Talk:Birmingham/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

The Birmingham article page is poor

The Birmingham article page is really not very good, the population figures are wrong (I don't no where people get these figures from,they are wrong!)and need correcting. The page suggests that only a "few people here and there think Birmingham is the second city. If you didnt know Birmingham was the second city the article page certainly would not help. It should also be made clear that most people in the UK refer to Birmingham, meaning the entire West midlands conurbation, in the same way that people refer to greater London. If know body objects then I am going to change it and put the facts. --User:Ashley2020 22.41, 24 August 2005 (UTC

Please see the long-drawn-out debate elsewhere on this talk page and its archives as well as on Talk:Manchester and Talk:Second city re: the history of the issue of whether Birmingham is indisputably the second city. Almost everyone who's taken part agrees that it is not indisputable that Birmingham is the second city and almost everyone accepts therefore that the Birmingham article (and the Manchester article) should carry a degree of qualification re: the claim to be second city. The real debate is the appropriate wording to qualify the rival claims of the two cities. If you look at the history of the Birmingham article, you'll see that the wording of the opening paragraphs is changed almost daily. You'll also notice another user (not myself) has already reverted the changes which (I assume) you made to the opening paragraphs.

If you have identified an incorrect statistic on the page (or anywhere on Wikipedia), it would be helpful to explain where you have obtained a more correct statistic from rather than just stating the population figures are wrong. If you provide a source for a new statistic other editors can check your information. Unsourced changes of specific facts tend to be reverted quickly on busy pages such as this one.

As a further point, some people may consider a broad-brush statement like The Birmingham article page is poor as unnecessarily critical. You might find people will engage more positively with any specific criticisms you have if you don't (I'm sure accidentally) write things that are likely to antagonise them by implying the work they've put into an article was a waste of their considerable time.

Also as a general point, as it says at the top of the page, Please add new topics at the end, in sequence. I've moved this whole topic to the bottom of the page so it's clear that it's new. Valiantis 22:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Addendum - Having just been to the Talk:Manchester page I notice you've made a number of contributions there already in recent days. That being the case, I would assume you already have an overview of this whole (tedious and pointless IMO) issue. If so, surely you would have appreciated that any change you made which removed the degree of qualification would only get reverted or otherwise changed within a few days. If you want to contribute to the Birmingham page, you might find your time more usefully spent fleshing out some of the lower level pages like Science and invention in Birmingham or (the incorrectly named IMO) Food and drink in Birmingham, England etc. Valiantis 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to deal with each one of the points one by one.

Valiantis you are correct I do have a overview, I have been following this subject, as you describe (tedious and pointless)(one I don't agree with, and makes me wonder why you are so interested) for several months.

I have been waiting to see if any one was going to change the article for the better, it seems not, Or at least I presume people have but has not met the high standards of wikipedia! and has reverted back to the Poor Article.

Maybe you Valiantis not me! should spend more of your time fleshing out alternative articles. I really do not appreciate your advice, In particular "lower level pages" What exactly are you trying to get at?.

If I didnt know any better I would assume the article page had been put together by some one with a Manchester bias, and before people start to accuse me of being paranoid I am aware that over the past few years, especially since 2002 there has been a determined effort by Manchester city council to push Manchester as the second city. I really would hate to think any shenanigans are going on here because that is exactly how it reads.

OK now to the article its self. Im only going to talk about one aspect of it right now, the other points can wait for another time.

When people refer to Birmingham usually they are referring to the entire conurbation of the West Midlands, in exactly the same way as when people refer to London they are referring to the entire conurbation of Greater London. The same can also be said when people refer to Manchester they are referring to the entire conurbation of Greater Manchester. In the case of London and Manchester this has been pointed out, but not in Birminghams case, Perhaps some one can tell me why not?, and then it can be included.

If an article is poor then it should be pointed out, If it upsets some delicate people then well, I'm sorry.

--User:Ashley2020 23.12 25 August 2005 (UTC)

According to government statistics (based on the 2001 census), the population figure for West Midlands is 2,555,592 [1], for Greater Manchester [2] is 2,482,328, and for Birmingham [3] is 977,087, although these are 2001 census figures and the Manchester figure was since acknowledged to be wrong by about 40,000, I can't remember exactly. These figures should probably be enough to confirm that Birmingham is larger - what's contentious in our articles is that we're also including public opinion, and not just statistics. Surely, what we need is a wording which is acceptable and durable to both articles and not to be continually having this debate - I've only been engaged in this for under two weeks, and I'm already sick of it. How about (on each article) "Birmingham is generally regarded as England's second city" and "Manchester is regarded by some as England's second city"? Then detail at second city? Cormaggio 00:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Cormaggio, that wording is fine by me. As a Brummie, I don't understand why some people feel the need to write paragraphs extolling the size of the city (smacks of an inferiority complex to me:) ).

Ashley2020, I took an interest in your comment as, based on the misplacing of the comment at the top of the page, the tone of your comment, the way you leapt feet first into this area etc., that you were a newbie. My intention was to help you engage with the community here in a more productive way. When I realised my error, I added an addendum.

By lower level pages I meant the more detailed pages on aspects of Birmingham that link from the main page (e.g. Arts in Birmingham. Thanks for your suggestion that I spend more time there. I already am. If you check the history of the Birmingham article, of the individual linked pages, and at Talk:Birmingham/archive5#Article_is_very_long, you will see that I created many of these pages and have worked a fair deal on about half of them. Several still require either more info and/or more thorough editing. My suggestion was serious and not intended as some sort of insult. Valiantis 14:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Does it not clearly point out that B'ham is part of the West Midlands conurbation?. I agree that the entire conurbation is often called Birmingham. However I'm sure that people from Wolverhampton would get upset if you said that they were from Birmingham. G-Man 18:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure some, and I no people from Wolverhampton who do get upset at being called part of Birmingham. I am not suggesting that they are, but they are from what Americans call the "metro area" "the West Midlands" or "greater Birmingham". Pointing this out would clarify to people reading the Birmingham article "who are not familiar with the area " that this is one single urban area.

I'm sure that people in Bolton, Wigan, Rochdale and so on dislike the fact that they are described by some as coming from Manchester. Describing them as coming from Manchester is more of an untruism than saying some one from Wolverhampton is from Birmingham but they seem to survive!.

Valiantis-- I'm also from Birmingham, and that is the very reason that certain parts of the Birmingham article irk me so much. I don't think people have an inferiority complex, but simply would like to have the facts as they are, not twisted, spun, or things missing to give a false impression. Wikipedia is very popular site for people, and the clever emission of certain things " just the odd word here & there" makes all the difference to the finished article. I don't think any body from Birmingham would complain about having the true facts said, enough untrue things have been said over the years so lets at least make sure everything written here is completely true and factual.

==User:Ashley2020 23.26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of facts, however, your edits (I think) of 24 & 26 August stated Birmingham [...] is the second city. That's not a fact as the term second city has no official or quantifiable meaning. Details regarding population size etc. are facts but any statement as to what is Britain's second city can only ever be an opinion. It is not wrong to include something that is an opinion in a Wikipedia article, but ideally the source of the opinion should be quoted e.g. :-

In his book "Second Cities of the World" Bob Madeupauthor describes Birmingham as "self-evidently Britain's second city."

Such an attribution enables the reader to judge whether Bob Madeupauthor's views should be given any weight. In the absence of such a readily attributable opinion, you can signal that something is an opinion not a fact by using phrases like some people believe, it is widely held etc. Wikipedia style tends to frown on this type of formulation (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms), but sometimes such formulations are hard to avoid when the opinion is widely held but there is no especially authoritative individual to whom the opinion can be attributed. I feel that the opinion that Birmingham is the second city falls into this category. (Just to be clear, I do consider Brum to be the second city, whatever that means).

Writing Birmingham [...] is the second city gives the impression that this is a fact. The casual reader might assume, having read such a statement, that Birmingham's position as second city had some kind of legal or official status. This is not the case and therefore such a bald statement has no place in the article.

On a more general point about the second city controversy, might I suggest we avoid the word regarded (as in Birmingham [...] is commonly regarded as England's "second city"). What is regarded is rather hard to quantify. I'd suggest that often described is preferable to commonly regarded. It's still a little weaselly, but it is easier to quantify that there are (for example) so many hundred descriptions of Birmingham as the second city on Google or in The Times or wherever than to quantify what is regarded by "people". I'm not going to make this edit myself as I don't really want to join in the edit war - life is too short - but if anyone wants to take it up, or better still come up with a less weaselly phrasing, feel free. Valiantis 13:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Dunno, personally I think "described" is even worse - though I see why you don't particularly like "regarded" - is "considered" any better? Hmm. Cormaggio ^@ 18:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think considered is equally as bad as regarded. Why do you think described is worse? Valiantis 13:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Because to describe something as X, is to say it has that it has some (X) particular quality, ie. beautiful, smelly etc. I could describe Birmingham as "a big city" but I couldn't describe it as "England's second city", which is a state and not a quality. That's just how it feels to me - I can't back that up linguistically, and I've even less inclination to do so with my pile of work to do at the moment and life being short etc. Basically, I just don't think we can weasel our way out of public opinion - either we include it (and label it such with a word like "regarded") or we don't include it at all. That's my take on it anyway. Cormaggio ^@ 21:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you on the meaning(s) of described but I do agree on the weaselling issue. Personally I'd not include any comment in the opening paragraph as it's too contentious, but if I were to take it out or move it to a less prominent point someone would only put it back at the top... Valiantis 16:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also thought of that. We just need to find a way of presenting it reasonably neutrally - we're evidently not going to please everyone :-) What about a sentence on both pages that says "Birmingham/Manchester is one of England's core cities and claims to be England's second city, although this title is also claimed by Birmingham/Manchester"? - I think that's about as neutral as we can get, and until MORI do another poll, we won't be able to source anything properly. Cormaggio ^@ 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me (well, I'm not sure how a city can claim anything, but I can't think of a better wording). I'll let you change it :-) Alternatively, do any of the people who keep changing the wording have any comments? Valiantis 23:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a load of crap, Second city has always been defined as second largest city as in, Birmingham is the second largest city (proper) in England and will be for some time. The Mori poll has been discussed to death and it is incredible how such a biased poll of a few dozen people has been used to further promote a small city with a large metro area, Manchester is great but it is literally half the size of Birmingham. Nick Boulevard 23:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you've opened up this debate again after a gap of 10 weeks? Valiantis 13:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't bothered reading this page for a while and decided to read through this particular debate and then thought that the last few posts were a load of crap. Manchester has been pushed into the limelight by a manchester biased poll a few years back and a biased press and yet it remains a medium sized UK city with a large number of towns and villages surrounding it which makes up a largish bland west mids type of metro area, what about the rest of the country... isn't Leeds a bigger city and hence more desrving of the title of second city rather than Manchester... all pointless hype I'm afraid. Nick Boulevard 00:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Nick, please, I don't think that's a fair reflection of what Valiantis and I were discussing - the point is that some people consider Manchester as England's second city, and that when you remove this from the article someone will go ahead and put it back in - hence the need for a neutral and, if needs be weaselly, wording. I don't think anyone is interested in carrying on the actual debate itself - apart from a few diehards. Cormaggio ^@ 17:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the fun that could be had with considering other cities as the second city! For instance, take York. Its mayor is second only to that of London and its archbishop second only to that of Canterbury. Therefore I demand representation for York as being considered by some (i.e., me) to be England's second city. I'll make the requisite amendment in a few days' time.  ;-) :-P Matthew 12:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - second city is about a lot more than size; it comes down to the public perception of that city and its relative importance. This is why the article says it is 'generally considered' that Birmingham is the second city (it doesn't say Birmingham is definitively the second city as this affirmation is not indisputable).

I've just removed 'generally considered' from the article and replaced it with 'considered by some' because you really cannot prove what is generally considered one way or the other, and so in the end this has to be a subjective claim. I also think people's perception varies greatly from person to person - especially by region, as both cities act as major regional hubs and so those living nearer to them will see them as more important. I think it is better if we put 'considered by some' on both the Manchester and Birmingham articles and leave any judgements to the second city page which is linked (even judgements on what is 'generally considered').

About size - Manchester and Birmingham are more or less the same size, but due to the Local Government Act 1972 and then the Local Government Act 1983, Manchester was 'chopped up' into smaller pieces than was Birmingham; Birmingham therefore looks larger (around twice the size) on the statistics when in reality it just represents a proportionally larger chunk of a similarly-sized conurbation.Kieron a m 10:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added back 'generally' because I think that it is supported by evidence and is therefore not a judgement, and 'by some' understates this evidence, therefore being misleading. For instance, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4293814.stm states that 'Manchester is pushing Birmingham for its position as Britain's second city'. Searches of other reputable national news sources for 'second city' will refer to Birmingham (I won't list out the searches here - I assume you're fully capable of performing your own searches on the pages of The Sun, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, and any other newspaper with a half-decent search function and news archive (ruling out, for instance, The Daily Mail!)) as the second city - the only references to Manchester that I could find were all in reference to the recent MORI survey rather than, for instance, to describe a football match between Aston Villa and Birmingham City or in relation to the recent local elections.

The evidence supports that Birmingham is generally seen as the UK's second city but that some (and an increasing number?) see Manchester as being in this position. So I think that 'generally' is supportable for the Birmingham article, 'by some' supportable for the Manchester article - perhaps with some reference to the recent increase in this perception - and then have further information (for those interested) on the Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom article. Let's at least keep the Birmingham and Manchester articles as close to the facts as we can and free from partisan description, which seems to be affecting Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom article, which currently reads as though it was largely written by someone responsible for tourism in the North West of England. (Manchester this, Manchester that, Manchester this, did I mention that Manchester has some cars running on biodiesel?, oh yes, there's also a place called Birmingham and I think there were once upon a time places like York, Bristol, etc., oh well, better get back to Manchester this, Manchester that!) ;-) Matthew 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is fine and is about Birmingham City. Birmingham's 1m population vs Manchester's 400k population. If there is any city in England that should even be disputing whether Birmingham is the second city it's Leeds. Leeds has population of around 700k which is far more than Manchester's. MrBobla 09:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. The official city populations are no proper guide to the real urban populations of the conurbations. But even on official population figures, Birmingham has many more people than Leeds; Birmingham comes in at 922,000, Leeds at 715,000. Manchester's Local Authority population at 437,000 appears to be much smaller, but this is only an artefact of the boundaries of district councils. By any standards, even just glancing at a map, the Manchester urban area is vastly bigger than that of Leeds. Government figures for the Greater Manchester conurbation typically give a figure of 2.2 million; Leeds-Bradford (West Yorkshire conurbation) is typically given as 1.3million, although the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County has a population of 2.1 million. (this has fairly substantial "green gaps" in between some of it's towns, unlike Greater Manchester, which is more contiguous). Greater Birmingham, eg, the urban region of the West Midlands, excluding Coventry which has a green gap, is often said to have a population of 2.28 million. Therefore the prize of "second city" must either go to Manchester or Birmingham and is traditionally hotly contested between them. Just strictly on local authority figures, it is Birmingham, but on more widely accepted urban area calculations, and other indicators of city status such as number of government offices, corporate HQ's, big buildings, public facilities, star cultural attractions, etc, many think it is Manchester. In terms of "city boasts", Birmingham no longer adamantly claims itself to be the "second city" to quite the extent it used to. In terms of transport connections, media perception, perception of people in the capital and national polls, Manchester tends to come out as the "perceived second city". MarkThomas 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cities are ranked by population since that's the most reliable quantification available. Opinions / opinion polls are based on opinion and not facts. District council’s boundaries are official. MrBobla 10:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately many don't agree with you MrBobla; check out the controversy for example on World Cities for more. The concept of a city is about more than just population or administrative districts, it is widely accepted to include issues such as culture, perception, connectedness, space, land use, etc, etc. The concept of "second city" is a concept about importance, not just about the statistics of population. But even on the very narrow definition of the latter that you are seeking to employ, your argument that Leeds is the second city is absurd. On the narrow definitions you want us to use, Birmingham is the second city of England. But in cultural terms, one only has to look for example at the recent decision of the BBC to relocate many of it's personnel - they did not hesitate in any way to relocate them to Manchester. Birmingham was apparently never even considered. Clearly to the managers of one of the UK's key cultural institutions, there is no doubt that Manchester is the second city. MarkThomas 11:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire whatsoever to wade into this second city debate. I will say, however, that your comment smacks a little of the "Greater Manchester" disease that Manchester seems to be suffering from in it's claim for second city. The Manchester BBC bid lost out, completely. It wasn't even there in the running at the final decision stage. In fact, the Salford BBC bid won the money. That might be in the conurbation, but it's not part of the contested second city. Maybe Salford should get in on the act too? User:lofichic 00:32 12th March 2007 (GMT)

Again only based on opinion. Second largest population is what it's about, anything else is just opinion. For the sake of time wasting I'll let you think Manchester has the second largest population and for you to back it up with opinion polls. MrBobla 11:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The point you make is not a fair reflection of what's been said. I am not claiming that "official local authority-based determinations" of Manchester's population make it the "second city by population" which appears to be what you are concerned about. By that determination, as I've already made completely clear (as have many, many others, in numerous past iterations of this exact same discussion ad nauseum!), Birmingham is the second city and Manchester comes about 8th. The problem is that most people in Britain would laugh if you told them this, since it is completely clear that Manchester is one of the biggest. Therefore even by population a more common approach would be to look at conurbations and by that count, the order is (1) London, (2) Manchester or Birmingham - probably Manchester, (3) Manchester or Birmingham - probably Birmingham, (4) Glasgow/Strathclyde, (5) Leeds-Bradford and (6) Tyneside. The points about culture which you dismiss as unfactual are nevertheless also important, and so on most counts, both in terms of conurbation population and cultural belief, most people in Britain have Manchester down as second city. MarkThomas 11:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is yet another example of the dreadful standard of this website. The article is very poor- to think they were considering it as a featured article! The line about Birmingham 'is widely considered to be the second city' is just laughable. It is the second city. There is no debate about that. I changed it to 'is the second city' and the website editors came along and told me 'thanks for experimenting, now use the sandbox'. For a start that is an incredibley patronising way to speak to someone and on this instance it was entirely unjustified. Wikipedia is dreadful- no wonder people refer to it as 'Shitipedia' or 'Wankypedia'

user My Box

-- I've kept this open as someone has posted a fresh comment. Feel free to archive if necessary. Simply south 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I must be a fool to even think about joining this discussion, which shows every sign of never being resolved. If I were a Martian scientist contributing to this article I think I'd write, Birmingham and Manchester compete vigorously for the title of "the United Kingdom's Second City", and leave it at that. Unfortunately, I'm sure there are present and future proponents on both sides who will not be able to agree to disagree. (In the interests of disclosure: I grew up in the Eighth City of Canada and today live in what is apparently either the Second or Third City of the UK, but I really don't care very much about the rankings either way.) Brianlucas 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Too much talk of venice?

The section about canals seems to be more of a defence of the canals of venice than some information about the canals of birmingham..is it REALLY needed? 82.15.7.144 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

not really, Birmingham's canals were for transport of heavy goods not used in the same way as venice, taxi's etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.134.195 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Pertemps Bees

Although physically located in Solihull, the rugby team Birmingham & Solihull R.F.C. (Pertemps Bees) self-evidently identifies itself in part with Birmingham. By dint of this, should it be included in the table of teams from the city? Thoughts, anyone?

yes it was there originally but someone later removed it

Birmingham City Council URLs

Please note that all "long" BCC URLs (in the form "http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=321&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=6&MENU_ID=1760") will cease to work, later this year. Short URLs, in the form "http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/towerhilllibrary" will continue to work. Short URLs with the appended ".bcc" (e.g. those in the form "http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/towerhilllibrary.bcc" are not supported, and may also cease to work. A list of many, but not all, of the currently available short URLs is at http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/urls and will be added to over the coming weeks. Apologies for any inconvenience. BCCWebTeam 14:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ward URLs

Our perma-URLs for wards in Birmingham are www.birmingham.gov.uk/xxxx, where xxxx is one of:

• acocksgreen
• aston
• bartleygreen
• billesley
• bordesleygreen
• bournville
• brandwood
• edgbastonward
• erdingtonward
• hallgreenward
• handsworthwood
• harborne
• hodgehillward
• kingsnorton
• kingstanding
• ladywoodward
• longbridge
• lozellseasthandsworth
• moseleykingsheath
• nechells
• northfieldward
• oscott
• perrybarrward
• quinton
• sellyoakward
• shardend
• sheldon
• soho
• sparkbrook
• springfield
• stocklandgreen
• southyardley
• stechfordyardleynorth
• suttonfouroaks
• suttonnewhall
• suttontrinity
• suttonvesey
• tyburn
• washwoodheath
• weoley

BCCWebTeam 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)