This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Seeing as this reference to Birmingham being a contender for second city status is constantly removed under the title of "vandalism", I have since removed a similar reference to Manchester from the Birmingham page. Personally, I feel that having such references are actually useful in showing a balanced view on the matter.
I request that if this is removed again, please do not label it as vandalism and assume good faith. - Erebus555 10:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Good to see that the grim mill town of Manchester's nonsense propaganda campaign to laughingly promote itself as the second city has been stopped in its tracks on the Birmingham page - UNLUCKY!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.52.6 ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
Manchester does indeed have many mills and an extensive textile industry Manchester Textile Manufacturers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.52.6 ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
Added refrences to international media sources to illustrate general reporting in the media of Manchester as the UK's third city, as current statement is misleading and does not reflect an independent viewpoint as per WP:LEAD which specifies a brief explaination of the main controversies. In agreement with this discussion, these references are not a direct claim by the city of Birmingham of second city status. Please assume good faith and inform me if similar references of general reporting can be found for Birmingham as the UK's third city as I was unable to find any?...wonder why that may be? :-) 212.139.103.140 01:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Other members of the editing community without partisan interests in promoting Manchester view such edits as perfecly acceptable and substantiated source. [1] Please do not try and intimidate me whilst using Wikipedia.
Such additions were discussed on the Manchester discussion board prior to amendment in line with WP:CIVIL - no counter sources have yet been put forward reporting Birmingham as the 'UK's third city' as I do not believe any credible news organisation would report such. I believe these sources are still fully valid but will comply with WP:CIVIL and discuss further to have them reinstated. Should a satisfactory conclusion not be reached I will take the matter further, as I believe the Manchester article represents only a partisan POV and not that of neutral Encyclopedic content and deliberate attempts are being made to ensure this remains the case. I should however make it clear from my past experience in life that I will not tolerate any form of intimidation as I have regularly experienced when accessing other Manchester related websites.
I've put a 3RR warning on the talk page of Jza84 - who obviously has an agenda and has no right to try and bully and assert greater authority over newer contributors 'because they have been here longer' as can be seen on my talk page. This is certainly not a good exaple to set when trying to encourage new contributors to Wikipedia. 195.212.52.6 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This statement is misleading and a violation of [WP:LEAD] and it does not reflect an independent viewpoint and leaving out perfectly valid references from respected sources to Manchester as the third city is POV. Please read [WP:LEAD] which specifies a brief explaination of the main controversies. Please also seek concensus on this talk board before making edits in future to comply with WP:CIVIL. I have reverted the statement back to the last version by TharkunColl 195.212.52.6 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear everybody involved in this debate. Before I start I have to declare that Jza84 has drawn my attention to this debate, presumably so that I will support him or her. I want that known now so it doesn't get 'discovered' and I get accused of being a sock puppet. I am not. I have read through the issues, and with both sides citing policy it isn't easy to make a choice as to what the best way forwards is, but we cannot allow an edit war continue. At first, I was critical of the removal of the cited remarks that anon has been repeatedly leaving, until I came to read WP:LEAD. Then it became obvious to me: Manchester's article is already a little untidy at the start, and I think needs an overhaul. Adding in the third city claim is making the situation worse. Furthermore, I am well aware that there is the scent of aggrandisement in the air, and people are getting a little crazy about what is, essentially, a non-issue. The second city status is non-official, and a divisive waste of time. If it's so important to people, it must go in. But when the content is relatively unimportant, one must pay extra care that its presence does not interfere with the style. On this basis, I have come round to Jza84's argument. (S)he has also acknowledged that the third city claim may be encyclopaedic and that with good references and verifiable should be included in the article. But in the lead, it is ruinous of the flow and placed there, I believe, only for mischief. Therefore, I will endeavour to edit the lead for style following the policies in WP:LEAD. I have already started this, paring down the Manchester claim to be almost exactly the same as the on the Birmingham page. Lastly I wish it to be known that I live in Manchester, but I am from Wales and I have also lived in Birmingham. I have no interest in which is the second city of the uk, beyond stating that, obviously, it is Newport. Alun 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Good try Alun to propose a very subtle but none the less partisan viewpoint on the issue as a self confirmed resident of Manchester. Both souces quoted are perfectly valid, to claim that a source such as the internationally respected New York Times is not valid is quite frankly laughable. No counter sources have been provided where Birmingham has been quoted as the UK's 'third city' therefore in concensus with TharkunColl Birmingham has a stronger claim which must be reflected as WP:LEAD that requires that the major controversies regarding the subject must be outlined. I've also now included a 3rd reference, the MORI poll data used to justify Manchester's second city claim as this very same poll indicates the majority of respondents (27%) also view Manchester as the UK's third city. This is also a primary source, is therefore stronger than the BBC articles which are secondary source and also illustrates the bias the BBC have used when reporting on the primary data.
Finally if people do not feel that 'second city' status is of significant importance why include it in the the first place? 195.212.52.6 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That is what is being committed against the Manchester article repeatedly. Filing spurious claims and citing refs that either don't back up what's being claimed, aren't reliable, or are plain contradictory to what's being stated is mischief. A discussion is in place and consensus is against claiming third city status in the lead. Perhaps in the article as a whole, but I'm less sure. It is a gross abuse of good sense to make changes against this consensus then state 'see discussion' on the edit summary; you're citing a contradictory source yet again. User:TharkunColl, you know you are playing up, and I just want you to know one thing. You are wrong to keep making these changes, and they will never stick whilst you are swimming against the tide. Which means you can discuss this and change our minds, turn around and stop abusing Wikipedia, or keep going on with your vandalism. But if you choose the last option, I promise you will tire of it before we do. Alun 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, having searched for 'Manchester "Britain's third city"' on google, there is quite a lot there to support the notion that Manchester is regarded in foriegn media and elsewhere as being the third city. Look at this or this for example. G-Man ! 00:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears that there is a hate campaign against Manchester's article by User:Rob right as shown right here: [2]. This user appears to have a grudge against our great city and is attempting to devalue the wikipedia article. This shows that there is no credence in anything the user says and his many sockpuppets. XAndreWx 13:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's a straw poll you're after then I'll add my twopenneth. I'm inclined to believe that Birmingham is the UK's second city, but that the UK's second city is a subjective, almost meaningless, concept. As it seems very important to many people then it ought to be left in, and as Manchester has verifiably sound claims it's claimed status must be left in. Any mention of third-city status should not be made in the lead as it is clutter, and as for whether it should be included in the main text, I abstain. 3rd city is surely still more ridiculous when even second city doesn't really mean very much at all. It's like arguing what's the 150th best album of all time. ( Come on Feel the Lemonheads if you must know, but who cares?) Alun 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is "Third city" so bad? Capital of the North, First Industrial City... Why are some Mancunians so insecure that they need to take on so many titles? TharkunColl 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This made me chuckle, [3]perhaps we could find a space for it in the main article? Certainly makes some valid points. 79.73.80.166 02:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Out of 1.8million articles on this paperless encyclopedia , only 4 cities describe them selves as being "third city" - Limerick, Sousse, Patras and San Juan, Trinidad and Tobago. It would appear that it isn't a very descriptive term if so few articles use it. This has nothing to do with Civic Pride, I just feel the word is a misnomer. Mike33 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Third City is a pefectly descriptive term - it means THE CITY AFTER SECOND CITY ie THIRD!!! It never fails to make me laugh the lengths people in Manchester will go to try and twist the truth! Good effort though! 212.139.246.24 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Here are the UK references! Strangely enough they all say Birmingham is the UK's second city! (even the BBC which stirred up all of this trouble) Hope this argument is now settled!
BBC [4]
Daily Mail
Independent
Mirror
The Sun
The Guardian
The Telegraph
The Times
Reuters
212.139.246.24 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What can the guy gain? I actually read all of them just in case. that is sick. :-( Mike33 - t@lk 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing "sick" to use your rather offensive term about providing verifiable sources whilst engaged in talk on a discussion page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought such debate about the validity of encyclopaedic content was what Wikipedia was all about? Posting rather offensive warnings on my talk page calling someone a "smart ass" is also against the spirit of Wikipedia so I was lead to believe? 212.139.246.24 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see that this matters at all... in terms of size, Birmingham is obviously the UK's second city. In terms of 'urban area' e.g. the surrounding cities & towns, it's still in second place. Manchester isn't even the third largest city in the UK... it's surrounding conurbation, maybe so. This may be where the problem lies, as Mancunians may like to class towns such as Bolton, Oldham and Stockport as part of Manchester, whilst they clearly aren't. I still don't understand why it is of such importance, to be honest. DShamen 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This department, which is in charge of city-related policy, defines a city as a Primary Urban Area (not the same as an ONS urban area which is an agglomeration). This definition is in the State of the English Cities report at 2.3.5.
The population figures are available from the State of the Cities database. To get the most accurate population figures, select Grouping Type as Theme, select the Theme as Urban Competitiveness, select Place Type as PUA (Ward) and select the Dataset as Total Population - Census Years. Then select Start and End dates as 2001. The download button will then appear. EarlyBird 12:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see the section above for more information on the dispute. EarlyBird 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Primary Urban Area for Manchester also includes the neighbouring City of Salford granted city status in 1926. I'm sure the good people of Manchester would not like to mislead people into thinking they were actually bigger than they really are, so I will therefore amend to reflect this and make the statement NPOV. 79.73.183.95 19:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The citation I have provided shows that the neighbouring City of Salford population figures are also included (granted city status in 1926)[ [13]]. Using the Primary Urban Area figures is therefore controversial and requires further explanation as per WP:LEAD to ensure they are presented in a way that is NPOV. I agree that they have used the term city and will ensure this is included. However hiding the fact that these figures include urban areas outside of the Manchester City Council adminsitrative area could be considered censorship. 79.73.183.95 21:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Didn't even have time to edit the paragraph in question - Mike33 has removed the whole paragraph which I whole heartedly agree with! At last a bit of good common sense! 79.73.183.95 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As you agree, have added reference to Salford to make NPOV. Thanks for your understanding. 79.73.183.95 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As such the 56 PUAs were always intended purely as an analytical device for the State of the Cities Report (SOCR)
The figures still don't make sense if Manchester is 441,200 and Salford is 216,400, how does combining the two give us 1,741,000? and we quote the whole of greater manchester as 2,200,000. I am going to bracket the facts until it is clarified and I don't think it should be in the opening in any case, it seems delibrately misleading. Mike33 - t@lk 11:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems you are all bemused by this website and the figures it gives. Well allow me to solve all your problems. If you look here [14] which is a report of the Manchester area it shows that the area selected includes Oldham, Tameside, Stockport and probably much of Trafford, Salford. So it can't be used as a population figure but there is plenty of other information on there which can be used on the article. Hope you can all calm down now. XAndreWx 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Seeing as this reference to Birmingham being a contender for second city status is constantly removed under the title of "vandalism", I have since removed a similar reference to Manchester from the Birmingham page. Personally, I feel that having such references are actually useful in showing a balanced view on the matter.
I request that if this is removed again, please do not label it as vandalism and assume good faith. - Erebus555 10:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Good to see that the grim mill town of Manchester's nonsense propaganda campaign to laughingly promote itself as the second city has been stopped in its tracks on the Birmingham page - UNLUCKY!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.52.6 ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
Manchester does indeed have many mills and an extensive textile industry Manchester Textile Manufacturers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.52.6 ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
Added refrences to international media sources to illustrate general reporting in the media of Manchester as the UK's third city, as current statement is misleading and does not reflect an independent viewpoint as per WP:LEAD which specifies a brief explaination of the main controversies. In agreement with this discussion, these references are not a direct claim by the city of Birmingham of second city status. Please assume good faith and inform me if similar references of general reporting can be found for Birmingham as the UK's third city as I was unable to find any?...wonder why that may be? :-) 212.139.103.140 01:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Other members of the editing community without partisan interests in promoting Manchester view such edits as perfecly acceptable and substantiated source. [1] Please do not try and intimidate me whilst using Wikipedia.
Such additions were discussed on the Manchester discussion board prior to amendment in line with WP:CIVIL - no counter sources have yet been put forward reporting Birmingham as the 'UK's third city' as I do not believe any credible news organisation would report such. I believe these sources are still fully valid but will comply with WP:CIVIL and discuss further to have them reinstated. Should a satisfactory conclusion not be reached I will take the matter further, as I believe the Manchester article represents only a partisan POV and not that of neutral Encyclopedic content and deliberate attempts are being made to ensure this remains the case. I should however make it clear from my past experience in life that I will not tolerate any form of intimidation as I have regularly experienced when accessing other Manchester related websites.
I've put a 3RR warning on the talk page of Jza84 - who obviously has an agenda and has no right to try and bully and assert greater authority over newer contributors 'because they have been here longer' as can be seen on my talk page. This is certainly not a good exaple to set when trying to encourage new contributors to Wikipedia. 195.212.52.6 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This statement is misleading and a violation of [WP:LEAD] and it does not reflect an independent viewpoint and leaving out perfectly valid references from respected sources to Manchester as the third city is POV. Please read [WP:LEAD] which specifies a brief explaination of the main controversies. Please also seek concensus on this talk board before making edits in future to comply with WP:CIVIL. I have reverted the statement back to the last version by TharkunColl 195.212.52.6 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear everybody involved in this debate. Before I start I have to declare that Jza84 has drawn my attention to this debate, presumably so that I will support him or her. I want that known now so it doesn't get 'discovered' and I get accused of being a sock puppet. I am not. I have read through the issues, and with both sides citing policy it isn't easy to make a choice as to what the best way forwards is, but we cannot allow an edit war continue. At first, I was critical of the removal of the cited remarks that anon has been repeatedly leaving, until I came to read WP:LEAD. Then it became obvious to me: Manchester's article is already a little untidy at the start, and I think needs an overhaul. Adding in the third city claim is making the situation worse. Furthermore, I am well aware that there is the scent of aggrandisement in the air, and people are getting a little crazy about what is, essentially, a non-issue. The second city status is non-official, and a divisive waste of time. If it's so important to people, it must go in. But when the content is relatively unimportant, one must pay extra care that its presence does not interfere with the style. On this basis, I have come round to Jza84's argument. (S)he has also acknowledged that the third city claim may be encyclopaedic and that with good references and verifiable should be included in the article. But in the lead, it is ruinous of the flow and placed there, I believe, only for mischief. Therefore, I will endeavour to edit the lead for style following the policies in WP:LEAD. I have already started this, paring down the Manchester claim to be almost exactly the same as the on the Birmingham page. Lastly I wish it to be known that I live in Manchester, but I am from Wales and I have also lived in Birmingham. I have no interest in which is the second city of the uk, beyond stating that, obviously, it is Newport. Alun 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Good try Alun to propose a very subtle but none the less partisan viewpoint on the issue as a self confirmed resident of Manchester. Both souces quoted are perfectly valid, to claim that a source such as the internationally respected New York Times is not valid is quite frankly laughable. No counter sources have been provided where Birmingham has been quoted as the UK's 'third city' therefore in concensus with TharkunColl Birmingham has a stronger claim which must be reflected as WP:LEAD that requires that the major controversies regarding the subject must be outlined. I've also now included a 3rd reference, the MORI poll data used to justify Manchester's second city claim as this very same poll indicates the majority of respondents (27%) also view Manchester as the UK's third city. This is also a primary source, is therefore stronger than the BBC articles which are secondary source and also illustrates the bias the BBC have used when reporting on the primary data.
Finally if people do not feel that 'second city' status is of significant importance why include it in the the first place? 195.212.52.6 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That is what is being committed against the Manchester article repeatedly. Filing spurious claims and citing refs that either don't back up what's being claimed, aren't reliable, or are plain contradictory to what's being stated is mischief. A discussion is in place and consensus is against claiming third city status in the lead. Perhaps in the article as a whole, but I'm less sure. It is a gross abuse of good sense to make changes against this consensus then state 'see discussion' on the edit summary; you're citing a contradictory source yet again. User:TharkunColl, you know you are playing up, and I just want you to know one thing. You are wrong to keep making these changes, and they will never stick whilst you are swimming against the tide. Which means you can discuss this and change our minds, turn around and stop abusing Wikipedia, or keep going on with your vandalism. But if you choose the last option, I promise you will tire of it before we do. Alun 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, having searched for 'Manchester "Britain's third city"' on google, there is quite a lot there to support the notion that Manchester is regarded in foriegn media and elsewhere as being the third city. Look at this or this for example. G-Man ! 00:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears that there is a hate campaign against Manchester's article by User:Rob right as shown right here: [2]. This user appears to have a grudge against our great city and is attempting to devalue the wikipedia article. This shows that there is no credence in anything the user says and his many sockpuppets. XAndreWx 13:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's a straw poll you're after then I'll add my twopenneth. I'm inclined to believe that Birmingham is the UK's second city, but that the UK's second city is a subjective, almost meaningless, concept. As it seems very important to many people then it ought to be left in, and as Manchester has verifiably sound claims it's claimed status must be left in. Any mention of third-city status should not be made in the lead as it is clutter, and as for whether it should be included in the main text, I abstain. 3rd city is surely still more ridiculous when even second city doesn't really mean very much at all. It's like arguing what's the 150th best album of all time. ( Come on Feel the Lemonheads if you must know, but who cares?) Alun 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is "Third city" so bad? Capital of the North, First Industrial City... Why are some Mancunians so insecure that they need to take on so many titles? TharkunColl 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This made me chuckle, [3]perhaps we could find a space for it in the main article? Certainly makes some valid points. 79.73.80.166 02:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Out of 1.8million articles on this paperless encyclopedia , only 4 cities describe them selves as being "third city" - Limerick, Sousse, Patras and San Juan, Trinidad and Tobago. It would appear that it isn't a very descriptive term if so few articles use it. This has nothing to do with Civic Pride, I just feel the word is a misnomer. Mike33 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Third City is a pefectly descriptive term - it means THE CITY AFTER SECOND CITY ie THIRD!!! It never fails to make me laugh the lengths people in Manchester will go to try and twist the truth! Good effort though! 212.139.246.24 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Here are the UK references! Strangely enough they all say Birmingham is the UK's second city! (even the BBC which stirred up all of this trouble) Hope this argument is now settled!
BBC [4]
Daily Mail
Independent
Mirror
The Sun
The Guardian
The Telegraph
The Times
Reuters
212.139.246.24 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What can the guy gain? I actually read all of them just in case. that is sick. :-( Mike33 - t@lk 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing "sick" to use your rather offensive term about providing verifiable sources whilst engaged in talk on a discussion page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought such debate about the validity of encyclopaedic content was what Wikipedia was all about? Posting rather offensive warnings on my talk page calling someone a "smart ass" is also against the spirit of Wikipedia so I was lead to believe? 212.139.246.24 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see that this matters at all... in terms of size, Birmingham is obviously the UK's second city. In terms of 'urban area' e.g. the surrounding cities & towns, it's still in second place. Manchester isn't even the third largest city in the UK... it's surrounding conurbation, maybe so. This may be where the problem lies, as Mancunians may like to class towns such as Bolton, Oldham and Stockport as part of Manchester, whilst they clearly aren't. I still don't understand why it is of such importance, to be honest. DShamen 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This department, which is in charge of city-related policy, defines a city as a Primary Urban Area (not the same as an ONS urban area which is an agglomeration). This definition is in the State of the English Cities report at 2.3.5.
The population figures are available from the State of the Cities database. To get the most accurate population figures, select Grouping Type as Theme, select the Theme as Urban Competitiveness, select Place Type as PUA (Ward) and select the Dataset as Total Population - Census Years. Then select Start and End dates as 2001. The download button will then appear. EarlyBird 12:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see the section above for more information on the dispute. EarlyBird 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Primary Urban Area for Manchester also includes the neighbouring City of Salford granted city status in 1926. I'm sure the good people of Manchester would not like to mislead people into thinking they were actually bigger than they really are, so I will therefore amend to reflect this and make the statement NPOV. 79.73.183.95 19:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The citation I have provided shows that the neighbouring City of Salford population figures are also included (granted city status in 1926)[ [13]]. Using the Primary Urban Area figures is therefore controversial and requires further explanation as per WP:LEAD to ensure they are presented in a way that is NPOV. I agree that they have used the term city and will ensure this is included. However hiding the fact that these figures include urban areas outside of the Manchester City Council adminsitrative area could be considered censorship. 79.73.183.95 21:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Didn't even have time to edit the paragraph in question - Mike33 has removed the whole paragraph which I whole heartedly agree with! At last a bit of good common sense! 79.73.183.95 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As you agree, have added reference to Salford to make NPOV. Thanks for your understanding. 79.73.183.95 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As such the 56 PUAs were always intended purely as an analytical device for the State of the Cities Report (SOCR)
The figures still don't make sense if Manchester is 441,200 and Salford is 216,400, how does combining the two give us 1,741,000? and we quote the whole of greater manchester as 2,200,000. I am going to bracket the facts until it is clarified and I don't think it should be in the opening in any case, it seems delibrately misleading. Mike33 - t@lk 11:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems you are all bemused by this website and the figures it gives. Well allow me to solve all your problems. If you look here [14] which is a report of the Manchester area it shows that the area selected includes Oldham, Tameside, Stockport and probably much of Trafford, Salford. So it can't be used as a population figure but there is plenty of other information on there which can be used on the article. Hope you can all calm down now. XAndreWx 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)