Jump to content

Talk:Bexleyheath

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

London or Kent

[edit]

Bexleyheath has a position within both London and Kent. Both are important for any understanding of the town today. I am not taking sides in the debate about counties, the ABC can do that, but it cannot be disputed that Bexleyheath is in the historic county of Kent, a fact that has a significant bearing on the town and population today. This alone justifies reference to Kent at the start of the article and does not contradict any WP policies. The awkward situation regarding what is and is not a county is an unfortunate result of ambiguity developed over time. It means there is no simple one line description of where Bexleyheath, or numerous other towns, actually are. Better to spell it out in several statements rather than choose one and exclude the others. Doing the latter would be doing a dis-service to the intent of wikipedia.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the exact same thing about Woolwich, Greenwich or Lewisham. Justgravy (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar but not the same and certainly not exactly the same. The main difference that those other places closer in have no living inhabitants who remember having a practical every day link to Kent. But, despite that Woolwich and the others are in the Historic County of Kent and links still exist, weaker though they are the links between Bexleyheath and Kent. For that reason alone mention should be made of he Kent links in the articles about Woolwich and many other places closer in to London. Sadly this rarely happens. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself calls historic counties 'former counties'. They no longer exist. To say a place is in a county that doesn't exist is inaccurate and misleading. The fact the historic counties pushers don't tryta claim other areas of London that were previously in Kent shows they have no conviction in their own beliefs. It's simply a backdoor way of saying somewhere they personally view as Kent should be called Kent. It's things like this that give Wikipedia a bad name and cause people to distrust the information within. Riteinit (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning for anyone reading this that Riteinit is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Town or District

[edit]

@Southlondoneye I can see what you are trying to do both here with Bexleyheath and elsewhere, but you are IMO on a hiding to nothing. You cannot standardise the whole of London in this way because London is not a standardised entity. One of the latest way of catagorising London might be to create different 'districts' but that is simply a administrative exercise. Bexleyheath, the subject of this article, is a town, not a district. It gives its name to the district you refer to but does not change its status as a town.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term town is a specific categorisation for which Bexleyheath does not qualify. Despite sometimes colloquially being referred to as such, it is not a 'town'. Stylistic consistency dictates that articles for neighbourhoods in Inner and Outer London refer to them as districts, hence the necessity of the change. Southlondoneye (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Southlondoneye I refer to your edit and comment today. The London plan does not dictate what is or is not a town, or a village or a hamlet. It has merely created 35 areas of Greater London to help promote the greater good of London. One of those areas happens to be called Bexleyheath, presumably because the powers that be deemed Bexleyheath to be the most significant town in that area, a custom followed with most of the other 34 areas. Bexleyheath, the subject of this article is not the Bexleyheath you are referring to. If you think the Bexleyheath of the Greater London Plan warrants an article of its own then why not start one up? Alternatively, why not insert reference to the GLP district of Bexleyheath somewhere lower down. There is an obvious link between the two Bexleyheaths, even though they are not the same. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the term town is a specific categorisation for which Bexleyheath does not qualify. Despite sometimes colloquially being referred to as such, it is not a 'town'. Stylistic consistency dictates that articles for neighbourhoods in Inner and Outer London refer to them as districts, hence the necessity of the change. Southlondoneye —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Southlondoneye, could you provide a link to the discussion in which the consensus for this terminology was reached? Maybe that would help convince others... Jdcooper (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion was started here on 29 April. That might help with consensus (or lack of it). Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

[edit]

Over the next couple of weeks I'm going to try to rationalise the lists of notable residents of Bexley towns. Each one currently has a long and unsourced lists of people who might have gone to school there, may anecdotally have been seen in the area, may be from a neighbouring town etc. (see Sidcup for example). Also, many people were born in, say, Bexleyheath but grew up in, say, Welling. Meanwhile the article List of people from Bexley is woefully underpopulated. So I'm going to try to migrate most of the lists to there as a central list (with fully explanation of their local connection and history etc), add them to the articles about their secondary schools if the sources back that up, and only leave people on the list in articles about the specific towns if the source clearly states that they lived in that place. (see current list at Bexleyheath for an example). This should make the info more reliable, easier to check, and easier to understand. Any comments, objections, suggestions? Jdcooper (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the Notable residents list. Kate Bush while born at Bexley Maternity Hospital in Erith road, she was never resident in Bexleyheath. She grew up at the family home at East Wickham farm just outside Welling.
Also the entry for Roger Moore and Dorothy Squires states they lived at the Mount Bexleyheath, they didn't. They lived at St Mary's Mount, Wansunt road in the Coldblow area of Bexley village. The confusion is understandable as there was a house called the mount in Bexleyheath, it stood where the Fairway is at Bexleyheath golf course this was demolished before Moore and Squire met. I'm not going to edit the page due to the edit war it seems to have suffered. But in the interest of accuracy the edits should take place. I can provide sources to verify this if required. Barneyuk (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that update. Why not edit it yourself if you have sources? This isn't a contentious issue. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain why I wasn't editing. I will however carry out the edits later today. Barneyuk (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bexleyheath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bexleyheath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

County confusion and edit wars

[edit]

This comment applies to articles about the other nearby places and the edit wars that have just started -November 2017. This problem runs deeper and affects the whole of WP's treatment of the UK. Some facts would help. In context here 'Kent' refers to the historic county, not the ceremonial county. 'London' refers to the ceremonial county, whose correct name is Greater London. They are different things so there is no need to argue that a place is in one county so it cannot be in the other. WP policy is to refer to the ceremonial county as where a place 'is'. It is also WP policy, if relevant, to refer a place's historic county in the lead. For places in Bexley this is certainly relevant. The word 'historic' relates to the past (eg what has made Kent what it is today) but not necessarily to something that has ended (Canterbury Cathedral is an historic building). The word is unfortunate and some people choose to use 'traditional' instead, such as the government. There is no evidence that the HC of Kent has ever been abolished. It has lost its administrative role but that is all. The way local govt has developed and changed over time has been less than straightforward and one ambiguity has fed of another and we have ended up with the confusion we currently have. WP's approach seems to be reasonably well intended but it is not as clearly laid out as, in my opinion, it should be. This has caused the muddle that has developed in Bexley and in most other articles about UK counties. Perhaps we should all attempt to have WP policy and guidelines clarified rather than constantly edit warring. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A more detailed debate has taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, which is possibly, depending on the type of comment, a better place to make further comments. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in my opinion this dispute has now gone too far. When it implied that an editor attempting to make good-faith improvements, is in instead editing disruptively, there is a problem. There is clearly a POV dispute around the status of historic counties, between those who think the historical counties are current entities, and those who hold some other viewpoint.

This edit was my attempt at presenting the pertinent fact in a neutral fashion. I believe that statement is both true regardless of the "true" present-day status of the historical county and that it makes no assertion about its current status.

Roger 8 Roger reverted that in a way that clearly matches his POV on the truth of the matter. I'd also point out using a source in the manner he is doing is contrary to WP procedures, especially when there is no mention of Bexleyheath - as far as I can tell he's inserted it solely to justify the "is".

I'd like to see this saga closed off soon. Its already in WP:LAME territory for splitting hairs over "is" or "was". It shouldn't be necessary to resort to a straw-poll here, as a NPOV approach is perfectly reasonable here.

Pinging Acaptial, Blue Square Thing, ClemRutter, Ghmyrtle, Mr Stephen Rodw and Warofdreams who have been involved in similar discussions recently.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to come up ever few years. It's important to make clear which administrative county places fall into, and it is of great interest which historic county or counties they have traditionally been part of. Where the ceremonial county is different, that is also worth noting. The government has made clear that the traditional counties have some kind of continuing existence (it's unclear whether this also applies to parts of counties, such as the ridings of Yorkshire). Given that the traditional counties are not used for any official purpose, this comes as a surprise to many people. So, in my view, it's accurate to say that places are part of one or more historic or traditional counties, but it's generally clearer to use wording along the lines of "historically in...", where the word historically can link to a full explanation of the status - it's definitely overkill to labour the point in every article on a British settlement. Warofdreams talk 02:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nilfanion I did not call your edits 'good faith' because there was no room left on the edit summary slot. I have no doubt at all that your edits are in good faith and I welcome them because the detail and reasoning you give are usually lacking in some other editors. I regret causing offense, if that is what I did. Now, back on topic, even though this discussion should occur here.
The debate should be about how best to incorporate the HCs into articles where the CCs take primacy, which is WP policy for UK county articles. That seems to be what the guidelines tried to do when written years ago, but this has not worked properly, as evidenced by thousands of examples of confusion throughout WP. The debate should absolutely not be about whether the HCs still exist because the evidence that they do is overwhelming, and quite frankly I am fed up with constantly being dragged off course with a yes they do, no they don't, squabble. The source I inserted was an attempt to stop this pointless distraction. It was not ideally located, as I said and as I suggested it be moved/tidied, but it was nevertheless a top reliable source dealing with the is/was issue.
It is hard to see how I am breaching wp:npov. I have supplied a wp:rs to confirm the tense of a statement that simply follows WP guidelines-mentioning HCs in the lead. I accept that many people believe the tense should be past, not present, so in order to create balance it might be better to add a contrary statement in the lead- that confirms was, not is. Please, do that if you want but make sure it is properly referenced with absolutely unambiguous citations. Doing that though will make the lead clumsy. I have found it difficult to find such a reliable source. Nearly everywhere, all I find is personal opinion or misunderstanding of the word 'historic', leading to grammatical and factual illogic. I even find some editors who think that a place cannot be in two areas at the same time, meaning that if CC exist, then HCs cannot exist, too, or vice versa. And, yes, I have raised this issue many times before in many parts of the UK, always with what I believe is solid reasoning. I am nearly always met with a refusal to discuss and with other editors' (not my) POVs. So, being accused of be in any way 'disruptive' seems a bit rich. I will give an opinion on the talk page but not intentionally on the main article page. Whatever happens regarding this current debate, unless something significant changes, the problem will crop up again, and again, with different editors in the future. Of that I have no doubt. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Warofdreams I agree that it would be overkill to labour HC status in all place articles. To say that , say, Lewisham or Maidstone are in the HC of Keent, in the leaad, would be odd (for different reasons). But there will be articles where it is relevant to mention which HC a place is in, in the lead, because that fact is relevant to a particular place, such as Bexleyheath or Orpington, or even perhaps Kennington (Surrey CC). And that is not even to mention Rutland or Yorkshire or...and so the list goes on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger: If your message is too long for an edit summary, it should have been left on a talk page. Edit summaries should not be used for complex messages.
The best way to handle a POV dispute is to seek a way to avoid it. There is obviously a POV dispute about this matter, and I'm sure you agree that a dispute exists - even if you cannot see the logic in the other sides position.
The best way to handle this in a neutral fashion is to find a way of describing the historical county that does not actually assert a POV. "Bexleyheath is in Kent" is a POV statement. "Bexleyheath was in Kent" is also a POV statement. Alternative phrasings, such as the one I used, do NOT deny that the historical county exists. But, importantly, it doesn't imply it must exist. Therefore it presents the facts in a more neutral fashion, avoiding any room for dispute. Readers don't care about this, they just want the facts about. Don't bore them with contradictory sources.--Nilfanion (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that for the most part my personal view is neutral-acknowledgement (I wouldn't deny the existence of the historic counties, but I don't really care). What matters to me is making the text as clear as possible to the reader. Saying "<place> is in the historic county of <county>", when you already have "<place> is in (ceremonial county of) <county>" is not ideal. Its repetitive, and potentially awkward to read - we don't want readers doing a double take on a minor point, which prevents them from getting to the meat of the article. Alternative phrasing are both less repetitive and easier to read. They aren't meant to deny the historic county, which is why I struggle to see understand your preference for a more difficult phrasing. Using that better phrasing also removes potential opposition from "historic-county-deniers" - surely that's a good thing?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with almost all that you say, with one exception. The way to handle a POV dispute is to give both opinions, with due wp:weight given to each. That is done with wp:RSs, and not by "avoiding" the issue. Avoiding the issue only compounds the problem because it usually leads to a fudged result that confuses the average reader. The way to deal with a POV issue is to give reliable sources that explain both opinions. What you did to my edit was to remove the RS to create balance which is contrary to basic principles of WP. You, or I, or someone else, should have inserted a RS to give the opposite opinion, but until that happens, my RS must stay. If there is no RS to say that historic counties no longer exist (is/was) then so be it - the dispute is settled. Please take a look at wp:neutrality of sources. It does seem that you are confusing a POV issue with a RS issue. A RS is not a POV. With regard to the whole debate about historic counties I try to stick to RSs and not give a POV. I believe this use of RSs leads to contradictions, but that is because the consensus guidelines are not ideal and contain inherent flaws. I hope that the WP community will accept that and step forward to discuss how best to update those guidelines. I am not pretending this will be easy, county confusion has developed over many decades, but however it is done, change is needed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a sentence charged with a POV (the is/was thing you are fretting about), and by simply presenting that same information in a different way you can completely avoid any POV connotations - why on earth wouldn't you?
Consider the phrase "Bexleyheath is in the historic boundaries of Kent". What is wrong with that? Do you disagree with that? As far as I can tell, that doesn't say the historic Kent does not exist. However, including two sentences that say "X is in the county of Y" and "X is in the county of Z" is confusing. Alternative phrasing both resolves any POV dispute and is clearer to the reader. Furthermore that sentence doesn't need a source stating "historic counties exist", all it needs is a source showing that Bexleyheath is indeed within the boundaries of Kent.
The source you are using is not actually useful for this article - or any other article about a place. It is something that should be used by and discussed in Historic counties of England. A source that doesn't actually give pertinent information isn't relevant even if it might be from a reliable organisation. You are jumping from a source that says "historic counties exist" and using it incorrectly in a sentence says "this specific town is in this specific historic county".--Nilfanion (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to give one opinion about this whole topic it would be that the 'how to write about counties' guidelines that state that HC no longer exist should be changed. It will require further changes to other guidelines about how to refer to 'counties', and in some cases this might involve some seemingly drawn out and pedantic wording, but that will be better in the long run because it will avoid the inherent contradictions that occur by assuming that historic counties no longer exist, based on nothing more than POV consensus and in opposition to overwhelming top rate references that state otherwise. Your 'middle of the road' sentence is good in a way by not giving an opinion either way, so it is hard to object to it. However, by leaving it in place I think all it will do in the long run is postpone the next dispute discussion about HCs. I do have trouble though agreeing to remove the citation I inserted. As I said, it relates to the verb tense (is v was) and not specifically to Bexleyheath or to any place. It would fit equally well in hundreds of other UK town articles. By leaving it there it does not contradict your sentence but allows readers to form their own opinion. If I can offer any compromise solution then this is about as far as I think I can go - your sentence with my reference inserted somewhere with it. I cannot see any contradiction or confusion by having your sentence with my citation. I think it would also comply in all respects with WP editorial policy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are agreeing here, try to get a "middle of the road" statement. There may be some precise phrasing issues to resolve, but I think there are several variants that are acceptable in practice.
The issue with your source is that has literally nothing to do with the content of that sentence, and providing it would add nothing except confusion to someone who actually follows the link. A source for a sentence like "Bexleyheath is within historic Kent" would actually show Bexleyheath in Kent (like an old map). And with a "middle of the road" statement, you don't need even need a source like that to justify the "is": Even if the historic county was 100% defunct Bexleyheath is still in its historic boundaries. With no relation between the source and the sentence, the source isn't suitable.
Furthermore in this particular article, there shouldn't be any citation in the lead on this matter. No article should have a citation in the lead, when the same information is discussed in the body text, in greater detail. In this case, there is more information in the geography section. The cites belong there.
And finally - I agree the guideline on historic counties is dated, but there isn't a need for a drastic revision. The guidance already says the historic county should be mentioned if different to the ceremonial one. The only addition I think that would be of benefit would be to give some example sentences on what to say/not to say (ie promote the middle-of-the-road approach).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, historic counties are also known as former counties. Former, not present. From that alone it should be obvious that historic counties shouldn't be used as a present day geographic reference. As their name suggests, historic counties are a historical reference. Riteinit (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Haye - Daily Mail - etc

[edit]

I thought my deletion might be disputed. I saw that comment you quote from the DM reference about his 'return home to Bexleyheath' but chose to disregard it. This was because 1/ There was no elaboration: he could have been renting a place for a couple of months or staying with a friend, which doesn't really count as being a local resident b/ I had a quick look elsewhere and could not find any other references to his living in Bexleyheath c/ I too am a little concerned about not believing anything the DM publishes, but the WP guide/consensus that I linked to is pretty clear that the DM is unreliable and in nearly all cases should not be used as a reliable source. To me that means that the claim that he is a resident is uncited and can therefore be removed, especially as I looked elsewhere for another citation and could not find one. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that quote is ambiguous. It's true that he may have since moved, but I'm sure if he was staying with a friend it would be phrased in a different way. It requires imagination to think they are referring anything other than his home! I would be happy to change the wording to reflect that he might not still live there. However, you are right (from cursory glance) that there are no other references to Bexleyheath. I found references to him living in Keston, Vauxhall, and "south west London". Short of anything clearer saying he used to live in Bexleyheath I guess it makes sense to leave him off the list for the time being. Jdcooper (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London / Greater London

[edit]

According to Wikiproject London Guidelines nowhere should be described as “Greater” only “London”. People have recently been making a mockery of the Wikiproject and I for one shall not stand for it. I just wanted to make that clear here.Justgravy (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a link to the guideline that you're referring to here? All I can find is WP:LONDONNAMES, which only says to avoid the word "Greater" when naming a list article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly. So you're happy to have a contradiction between list articles and other entities?Justgravy (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not in the guidelines. A consensus to phrase list-article titles WP:CONCISEly doesn't seem at odds with how best to describe where Bexleyheath and Crayford are, so you're right, I wouldn't object if they were phrased differently. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A credible editor would not stand for such contradiction in their encyclopedia. This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about, and you expect me to think that Wikipedia is not institutionally biased...Justgravy (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historic County in Lead

[edit]

I am opening a discussion here about having the historic county in the lead of an article. Roger 8 Roger suggests there is a guideline about it, but all I can really find that is concrete (i.e. not in a small nutshell which says to be cautious about doing it) are discussions which generally oppose what they are trying to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)/Archive_1Justgravy (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Lead says that the article lead for a UK settlement should "normally cover" the historic county. Putting it in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE seems excessive, though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's your guideline link above JG. You have seen that before though. I am reasonably neutral about where precisely in the lead Kent should be mentioned, but being mentioned is certainly necessary due to the reasonably significant influence being in Kent has on the town. For other places further into GL, that are also in the HC of Kent, such as Lewissham, that influence is (much) less and so IMO there is a case for not mentioning Kent in the lead, as the guidelines contemplate. Incidentally, a better place to expand on this Kent-London debate is not in History but in a Local Govt section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have seen it before, but I fail to see where your argument lies in this, could you please provide quotes from it in your argument. You keep saying that places like Bexleyheath have "significant influence" from Kent whereas places like Lewisham have "much less" influence, however I do not agree with this and would ask you to please prove it.Justgravy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historic counties don't exist. They're from history, as in of the past, as in no longer in existence. Winston Churchill is a historic Prime Minister. Is he Prime Minister now? No. All this nonsense is simply an attempt to turn the clock back by people who wanna live in the past. Basically, it's very wrong coz it's inaccurate and misleading. No one in Bexleyheath pays tax to Kent or votes in Kent elections, why, coz they don't live in Kent, they live in London. Riteinit (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but still pretty relevant here, within Riteinit's rant lies the nub of where, IMO, the underlying problem lies. The reasoning goes - 1/ Historic counties were formed as admin areas 2/ Therefore when admin areas are altered so are the HCs 3/ Therefore historic counties were once extant areas but they are no longer. This rigid reasoning pervades throughout the wiki approach to UK geography and the minds of many people, such as JG and Riteinit. See Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Guide The flaw in the reasoning is at least twofold - where counties all originally created as admin areas? (Kent was a kingdom), and even if they were all originally set up as admin areas, over time the HCs had taken on different roles which made them at least partly seperate from admin areas. Trying to remove this mindset from the UK Geog Project and make all the necessary guideline alterations is where the real problem lies, not whether Bexleyheath is in Kent or London. Until that happens edit wars like this one will keep occurring. (My comments are not trying to steer the topic in another direction). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Roger 8 Roger is missing here is that Wikipedia has long taken the stance that historic counties do not exist and/or are not relevant, especially in the lead of articles of this nature. Roger is clutching to a very small nutshell which reads: "This page in a nutshell: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution." They are trying to claim historic counties are both, with no proof whatsoever. Furthermore, they are also trying to split hairs by placing such areas into 2 groups, one which satisfies this criteria (according to him) and one which doesn't. This is purely based on their own judgement. These recent changes to such articles should not be allowed to stand and a great many other editors agree... Justgravy (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Lead explicitly says that historic counties are relevant here: that guidelines says that the article lead for a UK settlement should "normally cover [...] the historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county)". If you think London (or parts of London) should be an exception to this, that's better discussed at WikiProject UK geography or WikiProject London so that the same consensus can be established and applied across all relevant articles. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to avoid getting into this debate because, frankly, life is too short, but Justgravy, are you aware that people in LB Bexley have retained Kent as their address, despite being in Greater London administratively? And many retain Kent phone numbers. The whole area is in both Kent and Greater London, which explains the different treatment by different administrative channels. Jdcooper (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what way have they "retained Kent as their address"? What you might not be aware of is that the The Royal Mail removed postal counties from all UK addresses way back in 2000. You might also not be aware that the Royal Mail explicitly states "Each address is therefore not necessarily a geographically accurate description of where a property is located". The same argument can be applied to phone numbers as well. These are private organisations dividing places up to suit themselves and their business needs. They are not trying to tell people where they live and neither do they want to.Justgravy (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My address has always been "Bexleyheath, Kent". But my point was not that those or any other organisation are the arbiters of geography, but that there are clearly vestiges of the historic counties visible in the borough now. I really find it difficult to understand how this is such a controversial issue. Jdcooper (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Royal Mail has now allowed HCs to be used in addresses. RM might not be using the HCs to arrange its address system (that is now based on postcodes), but importantly it accepts that use of the HC is not incorrect. An implication of this is that it is an example of the use of HCs as extant entities in society. It is also interesting that many people choose, correctly as confirmed by RM, to use Kent in their address rather than just a postcode. JG, I think you refer to the 1996 Royal Mail address changes. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdcooper No your address WAS "Bexleyheath, Kent" until 2000, as it clearly says here "According to the Royal Mail, the former postal county data no longer forms part of postal addresses" therefore, your address is XX XXXXXX Road/Street/Avenue etc., Bexleyheath, DA6/7 XXX and has been since 2000. What a great deal of people do not know is that once upon a time, when Postcodes were first created, Bexleyheath was actually part of SE but was removed again a short while later. I have been trying to find information on why places like Bexleyheath were removed from this, but there is very little information regarding it. "vestiges of the historic counties visible in the borough now" I'm afraid you have lost me there? It is a controversial issue because a great many people have no clue where they live!Justgravy (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger Please read my response to Jdcooper above. In addition to this, there are many cases where the historic county of an area contradicts the RM's former Postal County. For example Tatsfield whose historic county is Surrey, but it's former postal county is Kent.Justgravy (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JG, you have not addressed my point. AFAIK, RM sorting addresses are postcode based, as I said and as you have repeated. RM has allowed HCs to be added to the adress even though RM does not use them, making historic counties officially acknowledged by RM. If someone wrote an adress as 1020 Avenue Rd, Bexleyheath, Greater London, DA33 6HT, that would be wrong, because GL is not recognised by RM as forming part of the adresss, unlike HCs. This point about official recognition is extremely important for reasons I am not sure you understand, which is why you are following the wrong line. Yes, Kent in an address relates to where the postal centre is, which is Dartford, but that is another topic. 'Many people have no clue where they live'? We agree! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all your points. You didn't even acknowledge my point that in 1856 when the London Postal District was first created Bexleyheath, and other outlying areas of London, were within it. Back to your point, If by “allow” you mean “ignore” and/or “do not care” then yes they do. But in my book allowing something and ignoring / not caring about something are different. Why don’t you ask the Royal Mail yourself if you’re so adamant that Historic Countiess are officially recognised by them? You will find that the Royal Mail does not care what you put in an address after the Post Town. You could put Bexleyheath, The Moon for all they care! “This point about official recognition is extremely important for reasons I am not sure you understand, which is why you are following the wrong line” what exactly are you trying to say here? Most of your arguments are just statements with no proof. You keep saying the Royal Mail “allows” and “officially acknowledges” Historic Counties, prove it!Justgravy (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Justgravy, he cant because they dont. RM will let you write whatever you want on the letter, so long as it gives the key details - that doesnt mean they officially endorse it, its just they dont care and they cant stop you. You could write "Rainham, Kent" to an RM postcode and itd still deliver correctly to the right Rainham - itll just annoy the local postman at worst. Unfortunately Roger 8 Roger has a habit of doing this to a LOT of pages relating to locations and incorrectly describing them to readers. Someone posted an order for information above, and really the sub should universally be converted to this to be consistent - as it stands, this page doesnt follow that. Other areas are having similar issues where trolls as part of a fringe group pushing for recognition of historic counties are trying to edit wikipedia pages to reflect their political beliefs - hell ive just noticed Romford was attacked a few days ago when i was looking up the style used on other pages. Its probably worth this page is looked at again, and the first line edited to show a clear priority of information Garfie489 (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock

[edit]

Why is this page still locked down?

Why not register and all will be revealed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historical county

[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Historical_county. MRSC (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bexleyheath is not in Kent

[edit]

As per the link above, we do not say, in wikivoice, that a place remains within a historic county in present tense. Bexleyheath is not in Kent. Historical counties are historical, and this is the guideline per WP:UKCOUNTIES and WP:UKTOWNS. I have removed the reinsertion of: Bexleyheath is in the historic county of Kent. This text is not complaint with the guidelines. It is also, incidentally, unsourced. It is certainly true that Bexleyheath was in Kent, although the sentence on its own is then a little random. I would support text that describes its history, explaining that it was in Kent until the creation of Greater London. This would preferably be a fuller history than just that sentence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The phrase "historic county" implies the past tense. If I said "Bexleyheath was in the historic county of Kent", it would create ambiguity whether I meant it was moved to a different historic county. I understand that you and other editors have some allergy to mentioning this in the lead section, which is fine, but surely this information belongs in the History section at least? Jdcooper (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I have no issues with the new wording. Thanks for the edit. The issue with saying it is in the historic county, present tense, is that the phrasing is ambiguous. It can be understood as "it is in the area that formed the historic (i.e. not current) county of Kent" or as "it exists in an extant thing known as a historic county that persists alongside administrative and ceremonial counties, although not coextensive with either of these". That latter understanding is specifically excluded in wikivoice, per WP:UKCOUNTIES which says: Editors must be mindful of fostering and/or introducing anachronism into former county articles. Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. Your edit, The area was part of the historic county of Kent until the creation of Greater London in 1965 is entirely in line with the guidelines and good information, albeit unsourced (like much of the page at present). It is not contentious though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy, Jdcooper is correct. The historic counties refer to a specific set of boundaries. Regardless of the London Government Act 1963, the county boundaries referred to by the phrase "historic counties" remain the same, whether they still exist with the former boundaries or not. I ask that you refrain from bulk-editing your preferred wording into Greater London articles whilst discussion continues. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going through this again for the sake of Jdcooper who is probably not aware that this is a minority view you have been asserting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London, Talk:Romford, and many many other pages, and lately at ANI. PC96, you are aware of the consensus view and the guidelines. You are also aware that if you disagree with the guidelines you should open an RFC on them. Unless and until that happens, the matter is a settled one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy - I've replied to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_London#Historic_Counties_(Again). PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be guarded consensus of improving an article body before mentioning HCs in the lead. We now get to another problem that quite frankly has always bewildered me because it is promoted by clearly educated editors. There are three points to this. One, do we refer to a place as is or was in HC X? I thought there was wakening consensus that it depends on the context and does not depend on the current existence or not of HCs. Two, the current existence of HCs. To me there is absolutely no ambiguity at all that they have never been formally abolished (in fact they have been formally kept after their local govt role was removed - see 1889 LG act). Any treatment of them as being no longer in existence can therefore only be because they have become obsolete. That will depend on which place we are talking about because there are levels of obsolete-ness. Three, and perhaps the most baffling, is simply the English language, grammar and meaning. Is/was are both perfectly acceptable: any confusion arises from the reader's ignorance which here we ignore because we must assume a reasonable level of educated understanding. Similarly, saying Bexleyheath is in GL and the HC of Kent, is not in any way confusing. It is no different from saying London is in England and Europe. The solution come up with has been to say 'Bexleyheath was historically in Kent' which IS ambiguous, making it poor English. The word 'historically' does not mean 'historic', they are subtly different. The adjective historic when referring to counties, in the term 'historic counties' can be confusing, even to slightly more educated people. It does not mean 'in the past and not the present: it means established a long time ago and seeped in historical detail. I note the govt refers to HCs as 'traditional counties'. My guess is that is because it removes any ambiguity that the govt is taking the position that HCs do not currently exist. The guidelines say 'we do not take the view that the HC still exist with their previous borders '. What on earth is that supposed to mean? I am speechless! Does it mean they do in fact exist, but with different borders, which is the closest interpretation of that sentence, or that they no longer exist and their previous borders are also no longer in existence? That clumsy sentence would not pass GCSE let alone A level English. Still with English usage, with Bexleyheath, we must not say 'Bexleyheath is not in Kent' without qualification. Even if the consensus default area of a place is its current ceremonial or local govt area, use of that sentence is very ambiguous, if not simply wrong. It is not our fault the word 'county' has many meanings. It is not our job to decide what the word county should mean, which is what that sentence is doing - original research. It is however, our job to remove or explain ambiguity if it exists. How that can be done is rarely discussed here. Whatever we do it must not be to take a definite stand or create further ambiguity about the meaning of the word 'county' Please note with the Derry/Londonderry debate, consensus reached is that one is used for the city and the other for the county, with no decision taken on which is the correct name. That is how consensus should be used, not to override WP policy that statements must be backed by RSSs. (With 'counties', RSSs are hugely variable and ambiguous, so we work with that ambiguity and do not interpret it which is OR and which is what is happening.) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Places of Worship

[edit]

I have left the places of worship section asis for now, although added a source. I am not sure what to do with this though. Bexleyheath has some notable churches that are no longer extant (a grand congregational church for instance, and one of the first Elim Pentecostal assemblies) but this is just a current list, which is fine as that is similar to the schools list. But then, it is only churches, so what about other places of worship for other faiths? Should there be inclusion criteria for the list? Such as the existence of a wikipedia page? Or should the list stress architecture. Would be interested in the thoughts of other editors on this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't wikipedia pages for any of them, nor should there be I guess, so I think that would be too restrictive. If there are notable churches that no longer exist, they could be added to a separate list or the same list with a "(No longer exists)" explanatory note, or included in the "History" section. Both seem reasonable. But the list should definitely include other faiths, why not? as for architecture, I guess we could include any information in a table, if any WP:RS can be easily found (ie. a book about local churches). But one could also argue that that would be unnecessary trivia. I don't have strong feelings either way on that question. Jdcooper (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. I will extend then, rather than redact. I will see what sources I can find. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have ascertained that the congregational church was demolished in 1988 and replaced by a new build URC after a merger of the church with the Presbyterians. The old church can be seen here [1], but at this stage I don't think this is notable information, although I am pretty sure I have read mention of it in a history of Bexleyheath. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2024

[edit]

Please add that Kate Bush was born in Bexleyheath. Dayaaa (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already listed Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a moot point. I think she was born in the nearby Bexleyheath Hospital a short drive from the family home in Welling where she grew up. Technically correct but barely a connection with Bexleyheath.
I'll remove her. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and sorry I forgot to sign my previous comment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bexleyheath&oldid=1229970240"