User talk:Alexander Howard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Ilford
Hi. I'm having trouble understanding the relevance to the modern town of the distinction between historic and administrative county. If you consider this relevant, I would move it to a historic administration section, rather than try to make subtle distinctions in the lead paragraph - more relevant are the modern boundaries of the district.
I must admit, also, to being wrong. It is no longer an Essex postal code, careful reading of the post office regs shows they have not used counties since 2000 - they retained the 1965 county information because they couldn't afford to change the system in London! Otherwise, it would have disappeared then, or with the next revision in 1985.
I'm also a little mystified why Ilford has such a well developed education section whereas London Borough of Redbridge does not. While not encouraging you to duplicate the information, I think putting it in the later division - would be better with a see LBR link in the Ilford text - others argue for a purely local focus and that would argue for a more focused list under Ilford.
Just a few thoughts that are better worked out with a chat than constant edit changes. Good luck. Kbthompson 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, just picked up. I can clarify the point as it does cause confusion. It is one of my areas of expertise, so excuse me for turning anorak for a moment.
- The historic counties are a separate concept from local government areas. In terms of local government, Ilford is not in Essex but in the London Borough of Redbridge, as you say. The historic counties have their own Wikipedia page, to which I have linked any such references.
- Essex has existed since Saxon times. Its boundaries were settled before the Norman Conquest. Some administration was attached to the counties. The county is a geographical area though, separate from administration; in Essex the Liberty of Havering was not subject to the justices of Essex, but it was still reckoned part of the county. In the nineteenth century more changes were made so that there were many overlapping statutory "counties". Essex as a geographical area remained untouched.
- Essex County Council was created in by the Local Government Act 1888. Its area was a new "administrative county". It did not include the County Borough of West Ham, though Stratford and the other West Ham towns were considered to belong to Essex because no change was made in the ancient county.
- The Census Office after 1888 refered to the historic counties as "the ancient or geographical counties", a very good description.)
- The London Government Act 1963 created, from 1965, the new Greater London Area. It removed Ilford from the administrative county of Essex. Nothing in the Act suggests and abolition or alteration of the historic county though; quite the contrary. Then finally the LGS 1972 abolished, as from 1 April 1974, thwe administrative county of Essex, and created new statutory counties, of which one was called "Essex". Specifically Section 1 of the Act abolished all "administrative counties", not the ancient counties. The new county of Essex is a statutory county dating from 1974 only. Ilford is not in that county. It is however in the historic county of Essex.
- Ordnance Survey maps now show just the local government counties. However the system is breaking down; should Southend be included in Essex when it is not in the LG county? How can we work with a geography that leaves Southend and Thurrock out of Essex, Leicester out of Leicestershire and Berkshire not existing at all? In adding historic county information I have sought to give people an option to use a stable historic county geography if they wish.
- It helps those doing family research too.
- I hope this answers the point.
-
- I also agree with Kbthompson. These additions are original research and have no relevance. Your arguments detailed above also contain a number of errors, the detail of which has been argued before at the talk pages of WP:PLACES and elsewhere. MRSC • Talk 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No; there are no errors in what I wrote. I have read the statutes at length. As a solicitor I am not in the habit of making it up. If you can point to any error, I will consider it.
-
-
-
- I am aware there has been discussion of whether to describe places by their administrative area or their historic county. Whatever ones opinion of that, and it is a debate that creates ill-feeling I am not reopening it at this stage. No ruling has been made on the accuracy of assersions about the existence or abolition of the counties (not that a vote could change the position either way).
-
-
-
- We are in danger of violating the principle of neutral point of view.
-
-
-
- If it is just a question of "original research", I will add a citation from someone else who has published research on the same point.
-
-
-
- I made additions to the Ilford and Dagenham entries to answer a common question I get asked by local people and other Londoners, and secretaries, about why they cannot find Ilford listed under Essex or why it is known as "Ilford, Essex". I have even had to answer the point in lectures I have given. Answering common queries is exactly what Wikipedia is for. As long as it keeps a neutral point of view, the sort of addition I made is proper and useful material.
-
- Hi again, I note it's back! My feeling is that the situation is best dealt with in the History section, a bald statement of the facts of administrative responsibility - referenced, of course. The way you put it is as an active debate. Ilford, Essex was abolished in 1965, it remained as a hangover for postal purposes until the introduction of post-codes, when the whole notion of counties was abolished altogether - post-codes only being concerned with delivery. I think having this paragraph is confusing to the modern reader - who has no concept of Ilford, Essex and merely perpetuates a canard. Kbthompson 13:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, any canard is a sitting duck. There is a live debate locally. (I referenced a couple of web debates between actual Ilford people to show that it is indeed a hot topic. One of them referred to a poll a few years back in the Ilford Recorder, which showed a pretty even split of preference between "London" and "Essex".) The question is how we record a debate without coming down on one side or the other. I do not believe we should just ignore a question that is asked so often and which might indeed be the reason someone is looking Ilford up on Wikipedia in the first place. Instead we mention it and state bald facts, as far as there are facts.
There is a debate about the validity of demotic geography. "The West Country" has no existence in officialdom, but it is used. People are not computers, after all. "Ilford, Essex" might come into that.
The other debate is whether the historic counties actually exist at all. I know what I think, and I can come up with plenty of independent material. Not everyone agrees with me though. How can Wikipedia reflect that without seeming to come down on one side or the other?
[edit] Dagenham
"mixture of common fact and what Dagenham people have told me". That sounds like a very good description of original research. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For the identity of residents of one place or another to be included, there needs to be some reliable citation for that. Also, for the purposes of balance the respective perspective of all residents should be included. I doubt citations exist for this sort of data, which is why it should be left out of the encyclopedia. MRSC • Talk 14:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits
I notice the vast majority of your edits have been reverted by a wide range of editors. This is because under WP:PLACES the project has decided not to present past county boundaries as current. As your edits have been almost exclusively to present past county boundary information as if it were current, you might consider adding instead balanced historical information to articles. Further edits to present past information as current are likely to be dealt with in the same way by contributors. Aside from wasting your time, this is harmful to the project. MRSC • Talk 13:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
