Talk:Greater London/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Area stats linking to wrong page

In the info-box on the right hand side, the area "1580 km²" links incorrectly to the page "1 E7 km²".

It should link to "1 E9 km²". There doesn't seem to be a way to fix this, as it seems to be encoded somewhere else.

(While I'm at it, the text mentions 1579km² (cf 1580)... we should be consistent, so which is more authoritative?)

--Arcman 07:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Boundary review

The Times of February 24, 1971 has a story 'GLC seeks boundary review to extend its authority', which is pretty much self-explanatory. Morwen - Talk 23:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ken suggested expanding the boundaries to the M25 with a press release in 2004 [1] after the result of a telephone poll by MORI. As far as I can tell nothing further came of it other than a seminar. MRSC 06:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

History

There's some interesting history about early proposals for creating Greater London here if anyone's interested. G-Man * 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Population

Where did all the residents go? Even from 1970 to 1980 there was just under one million people moving out of London. Was it one group of people or was it spread over all demographics? Greater_London#Population - Ctbolt 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

After the war, white working class people were moved out of Inner London to the large new towns like Basildon and Stevenage. MRSC • Talk 10:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"were moved out of" is not an accurate description! Thousands of homes were destroyed by German bombing raids during WW2. As a result, and in an attempt to improve standards of living amongst the people, after the war large numbers of people (of all classes) were displaced to the aforementioned New Towns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.182.109 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Status

Why in the status box does it link to Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England when these were created in 1974 and Greater London has never been defined as one of these.

To the best of my knowledge GL was never actually defined as a county (although it is commonly thought of as such) merely as an 'administrative area'. G-Man * 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably because of this section. Although defined earlier it sits at the same level. MRSC • Talk 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Source Data

I am looking for the original data from the map of greater London boroughs so I can update Open Street Map. Acts of parliament are probably crown copyright, so I wonder how this was drawn for Wikipedia. Is this information in the public domain/creative commons? --TimSC 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographics section.

Has anyone else noticed something very, erm, wrong with it? Zazaban (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Elastic term

There have been several attempts to change the article to suggest that Greater London is currently a variously defined area. The literature isn't telling us this post-1965. Pre-1965 is another matter, with a variety of definitions and sources to draw on. I've created a "Early incarnations" to detail this. 20:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups - contradiction with another Wikipedia article

The section in this article called Ethnic groups says, referring to the black population of London, that: "around 7% as Black African, 1.79% as Black Caribbean". This is not correct. The Wikipedia page "Ethnic_groups_in_London" says the figures are 4.8% and 5.3% respectively. The official census figures also support the latter figures. 81.170.14.223 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

A levels: Aside from uncertainty that this is the sort of detail that should be in a summary article, I question the accuracy as Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood is outside Greater London. MRSC (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1831 Census

Even in 1831 there was dispute of the true limits of London. The Census notes give the population of The Metropolis and also gives the figure for "all the parishes whose churches are situated within eight miles of St Paul's". It only added 250,000 at this point or 15% of the total population of the area. [2]

Figure on population seems incorrect?

"but declined to 6.7 million in 1988, before starting to rebound in the 1980s." ~Shouldn't this e either late 1980s or even 1990s? Basiclife (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously a typo, but easy to correct, so I did. Teemu Leisti (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Map

I found another map of Greater London:

• http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=8600

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion

There are no references for the statements in the 'Religion' section. Rocker Ages (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceremonial County

Greater London is neither a county nor has it ever been. While there is a convenience to refer to the area as a Ceremonial County for sidebars etc, it should not be reported as a fact that GL is a CC. I am therefore going to alter the Lead to still include the creation of the Lieutenancy but remove any declarations of being a ceremonial county in the Lead. The only references that I can find are wikipedia originated.

Some of the confusion has arisen from the phrase for the purposes of this act the following are a county. But then a bicycle for the purpose of other acts is defined as a (horse-drawn) carriage. Tetron76 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The act is carefully written, and does not say that Greater London is a county (if it was a county it would be included in paragraph 3 of that act along with all the "real" counties). At the same time, this article should link to Ceremonial counties of England. A reasonably accurate phrasing would be "in addition to its other roles, Greater London is treated as one of the ceremonial counties (as the accepted shorthand for "counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies"); though it is not a county in its own right. Also remember the lieutenancies are not a new thing, the 1997 Act is the current governing law, but it was preceded by other ones. The first Lord Lieutenant of Greater London was appointed on the creation of the GLC.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've read the act in full now and its meaning is plain and simple. The act says the following "A lord-lieutenant shall be appointed by Her Majesty for each county in England, each county in Wales and each area in Scotland (other than the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow)." (section 1). Schedule 1 states "The provisions of this Schedule identify the areas which constitute counties in England, counties in Wales or areas in Scotland for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain" and "The counties in England for the purposes of this Act are (a)Greater London (excluding the City of London)...". This clearly indicated that Greater London is a "County for the purposes of the Lieutenancy Act". There is no provision in the act for a non-county area in England having a Lord Lieutenant.

As for "Ceremonial county", this is an accepted shorthand form for "County for the purposes of Lieutenancy" - this form has been used extensively outside Wikipedia. It is not merely a Wikipedia derived neologism, but is hard to find a non-WP derived usage in a Google search (given WPs prevalence). The "ceremonial county of Greater London" is referred to by the Church of England for one.

The status of Greater London is worth mentioning (its not an administrative county), but the article should clearly state that it is a ceremonial county.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a classic example of why this information should not be in the lead itself. You gave me a 31 page pdf saying the CoE calls Greater London a ceremonial county when there is no mention of this in the document.

Look at the official GLL website history [3], there is no reference of county status. Indeed the one point they refer to GL it states The area now known as Greater London - it is true that this is not a conclusive statement GL is not a county from the GLL perspective. None of this website makes a different claim. To look at another official government page. For Kingston [4] there are several points where they could have suggested a county but don't. There isn't a mention on the city of London website.

The next question is should GL be treated as county even if no official body is calling it one? The first act to see which you need the pdf version (Local government act 1963) of states that

"no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, couty district or parish;"

So in 1965 it was not a county, the next change happens in 86 which abolishes the admin region of GL leaving only the London Boroughs. If you look at the language used to declare an admin

county.

"The Metropolis shall, on and after the appointed day, be an administrative county for the purposes of this Act by the name of the administrative county of London."

It stipulates a time of commencement and gives it a new name for the act. This has a heading and is followed by pages further defining the region.

the 1999 act makes no reference to GL being a county and certainly does not use the phrase ceremonial county.

Being pedantic Greater London was defined as a region including the city of London. The act refers to GL without City of London as being a county for the purpose of this act. So even if it did define a new county this is not the Greater London that is defined by an earlier act. The first mistake was to make the primary page be called ceremonial counties it should had been a redirect to lord lieutenancies.

The act that gave Greater London a Lieutenancy was the 1964 Administration of Justice Act [5]. This did not make GL a county indeed, Middlesex County Council and London County Council both existed at the time as the 1963 act did not take force until April 1st 1965.

Now comes the issue of is the expression used widely enough to be used even though not official. Ceremonial county is common place but I cannot find it as an alias for Lieutenancy and I couldn't find an exact match on google books stating GL is such a county. The only usage I could find for GL being a CC originated from wiki and has been repeated.

I don't have a problem with it being mentioned lower down in the article saying sometimes the GLL is described as a CC. But to go in the Lead it cannot even be qualified because the contrary opinion is silence. There was no head line. The only two usage for London are for City of London one from the letters page and the other in Taiwan.

90.193.131.239 (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Greater London is a "county for the purposes of the Lieutenancy Act 1997". A "county for the purposes of the Lieutenancy Act 1997" is a ceremonial county. Therefore, Greater London is a ceremonial county. There's multiple refs to ceremonial counties in that CofE pdf, and the "ceremonial county of Greater London" is a phrase on p31. As for the term ceremonial county to describe these areas Ordnance Survey, the Environment Agency, county councils [6], [7], and academic reports [8] all use the term (search the PDFs for "ceremonial").

Describing the ceremonial counties as a Lord Lieutenancy is wrong, just as describing an administrative county as a County Council is wrong. A ceremonial county has a Lord Lieutenant, an administrative county has a County Council - but the institution and the region it covers are separate entities.

A ceremonial county is different from other sorts of counties. GL is not an administrative county for instance and that fact should also be included in the lead - just as the fact it is a ceremonial county should be included in the lead. But "Greater London is not a ceremonial county" is factually incorrect.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet again you are entirely missing the point. The only source that I could find states Greater London is a ceremonial county is wikipedia and websites that have lifted there information straight from wikipedia. By the way none of your references are academic papers, I already tried to find sources to support your position.

The section of the 1997 Act you keep referencing is a schedule- this is an appendex giving definitions for the Lieutenancy act. There has been a Lord Lieutenant in GL from the 1964 Adminstrative Justice Act [[9] but this area was clearly stated as not being a county under uk law.

This can be confirmed in these two acts in the apendices here: [10] Lord Lieutenant already existed for Greater London as a whole but this is not a county and [11] "The lord-lieutenant for each county and the lord-lieutenant of Greater London."

Now looking for a reference in Law is only again made in 2001[12] "The areas comprised in the Lordships Lieutenant of-"

The only one of the reference which adds any weight to your argument is the Ordnance Survey [13] p 17 however it ststes it is not showing the boundaries so still cannot be used to establish all 48 Lieutenancies are collectively known as a Cermonial Counties. It gives a definition of CC is an area with a Lord Lieutenant and a High Sheriff. But this is not logically closed in meaning to say all regions with LL and HS are CC. To use wikipedia as a source the City of London has two Sheriffs.

90.193.131.239 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The operative sections of the 1997 act defines the Lieutenancies, and supersedes the earlier acts that govern the role of the Lord Lieutenants. All lieutenancies in England are associated with "counties" (the act does not provide a means for a non-county in England to have a Lieutenant); these are the counties that are known as "ceremonial counties". In the schedule, Greater London is listed for that act as a county for the purposes of that act - that makes it a ceremonial county.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that Greater London still had the same Lord Lieutent before and after the enactment of the 1997 act [14] as to did GL to the County of London. Also there is the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The act refers to counties and apply to GL and can do so because for the purpose of this act GL is defined as a county. However, the status of county on GL did not happen by this sentence.

Yes you are right there is minimal difference between any Lordship Lieutenant or Lieutenancy if it within an administrative county or not, but the point is that no one ever referred to Greater London as a county ceremonial or otherwise before wikipedia did. I am concentrating on this one issue so that you can understand why this difference is significant. The idea of a ceremonial position exists with respect to a Lord Mayor rather than an elected mayor. When you make assertions that there are 48 ceremonial counties and Greater London is one of them you are putting forward a position that is not stated anywhere. The problem is that while it is mild POV with respect to some issues when it comes to Geographic counties, Middlesex, Surrey (in GL), county of London it has massive implications.

Since the administrative county being abolished is regarded by many as the abolishment of the county altogether even though the area is still called by its old name the reaffirmation of a ceremonial position doesn't make an area a county. There is no usage to back it up. It also masks the fact that between 1986-2000 there was no administrative county covering anywhere in GL only London Boroughs. People don't realise that not everywhere in the UK was in a County prior to 1889 either, there was a region called the Liberty of Westminster.90.199.55.92 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The first task of the lead section is to describe clearly the current situation regarding Greater London. Its the current status (after the creation of the GLA and enacting of the Lieutenancy Act 1997) that matters, and the article should tackle this before going back in time. Its prior history is pertinent of course (it would be absurd to not mention the GLC), but is a subsidiary point compared to here-and-now status.

References prior to 1997 Act are not directly relevant, as that act supersedes the legislature that governed Lord-Lieutenants before that date. The situation regarding the Sheriffs is also relevant, notice that the High Sheriffs make no distinction between GL and any other county. How many English sheriffs are listed there? 47 (less the City of London).

Greater London is a county for the purpose of Lieutenancy. The term "ceremonial county" is a different concept to the term "county". To use the OS definition a ceremonial county is an area for the Lieutenancies and Shrievalties. Why should we be treating GL any differently? Please provide post-1997 evidence that GL is not a "ceremonial county" (or an equivalent such as "a county / area for purpose of Lieutenancy"). Pre-1997 evidence that it was not a "county" is a separate issue entirely

Incidentally, the concept of a purely ceremonial county has plenty of supporting usage. Berkshire and Bedfordshire no longer exist administratively, but are still ceremonial counties.

The administrative status of London should also be mentioned of course but is a seperate issue to its ceremonial status.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1. It's complicated.

2. The lede needs to present the core facts in a comprehensible but essentially accurate form.

3. Greater London (excluding the City) is a county for lieutenancy purposes.[15] Additionally, it is "treated as a county" for shrieval purposes.[16]

4. Though the term "ceremonial county" is not universally understood, it is still the most commonly understood term to distinguish this sense from the local government meanings of "Greater London" and "county". The wikilink in the lede ensures that readers can easily ascertain its exact meaning, as well as the unique quasi-county status of Greater London for ceremonial purposes.

5. "Greater London" has been used as an informal or statistical term since the late 19th century.[17]

6. Postal counties have no legal status and only an indirect connection to ancient or statutory counties. (Though the GPO sought to reflect administrative county names in some postal county names, there has never been a consistent rule across the whole of England or the UK; and even when contemporary administrative county names in some areas were used as the basis for postal counties, rural addresses took their postal county from that of the relevant post town – typically the delivery office location – which did not necessarily reflect the administrative location of surrounding rural addresses. Numerous non-administrative postal counties existed for islands, as well as for London itself and other non-standard areas, so the connection is too complicated to set out in general-interest articles: a brief wikilink to postal county is the therefore the most appropriate way to avoid confusion and obscurity in placename articles.)

Reconciling these disparate facts (including the general points 1 and 2), I think the current wording of the lede and the article as a whole are about right.

Other points:

• The 1997 Act was a consolidation act: it restates the existing lieutenancy law and sets out the status quo, rather than marking a significant change of status. But even if there is doubt as to whether Greater London is in any sense a true "county", it is certainly a "ceremonial county", in the same way that Pluto is a "minor planet" irrespective of whether Pluto is considered to be a "planet".
• Though Greater London and the Isles of Scilly were the only parts of England not to be governed by a county council between 1974 and 1996 1986, the broader historical position has been more varied and underwent significant change several times since the late 19th century, resulting in widespread ambiguity or even ambivalence about the precise meaning of "county" in colloquial usage, and vehement disagreement as to the "true" meaning of county by some people. enwiki has suffered from prolonged and fractious debate in the past as a result, so current consensus should not be disrupted without strong justification.

— Richardguk (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the article could do with a slight expansion - with regards to the GLC and the GLA. The lead should make a brief mention of both; on the lines of "The GLA is the administrative body with responsibility for Greater London". The history section of the article could be re-shuffled (and expanded a bit) to better handle the "interregnum" between the GLC and GLA; it seems odd to have a gap in the "history".--Nilfanion (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For about the umpteenth time, Greater London was not a county before 1997 Act. The 1997 act is coupled with a set of orders that create / constitute counties: [18] note GL is not constituted a county. now as you stated there is no change in status to GL having a Lieutenancy. There is a list of past holders of Lord Lieutentant that shows you are right that this didn't cause the creation of a new Lieutenancy [19] but the 1964 act even with the amendments and repeals never made a county.

The status quo is that there was not a region treated as a county called GL. There were no boundary markers, no official government body has ever called it a ceremonial county. Now there is serious problem that wikipedia asserts that the Lord Lieutenancy makes an area a ceremonial county but this uses the much discussed schedule 1 as sole reference. This doesn't use the phrase ceremonial or ceremony anywhere. If it is intended to be used as a pure alias then the Lede for ceremonial county needs to be clearer where as at the moment it reads as if ceremonial counties are legally defined.

If you intend to interpret sources rather than cite sources greater scrutiny is needed as to the context in which the document was written and what changes occured as a result. The county names were still in use in the area on maps and guide books which divided areas in counties (such as B&B guide) did not include Greater London. There is no match in google news archives. The problem arises when you want to class areas into counties that it doesn't make much sense to have an area in limbo. But this is what happened.

Now you want to have a sentence which is unreferenced and unreferencable and certainly only a modern usage without even qualifying the statement. To make matters worse POV cannot give the alternative position because no serious authority even discusses whether Greater London is a county. The closest you come is with EB calling it a metropolitan county [20].

as for current consensus to do with counties - I was not declaring in the text that London was not a ceremonial county nor removing the sidebar description but unambiguous statements that cannot be supported should not appear in the lead.

• If as you say there is no difference between a ceremonial county and a Lordship Lieutenant then how is it wrong to use the latter? if there is a difference then the use of the former needs to be proven to be more correct. The other point is that you describe Greater London as the administrative area so it contains two Lordships Lieutenant! Why only a statement about one? 149.170.169.2 (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A "ceremonial county" is not the same thing as an "administrative county", a "geographical county" or just plain "county"; its a precisely defined concept - a "county for the purposes of lieutenancy/shrievalties". The statement "Greater London is a ceremonial county" is different from from the statement "Greater London is a county".

The legal name for the "common term" ceremonial counties is that given by the acts: The counties and areas for the purposes of Lieutenancy in Great Britain). The "counties" are England and Wales, the "areas" are only in Scotland. Greater London is a county for the purpose of Lieutenancy in Great Britain. That is what makes it a ceremonial county.

Basically there are two points: 1) Is Greater London a "county for the purposes of Lieutenancy?" (2) What is the common name for "county for the purposes of Lieutenancy"?

The difference between a ceremonial county and a Lord-Lieutenancy is one is the office the other is the area it represents - those are two different concepts and should not be equated.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

2) the term used in the legal document I gace above was "Lordships Lieutenant". As for 1) it is a county for the purposes of the act is defining the usage of the word county in the act not that the thing is a county outside of the act this is a point of legal language that you are missing. The act constitute counties through the order again which I gave above. The phrase is more often used of for this act but the post office act defines thing ss newspapers it doesn't mean that they are newspapers. [21] "Any publication for the time being on the register shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed a registered newspaper."

1) the other point is that you should be able to find RS to support your claim of there being 48 CC and that GL is one of them. Preferably in quotation marks.

3) you are still ignoring tyhe fact that you want GL to be treated as the admin area alone then there are 2 what you are calling Ceremonial Counties.

The best way to resolve this is to find a phrase that you can live with which is accurate. Maybe "As Greater London (excluding the City of London) is a Lordship Lieutant it could also be referred to as a Ceremonial County" or is sometimes refered to as.Tetron76 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Lordship(s) Lieutenant" is not used to refer to the area of a Lord-Lieutenancy (aka "ceremonial county") anywhere on Google other than in the reference you cite,[22] which is itself a schedule to regulations defining "English Vineyards" for the purposes of the EU common agricultural policy: about as obscure as one could get in statutory status! In the absence of even a single other usage (statutory or non-statutory) referring to an area (rather than an officeholder) as a "Lordship Lieutanant", the citation is more compelling as evidence of improvisation by MAFF draftsmen than of any established official or vernacular usage.

It follows that your proposed amendment would be inappropriate; and that there is no evidence contradicting enwiki's interpretation of "ceremonial county" as the most widely understood term to describe unambiguously the area for which each Lord Lieutenant is appointed.

— Richardguk (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot find a match for the phrase doesn't support you calling it something else only that the fact that perhaps the area shouldn't be mentioned at all. From the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: Lordship 2 The land or territory of a lord; now I too was ignorant and would have thought the phrase was going to be Lord Lieutenancies. The only reference to the areas collectively that I could find other than the 1997 act is the 2001 act. I am not using this to prove that the regions mentioned are Lordships Lieutenant only that this is their proper name. However, the difference is that there is no qualifier used such as for this act.

If you say that ghosts are real, it would not be my responsibility before it is added to wikipedia to prove that they don't exist - it would be your responsibility to prove it. THe term ceremonial county has been used for places that have been constituted counties but they don't give a definition that would cover GL. But look into the High Sheriff, none is listed for the city of London and this is a criteria for OS definition but every single link gives history for a county [23] except Greater London you think this is an oversight too?Tetron76 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

First things first - Wikipedia uses the common name. "Lordships Lieutenant" is emphatically not the common name for the "area represented by a Lord Lieutenant" (one mention in an obscure regulation is not common), and WP uses the common name. "Ceremonial county" is a much more viable candidate, as it is used by a wide variety of organisations - including government departments [24] [25], government agencies [26] [27], local authorities [28], by NGOs [29], in parliament [30], and indeed by Lord Lieutenants [31]. Perhaps most interesting of all is the Association of British Counties, which is a pressure group who want the historic counties (such as Middlesex) recognised as "the counties". They recommend the term "ceremonial county" for counties under the 1997 Lieutenancy Act [32]. All of this indicates the most appropriate term, in general, is "ceremonial county". If ceremonial county is not the common name - it should be straightforward to find a wide-ranging set of sources that refer to them as something else.

Moving from the general, to the specific, what applies to Greater London? The Lieutenancy act treats Greater London (excluding the City of London) no different from any county, its listed differently in the schedule as it can't reference the administrative counties as it does for the others. A couple of the links I have given touch on this point and indicate Greater London is a ceremonial county: The church refers to the "Ceremonial county of Greater London" when defining their London region, and the DfT document provides a list of primary route destinations by ceremonial county - listing Greater London as one of these (without a footnote to indicate it is not a ceremonial county, but included for convenience). The plain reading of the law indicates Greater London (excluding the City) has identical status to the others for the purposes of Lieutenancy. This is backed up by the few sources that touch on Greater London's status: The DfT and CofE both refer to it as a ceremonial county in exactly the same way as it refers to the other areas, the MAFF wine regulations refer to it as a Lordship Lieutenant in exactly the same way as it refers to the other areas. If Greater London is be treated differently from Lancashire, Suffolk, or Hampshire, it should be possible to find sources indicating that.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding any analogous status of ghosts: (1) WP:TRUTH; (2) the article "Ghost" does exist. .
• Section 3(2)(c)(i) of the London Government Act 1963 (before being repealed by the Local Government Act 1972) stated that an earlier enactment "shall not apply to the county of London or of Middlesex". Administrative counties were abolished by the 1963 and 1972 acts, not counties as such. On the face of it, that implies that the (non-administrative) counties of London and of Middlesex (at least) have a continuing (though ineffectual) legal existence, contrary to my earlier assumptions. None of that, however, is directly relevant to your points about ceremonial counties, which are covered by the more specific lieutenancy and shrievalty provisions which we have discussed at length. I would also suggest (before you hoist me with this generously-offered petard!) that any ongoing legal existence of those counties is so nebulous and open to question as to be inappropriate for mentioning in any lede or general placename article: the lack of weighty supporting references in subsequent legislation implies that any continuance is more of a legal lacuna than a settled and significant fact.

— Richardguk (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1 - My comparison with Ghost was whether the article can state an opinion as fact without a source ie that ghosts are real.

WP:V is what is being missed. But for a closer analogy you are basically trying to justify calling a duck-billed platypus a bird without any evidence to support your doing so.

To try and avoid the distortion which are being used in an argument here are a couple of roughly worded definitions which fit actual usage of the phrases:

• A ceremonial county is a county when divided for ceremonial purposes as opposed to an administrative county.

• A geographical / geographic county is used to refer to the area covered by an adminstrative county when not contemporaneous with that administrative county.

The ceremonial duties are covered by Lord-Lieutenants and High Sheriffs

These roles are further diminished when there are London Boroughs.

The geographic county is often based upon the original boundaries of the county which is based on features such as rivers, etc

However, most often the usage of ceremonial county is as an alias for the geographical county. The phrases are not interchangable in all circumstances,

• 2 - As well as being incorrect to state that GL is a CC. It has no relevence to an area to tell people that they are in region in a particular the Lieutenancy

The infobox suggests that the whole country is thought of as CCs in the same way as states in America.

Twickenham is the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames and under the adminstration of the Greater London Authority

This tells you that it is in the adminstrative region called Greater London that covers 33 London Boroughs

It is significant to its identity that it is currently in the former postal county of Middlesex this is significant to the area and many sources still append a larger location to help people identify the part of the country.[33] [34] Also London is used.

There is no relevance of the Lieutenancy area to the article unless you mistakenly believe that this is how the whole country is subdivided. The Lord Lieutenant's job is to introduce the Royals in a borough and then the Mayor introduces the royals to everyone else. This has no bearing on the identity of a place. especially as each borough has a deputy.

• 3 - On the Ceremonial counties Lede all that is done is define CC as an alias for Lordships Lieutenant. This is already covered in Lord_Lieutenant#Present_Day.

Legally they are defined this phrase that I tried to improve once is extremely misleading. It implies that a ceremonial county is defined in a document under law however, this cannot possibly happen without actually even using the phrase!

Collective name which can be applied to areas appointed a Lord Lieutenant it clearly cannot apply to all areas appointed a Lord Lieutenant because it is only applying to England. The usage of the phrase as a whole is a construct not a name per se.

The page is suggesting that the ceremonial counties as a group is equivalent to the historic counties as a group.

There are several errors on the page but the main problem is that the contents is about a different topic to the title although related.

• 4 - To state GL is one of 48 CCs is 2 refs short of being verifiable. The wording suggests that it is tantamount to stating Iowa is one of the 50 states in the USA.

Even if every other claim on CC is accepted it is not clear that there are 48 , City of London is at least questionable.

• 5 - I am telling you that Greater London is not a ceremonial county & that it cannot be established that there are 48 ceremonial counties.

You are telling me because Greater London has a Lord-Lieutenant it is ceremonial county.

I then stated that a Lord-Lieutenancy's domain is not the same thing as a ceremonial county.

You say that the following ceremonial counties are the same as LL domain.

I say that there is a difference between the two which is why GL is not referred to as a CC anywhere.

You say what else can it be then

I say that it is only a Lordship Lieutentant and there are two of them within GL

You try the cyclic argument that because Lieutenancy act states for the purpose of - GL is a county

I say that it isn't a county which is why GL is never referred to

You say that it isn't what it is commonly called.

I say that it is not commonly referred to as anything

You again state that because of LA1997 it is a county

I point out how every other county was constituted a county and that you still can't find a source that calls it a cC independent of wiki.

Again you refer to common name.

This sentence currently fails WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR & WP:REL and without any additional sources there isn't any justification for this statement as it stands nor the definition in the Lede in CC itself.

Anything which doesn't address this point is ignaratio elenchi.

A version of the fix I proposed is reasonable, i.e. adding a qualifier, your position of having challenged material in an article without refs for support is not.

Tetron76 (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is your proposed fix? Your original edit was poorly written (neither post was created by the 1997 Act). You have repeatedly ignored that there are a few references quoted above (not derived from WP) that say Greater London is a ceremonial county - I'll add another that makes that explicitly asserts that, and also lists Greater London as one of 48: [35]. The C of E is not the perfect source for such a claim, but it is a reliable source (and independent of WP). There's no reason to doubt it given when you have not supplied any sources stating a contrary position, reliable or otherwise. As for the City as a Ceremonial County - that's rather clearer, [36] for instance.

None of this has any relevance to including appropriate references to Middlesex in relevant articles (which is not a problem), but the reference to the postal counties is not the way to do that - refer directly to the historic county.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been compartmentalising my arguments and although referencing Middx, Surrey etc. This was in an attempt to have you understand GL w.r.t. the word "county". Postal county is a neologism.

[37] CoE you give. Uncited copy and pastes from wikipedia is not what most people call independent. It is from around this time i.e. compare page 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceremonial_counties_of_England&oldid=163319834#Definition

I can't find the area on the last website you gave to match what you claim.

I want a phrase that doesn't imply that the country can be unambiguously divided up into units called counties including GL.

I think it needs a fair bit of space and probably is best placed in a subsection called Lieutenancy area etc which would give greater latitude.

If it must go in the Lede:

• it should state that there are 2 Lieutenancy areas / Lordships Lieutenant
• It either needs to state "although not a county" or clearly show that it is only being "treated as a ceremonial county"

My suggestion is:

Greater London contains two ceremonial areas: Greater London excluding the City of London ref1 and the City of London ref2 The areas of the Lord-Lieutenants (formally Lordships Lieutenant ref3) and High Sheriffs are used to denote the ceremonial counties ref4 ref5 Although not counties themselves, the domains of the Lord Lieutenant of Greater London and Lord Lieutenant of the City of London are also occasionally described as "ceremonial counties." ref 6ref7

Tetron76 (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the banner of the Central London Forward page - it automatically cycles through descriptions of the boroughs (or you can select manually); and read how it describes the city. In that Church document, the text describing the counties (on page 4) is not derived from any WP phrasing. And specifically states Greater London and the City are 2 of the ceremonial counties.

As regards to above text, its perfectly possible to write about how Greater London is represented by two Lord Lieutenants without having to name the area a LL represents ("GL has two LLs, one representing the City and one the boroughs"). "Lordships Lieutenant" should not be used (one reference in an obscure regulation doesn't mean that's the formal name). Neither should "ceremonial areas", the term is "ceremonial county" - either use it or avoid it. That last sentence introduces more POV problems that it could ever solve: It asserts (uncited) that the truth is they are not counties, also ignoring the fact the city is formally "The City and County of the City of London", and goes on to say occasionally they are referred to as ceremonial counties (which implies that typically, when discussing the ceremonial aspect, they are treated differently from the 46.

IMO, there is no major problem with how the existing text handles the ceremonial matters. GL (excluding the city) is a ceremonial county, not "county", "ceremonial county".

That said, the lead as a whole could benefit from more about the administration: Where is Boris? How about the fact it isn't an administrative county, or that it was created from a few counties (replacing the counties of London and Middlesex, plus bits of others). That is a separate matter to the ceremonial aspect.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason that you don't think there is a major problem because you think that the term ceremonial county is applicable to Greater London.

Ceremonial county is either a collocate as currently being treated or an adjective-noun pair, the latter would mean that the thing being described was a county. It is because ceremonial county is being used as synonym for the Geographical county when the two coincide that allows for the wikipage of that name.

Yes, I can now see the PFI group does now re-state the claim (although probably did no research). Perhaps, a clearer source I found is MP's website but there is clearly a mass of stuff which is not sound. With this page City of London#Geography clearly eventually there would be some leakage and this appears to have happened with "smallest ceremonial county".

City and County = County of London again you are showing you have no familiarity with the area and are imposing what you believe to be the case to what is the reality. Royal Commission on the Amalgamation of the City and County of London it is an old term rather than the new term.

The main point that hasn't been addressed is there are substantial authorities available on the issue none of which mention the term. It would be possible to contact them further if you are in doubt.

It is the last sentence that you object to the most because it is the fact that you are denying being stated and that is that it was only wikipedia that described GL as a ceremonial county. It is inconvenient that nobody in authority explicitly states the fact although it can be inferred in all of them. The ref to add is probably this from the ons 90.198.254.117 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A cursory investigation of "City and County of the City of London" (not "City and County of London") finds numerous hits on government department and agency pages: [38][39][40] for a start. That ONS link isn't that relevant, as it's about the administrative not the ceremonial structure. And with regards to WP's influence: If there is an accepted term used by reliable sources that is the term should be used, even if it originated as a WP neologism, we shouldn't create a second neologism to avoid the first one. That's not going on with regards to the term "ceremonial county", which was clearly in use before Wikipedia existed, though WP may well be entrenching use of that term.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes made to Lead

I added in references to the Geographic region before 1965 to the start of the Lead because: 1 - the term Greater London has applied to region in more general terms and 2: - the adminstrative region did not still exist as such between 1986-2000. I included the postal county information because it is highly relevent to understand GL as an administrative region very different from a County.Tetron76 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The most important fact the lead needs to cover is its current status - the initial edit removed the fact that it is now a top level admin area. The fact the term "Greater London" predates the GLC is worthy of mention. As is the varying status through history (pre-GLC, GLC, in between GLC and GLA and the present GLA).

Also, remember postal counties existed solely for the convenience of directing mail - Melbourn is in Cambridgeshire, and always has been. But it is in the postal county of Hertfordshire. The postal counties are not the same as the counties; but its worth mentioning at some point in the article that Greater London wasn't adopted by Royal Mail as a postal county).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't intend to start an edit war over this. The problem I have is that I have first hand knowledge of some of the usage of the term which I guess makes my opinion subjective. But Greater London was primarily used to describe an area, even when in force as an administrative area. The M25 is often used as a boundary for road maps so then places like Sevenoaks are included (which I see has a different sidebar template giving shire county). If you haven't viewed too many articles this month you should be able to see this NYTimes article from 1909: [41] It states : This is the reigion known as "Greater London." There are articles from the second world war and before that also use this nomenclature.

You could view the geographical region as separate from the administrative area but it appears that the two seem currently to be the same. But if the area is identical to latest admin region and nothing more then it could be placed within the Greater London Authority page. However, clearly the area is much more important than being a simple subdivision. It was still being used 1986-2000 as the areas name in maps at this time.

Postal counties is causing me a headache. The 1963 act abolished the administrative counties of London and Middlesex. This was before I was born but the areas were still referred to as Middlesex & Surrey. This was how the area was shown on maps. This may now be changing as I haven't lived in the area for almost a decade but at the time they were still effectively a county. WP gives no term that allows for these areas to be described at present and Geographic county cannot be used because it redirects to ceremonial county and this term is clearly not applicable to Middlesex in 1990. The problem is that though being only left with London Boroughs after the GLC that the term GL was not the primary usage to describe the area. Forms asked you for a county and there was no county of GL the road signs didn't tell you that you were in GL. 90.193.131.239 (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See #Ceremonial County above for comments on postal counties and colloquial usage.

A space on a form for "county" does not necessarily mean that the publishers have firmly considered that everyone who completes the form has an address located in a county (perhaps they never gave the matter much thought; perhaps they expected some people to leave the line blank; perhaps they expected some people to put in something else, such as "London" for the London postal area, or some other unofficial locality or island name). The realisation that there is no uniform official county status is probably why fewer forms now require this information, following Royal Mail's lead in dropping county names from standard postal addresses.

— Richardguk (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are speculating. The main reason for a lower use in county names is that the computer allows you to look up the post code for any address couple this with the need not to have the county in an address is also significant. But the main thing is that the Geographical areas are still divided - there are places with the same name - there will always be a need to differentiate there names.

I lived in the area and I assure you in GL outside of the county of London the word county was still used to refer to the historic counties. There is also the usage of the London Borough name as I check on my birth certificate and this was when the GLC still existed. But you only need to try anywhere in Middlesex and you will find 1000s of hits for Middlesex. Even if you go to Surrey County Council they give the address of Kingston Upon Thames as Surrey [42] no mention that it is in Greater London no longer technically in Surrey.

To the issue of what is Greater London you have moved back my claim of around the turn of the 20th centuary to about 1885. But the point is that there was an area already designate that covered the administrative area of the Greater London council. Firstly and foremost Greater London is an area it alread existed in government under the name Metropolitan something. I can't recall what off hand. If it is only an adminstrative region then it did not exist after the end of the GLC until the GLA. The article needs to start with this fact before mentioning the 1965 London Boroughs etc.

If you want a feel for the history of the area [43] gives good sources. As for understanding London the Victoria County History states how Middlesex was the most stable county almost unchanged from Saxon times until 1889. Tetron76 (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Greater London was formally created by the London Government Act 1963 (at the same time as the GLC), though clearly it was used to describe the general area for some time before that date. When the GLC was abolished by the Local Government Act 1985, Greater London was not abolished at the same time. In fact, the act extensively refers to Greater London in its operative provisions. It ceased to have an administrative function, but it still had an existence for the purposes of laws, and is referred to in numerous laws between 1985 and 1999 - for example.

As for addresses, such as what Surrey County Council lists for County Hall - that is the full postal address, which includes the postal county. The postal county is that set up by the GPO (and maintained in PAF by Royal Mail), and there is no postal county of Greater London. For postal purposes the county is no longer needed (as the postcode is never ambiguous). The county information is ambiguous - what county is Bath or Kingston upon Hull in? - if the customer supplies a wrong postal county, it may hinder sorting the mail; if they supply the right county it won't help (assuming they have correctly addressed it with the postcode).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to define your terms more clearly. What do you mean GL was formally created. An adminstrative area was created at this time which comprised the 33 London Boroughs no arguments there, but this adminstrative area was disbanded with the 1985 act. Even the Lieutenancy that continued only covers 32 of the boroughs.

in 2000 this area again became an adminstrative region Greater London. (Also the link you give me amends the wording of the 1984 act when GL existed) I think I confused this issue - the fact I meant should be included is the fact that the area Greater London exists beyond any act.Tetron76 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The point over the county is that the area is called Surrey / Middlesex. Whether it is in postal address is irrelevent you are trying to assert that the word is not used to describe the geographic area. You misunderstand the burden of proof is on you to support the claim being made that Greater London is regarded as a county in the English Language. I have given more than enough circumstantial evidence to support the case that an area exists within London that is regarded as a county for some usage of the word.

Some more news sources although it is difficult to filter [44] "from Middlesex" then Mother from Middlesex [45], Giving the address with no postcode is common too [46]. There are so many references to Middlesex you cannot deny it is an area even if without any technical status for Government.

a postal county as described is needed for posting and mail. But a county is needed for finding things too. Ashford, Surrey has to be the most fun though, the hospital says it is "in Middlesex" [

http://www.ashfordstpeters.nhs.uk/], the bbc think its in Surrey [47] as do New scientist [48], The government give its address as Middlesex [49] first deciding not to bother with the Town but then later adding it [50]. Surrey county council give its address as Surrey [51] but the guardian believed it to be in Middlesex [52].

• The point is a geographical reference to a county is made rightly or wronly when referring to a place. While this might also be a postal address it is not so that you can send them mail it is to place its position geographically. An area can have a name and this can be more important than any legal definition of a body. I am not claiming that Middx is a county in the way that other counties are

but [53] agin says something is in Middlesex on an official London Website. Greater London is too an area foremost and the fact that there were other county like things is why GL never has been thought of as a county. Boroughs are used alot too but Greater London normally refers to the map book ie inside the M25.Tetron76 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation

Hello, dear colleges. I'm russian, and I'm translating this text for our wiki. Could you tell me, please, when and where did Steen Eiler Rasmussen write sentenses that are citation in the text.--Schetnikova Anna (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anna. In London the Unique City, MIT Press, p36. [54]. That's the 1948 edition. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Schetnikova Anna (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange population

When I was looking the London commuter belt page I found something very strange. I found the following text: "The population of Greater London and those counties adjacent to the green belt was 18,868,800 in 2011". Why is the population of Greater London so much smaller? Also the population seems to me the same as the population of London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransewiki (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Districts in Infobox

I'm considering the idea of removing the "Districts" and map section of the Infobox. I don't see the value of including this map, for which there is a legend for only half the subdivisions, when there is a complete map with full legend in the article. How was it determined that only the first 18 areas merit inclusion? I thought it best considering the potential number of interested editors to talk about it here. "Be bold" only goes so far. But unless there is strong objection, I think the space could be better used. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  13 November 2024, 08:02 (UTC)

Difference from London

What is the difference between London and Greater London? Justgravy (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:London#Greater_London?. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Demography (ethnic groups): Greeks

I was amazed when I've read "In the 2001 census, 71.15% of the population classed their ethnic group as white, including White British (59.79%), White Irish (3.07%) or "Other White" (8.29%, mostly Greek- and Turkish-Cypriot, Italian and French)." because I personally know that a lot of Polish people live there, and even more so when I saw that table on the right with Poland being in the third place with 158,300 residents (remind you, that was already in 2011 and doesn't account for later years, e.g. 2004 which is mentioned two paragraphs below).

Though there's a (sort of) explanation two paragraphs below (i.e. "The table shows the top 21 countries of birth of residents in 2001, ... These figures do not give a fair indication of the total population of the specific ethnic groups associated with each country."), I am still curious (it seems totally impossible) how is it possible that Greece is not listed (as "Country of birth") under that table from 2011 census at all? --Wayfarer (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Partial updating from the 2011 census has left the whole demographic section of this article in a hopeless mess. Somebody who knows London needs to heroically set aside a large amount of time to tidy it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.69.76 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a Borough

The City of Westminster is NOT a borough of Greater London. It was created in 1965 and it is a CITY of equal status as the City of London. The CofW has its own governing council and is responsible for streets and parks and everything under the usual jurisdiction of a city. Provincial Londoners may WANT to call it something else but it is the heart and soul of the governance of the United Kingdom. Dangnad (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)