Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:50, 22 July 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page in a nutshell: There is considerable debate as to whether the second city is Birmingham or Manchester and no conclusion can be drawn from this article. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

May 06-May 07

PoV

The wording "However, these formal city boundaries should not be regarded as the sole criterion", which I removed, has just been replaced. It appears to be an assertion with no supporting citation, and therefore unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. Likewise "the City of London is very small" in the same paragraph. Andy Mabbett 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, as an unbiased encyclopaedia we should not be telling the reader what "should" or "should not" be considering. I've inserted a "some people believe that" to indicate that it's a point of view, but the sentence could probably do with more cleanup. Waggers 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture

Forgot password - Shoot me, but if your having Sheffield on the 'cities of culture' list, you can have Newcastle aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.239.2 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Endless reversions

Can everyone please stop adding in and removing the "Manchester is the third city" quote from the article. It's quite clear to me (and pretty much anyone else reading the article) that:

• Any individual who holds the belief that Birmingham is the Second City must believe that Manchester is at best the Third City (whatever that is)
• Any individual who holds the belief that Manchester is the Second City must believe that Birmingham is at best the Third City

Adding the section back in is simply attempting to points-score, where such a thing really isn't necessary or appropriate. It doesn't need to be here.

(Oh, and before anyone accuses me of partisan behaviour, I've lived in Manchester but my personal belief is that Birmingham is the Second City) Fingerpuppet 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. It's become somewhat vindictive on the Manchester article, where I've proposed possible compromises, and outlined some objections and policies. My personal view as neither a Manc or Brummie, is that they both hold Second city status jointly. Jza84 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A second city isn't always dictated by population or even importance... it could be more stressed in this article. Chicago is at best the 4th most important and third most populous US city... as it stands, this is vital to Manchester and Edinburgh and Glasgow's claims. -MichiganCharms 05:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In the quoted 2002 poll Manchester tops the 3rd City list as well as the 2nd City one (oddly). It's a pity that the 4th city is not included - no doubt Manchester would lead that too (Sheffield would be the correct NPOV answer, of course). (The 2002 poll is actually by Mori North, which might well mean that a majority of those polled had never heard of Birmingham. Only 85% have put London as 1st City - hmmm.) -- roundhouse0 09:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We should seperate the MORI poll from the BBC poll and make the distinction that Manchester tops the poll for second city and third city (in england) as voted by people in the north of england. Sprigot 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is no comment on this I will add it in the set of edits. Sprigot 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The 2002 poll was taken by Mori North, but it was conducted UK-wide - not just in the north of England. Mr Stephen 15:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Citability ? Poll done using MORI Computer Aided Personal Interviewing (CAPI) - but no detail on demograph of respondents - I have emailed MORI and expect answers to two significant questions:

• Who commisioned the poll ? Were they affiliated to Manchester, or "Destination Manchester" (www.destinationmanchester.com - Marketing Manchester) as implied by the poll website
• Details on demograph of respondents - hopefully age, affluence, class, location, etc.

Until these questions are answered I propose that we should seperate the MORI poll from the BBC poll and make the distinction that Manchester tops the poll for second city and third city (in england)

Sprigot 15:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - the poll was commisioned by 'Destination Manchester' - Manchester City's PR and Tourism department - to think that this article has become an extension of that marketing campaign is also interesting. Furthermore the poll was conducted 'mainly' in the north of England. I have subsequently edited the article to reflect this information. Sprigot 10:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not how MORI work. If they claim enough data to represent "Most people in UK", then those polled will have come from across the land. A 'mainly north' poll would be useless. You're burning up my WP:AGF here mate. Mr Stephen 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Demograph of respondants matters (if a UK wide poll was made, however due to disinterest, or other reasons, only respondants from a given area, background, ethinicity, etc. this would matter) - if the majority of responses were from the north, obv. this makes a difference, perhaps the southerners couldn't give a monkeys. Sprigot 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember that thing we used to do before just idly sitting in front of a computer screen, trawling google for poor references, i.e. actual, physical, research ? Well I called Sandy at Ipsos MORI North today (got reception) - redirected from the site the reference gave - it was confirmed verbally that the poll had been commissioned by the Manchester Tourist board, with an anecdotal 'mainly' north comment. I'm awaiting confirmation that they can release demographic data of respondants to me (without charge, obviously I'm not going to put my hand in my pocket just for this). If this is released electronically I will post onto wikipedia (copyright allowing). Until then I will remove the anecdotal 'north' reference - although the rest is still valid. Yes I agree my WP:AGF is also at it's tether - I'm bored of being cajolled, needle'd, badgered, etc. - and generally bullyed. Rather than query valid hardcopy evidence, as here or here, or that of the pollsters themselves perhaps you would be better off doing some actual research yourself rather than make cod gangster 'mate' comments. Sprigot 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Well, where to start! Firstly I'm sorry if you feel that I was trying on 'cod gangster' tactics, I assure you that I was not. But, from the top. Yes, the demographics of respondees to polls matters. MORI are well aware of it and make sure that those polled are characteristic of the claimed 'constituency'. I will be astonished if MORI say or release anything that suggests the 2002 poll was not conducted across Britain and properly representative. I asked what Hoskins Hopkins wrote because the book is not available in the libraries open to me, and it would be easier for someone who posseses the book to give a quote than it would be for me to get librarians to try and track it down via ILL. Can't you do that? I don't know what your second diff has to do with me. As to what querying 'pollsters themselves', I am happy to fully take on board the results of two independent and statistically significant polls, conducted across the UK, five years apart (and both postdating Hopkins), that show the opinion of the general public on the matter of the second city. I don't doubt there will be other polls (either in the future or existing and supressed by interested parties) with contrary results, but we do not have crystal balls and should write according to the public data. Mr Stephen 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BBC 'Second City' Poll

Was the BBC's recent poll not a vote to find ENGLAND'S Second City, not that of the entire UK? I think this should be made clear, it is misleading. I'd say Edinburgh has more of a claim to second city status than Manchester, considering it's historic importance and the fact it's the biggest tourist centre and the biggest economic centre outside of London (as stated on its own Misplaced Pages page). And also just simply the fact that it is the capital city of Britain's "second country". We English are so bad at thinking 'England' and 'the UK' are interchangeable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.199.181.47 (talk • contribs).

I have ammended the article to reflect this comment - thank you mystery poster - please point out any other items like this - it certainly helps. Sprigot 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Largest local authority (in Europe) and largest wards (in the UK)

I think it would be valuable to add the following:

"Birmingham City Council is the largest local authority in Europe and is notable for having the largest wards by population in the whole of the UK (each ward has approximately 18,000 voters)."

Source: Misplaced Pages - Birmingham City Council

Sprigot 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is no comment on this I will add it in the set of edits. Sprigot 14:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Added section on "Local Government" - with the above quote. Sprigot 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote by Sir Digby Jones, Minister of State at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Foreign Office

I think it would be valuable to add the following:

" Sir Digby Jones, Minister of State at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Foreign Office (ex-Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)) says "Birmingham is naturally the second most important city in Britain after London because of where she is and how important she is as part of that crossroads,"."

Using the previously mentioned BBC poll article:

Sprigot 11:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would be helpful, but if you insist, don't forget to add "who was born in Birmingham", as per the source. We could find a large number of quotes in this style - ISTR belive John Prescott, DPM, had an opinion on the matter - and they probably won't make a better article. Mr Stephen 11:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So Baron Jones of Birmingham favours Birmingham. Encyclopaedic value - zilch. -- roundhouse0 11:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite (agreeing with Roundhouse) - is this the same Digby Jones who apparently believes Britain should be run in the same way as China with the same labour conditions? And that all railways should be removed as they are uneconomic? To cite just two of his past statemtents when he was "in charge" at the Birmingham "Chamber of Commerce". MarkThomas 12:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A few points on this quotation:

• 1st: given Digby Jones position, he is referencable source as described by Misplaced Pages
• 2nd: Prescott has been extremly discredited, initially with his department being broken up (much of it handed over to the department that Digby Jones is now working at), and secondly with his loss of powers
• 3rd: there are no quotations by Prescott on the subject of "Second city of the UK"
• 4th: there are quotations by Digby Jones on the subject of "Second city of the UK"
• 5th: Political views aside - he is officially going to be going around the world attempting to get international businesses to invest in the UK - not any of us

Sprigot 14:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Added section on Ministerial Opinion, including quotes from Digby Jones and John Prescott. Sprigot 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ministerial Opinion

Sources of opinion on the subject of 'second city of the UK' by it's administrative government and officials is extremly relevent, and I doubt get's much more authorative (apart from the consensus of the population of the UK, of course). Kindly discuss before the wholesale deletion of sections with a reasonible amount of text (and associated editorial effort). Sprigot 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's rubbish. Who cares what John Prescott thinks? Who cares what Digby Jones thinks? All that this article needs to say is that there is some amount of indecision in the country as to which of Birmingham and Manchester is the second city, which it did perfectly well when it was first created. There's no need for long lists of quotes from arbitrary public figures. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What's all this about 2001?

Birmingham is still regularly described as the second city by the media. The current wording appears designed to lend credence to Manchester's claim. TharkunColl 12:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As we've discussed before, this isn't 100% - there is a contrary and long running "assumption" that Manchester is second in both government and industry. We don't have all that in the article right now because of all the dogfighting over rival "proofs" in past iterations of the article - let's not get back into that by making over-bold claims again. MarkThomas 12:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I put the 2001 bit in because the reference (Hopkins) used to support the sentence "Birmingham has generally been described as the second city of the UK since around the First World War." was published in 2001. Hopkins is an historian and so the book should be a WP:RS, but it doesn't seem to be widely available in the libraries; I will WP:AGF and assume that the book really does support the assertion as written. That reference cannot possibly project beyond 2001 and properly take into account the regeneration of Manchester (the book is about Birmingham pre-WWII after all) that led to results of the MORI poll of 2002, the comments in Management Today that were picked up by the BBC in 2005, and the BBC poll in 2007. It is incorrect to assert that Birmingham has a clear run post-2000. Mr Stephen 13:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Endless reversions above. In the quoted 2002 poll Manchester tops the 3rd City list as well as the 2nd City one. Also as the 2002 poll is actually by Mori North, it may well explain why the majority of those polled didn't consider Birmingham - in fact only 85% put London as 1st City. I believe this should be stated explictly in the article. Sprigot 14:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Manchester 'close to second city' - implies not yet nor not quite

The following reference Manchester 'close to second city' (Access Date:2006-05-03, Publisher:BBC NEWS (in 2005)), used in Machester's defence of the claim of 2nd city of the UK implies that Manchester is not yet nor not quite the 2nd city of the UK - I think it would be valuable that this is explicitly stated in the article. Sprigot 14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on the following quotations and associated article

Re: Mancunian appreciation of Birmingham Second City of the UK

I find the following quotations, from the above article, appropriate to this discussion - opinions welcomed:

• "Second City? So what? So which one is the second city? Personally I couldn't care less about second city status, who wants to be second?"

• "The City of Birmingham municipal area has over 1 million people, compared to only 450,000 or so within the City of Manchester. It's true, the surrounding conurbations of both cities - Greater Manchester and the West Midlands - are each in the region of 3 million, but until Manchester addresses the problem of its under-sized municipal authority and creates a larger city authority, like Birmingham did many years ago, then the second city of England, indeed the second city of the UK, by population and land area, is, without a shadow of a doubt: Birmingham."

Sprigot 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is an advert for airtravel / flights an appropriate reference ?

Is an advert for airtravel / flights an appropriate reference source for wikipedia ? Opinion welcomed.

RE: Manchester second city flights (accessdate: 2007-07-19, publisher: BootsnAll Travel Network, year: 2007)

Sprigot 00:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable as it show that it is regarded by many as being the UK's second city and it is the "about" section you need to look at for details and it is not an advert but links to an advertising site as does all of the news articles used against the third city "statement". XAndreWx 00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Now a dead link. Removed. Sprigot 08:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing dead about it. Mr Stephen 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your right - my link was bad above, not the article link - however does an advert for airtravel consistute a reliable, referencable, authorative source ? Sprigot 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Rational Debate

Rather than exasperate the current situation, which has already led to blocks for certain contributors, this is a request for Rational Debate - and to an extent clemency.

Can I kindly ask that all but the most minor of changes are discussed on this page prior to inclusion, so as to ensure we all get a fair say without having to come close to breaking any Misplaced Pages rules.

Opinions on this - and how formal or informal it should be - are obviously welcomed.

I want to see everyone get a fair say - and feel included - without being punished for it.

There is a lot of strong feeling about the subject matter, and it's obvious that our heated debate needs to be limited to this Talk Page rather than the article itself.

If any of you feel that this article will potentially affect the WP:GA candidate application of the Manchester article - then I genuinly hope that by adopting this behaviour we can ensure there is a previously unseen level of maturity around the editorship of this article that ultimatly contributes to that end.

Finally I'd like to say "all the best" to ALL contributors of the Second city of the United Kingdom article. Sprigot 09:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly concur with all of the above, but also want to remind everyone that Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum - there's a danger that such debates may turn the talk page into a discussion on the subject matter itself rather than on improving the article. That eventuality should be avoided if at all possible. Waggers 20:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with your sentiment Sprigot and will do my best to uphold mature debate with others on this page so that we can ensure a good NPOV article in the true spirit of Misplaced Pages!79.73.183.95 00:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, to start this off, can we all agree or disagree with my statement earlier that:

• Any individual who holds the belief that Birmingham is the Second City must believe that Manchester is at best the Third City
• Any individual who holds the belief that Manchester is the Second City must believe that Birmingham is at best the Third City

As can be seen by the debate on this page, and the endless reversions back and forth from both sides of the debate, can we all actually agree that the debate exists, whatever the merits of either case? If so, then we have a place to move forward from. Fingerpuppet 00:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was a big fan initially when this article was spun out from second city; it seemed a useful way of concentrating all the argument. But now I pretty much think all the useful content from this article should be merged back with its parent. By 'useful content', I mean something like this:

Birmingham has generally been described as the second city of the UK since around the First World War. (refs to Hopkins, news media) More recently, it has been claimed that Manchester deserves the distinction (refs to polls) and has occasionally been described as the second city in published media. (refs to news media)

Since the formation of the UK, Bristol (ref), Glasgow (ref), and Liverpool (ref) have all also been seen as the second city, and indeed Glasgow was often described as the second city of the entire British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All three cities were prominent because of their economic importance, especially the central role which they played in overseas trade, and are still some of the largest cities in the country.

(There is already content in the main second city article relating to Edinburgh and Dublin.)

Why? Because then it stops contributors thinking that it is useful to continually add more criteria and lists of pointless content to this article. Total irrelevancies like the star rating of the cities' local councils should be stepped on. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 08:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick - I'd be happy with this as a compromise - with the above wording - although I believe only the BBC poll should be referenced - the one by Ipsos MORI North, commissioned by the Manchester tourist board should be left out - it's compromised because of the commission. The page would definatly need to be protected / semi-protected though too. Sprigot 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be deleted and the smallest amount of information be taken from it and moved back to Second city. The entire intro of this page is copied from the Second city article anyway and most of the stuff on here is rubbish anyway. Also the article says that Birmingham's population is 1,001,200 but this article is "Second city of..." which means it is looking at the city and on List of English cities by population the population figure is 970,892 so much of this article is rubbish. XAndreWx 09:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the suggested wording above, but would add "Since the formation of the UK in 1801"; and "and it has occasionally been" for clarity. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "Manchester tops second city poll". BBC NEWS. 2007. Retrieved 2007-02-10.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics