Talk:Second city/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Explanation for edits to UK section

I've made some edits, and I'd like to explain my rationale for them below; and I'd appreciate it if you consider these, and hopefully argue against them, before editing. --Khendon 20:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph

Hopefully this should be uncontroversial ("In the United Kingdom, Birmingham has generally been considered the second city since around the First World War. More recently, many have claimed that Manchester deserves the distinction."). It's simple, it doesn't lead to an escalating "arms race" of opposing viewpoints, most people should be able to agree with it, I'd hope. --Khendon 20:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Size

It's important to mention the City of London if we're mentioning formal city boundaries, to make it clear how arbitrary they are. I've never seen a count of the population or area of the conurbation around Birmingham (the West Midlands Region isn't the same thing, unless I'm mistaken), so we can't say that's bigger unless you can come up with some evidence. It's similarly impossible to definitively say which areas should be included as part of the informal size. -- Khendon

Yes you can, the West Midlands county is generally considered to be the Birmingham conurbation, as Greater Manchester is for Manchester. Although it is debatable whether Coventry really counts as part of the Birmingham conurbation, as it is debatable whether Wigan or Bury really count as part of the Manchester conurbation. G-Man 21:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point! We could argue basically forever about what parts should be included and which shouldn't. Not to mention saying definitively that the West Midlands county is bigger than Greater Manchester is problematic; we have W Midlands at 2,575,768 and G M/cr at 2,513,468. This is a tiny difference, particularly considering Manchester population has been notoriously undercounted in the last few years. Can we just set the details aside, agree on a minimal uncontroversial text, and move on? --Khendon 07:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, as I pointed out earlier, by any definition Birmingham's conurbation is larger than Manchester's. Even if the peripheral areas are excluded and only the urban area is counted then Birmingham still comes out larger. See Largest urban areas of Western Europe. G-Man 20:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Khendon is right, I feel. If we can't agree on a version, then it probably isn't NPOV. We should stick to what we can say with certainty, the minimal uncontroversial text that Khendon refers to. I'm not especially keen on the reference to the City of London going in, but there we go. It occurs to me, is there an article page that discusses the difficulties of measuring city population/size? It might help to keep this page more manageable if we have somewhere we can direct people for clarification. The points made about formal boundaries, conurbations, limitations of census figures etc are of wider application than this little debate, and might form the basis of an informative article. Mattley 10:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is really what I've been trying to achieve, though with rather limited success! To be honest, I preferred the 'minimal detail' version we had a month and a half ago. --Ngb 11:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok this is getting silly, i am refraining from editing this page but do me a favour guys, read this over again (taken from the top of the article as wiki's description of a second city)

==========================

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The second city of a country is the city that is (or was) the second-most important, usually after the capital or first city, according to some criteria.

Criteria for second city status include population size, economic or commercial importance, political importance or some cultural sense. Since it is often difficult to draw a precise boundary where cities end, deciding which city is second in a country is not always straightforward. If the cultural definition is used, then the choice of second city is highly subjective and a matter of opinion rather than fact.

============================

So Manc city is undeniably at this moment in time half the population of brum, the brum economy is the second largest in the country outside the London area, city or no city included. Then we get to culture, they both bear many great gems of culture and history so we can't use that one which leaves us with political importance, well last time i checked London had the houses of parliament etc, etc... do we get message now? The article cannot include Manchester at all now we look at it, it is missleading, unless half a million population is added onto the manchester city boundaries. As i see it some people in Manchester have decided to take advantage of the massive media advantage the city has over much of the uk by stating in every breath and turn that it is now the 2nd UK city, wikipedia is based on fact, fact, fact. Nick Boulevard 23:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But, as I've said before, if we decide to consider only formal city boundaries, we have to say that Birmingham is the biggest city in the UK, and of course that makes no sense. If we decide to allow more than the formal city boundary in the case of London, why not Manchester? --Khendon 07:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok,
1. London is always going to be the capital or 1st city regardless of it's actual city boundary, agreed!
2. Then we look at the next largest actual city, not metro area or what you or i think is the biggest city by boundary but what we know as fact, Birmingham city is greater than Manchester city in these terms and that cannot be argued. It is therefore ultimately greater in population. The greater Birmingham area is also the second largest economy in the uk.
I will reiterate, Brum has been regarded as the 2nd uk city since the 1st world war, probably even earlier, it still is in all media we care to mention as i have proved. So what argument do we have to include Manchester in the article at all? And one more question, how many other cities are there within the Greater London area? how many cities are there within the greater manchester area, as far as i am aware Birmingham is the only city by that name, it is made up of many smaller towns but not cities Nick Boulevard 15:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You don't think it's very inconsistent to consider formal city boundaries in one place and not in another? In answer to your other question; Greater London includes Westminster, the Manchester conurbation includes Salford and Stockport, and the Birmingham conurbation includes (unless I'm mistaken) Wolverhampton. What's your point? --Khendon 07:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. In answer to: You don't think it's very inconsistent to consider formal city boundaries in one place and not in another? I think that former or future city boundaries are totally irelevant, let us be focused and realistic here, Birmingham city is much, much bigger than Manchester city now, today! read the stipulation for qualification of a second city by Wikipedia. Are you in battle with me or Wikipedia or both?
Nick, I think you are confused about the difference between 'formal' and 'former'. --Ngb 13:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, i read that in a rush last night and i sometimes read words wrong but reading it again, i think it is still irelevant, but thanks for highlighting my error ;) What i am saying is that it is undeniable that Birmingham city is much bigger than Manchester city regardless what anyone wants to believe, there is NO dispute over boundaries so it should not arise in any argument Nick Boulevard 18:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Khendon wrote: Birmingham conurbation includes (unless I'm mistaken) Wolverhampton. Birmingham city consists of only ONE city, the wider Birmingham conurbation is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT as is the wider/greater Manchester conurbation, Greater London being classed as a city or conurbation is not the issue as it is capital regardless of any outcome, no one can compete.
3. My point about the city issue i have already explained, let me simplify... the title of SECOND CITY pertains to a CITY NOT A FLAMIN CONURBATION. WHICH IS THE SECOND BIGGEST CITY IN UK AND HAS BEEN FOR ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS AND CONTINUES TO BE SECOND IN SIZE AND ECONOMY?Nick Boulevard 01:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) :)
Of course London is the capital, but it's not the biggest city in the strictest definition. That's a simple fact, and one that makes the strictest definition obviously absurd. --Khendon 18:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on London defines London as being Greater London, thus for the purposes of wikipedia we should assume "London" refers to Greater London.

Greater London is to all intensive purposes a single city, it:

  1. Forms a single urban area.
  2. Has a single mayor and government.
  3. The boroughs of Greater london are called london boroughs and are thus assumed to be part of London, wheares the boroughs of the Greater Manchester/West Midlands are not called "Manchester Boroughs" or "Birmingham Boroughs".
  4. The term London is nearly always used in reference to Greater London.

You are correct in so far as Greater London does not have a formal city charter, but that is AFAIC a small technicallity. G-Man 20:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that London comes into the equation as second city it will always be 1st or capital regardless? which is the second largest city in the UK with the second largest economy? Which city has been and still is refered to in all non biased media and press as second city? Obviously anyone that picks up an atlas or dictionary will see that it is Birmingham, even if we based second city on wider conurbation the West Mids is larger than Greater Manchester! Infact i picked up a Phillips guide to UK cities today and guess what it said about Brum? 'Birmingham is deservedly refered to as the 2nd city of England To announce that Manchester is chasing for the title is confusing to the reader as i don't see how it can be, where is the evidence and even if it were how long will we need to wait? Nick Boulevard 15:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Nick, removing the reference to Manchester is a big change that really requires discussion. I know you feel very strongly that Birmingham alone has a reasonable claim to the title, but that fact remains that a lot of people really do think it's Manchester. You think they're wrong - and you have a lot of quite good reasons for thinking that - but it's still what a lot of people think, all the same. Whether they're biased, or ignorant, or whatever else doesn't really come into it because the point of this article is not to offer to offer a detailed case which arrives at a definitive conclusion of which city is in fact 'the second city'. As we've all acknowledged, whether explicitly or implicitly, the more you think about the 'second city' the more insubstantial the whole issue becomes. It's just a term people sometimes use. All we should be doing on this page, and all that we really can do, is offer a brief summary of what the term means when used by people in Britain, viz, either Birmingham or Manchester. Can we not just do that? There are better ways of demonstrating civic pride than going over this same question over and over again, after all. Mattley 15:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I know, i do feel quite strongly i admit, i didn't care at first but when i looked into it i realised just how much a place like wikipedia can influence others perception of an article or subject. It is a silly title in reallity and means little but it is important in letting people know which city is second in size etc, etc. and to include Manchester in the article simply because of a single poll of about one thousand people that was staged as a publicity stunt by marketing Manchester after the Manchester hosted C.W. Games is starting to appear seemingly more preposterous. By the way after researching the Second city regiment, i think it was the 1st and 2nd city battalions that were built in the city and it was probably not named because of Birmingham being regarded as second city, i was returning to remove the claim as i wasn't 100% sure. Nick Boulevard 16:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The link to Guardian article

I can understand the desire to counter the Manchester poll link, but the new link that has been added is a bit tenuous really, and seems very out of place. As spurious as the Manchester poll is, an article which merely refers in passing to Birmingham as the second city isn't a refutation of it. It really doesn't prove anything at all. The next stage will be links to results of google search for 'second city' -Manchester etc etc etc. There are two possible ways of approaching this second business: we can either thrash it out interminably in a futile effort to 'prove' that one city or the other is the second city, or we can say what we can agree on, that most people think it's Birmingham or Manchester but no-one can conclusively decide in favour of one or the other. Mattley 15:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well i have added some independent links that are non-brummie biased which show a fair representation of the English media :) Nick Boulevard 18:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which is the bigger city

Ok chaps, so who thinks Manchester city is bigger in population than Birmingham city, afterall the article refers ONLY to second CITY, not second metro area or second conurbation. Nick Boulevard 18:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the article currently says, based on formal city boundaries Birmingham is certainly the larger. This is undeniable and not contested (and, indeed, stated clearly and explicitly by our current text, so I don't really know why you're continuing to debate this except to fog the issue with pointless arguing, a strategy I'm becoming more than a little tired of). However, what we are dealing here with is an issue of public perception, and as the article notes this is influenced by many factors other than physical size. --Ngb 00:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ngb.. what we are dealing here with is an issue of public perception Well Ngb, Hi :) Nick here, and guess what, I'm getting a little tired of this as well, public perception???? whats that then, a freakin poll by marketing Manchester of 1000 people, FF'S this is going right round in circles, Wikipedia is NOT based on YOUR perception of an article.
1. A poll can prove anything you want it to prove :)
2. The whole country apart from Manchester biased people think quite rightly that the second city is Birmingham due to it's size and economic output in industry and whatever, you yourself have stated that Manchester city is smaller than Brum and not by a little but by HALF.
3. Your argument to include Manchester in the article is based on public perception, you are wrong.. it's based on YOUR perception, I have used Wikipedias ruling to declare Brum as a second city and put aside my own biased opinion. Nick Boulevard 00:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree on some things the UK section should say?

Please mark if you contest the accuracy or NPOV of any of these statements. Maybe we can get a clearer idea of contentious issues.

  • Birmingham has generally been considered the second city since the First World War
  • More recently, many have claimed that Manchester deserves the distinction. (Or a similar text such as 'more recently Manchester has staked a claim to the title', 'more recently Manchester has begun to claim the title, with varying degrees of justification'.)
  • Based on formal city boundaries Birmingham is larger than Manchester
    • (and also larger than the City of London)
  • The surrounding conurbations and the areas that can be considered informally part of each city are hard to define.
  • It is perhaps even more difficult to make a distinction based on cultural factors.

Personally I do not believe any of these statements to be inaccurate (except that I am relatively indifferent to the 'and also larger than the City of London' qualification). --Ngb 00:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

tHink i'm close to pullin my haIR out here... WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SECOND CITY ARTICLE, BOUNDARIES AND 'WHAT IF' METRO AREAS ARE not RELEVANT... WHAT IS RELEVANT IS CITY...CITY ... CITY... ok i'm calm now :) second CITY... is based on second largest city, in population, economy, cultural status... Birmingham wins on the first two by roughly twice the amount, cultural differences are not worth going into as they are both full of... CULTURE!!!!!! Nick Boulevard 00:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As Khendon has now pointed out about seventeen million times, if we are going purely by population size within the formal city boundaries then Birmingham is the largest city in the country; Manchester is the second largest.
I note you've not marked that you disagree with any of the individual statements.
--Ngb 14:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry i was having a frustrating night.
  • Birmingham has generally been considered the second city since the First World War - I agree with this statement
  • More recently, many have claimed that Manchester deserves the distinction. (Or a similar text such as 'more recently Manchester has staked a claim to the title', 'more recently Manchester has begun to claim the title, with varying degrees of justification'.) - I dissagree with including any of this, the only people i have ever heard mention Manchester as the second city have been a few people from Manchester on the internet... even my family and friends from Manchester commonly refer to Brum as the second city, doesn't mean they think it's a better city than Manchester for this though!
  • Based on formal city boundaries Birmingham is larger than Manchester - I agree with this
    • (and also larger than the City of London) - I think it is misleading to include London, London is the first or capital city and has no place on the second city article.
  • The surrounding conurbations and the areas that can be considered informally part of each city are hard to define. - I agree with this but again, what purpose does it serve as we have already established that Birmingham is the second largest city in the uk after London (or whatever you want to call it)
  • It is perhaps even more difficult to make a distinction based on cultural factors. - I agree with this, which is why we should only be concerned with which is currently the second (largest) city of England and as i will reiterate, that city is currently Birmingham based on wikipedias own criteria for this title and it doesn't matter how many people may think that Manchester is catching up or whatever because that is totally irelevant to me.. the article... and anyone else that wants to know which is Englands second city as of today, the BBC and the national press and i would guess the majority of the UK believe Brum to be second city regardless of whether they like the place or whatever? Nick Boulevard 19:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Many Birmingham residents agree'

I like this edit! Adds a much-needed note of humour and a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that the whole debate is ultimately ridiculous. --Ngb 12:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be honest... when I first read that edit I was close to reverting and going back to the discussion page but I must admit that I ended up laughing, then reading the above page and laughing some more, who wants to be second anyway? Nick Boulevard 00:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Glasgow

Glasgow was the "Second City of the Empire".

Glasgow

Glasgow was the "Second City of the Empire".

i meant that so much i wrote it twice

Removed pleading for Birmingham

I've removed these paragraphs...

Many believe Birmingham rightly holds this claim as it and its surrounding towns and villages, in particular nearby Ironbridge were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, and home of the Watt steam engine.
Many of the great civil engineers and inventors of the time based their greatest works in the city such as the James Watt, his partner Matthew Boulton, James Brindley, William Murdoch and Thomas Telford, as well having the arguably oldest factory in the world, the Soho Manufactory in nearby Smethwick.

...because (once again) for it to be neutral, we'd have to include the same kind of arguments that can be made for Manchester. Then somebody will add more for Birmingham, and somebody else will add some more for Manchester, and the page will be (once again) be flooded with irrelevant detail. (And besides, Ironbridge is miles from Birmingham; if anything, Manchester has a better claim on that particular title). --Khendon 11:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Belfast

I've added Belfast to the list for Ireland. It is not seen as a second city in the UK, not even close, however on the Island of Ireland it is almost always seen as the islands second city regardless of sovereignty, and the Dublin to Belfast train and bus routes are normally the fastest way to get from north to south. Both are seen as the two "modern" Irish cities in comparison to Galway, Limerick and Cork. Jim-ie 16:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Manchester & Birmingham - How Many Sources?

A recent edit by 88.104.168.137 added 9 external sources biased toward Manchester to the article. As these unfortunately affect the current neutral balance between Birmingham & Manchester I reverted them on the grounds that they do not meet NPOV. They also encourage editors with a bias towards Birmingham to respond in kind and leave their own biased links. I can see this eventually leading to an article which is just one long chain of conflicting external links quoting dozens of unreliable sources (unreliable as defined in Wikipedia:Reliable sources). The anonymous editor has since reverted my reversion on the grounds that I have committed "vandalism". As I don't want to get involved in a pointless revert war over this, I invite a discussion on how many sources are acceptable within this article, and which ones should be chosen to reflect a NPOV. Thank you. Road Wizard 20:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for prompting this discussion. After all the pointless wrangling before about this issue I strongly agree that it's very important for us to keep the article fair and balanced between Manchester and Birmingham.
The anonymous editor is at least doing the 'right thing' inasmuch as it's much better for us to back up our statement that 'many have claimed that Manchester deserves the distinction' with sources rather than just saying it, but in the first place twelve sources for the same claim is ridiculous and in the second place most of the twelve sources quoted are Manchester-based (or Manchester-related) and clearly have their own subjective agenda.
I've therefore pared down the sources to just the ones that look anywhere close to remotely authoritative: namely the two BBC articles. It would be nice if we could find some similar sources to back up our claims about Birmingham: any suggestions?
I would also have strong sympathy for removing most of the material currently in the United Kingdom section of the article, paring the section back to something like the version we had back in Feburary 2005. All the other material is needlessly complex and simply reiterates the point of the section over and over again with ever-more meaningless comparisons and statistics. Any thoughts on this?
--Nick Boalch 21:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any reliable sources that support Birmingham's claim at the moment, but I will keep my eyes open for some. Given the controversial history of this article, I think it will take a long time to finally settle on an agreed wording (if ever!). In the mean time would it be better to hive off the UK section and place it in Second city of the United Kingdom? This would then prevent the constant edits and reversions from affecting the main article and allow the other nations' sections to develop in peace. Any comments? Road Wizard 21:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That might actually be a good idea: I'll be bold and do it, and we'll see what happens. --Nick Boalch 09:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Chicago - Fire

The disputed comment was added here. The editor was User:Harryj. It may be worth just deleting it. Frelke 17:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)