow Road a little further along. And if you would like more old Socialist arcana from Bow Road, I have the visuals. (Love the way photography is exempt from WP:NOR) Tarquin Binary 05:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Civilised discussion please. I blame a late night for forgetting the Bow Road/Mile End Road thing. It's commonplace elsewhere in Wikipedia to talk about people associated with an area as opposed to residents - that is not at issue (or is it?). So far as I'm aware, the only point at issue is about the need to be precise as possible about the nature of the connection.

I don't how you arrived at any notion that there was a proposal to leave the Lansbury's out. I've certainly not made one. You may not have noticed that I was the person who added them into the new landmarks section! My query about the rationale about the location of the Lansbury memorials related to why further up the road rather than at Poplar Town Hall - which would have been much the more obvious place for them to be. The answer is obviously in council archive material unless anybody's book explains. I think photographs would be a positive addition to this article. Presumably you'll be loading your own material to Wikicommons?

(Geography: I think any explanation about suggested divisions and boundaries to be used as guidelines for articles associated with Tower Hamlets needs to be detailed in the Tower Hamlets article and the associated talk page of the actual Tower Hamlets article because

(1) the article lacks any explanation at all at the moment and

(2) so that a wider group of people can discuss the boundaries issue and its appropriate treatment. Perhaps including editors from other parts of wikipedia as well?)Cosmopolitancats 10:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I, of course, assume some sarcasm with regard to your last comment. (Sarcasm is a quite civilised art, to be fair, but then I was being civilised too, so there ain't no ad homs here). So both of us have been civilised about stuff, it seems.

But, seriously, you should not attempt advanced stuff like that in a state of ignorance about the specific situation. Yes, not only have I uploaded stuff - I already had done prior to your cute little snit.

Cutting to the chase, I'm afraid that, looking back on your comments, both here and on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London, I am not convinced that you are operating in good faith at all (one example - your refusal to address my comments on WikiProject_London).

I try to be collaborative myself, but I do get steamed up by this kind of thing (in which case I should stop writing comments) so I will be back some time later when I ain't so pissed off. Bizzy anyway (but you may consider that I am flouncing off in an effete huff if that suits you).

For KBT - going to go with the Listed Buildings project asap, tho, that don't need no go/no-go from bureaucrats... :) Tarquin Binary 01:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In 1868 the family of George Lansbury (1859- 1940) came to live in Albert Road; the future Labour leader attended St. James the Less National school, the Primitive Methodist chapel in Bonner Lane, and freethinkers' meetings in Victoria Park. (son-in-law's biography) - I can only find one in North Woolwich (it may have been demolished) - but Bonner Road is in Bethnal Green. There is some mention of 39 Bow Road, but that could be the house of a friend, a campaign office ... it was bombed in 1940, but George died the same year in Manor House hospital. Very few clues to people's personal lives. Kbthompson 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that explains his landmark memorial in part - it's more or less at 39 Bow Road as it's outside the health offices on the opposite corner from 41-47 Bow Road (the council offices). Also the reference that came up when I googled "39 Bow Road" - see http://www.stephentimms.org.uk/csarchive.htm (scroll down for reference) - apparently Lansbury lived there (which is what I thought the connection was). The website references cites a new biography of Lansbury. I'm now wondering if Minnie lived just up the road as families tended to live close by one another then.Cosmopolitancats 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit more investigation suggests that the biography cited above by Stephen timms MP would appear to be George Lansbury: At the Heart of Old Labour (Hardcover)by John Shepherd Publisher: Oxford University Press (30 Sep 2002)ISBN-10: 0198201648 / ISBN-13: 978-0198201649 So now the question is who's got a copy? Cosmopolitancats 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then be bold Kbthompson 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm happy to take his word for it (Stephen Timms MP) and I think my guess is reasonable, I for one would prefer to have the dates before referencing it. Somebody will know - it's not vital right this minute. Cosmopolitancats

Ah, I already found a longer extract, modified the text and added a link to an extended extract from the same book. I meant the Steve Marriot page, go ahead and change that. (See you've broken the software now, best archive some of this discussion soon, as its getting over-long). Kbthompson 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

It should be noted that it's a copyright violation to lift texts directly from other websites. It is acceptable for the content to be summarised, or reworded, particularly as it should be wiki'd to other reference articles in wikipedia. It's also a little dodgy to rely on secondary web sources, you may perpetuate inaccuracies, and if possible reference should be made to the primary sources (eg BritHistory online). Kbthompson 13:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Another Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. If the information does not have a reference in that article, then it is still unreferenced when included here. If a source is cited in the other article, in most cases that source can be included here. JPD (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. What I try to do with, for example, notables is check whether there is any reference in the linked article to their link with the area (in this case Bow) and if the link is cited there then use the linked article as the reference and if it isn't then delete the notable after a period of notice that a citation is needed - which is the bit of the process we're in at the moment. I note your suggestion about including the reference in this article where it exists elsewhere and, as I said exactly the same thing last night in relation to something else, have to agree that is very sensible! ;) Cosmopolitancats 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mildly disagree, goes against wikipolicy of assuming good faith. Many bio articles do not have inline citations, but are referenced to a written biography. WP:NOT is declining and being replaced by unencyclopaedic, but that policy was "if they red link, they're probably not notable". Same goes if it links to a vanity article. So - get rid of those. They've had this argument over in movies, because most rely on imbd data for basic bio details - like birth and death. A lot of those came from here - so it gets a bit circular. Most online references are secondary sources, and subject to the same errors that occur in wiki articles (and increasingly derived from wiki articles) - so, why are they any better? See for an example. There's a balance to be achieved in footnoting, but there is an issue of verifiability. Kbthompson 09:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. Good faith is not the same thing as good editing, and assuming it has nothing to do with accepting unsourced material. The key point is verifiability. Whether this is done inline or not is not as important, but footnotes do make the citations easier to follow in many situations. In this particular case, we had no external source, inline or otherwise, for the fact that Marriott was born in Bow. I think this justifies a {{fact}} tag. Including the source here if it were already in another article is less important, but it would be helpful. JPD (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mariott's birthplace was not cited in his own article - I checked. The source quoted here now needs to be quoted there as well for the sake of completeness. Cosmopolitancats 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Councillors

In other places, see Stoke Newington Central (ward) for an example, the page details councillors, links to their profiles and provides information specific to the ward. I didn't do it! So you may like to do it that way, or not. Kbthompson 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I;ve done elsewhere. If you think about it, one of the reasons people might access a page is to find out that sort of information. I think what I'm suggesting is that I race around all the LBTH articles filling in the gaps about the things that need some basic linking - like who are the councillors. This is an exercise which is probably easiest for one person to do. Then pick off a few more things like that and before we know it the articles are looking a bit more like the suggested template for not a whole lot of effort. Cosmopolitancats 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's at the ward level article, not a location article. I've already explained that wards are not conterminous with locales, and you really will go through coniptions trying to make them fit. Kbthompson 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that'll be me and all the people involved in Community Planning at a local level in conniptions then - since such plans for local areas (as produced by local area partnerships) operate on data from the ward level and aggregated ward level. I start with the basic building block of any present day area - the ward and build from there. It's not been a problem so far. Cosmopolitancats 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine for council and Community Planning people to do things on the basis of wards - it really is up to them how to do it. However, on Wikipedia we are not planning for communities, we are writing about a locality that simply isn't coterminous with wards, no matter how useful the wards are for certain purposes. JPD (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Education

I've started adding schools. These would good in a table but I still can't get to grips with table code. Anybody know a good place on wiki where it explaisn all about tables. I was rather amazed to find no sight nor sound nor sniff of an OSTED report on the web page for each school - it's standard practice elsewhere to include the latest inspection report. (returned to add signature) Cosmopolitancats 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Try Help:Table. JPD (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean Ofsted? In any case why would something so ephemeral as the last year's Ofsted report be considered encyclopedic - it should be on archive.org, for sure, but WP? And please define 'elsewhere' - I assume that by this you mean 'Cheshire' :) Why on earth add schools to a London *district*? It does not work that way. By all means add them to a borough - you have already been told that educational funding and responsibility lies, for the most part, at the borough level. Damn, I said I wasn't going to have these silly conversations... Tarquin Binary 03:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No I don't just mean Cheshire. Yes I do mean OFSTED. Schools are governed and managed at a local level. Funding is filtered through education authorites but they don't manage the schools. Schools do not get an annual inspection. Both schools and inspectors would be on their knees if they did - not to mention the expense. The normal frequency identified in the guidelines to inspectors is three years unless the school is giving cause for concern. Why include it? Because it helps the local person to understand more about their local area.Cosmopolitancats 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the schools' web page have Ofsted reports may be a good question, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Wikipedia, as it is not our role to provide access to Ofsted reports. I don't see why schools shouldn't be mentioned, though. The presence of schools is an important part of the information about a locality, and is included in settlement articles for places around the world, without any reference to which authority is responsible for running the schools. I'm not so keen on having external links for them in this context, however. JPD (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. The place for information about an individual school is always on that school page, and it always has been an aspiration of WPLondon to have an article for every school (if only so they can maintain it themselves). Access to those schools is through the boroughs, and it is largely irrelevant to a person wishing to send their child to a school where a school is located. Admissions policies are unrelated to propinquity and locale. By pointing education to the borough page, it avoids duplication in the locales. Local people know which ones are in their locale, and the main desperation of school placement tends to be finding any school in the borough (been there, done that).

Same goes for things like councillors, put them in a ward article, link that here for the locale - link (say) Old Ford to Bow East (ward) - link LBTH to article for each ward. Simple straight forward schemata for the information and active editing rather than mere duplication. The power of a wiki lies in the rich linking, not endless repetition.

As a matter of wiki-style, it is normal not to embed external links in the body of an article, they must be gathered at the bottom. This is to do with the sale of your carefully crafted prose to other companies. (It helps pay the rent). They can be placed as footnotes using ref style. Kbthompson 11:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If we were trying to avoid duplication, we wouldn't have this article at all. Most of the reasons given both for and against including any info on schools seems to be on the basis of whether it's relevant to someone looking for a school for a child, but I don't think that's relevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a schools guide. Schools generally are associated with a locality whether or not the students live there, just as people can be associated with the locality for reasons other than residence. JPD (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(PS: You are completely right about external links, and councillors don't belong here, but does each ward really deserve an article? That would be either a lot of duplication, or a collection of very small articles. JPD (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

I'll concede that schools are a local landmark, as are hospitals, universities (and in the Orkneys, a tree), I just wouldn't over emphasis them at the local level. In the same way, I wouldn't consider councillors worth a mention, I'd link to a place where you can find the current information. I provided an example where someone felt wards to be worthy of a mention, and they began the exercise, but then seemed to give up halfway through ... it would also be a bugger to keep up to date (I certainly don't get informed of every by-election in LBTH).

I think what I'm trying to get at, is information about the council is a top-down exercise, it's not in that article in any quantity or quality at the moment, and the locale is not the place to start - it's where the process ends, if it's deemed notable enough. The basic information is missing at the boro' level and it's not appropriate to do a bottom-up exercise (apart from anything else, when you consider the larger picture, your views about locales change - I know mine did; and much of the stuff I did a year ago, I need to revisit). Maybe I've been too prickly about it, I'm not trying to stop Cosmo from editing, I'm trying to get him to make edits that make sense to me and direct all that productivity to the most useful ends - others mileage may differ, my own mileage may differ over time ... Kbthompson 12:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You're having a conversation at a locality level in one borough of London about a matter which in my opinion should really be discussed at a much much higher level - where exactly I'm not exactly sure, but certainly above the London level. I would have thought one of the fundamental things about an encylopeadic approach to organising information is that you should have a broad schemata of what goes where and that is decided and then applied across the piece - and then variations are decided upon from there.

I've already pointed out there is a Guideline in existence Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements (see item 4 above) which does make clear what should be included in every article about a place. Has a decision been made to now ignore this guideline which is being applied elsewhere in the UK? If so maybe we could open that discussion and debate up to other people involved with that guideline and wiritng about settlements. How about having that discussion on that guidelines's talk page?

From a practical perspective - until such time as each school has its own article what's the problem with including very basic details in the locality?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmopolitancats (talk • contribs)

I'm having a conversation in context with the question. I have an opinion and it's not subject to any arbitrarily imposed guideline. The way to move these forward is by consensus between the participating editors, consensus is achieved by discussion. You have raised these issues at a local level, and people have challenged you on it - you then move to a different locality and start all over again. Then you wonder why people consider you confrontational. You raise the issue of guidelines, then fail to keep to them yourself. Try not to make half-baked edits, if you don't have a clear idea of where you're going with something, use the sandbox. Don't use the articles for what is essentially work in progress. Concentrate on one section at a time, and complete it so that it both makes sense and is correct. Kbthompson 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for failing to sign the previous entry. I'm trying to have a discussion. I'd very much prefer to have the discussion in one place - preferably on the page relating to the guideline which (I think) you are suggesting can be ignored. I'm perplexed by this. Does this mean that users can always ignore all the other guidelines on wikipedia because they don't accord with their opinions? I thought discussions about reaching consensus on something are supposed to occur in the place where the guideline or policy occurs. Are you saying otherwise? If you only have a discussion in the context in question then that surely means it only applies to that context and not to any other - and consequently must be had all over again in a different context. Which you also seem to be objecting to. At which point I get even more perplexed!

If you are using terms such as 'half-baked edits' please indicate what you mean by this if you mean to be helpful Cosmopolitancats 15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to London Borough of Tower Hamlets were incomplete and in some cases inaccurate, ie half-baked; I spent an unproductive afternoon clearing them up, particularly with respect to external links. Please think through what you are trying to achieve, complete that, and only then move onto the next thing.

You choose the forum for this conversation, not I. Yes, it would be better to have these conversations in one place where others could contribute, but you blatt them all over the place! Kbthompson 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone or meant to be blindly followed. They need to be applied with common sense, and often, flexibility. The WikiProject suggestions on how to write about settlements do not have any sort of official status, and definitely shouldn't be forced on editors of individual pages. Having said that, I think the differences of opinion here are matters of interpreting the basic ideas behind the guidelines, not the result of ignoring them. While I still maintain it is quite reasonable to mention schools in this article, I also agree that it is sensible to focus on writing about education at a borough level, but in my experience, Kb, people work on the articles they want to work on, and trying to direct peoples productivity to particular ends is largely unproductive. JPD (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)