Talk:City of London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for City of London:

  • History: Reduce sub-sections; split thematically: governance; economy; urban development / should summarise History of London (almost completely unreferenced)
  • Governance: Reduce sub-sections; summarise
  • Geography: reads like a walk-through; should focus on significant features; split thematically
    • Gardens and public art: list to prose; summarise
  • Demography: Section required
  • Economy: needs data breakdown of City economy not just vanity comparison figures; repeats landmarks
  • Landmarks: List/table to prose
  • Transport: succinct summary
  • Education: copyedit with refs
  • Public services: copyedit with refs
  • Images: not just pictures of things in the city; must illustrate text
  • Introduction: should summarise the article properly (probably about the right length)

Is the City of London a sovereign state?[edit]

Similar to the District of Columbia in the US?

If so, is this why institutions such as the Bank of England and Temple Bar reside within those boundaries - to allow the sovereignty of the Crown to self-perpetuate, within its own jurisdiction?

If not, indeed why do the world's key institutions (or at least their HQs) reside within these boundaries? Is there a specific reason why they are all grouped within the boundaries of the City of London?

Is it the same reason why the IMF, World Bank and Federal Reserve institutions reside in their own sovereign district in the US?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk)

Not really a query for this page. The City is sui generis, although it is within Greater London and residents are represented both with the GLA and European parliament. That means it has its own civic government and institutions, but it is within the the sovereign state of the UK, and those laws apply.
The institutions tend to be gathered in the City for propinquity reasons. In the good ol'days much business was done over lunch, and by the shake of a hand. With the introduction of electronic trading and settlement many of the institutions ran off to cheaper offices in Docklands - they no longer had to be in the bounds of a process called City Walks whereby bonds and money were transferred the same day by nondescript messengers walking between banks, and at time the headquarters of the main banks were all gathered around the BoE. Their back offices, or settlements tended to move, now the front office (or trading functions) tend to have moved too. Those functions of business and banking that require face-to-face contact, tend to still be near each other - so people can stick in several meetings in one day.
The District of Columbia is a US state (not quite, as it's the US capital territory), not a sovereign state within the international sense. Laws are the same throughout the UK, but specific state laws apply in the US. THE IMF and World bank are international institutions, and similar rules apply to their representatives, as to the UN. The Federal reserve actually has 'branches' in the major financial centre in each state, it's a Federal institution, so not surprising it has its HQ in federal territory.
HTH Kbthompson 14:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally to Kbthompson 's comments: The City is not a 'Sovereign State' it is simply a local authority. 'Temple Bar' marks the site of the old west gate into the City - a Bar is a gate. The nearby Temple is the location of two Inns of Court (Inner Temple and Middle Temple)which developed within the old Knights Templar monastic enclave. Therefore the City does not have "its own jurisdiction" but the same as any other town anywhere else in the UK. As for "The Crown" you do not actually explain what you mean by this. If you mean the Queen and Royal Family then they have little authority in our constition, Elizabeth II is Head of State. The other use of the term 'The Crown' is merely a way of refering to the Government, so as we have "The Crown in Parliament". 79.72.81.131 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S

Thankyou for the indepth answer. It's interesting that many sources do position the City as a "sovereign state", but I'm wondering if this is just historical? The reason I ask is because over the past few years I have been researching the global dominance of the Crown (known as the "British Empire" by many) and the City itself was seen as the source of perpetuation for their unlawful (but legal) practises across the world (e.g. the Bank of England's fractional reserve system that was setup by the Monarchy to control the flow of its wealth, generated in the city). These practises, which I won't go into now, were legal (but not lawful) because of the self-regulatory codes and rules formulated at Temple Bar, also within the City's boundaries.
Many researchers believe this is how the Crown have managed to usurp power over parliament, and many MPs throughout history (not so much now of course) have warned of the few elite bankers and attorners that are able to manipulate their subjects through unlawful contracts, legal codes and rules. Many researchers I have read, past and present, have stated that soveriegnty was dissolved to the Crown and the bankers and attorners of the Inner Temples.
Fascinating stuff - but unfortunately, it's difficult for me to replicate the picture that has been painted in my mind after much reading on the history of the Crown and the City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.40.184 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Em, the only thing I can think of, in respect of City sovereignty is its sui generis status. This is because the City actually precedes the legal derogation of power to either crown, or parliament. However, it is submissive to both. (I'd look at The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot, 1876. ISBN 0-521-46535-4, ISBN 0-521-46942-2). Any actual subservience of the crown to bankers, tends to be associated with settlement of wars, or their gambling debts - which amounts to the same thing.
As to the monitory slight of hand known as the fractional reserve system, this merely reflects the tendency of most people to pay their debts. Actuaries can work out the risk associated with a loan, and thus work out a proportion of 'good money' to 'bad'. The system tends to work until you get a periodic crisis of capitalism, such as the sub-prime loan problem. Then the proverbial hits the rotatory dissemination device, and for some reason, we all end up with the bill.
Nice talking to you, but this is really a place for talking about the article, not questions about the world economy. Kbthompson 00:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.185.211 (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 

As simple as possible Your comments are bsed on some simple misunderstandings: Having read very many 'peculiar historical documents', as you term them, such as the City of London's 'Liber Albus' and 'Letter Books' there is nothing mysterious about the nature of the City at all - indeed its records are the most copious of any City in Europe next to Rome. The principal owners of the 'Square Mile' that is the territory within the City's boundaries are firstly the City Corporation itself, then the leading 12 Livery Companies and followed by numerous commercial investment companies, eg British Land plc. The Rothschild dynasty have never really been land owners but bankers. So that most of the land is either owned by public bodies, charities or publicly listed companies. Most banks and financial institutions are within the City boundary for historic reasons, the Royal Exchange, the Bank of England, Lloyds of London and the Stock Exchange were founded there; they had to be in one place just like in any other capital city or financial capital eg Wall Street, New York, Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt. As Kbthompson explained in the late 20th Century these have started to move out of the City because modern communications means that they do not have to be there. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S

Goodness me. Some people believe some right rubbish. David (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Leading Centre of Global Finance[edit]

The article says: "The City of London is today a major business and commercial centre, ranking just below New York City as the leading centre of global finance.[1]"

However, the document [1] cited by the article shows that London ranks just above New York, though not in a statistically significant way. Another concern is that the document cited was published by the Corporation of London, which raises a question of bias.

Unless there is a range of supporting material I would recommend the article instead says that London is one of the most important global financial centres. Flux 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Corporation works closely with all of the leading companies and institutions to collatew material as to the UK's - effectively 'The City' - performance and standing internationally. It uses such information to lobby and promote these interests. Nobody challenged the statements when the City recorded in the 1980s that it was slipping behind other centres, and was third behind New York and Tokyo and being caught by Frankfurt. Therefore why challenge the research which now indicates its improvement ? The point is that the City cannot benefit from providing false information and status, it needs to know the truth to plan and develop strategy. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S

I agree with User "Flux" that the article should state that the City of London is today one of the most important international financial centres. Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sui generis[edit]

It is a city and Ceremonial county now what is Sui generis about that ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a unique entity in English and British geography and politics. The last remaining place governed by a medieval Corporation (it has never been replaced, unlike every other borough and city in the country) where the governance, elections, etc are completely different to the rest of the country. It does not fit in with the system of local authorities established in England - it isn't even a London borough. The only other sui generis place in England is the Isles of Scilly - a special district set up in the 1880s (IIRC) and which does not fit in either with the standard pattern of (non-)metropolitan districts and counties/London boroughs. The City is unique in so many ways. It certainly deserves the sui generis tag. David (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Κaiba 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How does a ship know when the time in a particular country changes?[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam: How does a ship of a navigator know how to calculate a time change in a aparticular country?

Regards,

Rosemarie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.93.45 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dragons[edit]

I was always under the impression that the 'dragons' were, in fact, griffins. They are always facing out of the city and they are supposed to defend the City against corruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalcolmSm1th (talkcontribs) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

They are dragons (cross between a bat and a crocodile) Griffons are different (cross between an eagle and a lion). The Draghon is a very common heraldic beast and the City adopted it a a 'supporter' for its coat of arms in the Jacobean period. The statues of dragons at the entrance to the City are holding its coat of arms. They are not defending anything, just notifying the public of the boundary. Tony S 89.168.71.51 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Resident voters[edit]

It says in the article that businesses located in the City of London have the right to vote in elections and it explains it well, but it gives no information about the people that live there. Do residents have a vote? If so, how many residents? I would guess that it would be all of them, but given the City's unique structure, that may not be accurate.

169.231.32.17 (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are just over 7,000 residents. About a fifth are barristers in the Temple (technically tenants and residing in their chambers) Half live in the Barbican complex and the rest are scattered in various small residential developments. Quite a few are resident caretakers of office blocks and landlords of public houses. All residents over the age of 18 vote in their Ward elections and also in the Parliamentary elections. Tony S 89.168.71.51 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Derry[edit]

Carriden (talk · contribs) proposes adding the following to the article:

In the 1600s, and as part of the plantation of Ulster, London livery companies arrived in what is now Northern Ireland, and in 1613, commenced construction of what was to be the first planned city in Ireland. The city, which was subsequently named Londonderry in honour of its parent[5][6] was built across the River Foyle from the earlier small town of Doire/Derry, with sunstantial walls to defend

Londonderry's coat of arms

it from Irish insurgents who did not welcome the English and Scots occupation. The walls are extant to this day with Londonderry being the only remaining completely intact walled city in Ireland and one of the finest examples of a walled city in Europe.[7][8][9]

According to documents in the College of Arms in London and the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland in Dublin, the coat of arms of the new city were confirmed in 1613 by Daniel Molyneux, Ulster King of Arms. The devices on the city's arms are a skeleton and a three-towered castle on a black field, with the chief or top third of the shield depicting the arms of the City of London.[10]

While it is worth mentioning in the article that Londonderry was named after London, but this is far too much weight, deviating from the subject of the article. For instance, the info about the walls is completely irrelevant to this article. I suggest something more along the lines of:

The settlement of Londonderry was named after London due to its trade connections with the city. Londonderry's coat of arms incorporate the flag of the City of London.

Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One sentence works. One section does not. O Fenian (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
After giving this some more thought, why should we even single out one place when there are plenty of places called London. O Fenian (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
A good question, although Derry is the most significant place on that list to be named after London it might be easier and fairer to just say in the article that there are lots of places called London (I hesitate to say name after without a reliable source, but the members of the list were all founded by colonial Britain, so it's common sense to draw the conclusion they were named after London, England, although I'm not sure about London, Kiribati). Nev1 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Population[edit]

So, the City of London is 1.12 square miles. I'm with that up to now. But, a population of 208,000 in 1700 ? That made it approximately four times as populated as Macau, which is listed as the most densely populated country in the world.

The mind boggles!

92.239.71.235 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The article says the population is about 7,900, but I'm not quite sure why the article says 208,000 in 1700; it may be referring to London proper rather than the City of London, but it could do with more explanation. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The City of London was incredibly densely populated until around the middle of the 19th century. David (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On January 10, 2013 the City of London article states the population as 20 million and the density as 18 million per square mile, while the article text states that the resdident population of the 1.12 square mile City is only 7000. --148.184.174.61 (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This article said that the City's population was 20,000,000 for about 8 hours today due to an editor not appreciating the difference between London and the City of London. It now correctly states that the population is about 7000. The 20m figure refers to London as a whole and has little relevance to this article about the City. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Prime Meridian NOT within City of London.[edit]

That it is is a VERY common misconception bound up with many, many people understandably not realising that 'The City' is just the Square mile. By putting a one sentence explanation at the end of the opening section I believe this misconception can be reduced. I am sorry not to have given this explanation before and hope it is now acceptable or a comment is made explaining why it is not acceptable. I appreciate that there are many, many things that NOT connected with 'The City' and they cannot all be given a reference, however as the Prime Meridian is researched world wide I hope an exception can be allowed. See Link to one of many WikiAnswers that is an example of this problem. The WikiAnswers link may not yet have been updated to show the latest Article here.Stranger on the shore (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, this is stupid - it's got nothing to do with the City of London and it isn't a common misconception. I'm removing it again. Put it in the main London article, although I think it's explained perfectly well already there where Greenwich is. Look, in the end, we could put in all sorts of articles "btw - the Greenwich Meridian doesn't go through here". Further, we could put all sorts of information in the opening section to this article, disclaiming all sorts of supposed misconceptions, but it would end up getting silly. Sorry, it's not staying. David (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about it, surely the best place to put the "it doesn't go through the City of London" information (not that it really is necessary - all the clueless have to do is look at a bloody map) is actually on the Prime Meridian page itself. David (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

New Criticisms section[edit]

This new section strikes me as being somewhat sensationalised and I question the verifiability of the source (i.e., is it actual fact, or rather the author just stirring up conspiracy theories about City operations?). Is it fair, also, to have an entire "criticisms" section based on one source — a book, no less, which not many other people can verify actually contains said criticisms described as they have been by Andromedean (contribs) here? --TBM10 (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I can tolerate a criticisms section, though some of the assertions are frankly the author's opinion and are rather far fetched. The City is not a state within a state or a tax haven. The tax laws in the City are the same as elsewhere in the UK, or at least England. And if the tax haven lark applies to England as a whole, it shouldn't be directed at the City in this way, even if that's how the author puts it in his book. The section definitely needs a rethink with counter-arguments and further sources, and spurious claims removed. David (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I have made some tweaks to the content added by Andromedean and encouraged the user to discuss the content here. My modifications may go some way to improving the neutrality of the content and reduce the sensationalism. --TBM10 (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Can the section be included in an existing section? Having a whole (main) section of the article devoted to one man's criticisms is a bit much. David (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am Nicholas Shaxson and I want to clarify a couple of points, related to the Griffin chapter in my book Treasure Islands, referenced below. In the days following publication of my book Treasure Islands, I went to interview the City of London Corporation after they had had a chance to read it. Indeed, there are some claims in the book which I believe overstep the mark somewhat, based on faulty information provided to me. (This is the only section of the book, as far as I am aware, which has a problem of this nature.) Immediately after the interview, I posted the clarifications and corrections on the Treasure Islands website, here. http://treasureislands.org/updates-and-errors/ Revisions to the book for future editions will contain amendments. (To be clear, though: these amendments to the Griffin chapter, and there are not many of them, do not structurally affect the argument of the chapter. They merely rein in some claims made to me, which went a little too far.)

I think that the big questionable claim made was on page 254 of the UK edition: "The Prime Minister has to meet with the City if it asks for it within ten days; the Queen has to meet the City within a week if it requests." This claim was made on BBC Panorama and I trusted the source, but I didn't check it back with the City Corporation as I should have. The City Corporation denied this assertion absolutely, and I have not been able to substantiate the claim. It's just possible, still, that it's true in one way or another, but I will only believe it if I see evidence. The other major one concerns the City's Cash - there is somewhat more disclosure of this pot of money - although far from complete disclosure - than I had asserted. I am very sorry indeed that these particular claims got into the book.

I don't know enough about how to use Wikipedia to make the changes required; I hope this web page will help guide others as they make changes.

To understand what I mean by a tax haven, when I refer to the City of London Corporation, it is essential to read the whole of the book. If you think that a tax haven is merely a place to avoid tax, then the City of London Corporation does not fit the bill. If you take a broader view of tax havens, as Treasure Islands does, then it begins to look very different. The commenter below I think explains this reasonably well.

finally, one other thing I'd say, too, about what's written below:

"writes regularly for the Financial times, The Economist and many other publications"

it is more accurate to say

"has written regularly for the Financial times, The Economist and many other publications. Basically, writing Treasure Islands stopped me from doing much of this, though I did still write occasional things for these publications while writing Treasure Islands.

END Nicholas Shaxson (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I had already toned down some of Shaxson’s claims in an attempt to avoid a revision. However, these are all meticulously referenced. There are 83 references alone in the ‘Griffin, the City of London Corporation’ chapter.

Shaxson is an Associate Fellow of the Royal Institute of International affairs and writes regularly for the Financial times, The Economist and many other publications. The book is endorsed by Nicolas Stern as “Outstanding” and Richard Murphy Director of Tax research UK as “the best book on Tax havens ever”.

David you say ‘The City is not a state within a state or a tax haven’. I doubt if HMRC would agree! Shaxson and Taxjustice certainly don’t. In fact that is one of their main points. Havens are not just exotic islands or central European states, but include the likes of Delaware and the City of London. They will refuse to accept they are of course.

Shaxson agrees there is no official definition of ‘offshore centre’ or “tax haven.” This is little to do with the official taxation level since tax it is rendered meaningless through various means, trust etc. He identifies several key features, amongst these he includes: “secrecy jurisdictions and local politics captured by financial services interests” and “where meaningful opposition to the offshore model has been eliminated.”

Quickly looking through the ‘City of London’ chapter he writes on p.247

“Another source of power [in the City] is its offshore structure. Since the 1950s financial services have flocked to London because it lets them do what they cannot do at home… when the US introduced the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations in 2002 to protect Americans against the likes of Enron and Worldcom the City did nothing”….”Every Russian firm listing overseas chooses London not New York”. “A Luxembourg foreign minister said “all our bankers and financial lawyers say that if you really really want to hide money go to London and set up a trust… it is impossible to know who the real owners are.” “In Feb 2010 Alexander Zvyginintsev Russia’s deputy prosecutor general said that Londongrad as it is sometimes known, was a giant launderette for laundering criminally sourced funds” (you can see I have toned it down considerably)

You query “de-facto State within a state” again by adding de-facto I am toning it down, perhaps we should just reference Tax Justice linked below and remove the de-facto bit altogether?

“Tax Justice: The City of London Corporation: the state within a state”

When people ask – as they often do these days – which is the biggest tax haven in the world, our answer is almost invariably the City of London. The City hosts Britain’s largest offshore financial centre and is intimately linked to satellite tax havens across most time zones, ranging from Hong Kong and Singapore in the East, to the British Virgin Islands, the Turks & Caicos Islands, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas in the West. All of these havens are in some respects the Frankenstein creations of the City, as are the Crown Dependency islands (Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey) which are easily accessible in less than one hour by jet from London


The term "state within a state” is also strongly implied throughout the chapter there is ample evidence to support this.

 Shaxson writes: “The city is connected to the British nation but remains constitutionally elsewhere… Whilst some laws do apply to the Corporation many acts of parliament specifically exempt it…In this, the City resembles Jersey or the Cayman Islands”

 Shaxson writes p. 263 “Corporations get their licence from the state…. the City of London Corporation is something else.”

 Former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, wrote in the Labour Party in Perspective, p179 Over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the Government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which has been decided by the people”

 When King William I invaded England, the City retained its freehold property, libraries, militias and the King had to disarm before entering. The City encouraged the American colonialists to rebel, then applauded their Declaration of Independence to the annoyance of the King. The Queen still cannot enter the City unless accompanied by the Lord Mayor!

 The Statute of William and Mary 1690 states: ‘confirming the privileges of the corporation’ "all the charters, grants, letters patents and commissions" touching or concerning any of the liberties or franchises, immunities, lands, tenements and hereditaments, rights titles, or estates of the mayor and commonly and citizens of the city of London made or granted to any person whatsoever… be and are hereby declared and adjudged null and void to all extents.

 The City helped engineer Cardinal Wolsey’s downfall after he attempted to tax the City, and instituted the role of Remembrancer, to remind the King of his debt to the City. The Remembrancer is the only non parliamentary person allowed in the Commons chamber and is charged with maintaining and enhancing the Cities status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded. A recent Remembrancer boasted that his operating principle was to ‘oppose every bill which would interfere with the rights and privileges enjoyed by the corporation’


I also notice you have also edited the paragraph on the IASB. Note Shaxton writes “Through the IASB hosted by the City of London Corporation these giant Businesses write their own disclosure rules”

wiki 22:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talkcontribs) wiki 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief. What a load of tosh. English law and statute applies in the City of London exactly the same as the rest of England (a few bits on local government are different). The Queen DOES NOT need permission to enter the City. Don't debate me on these two points, as it's fact. The tax haven stuff is nonsense. A company has the same taxation imposed on them whether its on the City side of Bishopsgate or the Tower Hamlets side. The only difference is that its employees can vote and stand in City elections. (The issue of companies not paying taxes by various means is a nation-wide matter, nothing to do with the City!!) Monarchs have regularly done the "confirming the privileges of the corporation" lark to many boroughs and cities. It means diddly squat, other than the right to elect a lord mayor and be a city, etc. Yes, the Corporation is different than a normal local authority, but only because it is the last remaining corporation. It does not have exceptional powers in any way. The Remembrancer thing is just overblown too - only MPs can vote in the Commons. Frankly I can't be bothered to go on. Shaxson has clearly just gone onto google or youtube and found some conspiracy nutter stuff about the City, most of which is totally untrue or totally misunderstood.
“Corporations get their licence from the state…. the City of London Corporation is something else.” - yes, it's a local authority. Ooohhh!!
I STRONGLY suggest the section is removed completely from the article. The author clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. David (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Remove per WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Lozleader (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
After further reflection and reading the above, I would strongly support removing this section in its entirety. It does not seem right to give such undue weight towards this one source in an otherwise good and neutral article. Under Wikipedia's content rules on due weight, "articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." --TBM10 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading your own comments

"Shaxson has clearly just gone onto google or youtube and found some conspiracy nutter stuff about the City, most of which is totally untrue or totally misunderstood"

I don't feel as if you have any serious intention of seriously researching this book. I would strongly recommend you NOT to attempt to remove this without reading the book and examining the references, and explaining why the statements in the article are wrong! A tax haven is not determined by headline rates. Neither is this a minority view, SEE TAXJUSTICE it is also a majority view of those who have read the book.

I have serious concerns about your views. This was not even remotely a balanced article before these criticisms were included! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talkcontribs) 14:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Andromedean, please read Wikipedia's content rules regarding fringe theories and giving undue weight towards one source: "articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Whether these views are shared by the majority of "people who have read the book" is irrelevant. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise the book, which I get the impression may be a side goal of all this. Lastly, there is scope for argument over whether this types of content belongs in this article at all. One could argue that this article is about the geographical area rather than the behaviour of the organisations within it. If anything, perhaps the article Economy of London is more relevant. --TBM10 (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


TBM10 You are not listening. I have no problem including taxjustices views on the City, it is a good idea.

These are all the press reviews using the following search

Daily Mail

Independent

New Statesman

This is London

Open Democracy

There are six newspaper reviews here some right wing

There is also a short Wiki article on Shaxson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talkcontribs) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is still considerable confusion going on between the City of London as a geographic entity (with its Corporation) and "the City" as a metonymy for the wider British financial services industry. David (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

all this is unreferenced,

The Corporation points out that its regulatory regime does not extend to the financial services sector, this being controlled by central government agencies and ministries through primary legislation; the confusion arises because so many financial institutions originated and maintain their organisations in the City. There are no tax exemptions in the City. However, as of May 2012, the Canary Wharf development claims it has now exceeded the City in occupied square feet, jobs, and the number of banking and financial services activities. These do not have any City connection, being based in neighbouring Tower Hamlets. Multiple attempts by the City to reform itself were thwarted by central government claiming it would involve too much Parliamentary time, until the City succeeded with the act of 2002 which extended its franchise.

the points are misleading or are covered by the information below it. It seems to be a defence of what comes afterwards to provide false balance. It needs to be removed

However, as stated here: In fact the Corporation boasts that it "handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City", such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts "extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services......This illustrates another of the Corporation's unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks".

The 'no tax exemption' is just down right misleading, as the references have shown the City is a hive of tax fiddling by legal means or otherwise.

As explained towards the bottom of the section, the 'City' can be a somewhat ambiguous term for financial and legal power which is merely centred in the City location and it isn't intended to cover a rigid geographic area but the web of connections covered under English law. Therefore the Canary wharf part is a stawman argument.

I don't know what the City reformations were in 2002 but I think we can be assured it was nothing which would have reduced its own power and influence! --Andromedean (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"grew and has held city status since time immemorial"[edit]

'Time immemorial' seems a little poetic considering many people still remember that it was once London Town, before that Londinium etc etc. Not time immemorial...more 'time well documented'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.254.117 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually "time immemorial" is a legal term. In this article it is used twice: first, we do not know the exact date (or even century!) London became an official city, and second we do not know the exact date the wards (again, or even century!) came into existence. These things are not documented. And no, no one can remember the details as the people of the time are all dead and the information has not been passed on by word of mouth either. David (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"time immemorial" legally means prior to the 12th century, i.e, the 1100's. That was when regular record-keeping was instigated by the Norman rulers in Britain.
So the phrase effectively means "prior to existing (or the existence of) written records".

The London wiki article[edit]

... is here [1] if anyone wishes to update it (or develop the red links). I am the only person on the wiki at the moment so others are welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dramatic Sentence[edit]

In the elections section, there is the following sentence:

"In fact it effectively leads to the death of opposition politics and reinforces a political elite captured by the finance industry."

The phrase 'death of opposition politics' strikes me as un-wikipedia like and the whole sentence (though it may be true) lacks citation . Is there perhaps a better way to word this? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, totally biased and opinionated statement. Should be seriously changed or deleted entirely. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Foreign exchange: 36.7%[edit]

Under the 'economy' section, there is a sentence referring to Foreign Exchange that occurs in the City:

"Of the $3.98 trillion daily global turnover, as measured in 2009, trading in London accounted for around $1.85 trillion, or 36.7% of the total.[7]"

If you do the sum (1.85 / 3.98) you will find that the percentage is 46.5%.

The citation for [7] is:

"Research and statistics FAQ". The City of London. Retrieved 2012-02-23.

This links to: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Business/Business_support_and_advice/Economic_information_and_analysis/Research+and+statistics+FAQ.htm but the link is currently broken.

Can we find a current source to find the real statistic, or remove this statistic from the article?

T3Roar (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Era: AD date style[edit]

An edit just now changed the date style where "AD" is specified from, for example: "It is believed that London was established by merchants as a trading port on the tidal Thames around 47 AD, during the Roman occupation of Britain." to "It is believed that London was established by merchants as a trading port on the tidal Thames around AD 47, during the Roman occupation of Britain." For now I have changed it back as I was surprised by what seemed to me to be a change to an unfamiliar style, but I am not keen on a fistfight over it. :) Do we have a standard here, or is there some other need to move from what I thought was the established style of the article ... or what? Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a little update/addition to this. I looked at WP:ERA and it says both styles are OK, but don't change era style in an article without talk page consensus. In line with what WP:ERA says I also changed this section's header to include "Era". Hope this helps. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
That's fair enough, though I also wanted to fix an incongruence in that section because it used both AD and CE styles, so one of these should be picked. ArdClose (talk)
Thanks for that. I think I picked up that CE and changed it to an AD (without prejudice!) while fiddling with it, but do please feel free to check and sort out. To my great embarrassment I now have to report that on the "AD 47" vs. "47 AD" issue I am now swinging in the wind like an elderly and confused scarecrow, because I looked it up in ODWE, and ODWE is my bible, and ODWE says (paraphrasing) "AD 47" but 32 BC" with numerals. Head>desk. Sure, one still probably shouldn't change it without consensus, per WP:ERA, but I have to say that if you did seek a consensus to change it, I would now be part of that! Sheesh. I'm a bl**dy idiot sometimes, even when engaged on a sincere attempt to help. Head>desk again. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 :) ArdClose (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

World's leading financial centre[edit]

I removed a sourced assertion that the City ranked "as the world's leading centre of global finance" with this citation. [2] Zyen is far from a neutral source; their homepage states that they've worked on a collaborative project with... wait for it... the government of the City itself! [3] Even if zyen were unbiased, we cannot simply pass along one think tank's claim as if it were a fact. See also Talk:World financial capital. Red Slash 03:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and if anyone ever actually read that reference, they would find that it explicitly lists both NYC and London as TIED for first place and therefore does not even support the assertion. Red Slash 03:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You also changed "Throughout the 19th century, the City was the world's primary business centre" to "Throughout the 19th century, the City was perhaps the world's primary business centre"
Just focussing on this point for now, is the City of London as the world's primary business centre for the period 1801 to 1900 really in doubt? MRSC (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Umm, yeah, I would say it's in doubt because I don't see reliable sources for it. If it's true, it is probably able to be sourced to reliable sources and could then stay in the article as such. I don't know, what about Paris? Berlin? I honestly don't know. Can we get an additional source or two? It's really difficult for me to take one British guy's book saying that London was currently the world's primary centre for business seriously.
Please don't take it the wrong way. If forced at gunpoint to pick a city, I would say that London was probably the primary centre for the world economy from 1800 to 1900. (Whether it was the City itself, hmm...) But can't we get a good source for it? If there is no such source, then I feel "probably" is a good word to hedge our bets. Red Slash 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Buildings outside the City[edit]

Perhaps someone who knows the City better than I should check, but several of the historic buildings mentioned, (specifically Staple Inn in Holborn, in Camden) are actually OUTSIDE the City, I'm unsure about some of the others mentioned and the links don't specify the borough.Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Staple Inn was Camden until 1 April 1994 when it became part of the City. Argovian (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Argovian, thankyou for the correction .... I liked the pics anyhow but thought we should be accurate.Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ernst & Young Head office is also outside of the City. Namely in Southwark which is across the river from The City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.240.128 (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the Mayor of London really have authority over the City?[edit]

According to the wikipedia article he does, but I read somewhere that he doesn't. Can anyone clear this up. I know parliament has no authority over the City.72.204.66.161 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

ANSWER: It depends what you mean by authority. The Mayor of London, has powers ONLY over 'London-wide' matters (such as public transport and infrastructure, some Arts provision etc.) ... Most local matters (Education, Planning, street-cleaning, Social Housing etc.) are in the hands of smaller local authorities (Boroughs) ... In most respects, the City of London (The Square Mile) acts just like any other local authority (it has powers to decide what can be built and where, what schools are run, where you are allowed to park etc.).
So, the Mayor of London DOES have powers over public transport and some other powers EVERYWHERE in London (inc. the City) ... but in other matters the Mayor has NO power anywhere in London, because these are in the hands of local Borough Councils.
One of the reasons that the City is strange compared to other Boroughs is NOT because of its FORMAL powers, but rather because it is relatively rich relative to its commitments (so few residents mean few expenses for - normally expensive - matters such as Education, Social Housing, Social Services etc.). I hope this helps, this answer may not be comprehensive, but its general tenor is correct.Pincrete (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
PS Where on EARTH did you get the idea that Parliament has no authority over the City ? This is nonsense ! The City is subject to the same laws as any other part of the UK, laws made by the English and Scottish & N.I. Parliaments.
It may well be that City financial institutions (Banks etc.) are difficult to regulate in the UK/USA/anywhere on the globe and are expert at finding their way around regulations, but the idea that they are not subject to the authority / laws of the UK is simply silly!Pincrete (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually the City has the right to exempt itself from laws made by parliament. 2.102.81.115 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense ! I'm afraid !Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
City remembrancer discusses this at length. NebY (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Neby for the link, though I think I had read much of this before. My reaction to the Monbiot article, which does seem to constitute the bulk of the criticism, is that a) Monbiot doesn't provide a single instance of the City over-ruling Parliament .... b) Monbiot doesn't say HOW the remembrancer imposes him authority on Parliament, since he has neither a vote nor even the right to speak there ... there are various ceremonial/admin figures who have the right to presence in Parliament, but no voice in decision making ... Are we to think that all our politicians are terrified of this archaic office? .... Having said that I'm sure many/all UK governments like to keep the UK financial services industry happy (because it earns lots of money) , but that is quite a different matter to formal legal powers. It's probable that the US government likes to keep Hollywood/ General Motors/ Coca-Cola etc. happy, but that is quite different from claiming that Hollywood/Detroit or Coca-Cola-ville are exempt from US laws.Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete, I'm glad you liked that link though - as you can see from the indenting - I was providing it more for the benefite of the original enquirer. I'm not very surprised that Monbiot doesn't go into much detail. It's a short piece, more polemic than investigatory, in which he draws on a book of which I know nothing, Treasure Islands by Nicholas Shaxson. As far as I can tell, it wouldn't be appropriate to add anything to this article, at least not on that basis alone. NebY (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Definitely no need for a change re the Mayor/Authority question. After a quick look at your link, I realised that ALL the 'City' coverage is plagued by the same problem. This was put succinctly by David (above) in 2011 "There is still considerable confusion going on between the City of London as a geographic entity (with its Corporation) and "the City" as a metonym for the wider British financial services industry.".Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC).
"I know parliament has no authority over the City." Had to laugh out loud at that one. The myths built up around the City and its Corporation are extraordinary. The internet seems to have a greater ability to spread nonsense than information. Argovian (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see this particular nonsense has come to the fore thanks to some idiot writing an article in the Grauniad. Frankly it doesn't need to be explained how/why the claim isn't true. The claim had no basis in fact in the first place. Argovian (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Status[edit]

NebY, sorry, I don't want to give the impression I'm edit warring. The information is already contained within the blue bar at the top of the infobox below the name of the city. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Rob, I saw you'd changed the blue bar. That doesn't justify removing the information from the body of the infobox. As readers, we want the infobox to give us an at-a-glance summary and as editors we should not assume that the glance extends above the various graphics - a map, a flag, an coat of arms, a photograph - and effortlessly integrates the information held in the subhead with that listed in the body of the infobox. The body of the infobox should be functional by itself. Let's not remove this indication of the CoL's great peculiarity from it. NebY (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems like unnecessary duplication to me. I would prefer the information in the blue bar to be adjacent to a 'Status' field in the body of the infobox, however the blue bar has become a convention unfortunately. How about having 'City and ceremonial county' in the blue bar, and 'Sui generis' solely adjacent to the status field? Would make sense since 'sui generis' is a description of its status, while 'city' and 'ceremonial county' are what it is legally established as. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's just keep the full information in the body of the infobox and deal with the blue bar separately. There's nothing wrong with duplicating information in the blue bar and the infobox body; on the contrary, it's often done - see City of Westminster, Manchester, Cardiff and more arguably Edinburgh. On the other hand, it's not convention to have a blue bar at all (see London, Ontario, East London, Eastern Cape, Derry, Glasgow, Paris, Vienna, Madrid) nor is there consistency in the content of a blue bar (Berlin, Athens, Rome). Do with it what you will! NebY (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Joining in here, I have to say that simple clarity should take precedence over emphasing uniqueness … I don't think there's any danger of the reader not realising that CoL is unique, anomalous - even odd, and we should be trying to de-mystify it as far as possible. Therefore I tend to agree with Rob984 that City & Cer. Co is ENOUGH for the blue bar. Most readers (including myself, and I'm from the UK) probably have no idea what a Ceremonial County IS, that's even before you hit them with sui generis (which many will also not understand).Pincrete (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
That's fine! If there's to be a blue bar at all, then let's keep it brief. I'd even go further than you and drop "ceremonial county". Of course, that would just leave "City" immediately below "City of London" and we just might all agree that that was superfluous.... NebY (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to both of you, I misunderstood who was proposing what … the only point I stick by is that clarity (and as far as possible de-mystifying), should be our aim.Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Same area?[edit]

Sorry, Rob, but I don't understand the difference between 'covering the same area' and being the same as, I am guessing that the distinction is a legal one or concerned with local/regional civic bodies/responsibilities.

I followed the Greater London link and it says: Greater London is an administrative area … within the London region of England. The administrative area … covers the whole of the London region, this might make legal sense, but it doesn't make much sense in plain English (how can you be within something and cover the whole area of something without being the same place ?).

My motive for making the edit was that I thought that the many definitions of London were already baffling (and I lived in London for over 30 years). Since the purpose of the passage is to make the distinction between the CoL and the conurbation called London, would it make sense to put :"London" usually denotes the Greater London administrative area … comprising 32 boroughs (including the City of Westminster), in addition to the City of London itself. ie removing the London region reference, where I have put an ellipsis.

I agree that we have an obligation to be accurate, but as the reference to 'London' is mainly to distinguish it from 'the City', is there a form of words that makes that distinction simply?Pincrete (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a legal distinction. 'London' is one of the 9 regions of England, while 'Greater London' is one of the 84 county-level administrative areas, so Greater London is within London, in the same sense that Cornwall is in the South West.
But yes, you could simply remove mention of the London region.
That said, defining London in any kind of strict sense is contentious, hence why London and Greater London are two separate articles. There's areas beyond the London boroughs, but within the city's urban area, which may be considered part of London, and conversely, there's areas of London boroughs, which are quite rural, and not considered part of the city. I'm not sure how to clearly word that however.
Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 00:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Rob,I agree that any definition of either London (or the London region) is problematic, both terms having both every-day and historical usages and also more precise legal definitions, (and the every-day usage varying according to whether the speaker is in Kensington, Rickmansworth, Edinburgh or Katmandu).

Simply for my own understanding, have I understood correctly that the GL Admin. Area and the London Region occupy the same physical area, but have distinct civic functions and definitions?

For simplicity, I will remove the 'region' reference, since the GL and Lon Reg legal history and definitions are made on the Gr Lon page.

I don't know if this helps, but to answer your last point (the flexible use of 'London'), would some un-apologetically every-day term, such as 'the modern city' help if inserted somewhere in the definition of 'London'?Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

'distinct civic functions and definitions'? I'm not sure. 'Greater London' is a county-level administrative area. 'London' is a region. This is simply a legal distinction. They are defined in different legislations. They occupy the same physical area, and therefore are the same place.
In response to you last point, I'm not sure what difference that would make. 'London' (the city), in an administrative context, is often defined as Greater London, and it's definitely not incorrect to say '"London" usually denotes the Greater London administrative area', however, we could possibly reword this to say this is a 'loose' definition of London, to avoid implying the Greater London administrative area is the definite limits of London.
Rob (talk | contribs) 14:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

'distinct civic functions' isn't very clear I agree, 'distinct administrative entities, with distinct functions', might have been clearer. The answer being clearly 'yes'.

I noticed that you slightly re-phrased and bracket-ted when you restored the 'exact' version, the effect is to make it considerably clearer (or I've spent too long staring at the same page!). Thanks for your patience.Pincrete (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Update, I've slightly modified wording and added link to London page, my logic being 'London'= London, of which GLA and London region are common, but not universal equivalents/definitions. Pincrete (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Queensgate ward described as one of 4 most residential[edit]

It may be that this is a current policy. But based on the census equivalent (which in this case is just slightly bigger to almost all sides) it had a population of 319, 4.3% of the city, whereas covered 7.9% of its area. I think this could be a mistake. At first glance it seems Farringdon Without has a better claim to be residential. But that may be because the ONS bizarrely and no doubt wrongly combines it with most of Castle Baynard and they both are about the same as Queensgate in terms of proportion of residential or lower % as are 2 of the 3 the biggest wards.- Adam37 Talk 14:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a notable residential district in Queenhithe (not Queensgate!) - also, the "area" you describe I suspect includes the River Thames (the wards along the Thames include that part of the Thames up to the City boundary at the river's centre)... remove the river element and you end up with quite a small ward (in purely "land area"). Argovian (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
In any case, the four wards that are "residential" are the four officially described as such when ward boundaries/members are dealt with. Farringdon Without no doubt has a sizeable residential population but it is also a huge ward and has the maximum number of members allowed for any one ward, so they don't makes things even more complicated by adding it to the "residential wards" list. Argovian (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sovereignty[edit]

You have the City of London's sovereign state as the UK. But it's its own sovereign. In the same way that Vatican City is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.224.85 (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Noo, its just tradition. The City of London's "sovereignty" isn't mentioned in any international treaties for example. Its even sub-ordinate to the Greater London Authority on relevant policy matters. It has no law-making powers, although it does apparently have the ability to "opt-out" of certain laws. But this is still up to parliament, not the city itself. Its definitely unique, but not a city-state. Rob984 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

The current (new?) infobox image actually seems to show more of the London Borough of Southwark than of the City of London. The Shard, for example, is not in the City of London. I'm not sure where it has gone, but a few weeks ago there was an excellent image of the skyline taken from the west in December 2013 which encapsulated almost the entire City of London. The current image needs replacing. --TBM10 (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on City of London. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 21:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

References Link broken[edit]

"Research and statistics FAQ". The City of London. Retrieved 23 February 2012.

see:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Business/Business_support_and_advice/Economic_information_and_analysis/Research+and+statistics+FAQ.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.231.37 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

this link should work for the citation:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/statistics/Pages/research-faqs.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.231.37 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on City of London. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 11:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on City of London. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of London. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 07:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the histroical population table of the City of London.[edit]

According to the UK census in 1931, population of the City of London was 19,657 in 1911, 13,709 in 1921, or 10,999 in 1931, respectively. I suspect that the edit by 72.79.27.143 on 13 August 2017‎ must be wrong.Orichalcum (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Necessity of Freedom of the City to stand for election?[edit]

The Governance section of this page says, "Each ward elects an Alderman to the Court of Aldermen, and Commoners (the City equivalent of a Councillor) to the Court of Common Council of the Corporation. Only electors who are Freemen of the City of London are eligible to stand." However, the phrase "Freemen of the City of London" is linked to a section of the page Freedom of the City which implies that Freedom of the City is now for the most part ornamental and carries no substantive rights. So which is it? Either:

  • It is incorrect that one must be a "Freeman of the City of London" in order to be elected to the city government, or
  • The phrase is linked incorrectly, and "Freeman of the City of London" is different from "Freedom of the City of London", or
  • The entry on the page "Freedom of the City of London" should be revised to add that Freedom of the City of London carries the very substantive right of being able to stand for election

Bayle Shanks (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)