Talk:Manchester/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Revert of "constant vandalism"

Seeing as this reference to Birmingham being a contender for second city status is constantly removed under the title of "vandalism", I have since removed a similar reference to Manchester from the Birmingham page. Personally, I feel that having such references are actually useful in showing a balanced view on the matter.

I request that if this is removed again, please do not label it as vandalism and assume good faith. - Erebus555 10:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Challenges (for want of a better word) from other cities should be mentioned in the article, but not the lead I believe. Stating it is considered by many as the 2nd city is quite helpful for context, but challenges clutter up the article are are in breach of WP:LEAD.

It's not just Birmingham's people (as opposed to Birmingham which is not sentient) who claim Birmingham is the 2nd city, many Scots claim Edinburgh and Glasgow, whilst there are claims for Liverpool too. This is all covered in the second city article. Both Birmingham and Manchester should not have the counter claims (they're just going to be reverted for better or worse) in the lead, but perhaps later in the prose.

I must urge the anon in question however to desist his/her work as they are in breach of multiple policies, including WP:3RR and WP:POINT. Jza84 12:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that the grim mill town of Manchester's nonsense propaganda campaign to laughingly promote itself as the second city has been stopped in its tracks on the Birmingham page - UNLUCKY!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.52.6 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Manchester is a city not a town, and has no textile industry. Manchester is not sentient and cannot promote itself - the claim of second city status (which has no official baring in the UK) is one which is (merely) supported by all claiments by various sources, groups and people. Manchester's are quite high profile, reliable and citable in this instance, and are presented as such for context in a neutral frame of reference. Please do not use the talk page, or indeed articles, for asserting personal points of view (see WP:TALK and WP:POV), as any such contributions are likely to be removed by the editting community. Jza84 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Manchester does indeed have many mills and an extensive textile industry Manchester Textile Manufacturers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.52.6 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

As Does Birmingham. Please sign your comments from hereon, or consider registering if you would like to continue contributing. Jza84 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Added refrences to international media sources to illustrate general reporting in the media of Manchester as the UK's third city, as current statement is misleading and does not reflect an independent viewpoint as per WP:LEAD which specifies a brief explaination of the main controversies. In agreement with this discussion, these references are not a direct claim by the city of Birmingham of second city status. Please assume good faith and inform me if similar references of general reporting can be found for Birmingham as the UK's third city as I was unable to find any?...wonder why that may be? :-) 212.139.103.140 01:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

lol "...Wonder why that may be?" It reminds me of a quote from Brian Redhead, I came accross while seeking a neutral source (Polls are very rarely neutral) - "Ask anyone on a street in Manchester what is the second city of England and they'll tell you - it's a toss up between London and Birmingham." Don't lynch me guys, It made me giggle. Mike33 05:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I must insist that the anon halts this campaign to devalue the status (unofficial, but contextual) of Manchester and citation provided within. The anon is misappropriating citation, claiming two references in the media (which could easily have been written by biased Brummies) represent the entire bredth of the published realm. There's nothing wrong with the statement how it is currently written - it's neutral, referenced and established context. The MORI poll that asserted Manchester holds 2nd city status by it's nature demotes Birmingham to 3rd city (if that), but I don't think that's suitable.

Asking the editting community to "assume good faith" does not qualify as a licence to breach WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. What I suggest is that both cities include that they are often cited as 2nd city - and take the neutralist standpoint (given it's so close), that they jointly hold 2nd city status. Jza84 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly second that - one of the strangest sources they used was a correction from the New York Times going back to 1995. That was 12 years ago!!! Mike33 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There is a requirement to cite sources, but there is also a policy which dictates both to check the reliability and verifiability of the source. Again, by checking against WP:RS, the anon is in breach of policy by misappropriating the source material, as those sources categorically do not statisfy all aspects of reliability.

May I make the anon aware that the three revert rule applies; multiple reverts or instances of edit warring can be reported, and will likely see accounts being blocked and the article protected. Jza84 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put a 3RR warning after yours on his talk page - his obviously has an agenda (see grimy mill town above), but if he does it again in the next day our only recourse is to {{test4}} and report to WP:AIV - its certainly not about addressing the balance. A few hours in the sin bin does wonders. Mike33 23:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Other members of the editing community without partisan interests in promoting Manchester view such edits as perfecly acceptable and substantiated source. [1] Please do not try and intimidate me whilst using Wikipedia.

Such additions were discussed on the Manchester discussion board prior to amendment in line with WP:CIVIL - no counter sources have yet been put forward reporting Birmingham as the 'UK's third city' as I do not believe any credible news organisation would report such. I believe these sources are still fully valid but will comply with WP:CIVIL and discuss further to have them reinstated. Should a satisfactory conclusion not be reached I will take the matter further, as I believe the Manchester article represents only a partisan POV and not that of neutral Encyclopedic content and deliberate attempts are being made to ensure this remains the case. I should however make it clear from my past experience in life that I will not tolerate any form of intimidation as I have regularly experienced when accessing other Manchester related websites.

I've put a 3RR warning on the talk page of Jza84 - who obviously has an agenda and has no right to try and bully and assert greater authority over newer contributors 'because they have been here longer' as can be seen on my talk page. This is certainly not a good exaple to set when trying to encourage new contributors to Wikipedia. 195.212.52.6 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The citations for Manchester being the third city are perfectly valid and should be included. To leave tham out would be POV. TharkunColl 08:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the anon games falsifications - there were never discussions made here as to the intent to include these sources or this kind of phrasing. I also have some concerns over phrases like "I will not tolerate any form of intimidation as I have regularly experienced when accessing other Manchester related websites" - Wikipedia is not Manchester related, and this also suggests you hold a political-point of view that extends beyond the writing of an encyclopedia. Several edittors have expressed concern over your conduct and contributions (who have been following wiki-policy), not just I - I've actually tried to engage with you, which I don't think you've given me credit for. .

As for asserting I "obviously have an agenda" is a fair comment however - my agenda (as a non-Mancunian) is to maintain the article's integrity. The sources you've provided do not satisfy WP:RS; they are from somewhat insignificant, secondary, foreign and outdated sources. One of these actually discusses the size of the Greater Manchester Urban Area, not the cultural status of the city proper. The anon's agenda is crystal clear from his/her contribution history - but let's not go over old ground or get personal.

I actually believe both Birmingham and Manchester should include the second city claim, albeit in an inpartial and reference manner, in the lead sections and the counter claims should be included later in the body of the article. As for claiming no material exists that Birmingham is the second city of the United Kingdom - the MORI poll (which is recent, verifiable, citable, official, accurate, representative, and claims consensus) by its nature of claiming Manchester as second city would place Birmingham as 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th city, or beyond. There are also several other sources which also back this claim. Jza84 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I very much support this phrasing in the lead section of this article. I've applied WP:UKCITIES to this article, and also, per above, included the counter claims of Birmingham's second city status in the main body of the article. I think this is a fair approach. Jza84 23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This statement is misleading and a violation of [WP:LEAD] and it does not reflect an independent viewpoint and leaving out perfectly valid references from respected sources to Manchester as the third city is POV. Please read [WP:LEAD] which specifies a brief explaination of the main controversies. Please also seek concensus on this talk board before making edits in future to comply with WP:CIVIL. I have reverted the statement back to the last version by TharkunColl195.212.52.6 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. You're misappropriating the sources still. Again, "they are from somewhat insignificant, secondary, foreign and outdated sources. One of these actually discusses the size of the Greater Manchester Urban Area, not the cultural status of the city proper." They are in breach of WP:RS. You need to provide better quality sources before you include that phrasing for the reasons outlined above, until then, I'm actually upholding consensus; from a quick glance alone, User:XAndreWx, User:Mike33, User:G-Man, User:Erebus555, User:Lozzaboy, User:The wub have all reverted your changes in the last week now. You're now in breach of WP:POINT, and I'm going to seek assistance from the wider editting community. Jza84 11:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear everybody involved in this debate. Before I start I have to declare that Jza84 has drawn my attention to this debate, presumably so that I will support him or her. I want that known now so it doesn't get 'discovered' and I get accused of being a sock puppet. I am not. I have read through the issues, and with both sides citing policy it isn't easy to make a choice as to what the best way forwards is, but we cannot allow an edit war continue. At first, I was critical of the removal of the cited remarks that anon has been repeatedly leaving, until I came to read WP:LEAD. Then it became obvious to me: Manchester's article is already a little untidy at the start, and I think needs an overhaul. Adding in the third city claim is making the situation worse. Furthermore, I am well aware that there is the scent of aggrandisement in the air, and people are getting a little crazy about what is, essentially, a non-issue. The second city status is non-official, and a divisive waste of time. If it's so important to people, it must go in. But when the content is relatively unimportant, one must pay extra care that its presence does not interfere with the style. On this basis, I have come round to Jza84's argument. (S)he has also acknowledged that the third city claim may be encyclopaedic and that with good references and verifiable should be included in the article. But in the lead, it is ruinous of the flow and placed there, I believe, only for mischief. Therefore, I will endeavour to edit the lead for style following the policies in WP:LEAD. I have already started this, paring down the Manchester claim to be almost exactly the same as the on the Birmingham page. Lastly I wish it to be known that I live in Manchester, but I am from Wales and I have also lived in Birmingham. I have no interest in which is the second city of the uk, beyond stating that, obviously, it is Newport.Alun 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are references to Manchester being the third city, then it's wrong to make its claim to be second city as prominent as that of Birmingham - which is, after all, the second city by all measurable criteria. TharkunColl 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't wrong at all. Firstly, not all criteria are measurable. Secondly there are excellent references to Manchester's claim, and thirdly competing and contrdictory claims can exist for something as nebulous and ill-defined as 'second city'. Whichever way you look at it, if Birmingham's article states a claim to second city status, then so should Manchester's.

There a number of areas where controversies have raged and we can do something mature to produce a balanced solution. If you want an example of good Wikipedia treatment of competing claims, please see Calculus for the claims over who invented it, and Mount Everest for the claims over who first climbed it. Both of these issues were, I dare say, more important than the UK's second city. The method of their resolution is less important (in the Everest case we now definitively know) than is the balanced and mature treatment the controversy gets from the Wikipedia article. Perhaps we can take a leaf from the contributors to these articles?Alun 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good try Alun to propose a very subtle but none the less partisan viewpoint on the issue as a self confirmed resident of Manchester. Both souces quoted are perfectly valid, to claim that a source such as the internationally respected New York Times is not valid is quite frankly laughable. No counter sources have been provided where Birmingham has been quoted as the UK's 'third city' therefore in concensus with TharkunColl Birmingham has a stronger claim which must be reflected as WP:LEAD that requires that the major controversies regarding the subject must be outlined. I've also now included a 3rd reference, the MORI poll data used to justify Manchester's second city claim as this very same poll indicates the majority of respondents (27%) also view Manchester as the UK's third city. This is also a primary source, is therefore stronger than the BBC articles which are secondary source and also illustrates the bias the BBC have used when reporting on the primary data.

Finally if people do not feel that 'second city' status is of significant importance why include it in the the first place? 195.212.52.6 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I always ask for a third opinion, particularly from interested contributors - ask you did with User:TharkunColl (a Brummie you've been working closely with to systematically revert the Second city of the United Kingdom article). I think working with the editting community is great, and I think you'd benefit greatly from registering and learning more about policies and practices of Wikipedia.

Frankly, on this article however, you are being somewhat unhelpful, as we've been through this eariler in the week; The New York Times is a great source, but trouble is in this context, it discusses the size of the Greater Manchester Urban Area, is twelve years old, and does not claim consensus or report on any official titles. For these reasons, it doesn't reach the standard required on WP:RS and I'll have to revert it out. Until you find a better source we can't include it.

As for the other source, well it's written in Asia, and is just "ONE" article. You're using weasel wording to misappropriate that that one source represents an official, broad, or even mainstream view. We already have several sources for the second city.

You're assertion of rehashing the MORI poll doesn't warrent a response really does it? But again, the version I'm appealing we use has been upheld by much more editors, and thus holds consensus. I extend this opportunity now for you to stop this kind of contribution, perhaps register, and join with your fellow editors. Jza84 20:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I've just gone over the sources with in detail. The Channelnewsasia source does indeed claim third city status but is a singular source of questionable reliability. The New York Times is more reliable but claims that Manchester is merely third largest in population. So what if Manchester has fewer people? Such a fact does not exclude a claim of second-city status, because it is more than just about population. Please reread the article on UK's second city if you require further information. Lastly, the MORI poll is reliable and actually doesn't support your view. It may be that more people see Manchester as 3rd city than the other cities listed, but still more people again see Manchester as the second city! If the strength of these claims are to be judges purely on the MORI poll - and this would be woefully unsatisfactory, but it's all you've got - then the following claims in positional order are tenable:

• London is England's first city (85%)
• Manchester is England's second city (34%)
• Birmingham is England's second city (29%)
• Manchester is England's third city (27%)
• Birmingham is England's third city (21%)

etc.

So, what, Manchester is England's second and third city? If you're trying to make Manchester look good, then you're doing a good job! Where would that leave Birmingham? Fourth City? Funnily, if you add the figures up and infer how many people think Manchester is in the 'top three' and compare it to Birmingham, you find that fully ten percent more people consider Manchester in that category than do people about Birmingham.

Now, I've stated before that I think this whole second city is meaningless. I am not partisan in wanting Manchester exaulted because I don't think the concept is meaningful. If it were up to me I'd delete all references to it and forget all about it. I won't though, because I recognise there is a consensus and policy against me. To do so would be vandalism.

That is what is being committed against the Manchester article repeatedly. Filing spurious claims and citing refs that either don't back up what's being claimed, aren't reliable, or are plain contradictory to what's being stated is mischief. A discussion is in place and consensus is against claiming third city status in the lead. Perhaps in the article as a whole, but I'm less sure. It is a gross abuse of good sense to make changes against this consensus then state 'see discussion' on the edit summary; you're citing a contradictory source yet again. User:TharkunColl, you know you are playing up, and I just want you to know one thing. You are wrong to keep making these changes, and they will never stick whilst you are swimming against the tide. Which means you can discuss this and change our minds, turn around and stop abusing Wikipedia, or keep going on with your vandalism. But if you choose the last option, I promise you will tire of it before we do.Alun 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The references referring to Manchester as the third city are fully valid and all from reputable sources. It is clear that it is just partisan involvement from people in Manchester that are trying to supress this information. By doing so this undermines the principals of Wikipedia in providing balanced encyclopaedic content. Please could the user Jza84 refrain from his persistant vandalism. I have posted a further warning on your user page.Rob right 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources which are used are of poor quality and are very much out of date. The fact that it says "It has Britain's third-largest urban population" does not mean it is the third city. The news article is also titled "Britain's Second City Sandblasts Its Image" which shows it is thought of as second city so the article has no relevance to claim of third city so out of date or not it actually says it's the second city. Also Channel NewsAsia is not noted as a reputable media broadcaster and one journalist in Singapore hardly shows it is usually thought of as the third city. The sources are poor and even if reputable sources were found it has no real relevance in the article. I would urge that whoever is constantly creating new accounts and adding the badly sourced comment would refrain from doing so and use their time to do something constructive on wikipedia. XAndreWx 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I must also make involved parties aware that contribution histories are available to view freely on Wikipedia. "Sock puppetsS and single purpose accounts are a form of bad-faith, distruptive editting. They are tracable upon request to an administrator, and usually conclude with offenders (accounts and IP address) being blocked indefinately. Again, those sources are outdated, foreign, secondary, unofficial articles. They do not claim consensus, and are in breach of WP:RS. The article mentions Birminghams claim to second city status as a compromise in the prose. The lead is totally satisfactory in my view, and many others. Jza84 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems an investigation is pointless - User:Rob right's identity (as if we didn't know) has been confirmed here. I'll seek admin help. Jza84 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rob right's account has been suspended by an administrator. However, User:79.73.36.212 has just joined the project and is demostrating highly comparable contributions. Any evidence like this, please document it. It would be more appropriate to engage with other users rather than perform constant reverts, and extend this as yet another opportunity to do so. Jza84 00:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, having searched for 'Manchester "Britain's third city"' on google, there is quite a lot there to support the notion that Manchester is regarded in foriegn media and elsewhere as being the third city. Look at this or this for example. G-Man ! 00:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've maintained, I think the leads of both Manchester and Birmingham should state sometimes/often cited as second city, whilst counter claims are in the prose. The pro-manc MORI poll wouldn't be suitable for Birmingham's lead, and thus neither should outdated, unofficial, secondary, foreign, and dare I say personalised/pov article's be included in Manchester's. The current wording is too hardline for my liking (I liked your [G-Man] wording). Endless revisions by a chronic troll and sockpuppeteer are just not in the spirit of Wikipedia really. Jza84 00:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite, I wouldn't want to put this third city stuff on the intro, but somewhere in the body of the text. I do think it is worth noting though. On a more general note, from what I have seen, the national (London based) media appears to overwhelmingly refer to Birmingham as being the second city, I have yet to see any article from a national newspaper refer to Manchester as this (this might reflect a regional bias perhaps, Manchester is further from London). As far as I can see the only reference to Manchester being the second city comes from these two opinion polls and Manchester based sources, which is why I keep putting in the 'according to recent opinion polls' line which keeps getting removed, as I feel that stating 'Manchester is often regarded as' is rather misleading. I'm glad to see you agree with this. G-Man ! 01:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm not a raging Manc, or even a Manc (!), and have no problems with Birmingham's (more traditional?) holding of second city status. Your wording was 100% neutral, and verifiable - who with a neutral frame of mind could dispute that? I just think that the second city status link in Manchester's lead helps establish context for readers. Mentions of being "more generally considered" third city to me is purely-mischievious.

Perhaps, more could be made of the "Captital of the North" statement, and less of second city statement (swap their place round in the lead)? Again, I'm open to debate, engagement and compromise. Jza84 01:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As a raging Manc I would much rather have no mention than it being mentioned as third city, the inclusion or exclusion doesn't really help the article and its exclusion is probably more NPOV than us continually rehashing how we weasle the phrase, debates about meaningless opinion polls etc. The debates in the archives created this debacle. If it is distracting from what we are here to do, then please lets take a straw poll (from anyone who has edited in say the last two months), like we did with the image issue. I honestly think we are all (myself included) getting obsessed about an issue that really doesnt have a universal importance. Mike33 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is a hate campaign against Manchester's article by User:Rob right as shown right here: [2]. This user appears to have a grudge against our great city and is attempting to devalue the wikipedia article. This shows that there is no credence in anything the user says and his many sockpuppets. XAndreWx 13:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's a straw poll you're after then I'll add my twopenneth. I'm inclined to believe that Birmingham is the UK's second city, but that the UK's second city is a subjective, almost meaningless, concept. As it seems very important to many people then it ought to be left in, and as Manchester has verifiably sound claims it's claimed status must be left in. Any mention of third-city status should not be made in the lead as it is clutter, and as for whether it should be included in the main text, I abstain. 3rd city is surely still more ridiculous when even second city doesn't really mean very much at all. It's like arguing what's the 150th best album of all time. (Come on Feel the Lemonheads if you must know, but who cares?)Alun 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Third city

Why is "Third city" so bad? Capital of the North, First Industrial City... Why are some Mancunians so insecure that they need to take on so many titles? TharkunColl 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This made me chuckle, [3]perhaps we could find a space for it in the main article? Certainly makes some valid points. 79.73.80.166 02:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of 1.8million articles on this paperless encyclopedia , only 4 cities describe them selves as being "third city" - Limerick, Sousse, Patras and San Juan, Trinidad and Tobago. It would appear that it isn't a very descriptive term if so few articles use it. This has nothing to do with Civic Pride, I just feel the word is a misnomer. Mike33 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Third City is a pefectly descriptive term - it means THE CITY AFTER SECOND CITY ie THIRD!!! It never fails to make me laugh the lengths people in Manchester will go to try and twist the truth! Good effort though! 212.139.246.24 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well this one made me wanna puke! Where are UK references?

^{However Manchester is more generally reported by international news media as the UK's third city.}

Here are the UK references! Strangely enough they all say Birmingham is the UK's second city! (even the BBC which stirred up all of this trouble) Hope this argument is now settled!

BBC [4]

Daily Mail

[5]

Independent

[6]

Mirror

[7]

The Sun

[8]

The Guardian

[9]

The Telegraph

[10]

The Times

[11]

Reuters

[12]

212.139.246.24 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What can the guy gain? I actually read all of them just in case. that is sick. :-( Mike33 - t@lk 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "sick" to use your rather offensive term about providing verifiable sources whilst engaged in talk on a discussion page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought such debate about the validity of encyclopaedic content was what Wikipedia was all about? Posting rather offensive warnings on my talk page calling someone a "smart ass" is also against the spirit of Wikipedia so I was lead to believe?212.139.246.24 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can editors please bare in mind that often "different" news reports of the same story on separate sites often eminate from the same news agency. It appears a number of references (to the terror raids in Manchester) justifing that Manchester is the 3rd city come from a single AFP report. At that point I dont think they should really be considered separate sources - the outlets are just outputting what the agency (AFP) fed them. Furthermore, as others have mentioned, I think a 12year old correction is completely without value, 12 years ago I would have agreed Birmingham was definitely the second city. However, times change (as has been discussed other cities have historically also held claim to be the second (and even first city)) and whilst at least Manchester isnt the second city in terms of population, I believe Manchester does have a strong claim in terms of economic/cultural/political importance and prestige and that it should therefore be mentioned. Pit-yacker 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see that this matters at all... in terms of size, Birmingham is obviously the UK's second city. In terms of 'urban area' e.g. the surrounding cities & towns, it's still in second place. Manchester isn't even the third largest city in the UK... it's surrounding conurbation, maybe so. This may be where the problem lies, as Mancunians may like to class towns such as Bolton, Oldham and Stockport as part of Manchester, whilst they clearly aren't. I still don't understand why it is of such importance, to be honest. DShamen 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Department for Communities and Local Government

This department, which is in charge of city-related policy, defines a city as a Primary Urban Area (not the same as an ONS urban area which is an agglomeration). This definition is in the State of the English Cities report at 2.3.5.

The population figures are available from the State of the Cities database. To get the most accurate population figures, select Grouping Type as Theme, select the Theme as Urban Competitiveness, select Place Type as PUA (Ward) and select the Dataset as Total Population - Census Years. Then select Start and End dates as 2001. The download button will then appear. EarlyBird 12:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing there to justify such a figure for the city. TharkunColl 14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the only official Government definition of a city. Please stop reverting the change as it is from an accurate and respected secondary source. Your reverts are simply due to your POV, despite cited sources to the contrary. EarlyBird 14:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not there. The definition of a city is the metropolitan borough. Please find a less obscure source. TharkunColl 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, this is incorrect. The population of a city is not based on the borough with city status and if you believe this to be the case, please cite a source that states this. This document is from the Government department responsible for city-related policy in this country. They produce a document, in conjunction with the Deputy Prime Minister (formerly ODPM), the Office for National Statistics and all the regional bodies. This report is called the State of the English Cities report and defines cities for use within Government. It's as good a source as you can get and I even gave you step-by-step instructions on how to get the figures. EarlyBird 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the Excel document in front of me. Now please tell me where these figures are. TharkunColl 15:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The figures are on the sheet named "2001". EarlyBird 15:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find such a sheet. There is almost nothing on it at all, in fact. TharkunColl 15:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I found the figures with relative ease. I've put in an RfC about this issue to see what others think as regards this issue. EarlyBird 15:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right, I think I've found it. Manchester 1,741,961. Interestingly, it has Birmingham down as 2,293,099. TharkunColl 15:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does. In fact, to be honest I think it's a pretty fair reflection of the size of English cities in comparison to each other. I've been thinking about adding the figures to the articles for all 56 cities when I have time, but I did my home city first. I have, however, created a page listing all the English cities in order of size. EarlyBird 15:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Department for Communities and Local Government

Please see the section above for more information on the dispute. EarlyBird 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary Urban Area for Manchester also includes the neighbouring City of Salford granted city status in 1926. I'm sure the good people of Manchester would not like to mislead people into thinking they were actually bigger than they really are, so I will therefore amend to reflect this and make the statement NPOV. 79.73.183.95 19:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

These areas are described in the document cited as cities. The people who compiled the report are experts in their field. Please stop amending the statement so that it fits your POV unless you have evidence to oppose the citations. EarlyBird 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The citation I have provided shows that the neighbouring City of Salford population figures are also included (granted city status in 1926)[[13]]. Using the Primary Urban Area figures is therefore controversial and requires further explanation as per WP:LEAD to ensure they are presented in a way that is NPOV. I agree that they have used the term city and will ensure this is included. However hiding the fact that these figures include urban areas outside of the Manchester City Council adminsitrative area could be considered censorship.79.73.183.95 21:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't even have time to edit the paragraph in question - Mike33 has removed the whole paragraph which I whole heartedly agree with! At last a bit of good common sense! 79.73.183.95 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the Manchester figure included the population of the City of Salford, in precisely the same way as the London figure includes the City of Westminster. These are definitions of cities from non-partisan experts. EarlyBird 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As you agree, have added reference to Salford to make NPOV. Thanks for your understanding.79.73.183.95 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the FAQ document on the Department for Communities and Local Government website.

As such the 56 PUAs were always intended purely as an analytical device for the State of the Cities Report (SOCR)

Therefore their use in any other situation is invalid, and should be removed from this article. Fingerpuppet 23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

An official list which defines cities by enumerative definition can be found on the Department of Constitutional Affairs webpage. It includes Salford and Westminster separately from Manchester and London. Taken together with Fingerpuppet's points, I would argue that EarlyBird's position collapses.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The figures still don't make sense if Manchester is 441,200 and Salford is 216,400, how does combining the two give us 1,741,000? and we quote the whole of greater manchester as 2,200,000. I am going to bracket the facts until it is clarified and I don't think it should be in the opening in any case, it seems delibrately misleading. Mike33 - t@lk 11:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are all bemused by this website and the figures it gives. Well allow me to solve all your problems. If you look here [14] which is a report of the Manchester area it shows that the area selected includes Oldham, Tameside, Stockport and probably much of Trafford, Salford. So it can't be used as a population figure but there is plenty of other information on there which can be used on the article. Hope you can all calm down now. XAndreWx 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as the area described as "Manchester" in the report just isn't, editors will have to take care in using information from that report. It is a fascinating read in places, but I'd be extremely dubious about anything statistical coming out of it. Most descriptive stuff should be OK though. Fingerpuppet 09:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)