Talk:Manchester/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Squiffy piccies

Almost all the images look squiffy (good manc colloquialism for not straight ) Is there a reason. I would assume that on a FA/GA, one would have chosen photos that had been GIMPed for a parallax correction rather than taking a raw jpeg from commons. Am I alone?--ClemRutter (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Media section

Manchester is also featured in several Hollywood films such as My Son, My Son! (1940), directed by Charles Vidor and starring Brian Aherne and Louis Hayward. Also Grand Hotel (1932), in which Wallace Beery often shouts "Manchester!". Others include Velvet Goldmine starring Ewan McGregor, and Sir Alec Guinness's The Man in the White Suit. More recently, the entire city of Manchester is engulfed in runaway fires in the 2002 film 28 Days Later. The 2004 Japanese animated film Steamboy was partly set in Manchester, during the times of the Industrial Revolution. The city is also home to the Manchester International Film Festival and has held the Commonwealth film festival.

Aside from the bit about the film festival, I'm tempted to remove the above text as I don't think it adds much to the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely this isn't right?

The Climate section says that "Snowfalls are uncommon in the city, owing to its low-lying altitude in comparison to the hills to the west". What hills to the west? Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked the Pennines were to the east, and as far as I know the Ship Canal doesn't travel through any uplands. Must be a mistake. Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is tutiempo.net a reliable source by FA standards? It was added in this edit and I'm leaning towards undoing it. Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm unhappy about that as well. It's a bit alarming in general on looking through the article to see how much entropy has set in. Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I decided to bite the bullet and revert to the previous version. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would think film festivals are culture not media.J3Mrs (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A good point, although it doesn't slot easily into the culture section. Having removed it from the media section, the sentence is currently in limbo as I couldn't decide where best to add it at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ref 173 is formatted like none I have seen and full of dead links, I'd better not touch it.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Media section

Manchester is also featured in several Hollywood films such as My Son, My Son! (1940), directed by Charles Vidor and starring Brian Aherne and Louis Hayward. Also Grand Hotel (1932), in which Wallace Beery often shouts "Manchester!". Others include Velvet Goldmine starring Ewan McGregor, and Sir Alec Guinness's The Man in the White Suit. More recently, the entire city of Manchester is engulfed in runaway fires in the 2002 film 28 Days Later. The 2004 Japanese animated film Steamboy was partly set in Manchester, during the times of the Industrial Revolution. The city is also home to the Manchester International Film Festival and has held the Commonwealth film festival.

Aside from the bit about the film festival, I'm tempted to remove the above text as I don't think it adds much to the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely this isn't right?

The Climate section says that "Snowfalls are uncommon in the city, owing to its low-lying altitude in comparison to the hills to the west". What hills to the west? Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked the Pennines were to the east, and as far as I know the Ship Canal doesn't travel through any uplands. Must be a mistake. Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is tutiempo.net a reliable source by FA standards? It was added in this edit and I'm leaning towards undoing it. Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm unhappy about that as well. It's a bit alarming in general on looking through the article to see how much entropy has set in. Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I decided to bite the bullet and revert to the previous version. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would think film festivals are culture not media.J3Mrs (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A good point, although it doesn't slot easily into the culture section. Having removed it from the media section, the sentence is currently in limbo as I couldn't decide where best to add it at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ref 173 is formatted like none I have seen and full of dead links, I'd better not touch it.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports Section

Much of this article appears to be about Greater Manchester rather than Manchester. Why is Manchester United relevant - it has Manchester in the name, but that is the job of a disambiguation page. "Just outside Manchester" is not a reason to include Old Trafford in the Sports section. All of the Old Trafford stuff belongs in Salford or Greater Manchester pages. The tone reads more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopaedia too. Not very NPOV. Jonknight73 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Old Trafford is in Trafford rather than Salford. Now for the real meat of your question. Though the club now plays outside Manchester, it was founded in 1878 in Newton Heath and until 1910 they played in Manchester. The club is part of the city's sporting history, and I think this early link should be made clearer, but I wouldn't say that there's too much on the club in the article. Could you expand on what you view as POV problems? Nev1 (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If that is your reasoning, then why does Lancashire County Cricket Club not get a mention? A cricket club that was formed as Manchester Cricket Club in 1857 may I add. Also, Manchester has historically been situated in Lancashire - until the 1970s (officially) - yet this is kept (very) quiet throughout the article and not expressed clearly to the reader. So why should a football club which has been situated outside of the Manchester boundary since 1910 somehow should get a mention? Yet, a geographic fact that Manchester has historically been situated in Lancashire until only 40 years ago get swept under the carpet in favour of a football club who have been outside the city boundary for over a century! Jonknight73 has a point, I thought I wasn't alone. I have absolutely no idea why there is a picture of Old Trafford stadium in the Manchester page. Maybe it was shifted brick by brick from somewhere in Manchester and thus warrants a picture to be in the Manchester article? Probably not I imagine. I suppose we should put the Trafford Centre and Old Trafford cricket ground? Stevo1000 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about pov but a lot of trivial stuff has crept into the article over time like the water taxis I've just deleted from MediaCityUK. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has changed a fair bit since it was made a Featured Article nearly four years ago, so a clean up probably wouldn't go amiss. Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Underground city

I have included the following information in Victoria Arches entry:

Author Keith Warrender has argued that 18,000 people could have lived in what's become known as Manchester Underground City, which is connected to Victoria Arches that date from previous times. Warrender claims there was a "shooting gallery beneath the streets, an underground shipping dock and even a department store which recreated Venice in its basement - complete with gondola rides for the public."

I think this should also be included in this entry.--Ianonne89 (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Warrender may be being a little dramatic comparing the Irwell to Venice, especially as the Irwell was a disgustingly filthy river back then. It still hasn't fully recovered. Parrot of Doom 13:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Demography

Short sentence refers to high levels of crime in Moss Side, yet recent Ward Profile (2011) states Moss Side has lower overall rates of crime and antisocial behaviour than city as a whole ( see www.manchester.gov.uk/download/17878/a26x_moss_side_2011_02 ). This association is based more on received opinion and stereotype rather than fact. Other areas have similar or worse problems yet are not mentioned. I don't believe the sentence 'Some parts of Manchester were adversely affected by its rapid urbanisation, resulting in high levels of crime' makes sense in this context (how does the rapid urbanisation in C19th relate in particular to crime in this area in late c20th?) and it is not substantiated by the associated link. Plus there is more recent data, as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapfax408 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying and think the sentence "Some parts of Manchester were adversely affected by its rapid urbanisation, resulting in high levels of crime in areas such as Moss Side and Wythenshawe" could be removed as you did here (although you then restored it). The BBC article being used as a source doesn't seem adequate for the claims being made; for starters it doesn't mention Wythenshawe and says nothing about rapid urbanisation (who's to say slow urbanisation wouldn't have had the same result, and in any case as you say it's a bit odd to draw on the 19th century for an explanation). Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Urban Area in introduction

Is the Greater Manchester Urban Area really important that it warrants a mention in the opening paragraph of the Manchester page? Greater Manchester with population and the note that Manchester has historically been situated in Lancashire is sufficient enough in my view. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you read the second paragraph you will see the historic county mentioned. The Urban Area is important as Manchester is the centre of it.J3Mrs (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think mentioning Manchester being historically situated in Lancashire should be in the introductory paragraph. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead is coherent as it is.J3Mrs (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the urban area is important enough to belong in the lead. Of course you need the population of the city, and I think that of the county is useful because Manchester is the main settlement but the urban area doesn't strike me as being important enough. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The population of the urban area is in the lead of pretty much every other major city article (eg London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Leeds). It's surely more, not less, important for Manchester because the administrative area of the city contains such an unusually small proportion of the population of the built up area. I'd go so far as to say that "The blob on the map is very big even though the area within the boundaries is only medium sized" would probably be the first thing that somebody who didn't know the place would need to know to understand it (OK, maybe joint first with "first industrial city"). The population of the county is the one whose reason to be in the article isn't that obvious - no other major UK city article that I can find has the population of the county that contains it in the lead. JimmyGuano (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Haldraper removed both the population of the county and urban area under the guise of "declutter". It would have been nice if he'd joined the discussion here first. I've restored the population of the urban area though it would not be my choice. I would lean slightly towards the population of the county because readers are more likely to be familiar with it than the urban area, but to have nothing there at all for context seems the wrong way to go about things. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, and thanks for reverting the spurious undiscussed deletion, but surely relevance rather than familiarity should be the key consideration? On the face of it there's no more reason to include the population of the Greater Manchester county in the Manchester article than there is to include the population of Yorkshire in the York article or County Durham in Durham. Greater Manchester as an administrative area very roughly approximates to the urban area, which is what many people think of as a "city", but as we have actual figures for the urban area, properly calculated, surely we should use those instead? "Manchester is in a very populous county" is not particularly significant (so is Southampton); "Manchester is the centre of a big urban area" is in contrast a critical piece of information. The only problem with the current wording is that it describes the urban area as a "metropolitan area", which is incorrect - metropolitan areas and urban areas are different, and the GMUA is the latter not the former. We could include the metropolitan area too (though although common it's a much less obvious and intuitive measure than urban area), but we shouldn't suggest that they're the same. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Manchester metropolitan area

Do we really need to mention the European Spatial Planning Observation Network, or the fact that "Liverpool and Manchester are sometimes considered as one large polynuclear metropolitan area"? The article is already rather long, and I don't see including further details of notional regions centred around the city to be particularly helpful. IMO it should be restricted to the main ones. Nev1 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No it does not, I agree it goes into far too much unnecessary detail which causes the article to lose focus. I have removed it as it was not about the settlement which is the focus of this article.J3Mrs (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be included as part of this article and put it in the Demography section the London article has similiar info about it's metropolitan area there. Something should also be done about the city region section as that has the same problems affecting it as what I just added. Eopsid (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Then it could have a separate article but it confuses the reader here. Because its in another article isn't a good reason for adding it. This article is essentially about the settlement, what you are adding is something quite different.J3Mrs (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok so if this article is essentially about the settlement we should remove the information about the Greater Manchester Statutory City Region it is also quite confusing as it could easily be confused with the Greater Manchester county (the article itself gives two seperate definitions of the city region one of which is just the Greater Manchester county leading to further confusion) and seems out of date with dead references (well archived versions of them are still up so they are sort of half-dead) and referring to districts which no longer exist.

The only reason I added the section I added was because I found the bit about the city region confusing but I didn't think I'd be able to remove it without my edit simply being reverted. Eopsid (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I think in the following paragraph everything after "...examples of this." could be removed. Nev1 (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The name Manchester, though officially applied only to the metropolitan district of Greater Manchester, has been applied to other, wider divisions of land, particularly across much of the Greater Manchester county and urban area. The "Manchester City Zone", "Manchester post town" and the "Manchester Congestion Charge" are all examples of this. The economic geography of the Manchester City Region is used to define housing markets, business linkages, travel to work patterns, administrative areas etc.[50] As defined by The Northern Way economic development agency the City Region territory encompasses most of the natural economy’s Travel to Work Area and includes the cities of Manchester and Salford, plus the adjoining metropolitan boroughs of Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and Wigan, together with High Peak (which lies outside the North West England region), Congleton, Macclesfield, Vale Royal and Warrington.

Might it fit into the Greater Manchester article?J3Mrs (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be more useful there. Nev1 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere in the Greater Manchester article that this section on the city region would fit into so I have just removed it from this article. Eopsid (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The montage image

Hi guys, as you've probably noticed, I've created a new montage image.

I know it's come a bit suddenly (I'm not sure how long these kind of things are supposed to take on Wikipedia), but I took this step because I strongly felt that the previous montage image, although not a poor montage on its own merits, contained too many pictures for the purpose of 270px image.

At 12 pictures, it contained often well over double and sometimes even triple the number of pictures found in the articles of other cities such as London (4 pictures), Liverpool (5 pictures), Birmingham (6 pictures), Barcelona (6 pictures), New York City (7 pictures) and Tokyo (5 pictures). I did not feel that Manchester warranted being such an extreme exception to this general standard, and regardless of whether my own montage survives here for long, I strongly believe that it contains a much more appropriate number of images.

Indeed, the sheer quantity required each individual picture be dramatically reduced in size to make room for the others. The end result was simply far too cramped, and from an NPOV standpoint I feel several of the images were simply too small to be clearly comprehended by non-Mancunians - particularly the very small pictures of Albert Square and Piccadilly Gardens which were very hard to understand at such small scale.

The montage contained other problems, too:

+ 1 Angel Square, although sure to be a significant building in Manchester's future, is still under construction and at this present time, wary of limited pixel resources!, I do not feel it warrants a headline inclusion above and beyond other major landmarks. + The Exchange Square image prominently features the Wheel of Manchester, which has very recently been taken down and removed, making this an outdated and inaccurate depiction of Manchester. + The Daily Express building, although noteworthy, is not of such great architectural or historical significance that its inclusion is warranted in the article's most important image at the expense of other more historically and nationally significant locations. + The same again for the Civic Justice Centre - an important and distinctive building for sure, but with such limited screen estate and a need to establish the most important aspects of the city, I feel that the Beetham Tower and Urbis are sufficient as depicting Manchester's modern architectural style. + The John Rylands image was so small that it is not depicted in a way that makes clear its architectural and historical significance. My montage drops this building too because of limited space and preference for more famous landmarks, but I admit this one is a potentially controversial compromise.

I keep referring to "other major landmarks", and by this I mean that I feel better candidates for montage inclusion would be locations such as Ancoats, Castlefield, the Royal Exchange, Cross Street, the Printworks, Market Street, the CIS Tower, the Arndale, Chinatown, etc. which all are of great local, national or historic significance in one way or another.

In addition, my montage makes provision for small white gaps between each image for purpose of easy viewing. The previous montage simply pushed each image against one another which made it more difficult to understand.

I appreciate that my own montage may be in its own way controversial in its inclusion of Canal Street and Spinningfields, but I believe these two images speak to two famous aspects of modern Manchester's regeneration and fame - the nightlife, nationally-recognised Gay Village and gay population, the city's industrial canals/canalside features, and also the emergence of Manchester as an increasingly popular English city for business with a growing private sector, and sustained comprehensive regeneration to the extent that new districts such as this sprang up in a matter of years.

I know this has been a bit of a long rant, but I really wanted to give the article a quality image and I strongly feel this sufficiently captures a mix of historic and modern Manchester while preserving "legibility".

RyanTheHeretic (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Top and left looks alright but right side of the montage feels a little off, I think its because you have the one tall Beetham and then two lots of short stubby buildings, Beetham feels too big and the other buildings feel too small. WatcherZero (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the Beetham Tower and Manchester Town Hall image. I understand both are not particularly photogenic due to their height (Beetham Tower) and awkward layout (Town Hall). The Beetham Tower image that is in the montage could be any building from the angle the photo is taken from. This one is better image from a better angle, but shame about the bloody clouds: [1] Might be something similar and fair use knocking about on Flickr. Stevo1000 (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

2011 census

Interesting that after the last census undercount in 2001 that Manchester's population has been upped to 503 000. Details can be found here (on page 15) http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf or http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-and-household-estimates-for-england-and-wales/stb-e-w.html 146.90.227.225 (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Geographic locations

I've only seen {{Geographic location}} used in the external links section of an article, is there any particular reason it is in the middle of the article here? In addition, is it necessary to use {{Climate chart}} and {{weather box}}? If we do use both, should {{weather box}} default to collapsed? Finally, since there is no prose in the "Location and climate" sub-section, and the material covered by the charts and graphs is presented in prose in the "Geography" section, should we remove the subsection level 3 heading? I see no reason for it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Population in info box

Is there a reason why only the population for the metropolitan borough of the city of Manchester is in the info box? If you look at other British cities e.g. London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Birmingham, Sheffield etc have urban and metro populations too. Shouldn't this article have the same info? 146.90.115.43 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Manchester's Links to Trans Atlantic Slavery

I am surprised to see absolutely no mention at all of Manchester's links to the slave trade and North American slavery during the 18th and 19th centuries. There was previously a very modest reference to this important issue buried in the text of the article, but that has now been completely removed without any discussion, which I find a bit shocking. According to Dr Emma Poulter of the British Museum and formerly of Manchester University:

"Cotton is integral to the story of the Industrial Revolution and the wealth on which Manchester was built during the late eighteenth and the majority of the nineteenth centuries. Yet where this cotton came from is rarely discussed..." Indeed, it isn't discussed anywhere in this article.

http://www.revealinghistories.org.uk/how-did-money-from-slavery-help-develop-greater-manchester/articles/slave-grown-cotton-in-greater-manchester-museums.html

The current article doesn't read as a mature and honest coverage of Manchester and its history; it reads more like a promotional puff piece, which papers over any uncomfortable facts. I would suggest that the article needs to be updated, or the former references to the 18th and 19th century slavery reinstated.

Lenatron (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome on board. Would you like to post here what you would like included- so it can be chewed over and a judgement made whether and how to integrate it in a way that retains balance. The problem editing this article is staying rigidly on focus. From July 1761 to the present the role that Manchester played in the textile industry varied moving from wool and fustian yarn spinning to trading in cotton as a commodity, then regaining some manufacturing capacity- and none of this is discussed in depth. Look too to the more specialist article eg Cottonopolis which may be a more appropriate place to work. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Manchester and gives a brief history of the city. The section on the period you're talking about - the Industrial revolution - is eight paragraphs long. One of those paragraphs reads

Although the Industrial Revolution brought wealth to the city, it also brought poverty and squalor to a large part of the population. Historian Simon Schama noted that "Manchester was the very best and the very worst taken to terrifying extremes, a new kind of city in the world; the chimneys of industrial suburbs greeting you with columns of smoke". An American visitor taken to Manchester’s blackspots saw "wretched, defrauded, oppressed, crushed human nature, lying and bleeding fragments"

That doesn't sound like a promotional puff piece papering over anything to me. Yes, there should be a reference to cotton being produced by slaves, but you couldn't go into it in too much depth as the article is about Manchester, not the southern states of America. There is also no mention in that section of the cotton famine and support the Manchester workers gave to the fight for the abolition of slavery, although that gets a miniscule mention later in the article. If you feel that something has been removed that shouldn't have been, then you need go back through the history of the article and find it so we know what you're referring to. Richerman (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This would seem to prove my point somewhat - the attitude seems to be that things perceived as being negative should either not be mentioned, or should be mitigated against by something positive. The abolition movement that you mention is, quite frankly, an extremely minor event when considered in the context of the enormous wealth and development, over a century or more, that was derived from slave labour. It borders on being disrespectful to suggest that a very minor episode of opposition could make amends.

I am not suggesting that there should be lots of detail about slavery, but it absolutely should be mentioned. After all, the city's wealth in the late 18th and 19th centuries was largely based on the processing of a commodity that was picked using slave labour. Trans Atlantic slavery and the exploitation of slave labour in North America is highly relevant to the city's development - it underpins everything else from that period, which we do have a lot of detail about (economic development, prominent architecture, canals, railways, etc). I don't see any reason why this issue couldn't be covered in some depth, providing it clearly relates to Manchester. After all, the Manchester article as a whole could easily be 10, 20, or even 100 times longer than it is and still be relevant - it just depends on how much detail people want to provide on given points. As it is, the article isn't especially detailed, so perhaps a couple of sentences would be appropriate. I would suggest something along the lines of what was there before, and subsequently deleted, or perhaps as follows:

"much of the economic development of Manchester in the late eighteenth, and for much of the nineteenth, centuries was based on the exploitation of African slave labour in North America, where the bulk of the UK's cotton was imported from." The above link would seem a sufficient source given the academic rigor supporting it.

Even better would be a mini section with its own heading. It isn't just about honouring the facts, but also about showing our respects for those who suffered so much for so long during the 18th and 19th centuries, and from whose suffering so many of us in this country have benefited. Lenatron (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"This would seem to prove my point somewhat - the attitude seems to be that things perceived as being negative should either not be mentioned, or should be mitigated against by something positive." You are really beginning to piss me off. There is no "attitude" other than your own. Try assuming good faith instead of assuming there is some conspiracy here to paper over anything unpleasant. I pointed out that the stand that the workers took against the slave trade wasn't given much prominence in the article, the point being that if this was the promotional piece you say it is it would have been made more of. The truth is that you are denigrating the sacrifices made by people who were not much more than slaves themselves. The ones making the money were the mill owners, not the workers. Richerman (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it the reason US imports made up such a high percentage was because a 75% tariff was slapped on Indian cotton because it was so cheap it dramatically undercut domestic clothing material production, the US imports were costlier allowing domestic supply to remain competitive as a cottage industry and so the US became the bulk of supply without undercutting local producers. WatcherZero (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The above comment concerning import costs is a separate discussion point really, and I don't think we should get side tracked by it here. Unless anybody has any objections, I will add a small section on slavery in this article. Nobody seems to have added anything yet. Any thoughts? Lenatron (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Lenatron

The above comment is just as relevant as your own. This is far more relevant to Liverpool as the raw cotton was sold on from the exchange there. Perhaps you ought to post it here for discussion as the consensus seems rather against any more than a sentence. I presume you are aware of the anti-slavery movement in Manchester.J3Mrs (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What are these "former references to 18th and 19th century slavery" you're fixated on Lematrin? Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts? There are references and reliable references and a lot of hot air written by tabloid journalists- and folks employed to precis comments in order to promote a website. There is a difference between Manchester and Greater Manchester. Personally, I think anything that you add to this, or any cotton related article that is not fully referenced with proven reliable sources will be zapped. I gave sound advice in my posting of 25 November 2012 (UTC), and stick by it. Bouncing a POV by citing an unreliable reference- then going ahead with out listening does not impress.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of resistance to adding anything on this topic, which I just find bizarre. Look at J3Mrs's comment above suggesting that it is more relevant to Liverpool - but the slave-picked cotton would never have been brought in to that port were it not for the huge demand in Manchester to use the raw material to create cotton products. Let's stay on topic - this is about Manchester, and it simply isn't credible to say "wasn't us guv" and then try to point the finger at others. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia; the only thing that is important is factual accuracy.

It is a historic fact that slave-picked cotton was the raw material of Cottonopolis - it ought to be mentioned in the article. The fact that it hasn't been mentioned in the article for years, and then when it was recently added, somebody removed it without any discussion, just raises suspicions that people don't want it being mentioned. This is only compounded by the negative comments above - with one exception, nobody has wanted to engage in a discussion about how to improve the article - my earlier suggestion was ignored until I declared I would add something. And then the comment was that only the most stringently filtered sources would be acceptable. I think people from the local area are possibly a bit surprised and embarrassed about this and are resistant to it for this reason. But what is there to be embarrassed about!? It is history; nobody today is to blame for it - the whole of the UK benefited. Perhaps Manchester was a disproportionate beneficiary - but so what?

Clemrutter, the source I suggested above seems fine to me. Yes, it is a website, but it is the author and not the medium of communication that is important. Dr Emma Poulter is a credible authority on this subject; what are your objections to the use of that source? What would you suggest should be added? I know you want to improve the article as much as I do so I'm interested to hear your views on the subject, and indeed, those of anybody else with an open mind and genuine interest in the subject. Lenatron (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What Dr Poulter is doing in her role as curator of an exhibition is reportage not research. The established expert is Doug Farnie. Read Farnie, D.A. (1979), The English Cotton Industry and the World Market 1815-1896., Clarendon Press, ISBN 0-19-822478-8 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) pages 57, 58 then 59 through to 60.Again at around p93. Para-phrasing wildly: until 1800 cotton was bought on the plantations in The British West Indies and Egypt and India and imported through London, Bristol and Liverpool. When the triangular trade collapsed, the US forced the UK to trade principally with New Orleans, and Liverpool became the sole port of entry. Manchester spinners travelled weekly to Liverpool to buy their cotton on the Liverpool market. Cotton can be stored so Liverpool had a stranglehold in the supplies. New Orleans solely supplied Liverpool. Liverpool built the L&M railway to ease its the trade with the Cotton Towns. The US was the principle export market for Lancashire Calicos until the Cotton Famine, where Manchester history of opposing the slave states was one of the reasons for the decline in the industry. The Ship Canal was in part an attempt to bypass Liverpool so cotton could be bought directly from the plantations. Lancashire was again shafted by US protectionism. (hideously simplified- please don't bother to correct the fine details) The value of Farnies book is that he supports each statement he makes with a reference. The bibliography on the cotton famine runs from p358-365. It is all there- Dr Poulter had a job to do and selected the material she needed to fulfil her brief.

Our brief here is to provide a brief balanced article on the city- we have to stay on focus, which means excluding more than we include. I repeat what I said above: post here on the talk page what you wish to post so it can can be chewed over, but do look to Farnie for solid information. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I am familiar with Farnie's work, but certainly wouldn't depend upon it in relation to this particular discussion. He was, after all, a local lad - born and bred in the Manchester area and very proud of it, so I wouldn't necessarily expect him to be the most unbiased source of information when it comes to the more emotive matter of - who benefited from slavery and by how much? - and this was never really his focus anyway. I have to say, it seems odd to suggest that Manchester had no choice but to accept slave-picked cotton; they did have a choice, but went with what was by far the cheapest. Perhaps there is a separate discussion to be had about whether Manchester spinners could have sourced their raw material from elsewhere, and whether they would have had there somehow been a different state of world affairs with more choice. It is a moot point, and one that would be difficult to prove either way. In any case, it is debatable whether any part of the world could have matched America on price and quality (given that theirs were enormous plantations worked by slaves, and given that transportation from there by sea would have been easier than from the likes of India.) Farnie doesn't go into this, so I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning much of the above (?) This is all becoming a bit more complicated than it need be, and yet again, the issue is being dodged.

Let's keep it simple: Was a significant amount of Manchester's wealth and development based on the processing of cotton? Yes. (This point is axiomatic, hence "Cottonopolis".) Was a significant amount of that cotton picked by slaves? Yes it was. I don't think anybody here is disputing these two essential points. Why, therefore, is there so much difficulty in improving the article to reflect this? A significant amount of the city's wealth and development in the 19th century was on the back of slave-picked cotton. I would have thought this would be worth mentioning. How would you like the article to be added to? Lenatron (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep it even more simple - take a range of expert sources on Manchester's history and see what mention they make of slavery. Suggesting that people here aren't keen to include details of slavery because they're from the area is ridiculous. Personally, I think any mention of slavery belongs in articles related to the industrial revolution. Parrot of Doom 20:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that you, like me, have seen the metal hoops at Liverpool's Albert Docks to which slaves were attached while in transit to the US. But I'm not aware that Manchester had any significant involvement in the slave trade, except as others have already pointed out to try and help stamp it out. In reality I think that Britain has a rather honourable place in the history of slavery, and perhaps the Royal Navy's finest hour was in fighting the slave traders, something that no other nation at that time could have done. People also seem to have a very one-dimensional view of slavery, and think it was all about evil white Europeans capturing black Africans, but nothing could be further from the truth; it was black Africans selling other black Africans into slavery. And it wasn't uncommon for Barbary pirates even to raid English towns and villages for slaves. In short, some of the cotton used in Manchester's cotton mills may well have been produced by slaves, but so fucking what? Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about a significant amount of Manchester's wealth in the 18th and 19th centuries being derived from the processing of cotton picked by slaves. All I am saying is that there should be some reference to that. It is like saying "why mention a building? - that should feature in an article about architecture. Why mention cotton spinning technology? - that should be in an article about engineering." You would have no article at all if you were only to discuss Manchester as a concept; of course all sorts of other things are discussed by association. Trans Atlantic slavery has made a significant contribution to the city's development, wealth, and architecture. It should be mentioned in the article; I don't understand why there is resistance to mentioning it. Lenatron (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of books around written by historians knowledgeable on Manchester. Why not simply consult one or more of those books to see if their authors have given significant weight to slavery? If that's the case then I wouldn't object to adding something appropriate. Parrot of Doom 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

A few things:

1. There is no need for an in-article pronunciation guide for perfectly straightforward names like London and Washington DC. In fact, it is a disservice: the IPA breaks the flow of the lede sentence, is distracting, and is vaguely insulting without being helpful. We must assume our readers can already say them if their English is good enough to read the English-language article at all.
2. For the truly lost who can't, there is always the Wiktionary entry
3. The pronunciation /ˈmæntʃɛstər/ would fall under this, if it were accurate... But it isn't. That's an American pronunciation for what the Brits would read as /ˈmæntʃɛstə/ or /ˈmæntʃɛstəː/, if it were accurate... Which it doesn't appear to be.
4. The local in this thread and these locals and the OED all use some version of /ˈmantʃɪstə/ instead.

I'm going to put that up, identify it as the local pronunciation, and link the OED.

Kindly do not remove that or put up the standard American pronunciation without establishing a consensus here first. If you have better sources of a peculiarly Mancune way of saying the thing, that's fine and would be more local; but kindly don't replace the OED listing without a reliable source (i.e., not a self-published blog, etc.) — LlywelynII 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Useful source?

Hi all - there's quite a useful high-level article here at economist.com about Manchester. I thought it worth popping here on the talk page as it seems to capture the city and its culture/history very well. Perhaps it could be used as a reference. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Twin Cities

There are a number of cities listed as "Twin/Sister" cities with Manchester, yet the only source for this is this page on Wikipedia. Any WikiPedian's able to help me get to the bottom of this mystery? Manchester Twin_cities_and_consulates The historical twin cities that go back to the 1960's such as Saint Petersborough are correct, as is more recent additions such as Los Angeles. If this is indeed incorrect I wonder if this is either a proposed twinning, perhaps something to do with the recent introduction of direct flights between the local authority-owned Manchester Airport?

Notably it states from 2013 Manchester is supposedly twinned with Surabaya and Palambang both in Indonesia I have searched high and low and even enquired with Manchester City Council and no-one seems to know if this information is correct.

Spacepostman (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

greater Manchester

Some geek has been removing the county from the article. Y? Can u sort it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.184.200 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As a Mancunian born within the City Boundaries and who paid my rates to Manchester City Council even when Ted Heath's manufactured "Greater Manchester" came into existence I can assure you that there never was a county of Greater Manchester. Manchester lay exclusively in Lancashire, was bordered by Cheshire. The formation of "Greater Manchester" gave rise to Stretford Rovers - that gang that play football dressed in red, being able to lay claim truthfully that they now played in Manchester! They were formed in Newton Heath which was in Lancashire, moved to Stretford which was and still is, in Lancashire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.52.39 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeat edits

Firstly, your sources are not even referenced properly. You are dragging down the quality of a Feature Article. Secondly, the image is meant to have architecture of the city. Look at Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham, London, Sheffield - do you see any ambigious images on those pages with bicycles on? No! I suggest you stop wasting your (and others) time and put your effort into pages that need editing! Stevo1000 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Manchester Fashion Week

Can someone please help link to this orphaned article? Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mistake in pie chart

Is there a mistake in the pie chart for "Racial structure"? E.g. the "White Groups" are 66.7% according to the chart, but on the reference (excel file), it says 79.8% [See KS201EW_Percentages tab > Greater Manchester (Met County] are White? Also the other ethnic category percentages are different? I am missing something?--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about the Borough of Manchester not the county of Greater Manchester whose figures you are looking at WatcherZero (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but where can I find the numbers for the Borough of Manchester?--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The reference you linked, three lines below where you were previously looking. WatcherZero (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)