From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

AJ Ayer[edit]

In the list of famous residents, Ayer is listed as "Sir A. J. Ayer — philosopher, philanderer" I certainly don't dispute the truth of this, but I'm not sure it is appropriate.

Crouchend (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Can Hampstead really be described as a "suburban development"? You make it sound like its in Milton Keynes!?!

Skinny dipping and[edit]

I've just been on a tidy-up after who introduced a load a unfunny PoV stuff about their social attitudes etc. But some of what they added was useful, which always makes it more difficult. :) At the moment I have left out "Skinny dipping in the pond" as a local activity but I wondered if it should be in. Does someone with real local knowledge know? (Note to - this doesn't mean you - not unless you can manage some grown-up editing first.) And if so, since it is not officially sanctioned and probably takes place when the pond is closed and there is no safety staff covering, I imagine that the article should mention this, in case someone drowns or gets into trouble and then someone else tries to sue the wiki for not pointing this out. I know it sounds paranoid but better safe than sorry, perhaps? 12:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well I do know people who have. But I dont have real sources (or photographic evidence), and it doesnt seem that important, so I would leave it out for now. Justinc 00:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Swiss Cottage[edit]

Can the Swiss Cottage Library be in Hampstead. I would have thought it was in Swiss Cottage! I walked from the village centre to Swiss Cottage the other day and you get to Camden Arts Centre and the Freud Museum long before the Library.Piersmasterson 16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldnt say so. Hampstead is fairly small really (although there is of course West Hampstead. Even Frognal is not historically part of Hampstead. Its not even the local public library (which is next to Keats House). Justinc 12:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir Selwyn Selwyn-Clarke[edit]

Sir Selwyn lived in Hampstead, where he died in 1976. Source: British Medical Journal 17:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

List of famous people[edit]

Shouldn't this be split from the main article? See a similar discussion at Talk:Bath, Somerset#Famous Bathonians. Simply south 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be seperated, it needs to be deleted altogether. A directory listing of alleged residents is unencyclopedic, and probably unverifiable. A few of the most notable ones can stay, but they still need to be cited. Also, many of the names on the current list look highly dubious. 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the huge list here as it's starting to take over the entire article. I know some of these have lived in Hampstead , so I'll re-add the obvious ones (ie where their own articles mention Hampstead). The others need reliable citations before they are added back to the article - this section has become a magnet for passing editors to add any name they like. 00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point - however if you want to move the list, you have to make a new article for it first, and then add a link to it from this article. Simply deleting the list was an act of pure vandalism. Further, the list of former residents is not unverifiable (I see blue plaques and read biographies all the time). Listing all the references (you can find online) would be a noble exercise and you are perfectly free to undertake it. However, deleting all the names lacking extant online references would be totally misguided. Virtually all of wikipedia's claims (95% at least?) lack such references. And almost all of the reliable references on this site are to books, not websites. You say you'll re-add the 'obvious' and 'notable' names - but who decides what is 'obvious' and 'notable'? Apparently you thought that minor little celebrities like Boy George and Stephen Fry were worthy - and yet deleted Alfred Brendel and Arnold Bax! Avaya1 12:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous past inhabitants have included:

Lengthy list

Hampstead is currently and has been recently home to:

I'd argue that it should be split off. It could be made encyclopaedic by the addition of references. I've always thought that the person pages were reference enough - but editors have started demanding chapter and verse to indicate residence/birth/fought duel with someone's famous aunty. Hampstead is a significant district, and has had more than its fair share of the notable. Kbthompson 13:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


I didn't realise that i suggested this in 2007 with no consensus. It is just the list is still taking over the article. At least as a separate list, it will have refernces showing it is notable. Simply south (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the upper half (past residents list), since otherwise the article would be pretty insubstantial in terms of historical informativeness: do keep it. The second half (present residents) could do with some editing, and removal of meaningless and unreferenced celebrities. It doesnt need a separate list (check the primrose hill, ect articles are the same) (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Has it been another year, already. Normally what would be done, is to provide a prose section including the most significant past residents, with references and a {{main}} template link to the longer list. Elsewhere, we have put long lists into separate articles for the borough. The manual of style cautions against the inclusion of lists in articles at all. The most developed list is List of people from Southwark, and something along those lines is the best solution. It actually adds information. The article would be List of people from Camden, and would include people from other districts within Camden. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with previous comments - there are other possible sections as well - suggest start with this one Cj1340 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why the two long lists are still in the article after all the discussion. Spanglej (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I also think we should keep the past residents list, since it's the most interesting and worthwhile part of the article. But we should delete the current residents list, which seems to be littered with random celebrities/footballers. (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the two lists look worse than they actually are because of their depth on the page. If all entries have their own biographical article — which they do — there is no need for an explanatory comment alongside each; readers can just click to the individual article for that/more info. This would allow each list to be placed in five or six columns…
Lengthy list

Famous past inhabitants have included[edit]

[The references would be retained — I didn't carry them over for ease of execution.]

I suggest that, rather than either list being removed to create a new article, they should first be reworked in this way to see if it is an acceptable solution. Splitting into multiple articles could later be considered if things continue to spiral out of control. (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added about 50 names sourced from the English Heritage Blue Plaques site here for the Hampstead area, plus added refernces to some of the existing names that were uncited.Tmol42 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete the list[edit]

I agree with some of the commenters above that this list should be deleted all together. It comes across to me as childish bragging. Wikipedia is clear that it is not a phonebook or any kind of directory. To split this off would make for a spurious stand alone list. The list has taken over this article. Span (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


The alleged accuracy of the latitude etc. is strange.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Goth Bar[edit]

Anybody heard of a Goth bar called 'Transilvania' in Hampstead? I need info for another article in wikipedia. Colin4C 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


The omission of any mention of its Heath is woeful, e.g. a discussion of urban development in the nineteenth century; the legend of Boadicea. The list of pubs is absurdly inadequate. The 'famous' omits Marx and Engels. Domskitect (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Village atmosphere?[edit]

Hampstead has retained much of its village atmosphere and charm.. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say '...some parts of Hampstead...? I visited yesterday (a Sunday) for the first time in many years and was struck by the fact that the High Street has become much like any other noisy, busy suburban High Street or town centre. It is now totally devoid of any of the original, unique charm it once had. I accept that there are quieter parts of the 'village'. ♦ Jongleur100 talk 12:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted[edit]

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:51uhcvgaIoL SS500 .jpg, found on Hampstead, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hampstead's rural feel[edit]

Recent editing activity drew my eye to the following under Film Locations.... Hampstead's rural feel lends itself for use on film; a notable example being The Killing of Sister George... Whereas Hampstead may be colloquially, if somewhat defiantly these days, still be described as a 'village' and small parts of Hampstead Heath may have a managed semi-wilderness feel there's no way the streets around Mount Sq, Admiral's Walks, Hampstead Grove etc were in the '60 or now in the '00 'rural' see [1]. Views please?Tmol42 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hampstead is leafy and has a very large park. 'Rural' is a word we urban dwellers have little experience or understanding of. MRSC (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Images, formating, unencyclopedic content etc.[edit]

I've just stumbled on this page because it's linked in an article I'm writing on the Purcell Operatic Society and felt it needed some improvements.

I've reformatted and repositioned a lot of the images. There was a huge visually boring parade of them marching down one side of the page with no rhyme or reason as to their order, often nowhere near what they illustrate, and distorting the layout of the article. I've kept all of them, but really wonder how many are necessary or desirable in terms of illustrating the area itself. Almost all appear in the articles they illustrate which are in turn linked from this article. The image of Freud's sofa is a prime example. Just because images related to Hampstead exist doesn't mean that every single one has to appear in the article itself. See Wikipedia:Image use policy

I've removed duplications e.g. items on the See also list already linked (sometimes multiply in the article) and reformatted the lists of pubs, churches, museums etc to remove bolding and italics (per WP:MOS).

Re the list of pubs, I've left this alone for now, but it is unencylopedic (WP is not a travel or restaurant guide), and all are referenced to er... Historic and/or notable pubs should be discussed in prose with references to reliable publications. Ditto the restuarants. In general this article is quite poorly referenced with a lot of unsupported "travel-guide-ese". I'll try to work on this over the nexr few weeks, and hopefully, others will too. Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable residents issue[edit]

I'd like to revisit this issue. The list is huge and dominates the article, which is currently at 42 kilobytes. It should be split off into a separate list article. I'm also concerned about the many names which appear there with no referencing whatsoever, not even in the parent article. This is completely inappropriate, especially in the case of living persons who are claimed to live there (or have recently lived there). In the next few days, I'm going to create a separate article for the list, and exclude all names of living people which are not reliably sourced. These will be put on the list's talk page for gradual addition as references are found for them. Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea I have been looking through the current residents slowly and checking the linked article and deleting where there is no link. Cj1340 (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to say I fully support your idea. A while ago I had a go at adding a reference to all the uncited names who were members of the Blue plaque brigade. The MoS advises that rather than a straight list that the names are put in prose style. I baulked at this idea for Hampstead due to the sheer size of the list. I had intended to propose that for each name there should be a one line sentence to describe who they were and why they were connected with Hampstead but never got around to it. For example the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a one good source for the more notable who are deceased. If this minimal amount of info is not available from a descent source there presence on the page would be invalid. If the names were moved to a List article then perhaps the section on the main article could comprise a short section of prose limited to the most notable characters organised by common profession, notoriety or more significant connection with Hampstead etc Tmol42 (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update I've now created List of Hampstead residents and removed the list of names from Hampstead. I left a link and a minimal section which can be expanded as prose to highlight the most notable people. The new list is organized by professions and all names on it are referenced with an inline citation. The unreferenced names have been posted on Talk:List of Hampstead residents and can be be re-added once citations to reliable sources can be provided.

    After I finished the new list, I discovered that on October 2, 2009, someone had added the whole list from Hampstead to a new article, "Notable residents in Hampstead" (but left all the names here too). Two days later someone moved it to "List of residents of Hampstead". Then on October 9, 2009, it was moved again to List of people from Camden and its declared scope widened to include the entire London Borough of Camden (!), although it contained only the old Hampstead list. After that, it remained untouched. Such a list would have been completely unworkable to expand, given the size of Camden which has a huge number of districts and neighbourgoods and the size of the Hampstead section alone. So today I renamed it Lists of people from Camden and made it a "list of lists" with subsections for the various districts. Voceditenore(talk) 16:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a magnificent achievement - well done - must have beeen a load of work to get all those references Cj1340 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hampstead's boundaries[edit]

I would like to get some views and hopefully some concensus on what is the limits to the area of northwest London that falls within the settlement that is Hampstead. If one goes back to before 1965, prior to the time when the London Borough of Camden was created, those living in the area migh commonly consider all that which was the Metropolitan Borough of Hampstead as being Hampstead, an area which included not just what is quaintly called today the Hampstead Village but also such areas as Belsize Park and Primrose Hill, Swiss Cottage, South Hampstead, Swiss Cottage, a part of Child's Hill and of course a major part of Hampstead Heath. Now that this area all forms part of Camden, this wider area is not commonly condsidered all Hampstead and due to many of these communities becoming as desirable locations in which to live, and therefore become individually identifiable and prominant locations in their own right.

So where are the boundaries of Hampstead shrunk back to? To stimulate discussion I will suggest Hampstead includes, in addition to the central area colloqually known as 'Hampstead Village', Frognal, Holly Hill, Branch Hill and up to and including Whitestone Pond, the adjoining sections of Hampstead Heath the area between West Heath Road, Platts Lane and Finchley Road down to the point where it meets Fitsjohn Avenue at Swiss Cottage and up Fitjohn Avenue and north of Lyndhurst Road which runs from Fitsjohns Avenue to the junction with Rosslyn Hill, Pond St and Havistock Hill. Also included of course would be the Vale of Health, the East Heath area down to and including the areas around Hampstead Heath Station, - can't for the life of me remember wat this area is called these days! I am not on balance not convinced that South Hampstead is within so would exclude it along with; Belsize Park, West Hampstead, Swiss Cottage and Primrose Hill. So over to all of you! Tmol42(talk) 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm! would it be more logical to classify it just as NW3 or perhaps NW3 plus part of the remaining postcode? Cj1340 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Hampstead liberal" - Margaret Hodge[edit]

For some reason Margaret Hodge is the only contemporary example cited in the both the "Hampstead liberal" section here and the champagne socialist article. Unless anyone objects I'll delete these two references, as they are uncited and look a bit like a quiet vendetta to me. - Kilburn London —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it from this article. I completely agree with you - it was over-detailed, unconvincingly sourced, and about a person who was neither born nor lives in Hampstead. I suggest you remove it from Champagne socialist as well, primarily because of the dubious referencing. There are multiple reliable sources available listing many many people who have at various times been called "champagne socialists" [2], including Hampstead's current MP Glenda Jackson. Interestingly, only The Sun appears to have applied it to Hodge (on one occasion). Singling her out, even on Champagne socialist is clearly a case of undue weight. - Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)