Talk:Bethnal Green

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bethnal Green article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Talk

There appears not to have been a talk page (look at history). Anyway updated template. Kbthompson 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to write about settlements

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements provides guidance on how to improve this article. In summary, the suggested headings for sections are as follows:

 * Geography and administration
 * History 
 * Landmarks
 * Demographics
 * Economics
 * Places of Interest
 * Culture
 * Present Day (Communal facilities, Transport, Education, Industry & Commerce, Sport)
 * Notable Residents (ie people who meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)

Although there's some progress on the history side, this article lacks relevant and verifiable data in relation to other aspects and the present day. It also seems to lack rather a lot of references for the information provided so far.

On this basis, quite a lot needs to be done to improve this article. Click the link to the guide to see more details about what sort of things should be included in each action. I'm going to have a go at sorting out some bits and will be back! Cosmopolitancats 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And to give a flavour of the overall aim here's a quote from the London page

The London area is formed through countless urban villages and small towns, and each of these villages and towns has its own identity to be described and explained in the Wikipedia.

Cosmopolitancats 14:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of a guideline is it is just that, a guideline - not a rule. While I agree that the page could well do with revision, application of a guideline blindly is inappropriate. Let these districts' individuality shine out. Applicable elements of the guideline should, of course, be applied, but it's not a tick-box exercise. Kbthompson 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It would be appreciated if positive intentions are assumed rather than negative ones - please! I've seen an awful lot of articles on my travels which let the individuality of their history shine out while tending to neglect the other and as important aspects of the present day reality of the place.
In my experience, I've found that after doing the research for articles for other places of a similar size/context that most of the other aspects suggested by the guideline have content that both exists and is relevant. Let's focus on getting the article sorted and up to an assessed good standard shall we? Cosmopolitancats 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Bethnal Green

Apart from the tube disaster it appears that citations need to be identified for virtually all the content. There are no ther references or links to external websites.

Anybody up for sorting out the citations - if there is I guess we can hold off tagging the article with where citations are needed?Cosmopolitancats 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography and Administration

A new section is needed. Can we clarify what bounadaries seem appropriate. Some queries:

  • I note that one of the places of interest suggests Globe Town is part of Bethnal Green. Should Globe Town have its own identity? (the current arrangement is that Globe Town reverts to Bethnral Green) What do people think?
  • Is Spitalfields and Bangla Town going to be part of or separate from Bethnal Green? I'm not sure that people living there would think of themselves as being part of Bethnal Green. It's also recognised as a separate area in terms of Local Area Partnerships. What do people think?

Cosmopolitancats 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the way you look at it, Globe Town was developed from 1790; it was an independent area, and became a parish in its own right - St James, or something. In the mid-90s, it was the name of a short lived neighbourhood, containing the core of Globe Town and the bits of Mile End that they couldn't lose elsewhere. Again, it's confounded with Bethnal Green due to being in E2.
In general, wiki is forgiving of indeterminacy with boundaries and areas; particularly within London where the boundaries tend to be fluid. If anyone finds anything interesting to say about the area, it should stay; if not it can be dealt with in BG.
There are several stages in the development of settlements in London, they are first 'arterial' along the major routes, with fields behind. Later someone buys a group of fields, throws up a few houses and calls it Globe Town. Soon these are all cheek-by-jowl with each other, and the most salient features are the tube stations. People have this schemata in their heads, and fair play to TfL, they do largely conform to the settlements. The council comes along and likes to draw neat lines on a map, that bifucturate communities because they like to draw their lines along the major arteries. So, as I say, depends on how you look at it. Do you take a long view, or the instant fix? Kbthompson 17:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You take the present day situation and you explain it - in an objective and neutral way and with reference to all available and relevant material.
My inclination is to say that, for now, it might be best to develop the article on the basis that there needs to be a clear section on Globe Town and then decide later on whether it should be given its own article. It's not unusual in articles re places for somewhere to appear in two articles as names of places can often mean areas of varying size.
BTW the council does not draw the boundaries so no use blaming them for how they're drawn or how often they change. I think we'd see a very interesting set of results at elections if councils were able to draw the boundaries! What actually happens is that The Boundary Committee for England reviews local government areas and wards and then makes recommendations to the Electoral Commission. A similar named bod#y - but different - The Boundary Commission for England makes decisions in relation to parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. Cosmopolitancats 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
aaaaaaaaaaarrrgh - this is getting frustrating. They show blue in preview and red when published. Take it from me that both exist as wikipedia pages here The Boundary Committee for England and here Boundary Commission (United Kingdom) - which confusingly actually has an html which says it's the boundary commission for England!!!Cosmopolitancats 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Instal popups they allow you to preview links - you'll see them occur (usually) when vandalism is reverted, just follow the link and the instructions. Kbthompson 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the Globe Town issue: I live in Bethnal Green. BG started as a crossroads roughly at the current BG Road/ Roman Road/ Cambridge Heath Road junction. The name goes back at least to the 17th century (Pepys stored his goods at a house here after the Great Fire of London) Globe Town was within the Metropolitan Borough, although it did have St James church I am ot sure that it was a separate Parish. The Parish church is St Johns which is on the east side of Cambridge Heath Road. On the issue of Bunglatown and Spitalfields. These areas are largely south of the railway line and therefore quite separate from Bethnal Green, although they were part of the Municipal Borough. There is no such natural boundary between the crossroads and the area known as Globe Town. 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - thought I'd signed the above correctly but only the timestamp appeared. Wilmot1 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a mess!

What an unholy mess this article is! Doesn't even inform us where exactly Bethnal Green is! And what are all those unedited notes at the end? Unbelievable that it has been given the same rating as the Spitalfields article which I sweated blood over to make accurate, rational, coherent and referenced. Colin4C 10:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if someone had spent as much time on researching and writing decent stuff, as they did on whining about other peoples' references, then it might be up to the standard of the Spitalfields article. Let's try and get it at least up to Whitechapel standards ... That I think is a worthy aim in the meantime, it's an important area and deserves better. Kbthompson 10:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm sorry to be so negative. I would like to help improve the article. Just a bit frustrated at the moment about not having a handy reference book or bluffers guide on the area available to hand, just some disconnected bits of info which it is hard to make sense of...Colin4C 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed reference to Shoreditch Tube Station

Removed this as it has been closed for a year and won't re-open! We could add Shoreditch High Street when it opens in 2010 Wilmot1 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster of '43

In the Modern History section;

"In the wet, dark conditions, a woman slipped on the entrance stairs and 173 people died in the resulting crush."

She must have been a whopper...


[;) I assume something different was intended by the author...Berean Hunter (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)