Talk:Birmingham/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Meetup

On a totally different note, there'll be a WikiMeetup in Birmingham in January, which some editors on this page might be interested in. There's the matter of trying to avoid an overly noisy bar, ie one with a big screen showing football, so Brummie residents "on the ground" would be helpful.. Cormaggio ^@ 21:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a million and one places, but 'quiet' and (obviously) near the train station makes me think of Raphael's, by the Central Library. It's also quite light and airy, which is good as the chances of nutters at meetups are quite high, so it'd be easy to get away. There's a Wetherspoon's opposite (slightly cheaper drinks), but Raphael's is always quiet (thanks to that very same Wetherspoons), and they don't play music. Plus there's a really fit barmaid, and a McDonald's nearby. Proto t c 11:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Defining an area and population

Back to population :-) I'm a little confused - are the metropolitan area of Birmingham and the West Midlands conurbation different delineations? It certainly seems so from the two different population figures quoted in this article's opening paragraphs. New 2004 estimates have been released and I don't know which figure(s) to change. Cormaggio ^@ 17:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes - Coventry is part of the West Midlands but can't be considered part of the Birmingham conurbation - drive along the M6 and you'll see why! :-) Matthew 21:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify Matthew's comments. Coventry is part of the West Midlands (county), but is physically separate from the West Midlands conurbation. This includes pretty much the whole of the metropolitan boroughs of Birmingham, Sandwell, Dudley, Walsall and Wolverhampton, the urban half of the metropolitan borough of Solihull (which has most of its population), plus parts of the neighbouring boroughs of North Warwickshire (Coleshill and Water Orton) and Bromsgrove (Hagley). This is as per the source I quote below, although how you define an urban area is open to some debate and I'd suggest many would consider the area around Cannock to be as good as part of the same conurbation. The figure quoted in the article for the conurbation is from the article Largest urban areas of the European Union which quotes National Statistics figures here as a source. (Interestingly enough the figure in the article is 2,275,000 in 2005, the source quotes a figure for 2001 of 2,284,093. I'm unsure where the 2005 figure comes from. The article also quotes a Europe-wide source at the University of Avignon but this source shows the page for the UK as a work in progress and gives no data). The figures you have new estimates for are those for the county so you should change the second figure in the article. IMO, there is actually no good reason to quote the population figures for the county in an article on Birmingham, whereas those for the urban area have some relevancy. I would remove the county figures but someone would only put them back again and there are more useful ways to spend my time... Valiantis 18:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Insurance Market

Does anybody have a citation for the claim that Birmingham is Europe's second-largest insurance market? My father works in insurance and he's quite sceptical of that assertion. Matthew 21:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be where this was taken from originally - Locate Birmingham which includes the very words. I'm not sure this is a wholly unbiased source however. A linked page on the same site states that over 100,000 people work in the financial services industry in B'ham and this fact is sourced back to an (apparently) independent report. This government site clearly states Birmingham is Britain's second largest centre for financial services (and as London is Europe's largest then I guess the claim is not yet disproved). The UK is apparently the largest insurance market in Europe, so again the claim is not disproved. It depends, partly, on what they mean by Birmingham, what they mean by Europe, and what they mean by insurance market :) Valiantis 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

He's quite happy to buy into all of that, other than that Birmingham is Europe's second-largest insurance market - especially given London's prominence in such matters. He believes it far more likely to be somewhere in Switzerland or Germany. Matthew 20:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I would guess it is biased rubbish, like much of this article. London is the biggest, probably followed by Zurich and then Frankfurt. Silly really having it on this page. I doubt from my knowledge of the business life of Birmingham if it is even second in the UK in this sector; Edinburgh and Manchester both have much bigger financial sectors than Birmingham and this will be reflected in insurance. MarkThomas 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As a point of interest, please can you elaborate on the size Manchester's financial services sector? I ask because I don't really have a clue what's there! That Edinburgh's is sizeable is pretty obvious because of the banks and insurance companies headquartered there, but I can't think of anything equivalent that would swell Manchester's financial services sector, and given my anecdotal knowledge that Manchester's would be larger than Birmingham's is a bit of a surprise. I work for one of the Big 4 accountancy firms, for instance, and our Birmingham presence is notably bigger than our Manchester presence. From having spoken with other accountants in and outside the area I'm fairly certain the same applies for the other three Big 4 firms. Plus there are quite a few offshoots from London banks, brokers, insurers, and so on in Birmingham too - so while there aren't any major headquarters, the financial sector's still a major part of the city's economy. Matthew 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrected this now. Not sure if even the more moderate statement I have put in really works; a simple Yellow pages check reveals absolutely no headquarters of notable insurance companies in Birmingham. MarkThomas 12:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the revision works just fine - just because there are no headquarters doesn't mean that there aren't any insurers present. As an easy-to-find example, there's a large Direct Line office beside Snow Hill Station, and there must surely be plenty of companies that aren't household names! :-) Matthew 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that it partly depends on what we're discussing; the Big 4 are different beasts to insurance and if it's true that Birmingham is a particular centre of accounting firms, then let's put that in? Also I have long heard that it is the second city for property firms outside London, and I will look for evidence on this point. However, the particular point I was correcting was the "second in Europe" assertion, which was clearly nonsense. On the Direct Line point, a quick check on their corporate website 1 shows none of their main addresses in Birmingham; they have lots of ordinary business offices though in all the major cities, but I believe the one you are thinking about is a call centre; call centres whilst offering valuable low-paid employment are not what I think many people would consider evidence of a leading role in the market. Most I think would look at things like HQ locations, aggregations of big name company offices, etc. Note that Direct Line's national HQ is in Croydon and it's main subsidiaries are HQ'ed in Glasgow. MarkThomas 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Over a quarter of the UK's exports originate around the Birmingham area"

Is there any evidence for this? It seems very unlikely.86.6.110.247 10:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that Birmingham is the world's biggest manufacturer of buttons =D Even that's being taken over by China though... Erebus555 10:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - though physical exports I could perhaps agree with. However, without a supporting citation I think that the claim should be removed from the article. Any offers of evidence? Matthew 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is not true and seeking further sources at the moment such as govt. statistics. I recall reading for example that just three companies, Rolls Royce Aerospace, British Aerospace and Glaxo Wellcome between them account for 41% of UK exports, and neither of them have anything much to do with Brum. MarkThomas 11:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've corrected this following checks on the official sources; the correct figure for the whole of the West Midlands is 7.1%, don't know what it is for Birmingham city area but is obviously less. MarkThomas 12:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Second city

I've updated this sentence to remove the undue prominence given to Manchester in what is an article about Birmingham. Note that I say the prominence is undue not because I am partisan but because it is given in the opening sentences of the article - this is an article about Birmingham, not about which city is the UK's second city. Let that battle be fought out by those who care particularly on the page that I have linked through to, and I suggest we aim to keep this article free of that particular squabble. Matthew 17:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice this has come up again - and it will keep coming up until the reference is removed.

Firstly, I do not support the use of the word generally, as that implies that the majority of people think this way. Unless you have a reliable source to verify that, it should be taken out. At least the word "some" shows the uncertainty in the labelling.

However, I would advocate removing the claim entirely from the first paragraph of both articles. The introduction to an encyclopaedic article is not the place for unofficial titles and unverifiable information. Stick to facts such as it being the largest of the core cities, and the reader's intelligence fills in the blanks that Birmingham is indeed very important. You can't talk about something as ill-defined as a second city without using weasel words, or the entire long, sourced discussion over at the second city article; let's at least keep the weasel out of the introduction. Aquilina 11:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See comments above re. verifiable sources. Given that there is the general regard shown by the above sources, I think that the second-city description should remain. Matthew 11:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article does not give full information on aspects compared to other large city articles.

I readded it as your is a invalid reason, Please explain better, like what info is missing. also please add in the dispute section of GAs also. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Limassol - partner city?

I can find no sources which say that Limassol, Cyprus is a partner city of Birmingham. Can anyone shed any light onto why it was added? - Erebus555 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible to do's.

I feel that this section is too listed. Could this be editted into paragraphs and possibly sub-headings such as retail, historical, cultural and miscelaneous etc? Other city articles are also doing the same to their sections which have lists in them by breaking them into paragraphs. The list we have is extensive and takes up a lot of room.

Also, I feel we could begin a section on the Birmingham Coat of Arms as there is significant information on it in the article for a summarised section to be added possibly in the politics heading.

The same applies to Religion in Birmingham which would make a sizable and detailed section on the Birmingham page.

Expansion to the Geography section is greatly needed with references as well of course. This will also mean extensive information on the River Rea and its threats to flood in the Digbeth/ Deritend which has affected planning applications for developments such as Digbeth Coach Station. Information on other tornadoes including the 1930s tornado as well as some more information of the last two tornadoes, with the first being the most damaging. Images of the impact and images of other areas of geographical importance would also be greatly appreciated and enhance this section further. Also information on park areas around the city as well as the green belt by the River Cole could help this section alot. Overall, this section needs a lot of expansion work and maybe this article could become a featured article. - Erebus555 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This link will be helpful in the expansion of the geographical section: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=22959 - Erebus555 14:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

RP pronunciation of Birmingham

ˈbɜ:mɪŋˌhæm (as at present - sounds rather like the American place to me) or ˈbɜ:mɪŋˌəm (which sounds more like how most educated British people would pronounce the English city)? 82.36.26.229

Wouldn't educated British people also pronounce the 'g'? (Apologies if I've misunderstood this phoenetic spelling - it's not the easiest of things to fathom without hearing someone prounce the components.) But agreed that nobody British and educated - or uneducated, come to that - would pronounce the 'h'. Matthew 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The IPA character ŋ represents the 'ng' sound on English. I would however agree that the 'h' is not sounded in any British accent I've heard, and the pronuncation suggested by above by 82.36.26.229 seems the correct RP pronunciation. --Safalra 10:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use original research so you'd have to find a source for this, but I am from Birmingham, and I speak RP English, and I always pronounce the h. Ammi 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a standard latin alphabet pronunciation guide, for those of us [myself included] who find IPA confusing and pointless. Lots of Love, Tim.

Vandalism warning on second city status

I think the vandalism warning and threats of auto-reverts should be removed on the "second city" statement. There is evidence both for Manchester and Birmingham being Britain's second cities, including conurbation populations, administrative district populations, urban area definition census data and in addition, other common datums of "city status" such as numbers of corporate headquarters, key transport connections to the capital, media outlets, etc. On many of these definitions, Manchester is significantly ahead of Birmingham. I think this is one of those "local pride" things that people in Birmingham (but increasingly not Birmingham City Council who no longer use the term) have clung to against the evidence; nationally, to institutions like the civil service, the BBC, newspapers, main media organisations, planners, etc, there seems little doubt that Manchester is regarded as the second ranking city in the UK after London, with Edinburgh or Glasgow third. I speak by the way as a citizen of neither Manchester or Birmingham! I do think it's time to overcome this prejudicial statement and alter the text. MarkThomas 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See previous discussions above including, for instance, the general perception in the national media - I'd be vary wary of opening this can of worms again as the matter seems to have been stationary on the Birmingham and Manchester pages on Wikipedia for a good while now, and even the Second City of the UK has been stable without petty advocacy wars going back and forth! Additionally, speaking also as a citizen of neither Manchester nor Birmingham, nor as someone born in either, I think you're very much underestimating Birmingham in comparison with the other cities you mention, perhaps arising through being selective with the criteria by which you're making your measurement. There are no official standards for what a second city is but the non-Mancunian indicators of opinion seem to be that it's typically seen as being Birmingham. Matthew 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Typical of Wikipedia; don't worry about the facts, it's the war we want to avoid! Anyway, there is no such consensus amongst non-Mancunian opinion; if this is so for example, why did the BBC not hesitate for one moment when considering relocation of major staff elements from London that these would logically be deployed in Manchester? Manchester is widely regarded in government as being the second centre. Also note that Birmingham used, for example, to have key financial institutions outside London like a branch of the Bank of England; the latter can now only be found outside London in Manchester, Edinburgh, Leeds and Glasgow. The prosecution rests your honour. MarkThomas 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer your points:

• I think we have the facts covered by the way that the articles currently read, and I also think we have them written in a relatively non-contentious manner, as borne out by the stability of the relevant sections of all articles concerned.
• I don't understand why you think that the BBC chose to locate Radio 5 et al in Manchester because of some kind of 'prestige factor'. Large organisations such as the BBC just don't make snap decisions (where they 'don't hesitate') as to where to locate, and I'm highly sceptical that a place's perceived prestige would come into the consideration at all. Rather, they make considered decisions involving relevant factors, and in the BBC's case I would expect these to include cost, perception to be representing the whole of the UK rather than just the South East (there's already a decent BBC presence in Birmingham with, for instance, The Archers being recorded at The Mailbox, with other TV and radio programmes also being based out of there), the extent of regional coverage (London can cover the southern half of the UK, which includes Birmingham, well enough; Manchester can cover the northern half better than Birmingham can), availability of staff, and suitable premises, given the timing of the move.
• I also don't follow the claim about government.
• Last, there's no key element of the Bank of England outside London. That there's a branch in a given city means little about a city's prestige - and there's certainly an agency in Birmingham because it's in the office I (nominally) work in (he says, writing from Chelmsford.... ;-)) - see http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/contact.htm ! You seem to be defining your own arbitrary criteria of second city (second city = has recent BBC move from London and branch of the Bank of England?) and then applying them without giving much consideration to wider things. Matthew 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the New York Times no less thinks is Britain's second city: Manchester. 1. Now here's the unfortunate Google result for "britains second city": 2 - note the heavy mal-influence of this (incorrect) Wikipedia entry. Currently Wikipedia is misinforming the whole world about this important perception point on England and the UK. It is a matter of urgency that we alter the introductory text to make it plain that far from settled, there is considerable contention on this point, and many national and international authorities regard Manchester as Britain's second city. By the way, another indicator of importance; there is just one foreign consulate in Birmingham, that of India. There are 27 in Manchester. MarkThomas 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How interesting. The link no.2 you have brought up undermines your own argument. As most of the links to second city refer to Birmingham. G-Man * 22:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Having actually read the entire article, it seems implicit to me that the headline 'Britain's Second City Sandblasts Its Image' follows on from the opening paragraph, which reads 'GREATER Manchester has Britain's second-largest urban population'. This is incorrect - and there's a correction at the end of the article to say so. In this case, 'second city' seems to be being attributed by size alone, and that attribution is self-admittedly incorrect.

User:G-Man is right to say that your second link undermines your own point: The Economist, The FT, and Radio 4 all using it to refer to Birmingham, and moving through the pages you see more such references from other reputable sources, and you also see The New York Times using 'second city' in the sense noted above, which seems to have been through a mistake about the size of Greater Manchester. As I have said before on these pages, it's nigh-on impossible to find anything that links Manchester in this way other than the MORI survey that you mention below and coverage of it - I note that you state that there are 'many national and international authorities [that] regard Manchester as Britain's second city', but do not back this up with any evidence. Please also remember the old adage with sources - a bubble doesn't mean a boil. Just because somebody has written something somewhere does not prove a point - the source needs to be reputable, and even reputable sources can make mistakes. The BBC was yesterday referring to 'Turin Bombes'; presumably these exist in the same universe as the 'Turing Shroud'!

I'm not sure why you think there is just one consulate in Birmingham, because there are plenty: Swedish, Indian, Italian, Pakistani, Thai, and so on. Quite why they're needed when London's only a 90-minute train ride away is a question worth asking, but whatever source you're getting your information from, I'd change it! Matthew 21:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all G-Man; I said those links are unfortunate; note however that quite a few are from Birmingham sources. I am looking up a poll done I think by Mori a couple of years ago that asked this question; most thought Manchester was second most important in Britain with Edinburgh third. Surprisingly many put Liverpool and even Bristol ahead of poor Birmingham. I will see if I can find this data. Also note that BBC Radio WM who used to go on about the second city all the time no longer use that phrase at all. MarkThomas 22:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You must be looking at something different to me. By Birmingham based sources I surpose you meen the BBC, the Economist and the Fianancial times to name just a few which refer to Birmingham as the second city. G-Man * 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark, the MORI poll you are after can be found reported by the BBC [[1]]. You'll also note it was backed by Marketing Manchester, so I'd be as sceptical of it as I am of the recent reports that tea is good for you, as backed by the Tea Council! Such organisations are hardly going to release to the public something contrary to their own ends, are they?

The BBC WM thing seems another arbitrary criterion and I don't understand its relevance. Does it mean that if I stop telling my girlfriend that I love her then I don't? Matthew 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Google link as evidence was quite useful and as any statistician will tell you, you can lie with Statistics. You can say, "oh look, top link points to Manchester" or you can say "most of those links say Birmingham is the second city." Now, I think all of this is silly. On the front page we should change that to "The United Kingdom's second largest city." Then the Manchester page can keep the "Second City" comment which can be backed up with Google rankings that are subject to change all the time and google bombing. MrBobla 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you and in disagreement with you. I agree that in themselves Google searches rarely prove anything much. However, they can be useful in determining the kinds of links returned and from this the quality of the sources - as I've discussed above. The population fact is uncontroversial and perhaps should be included, as other towns and cities include their place in the population pecking order. However, for reasons I've previously written here, I think that to remove the 'generally considered to be the UK's second city' wording from the Birmingham article is to misrepresent things. Matthew 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the whole point Matthew - generally considered by who? I have raised a number of evidential points that many important criteria and authorities do not generally consider it to be the second city, which you bat aside as irrelevant or whatever and yet which do undermine the claim here. My point is that it is now only "generally considered" the second city in one place - Birmingham! The rest of the country and the world thinks it's Manchester. Oh and one more set of criteria - second offices of national media outlets. How many national newspapers have a second office in Birmingham? Answer: zero. Manchester? 6. We could go on, but alas, the facts I think scarcely matter here... Birmingham is third or fourth in the UK, but to it's own people, it ranks second! Dubious honour. MarkThomas 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In the past, the title "second city" was given to the city with the largest population. I have not read anywhere of such a change in the rules and seeing that Birmingham over twice the population of Manchester, then Birmingham would be given such a status which it was given in the 1950's after overtaking Glasgow. - Erebus555 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A mere repetition of the trite and simplistic comparison of local authority district populations which have no bearing on relative status; see endless discussions on other city pages about the false picture given by such simple data. Instead consider the more objective criteria of metropolitan county and urban area populations if you want to just go on population, most experts giving Greater Manchester more people than urban West Midlands on those more intelligent criteria. By the criteria you use, there is no London. MarkThomas 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Revised open text not vandalism

It has been extensively discussed (see above) and I have not removed the vandalism warning, although given the lack of factual support in the discussion, it really should be removed. I am happy to have sensible edits to my alteration which I believe is a fair assessment, but will defend against false accusations of vandalism, so please don't waste time making them. At the very least, Manchester and Birmingham are both "considered" by many to be second city, but the reality is that politically, administratively and by conurbation population Manchester is second and therefore the introductory statement, and the surrounding vandalism warning, are false and misrepresentative. MarkThomas 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I had created the warning because this had been discussed before and a decision on how the sentences would be laid out had been decided. This warning would only apply if the reason for the change in word order had not been discussed and decided upon before. I did not add it because I believed in my own view Birmingham was the second city and I didn't want Mancunians and Liverpudlians coming along and editing it. - Erebus555 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed your warning to "The following phrase is controversial, and it would be wise to read some of the Talk page discussions before editing it". --Khendon 08:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)-

Thanks Khendon, note my further attempts to clarify this. Valiantis' rant that we shouldn't mention another city seems foolish to me - clearly the issue is which is the "second city" and many do not think this is Birmingham or Greater Birmingham - therefore this dispute needs reflecting in the introductory text so that we do not have a POV "Birmingham-ist" interpretation. MarkThomas 09:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been here before at least several times. There are a number of problems with mentioning of Manchester on the Birmingham page, including:

• 'general' appears to be the most reflective term of the facts as they exist in the world: see numerous discussions above regarding the use of 'second city'. It seems rather blinkered to suggest that this isn't the current general view;
• this is a page about Birmingham, not about second-city status. 'Generally' makes obvious that this is not set in stone and the link to Second city of the United Kingdom allows people to find out more if it's important to them.
• if there is a need to include Manchester on the Birmingham page then there is at least an equal need (and arguably a greater need, given Birmingham's general consideration as being the second city) to include Birmingham on Manchester's page. This leads to numerous unresolved partisan edit wars as both sides add and delete the other city from the two pages. The historical consensus on both pages has been to keep the wording as it was previously (Birmingham considered generally and Manchester considered by some) with a clear link to the Second city of the United Kingdom page. Up until now this seems to have kept both the Birmingham and Manchester pages free from back-and-forth edit wars as well as documenting the state of affairs. If the wording changes on either the Birmingham or the Manchester pages ... cue undesirable edit wars on both sides. Matthew 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots of POV here, so at least temporarily I have restored the mention of Manchester. The central problem is the "second city" label which should be removed as it is contested, biased and misinforming. Most authorities in the UK regard Manchester as second city. Therefore either the second city label should be modified or Manchester should be recognises. Since the claim is not mentioned on the Manchester page, there is no edit war to get into other than here on the Brum page which repeatedly gets misinformationalised by the pro-Brum crowd desperate to get their faded and fanstasy second city label back on the page. Really just nonsense. MarkThomas 11:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark, you're pushing a POV of your own here (which I consider to be misleading), according to your own criteria. For instance, mention of 'most authorities' without any reference to who these authorities are or any kind of hard, reliable evidence. As such, I'll revert back after this - I think we're headed towards three edits and frozen, or whatever it is that Wikipedia's policy on such things is. Matthew 11:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For all those interested, it has been demonstrated to Majabl many many times that there are numerous authorities both in the UK and internationally who consider Manchester to be the second city, and this is enough to give good grounds that this is a debated issue, which should be reflected in the article. This user persistently ignores this, instead vandalising the page with repeated POV lines that Birmingham is the second city and rejecting any and all attempts to discuss the matter sensibly. The page should be locked with the Manchester reference in place. MarkThomas 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's rather a presumptious conclusion to arrive at - you haven't demonstrated any such thing, which is precisely why we're having this debate. What you have done is set your own arbitrary criteria (for example, number of foreign consulates), half-argued your point with some misleading statistics without reference to source (for example, that there is just one foreign consulate in Birmingham), and then deigned to respond to any counter-arguments. You quite clearly seem to be pushing your own POV with your fingers in your ears to anything to the contrary, and I strongly object to your accusation of vandalism. Please check Wikipedia's definition of [Vandalism] in future before meting out such a claim.

NB in response to Khendon, I am inclined to agree that the wording of the new 'warning' is an improvement on the previous one. Matthew 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Formal city boundaries

People keep making this mistake, so it's worth pointing out (again) specifically and clearly. By size of population within formal city boundaries, Birmingham is indisputably not the second city - it is the first city. The City of London is much smaller than the city of Birmingham. --Khendon 08:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite so, and that pushes us to review conurbation populations - on which most experts think that Greater Manchester is bigger than Greater Birmingham. MarkThomas 09:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark, again you're citing without reference to any sources! Matthew 11:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey results show overwhelming majority of English people believe Manchester to be Britain's second city. BBC survey. MarkThomas 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Google Earth community considers Manchester to be the UK's second city. Google Earth community MarkThomas 12:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting very frustrating now! With regard to the first link, yes, a survey said that 34% of people noted Manchester to be the second city and Birmingham was in second place with 29%, so it's clear that Birmingham isn't the only contender for second city and that some think it to be Manchester. But this is one survey, commissioned by an interested party, and occurred immediately after the Commonwealth Games. It doesn't all of a sudden change the general perception! A couple of months ago The Economist used 'second city' to refer to Birmingham. Does this suddendly change the pendulum back the other way? No, it simply adds to a body of evidence.

With regard to the second link it points to a page that says '"44.6% of all statistics is bullshit"' - I don't follow your point. Matthew 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

29 September 2005. Chief Executive of Manchester City Council, apparently not even bothering to remember to mention poor lowly Birmingham: "Manchester City Council's chief executive, Howard Bernstein, said: "We're not trying to compete with London (sic!), which is out on its own and long may it remain so. But we do want to compete with other successful European regional capitals like Barcelona, Lyon, Glasgow and Frankfurt." MarkThomas 12:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, this doesn't at all change the general view! Can you not fathom a partisan source when you see one? Nobody is disputing that some don't see Manchester as being the UK's second city, nor that the view is unanimously for Birmingham; merely that the general view is towards Birmingham. Note also that he doesn't 'remember to mention mention poor lowly' (and I'm not sure what the use of this emotive language in your point is) Edinburgh, Leeds, Milan, Saint Petersbourg, Gothenburg, Malmö/Copenhagen, or various other successful cities, so by your logic these must all be backwaters too! Matthew 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

LSE popn experts recent report shows that the widely disseminated view that West Midlands conurbation is larger by popn than Greater Manchester is wrong, and also getting more incorrect as time passes. In 2001, the widely published figure was West Midlands: 2.570m and Greater Manchester: 2.513m. But these assesments contain serious mistakes the report says. The West Midlands "contiguous urban area" should exclude Coventry and this gives a figure of 2.19m. Greater Manchester has now swallowed new surrounding towns and the contiguous urbanity has a popn of 3.12m. LSE report on Britain's conurbations MarkThomas 12:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being stupid but I can't at all see where this report mentions any of what you say. Can you provide page and paragraph references? A search for 'Coventry' returns just one item, not relevant to this, and searches for 'Greater Manchester' and 'West Midlands' also return nothing relevant to this. Matthew 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the 2001 Census, the West Midlands Urban Area had a population of 2,284,093; and the Greater Manchester Urban Area had 2,244,931. Coventry/Bedworth Urban Area counts separately at 336,452. The two main urban areas are within the error correction of one another, and depending on how the Urban Area is measured, Liverpool and Manchester can be seen part of the same urban area! However, what has this to do with an article on Birmingham? After all, Wolverhampton is a separate city, and the Black Country is very vocally separate too. Steven J 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This subject is too dull to spend too much time on, but the page on West Midlands Conurbation defines the area in detail as per the ONS definition (the full stats for the whole of England can be seen here) and as Steven J states it does not include Coventry. The LSE article that Mark Thomas links to itself makes the usual error of treating the county boundary as the conurbation boundary for both Greater Manchester & the West Midlands (wrongly including Coventry in the West Midlands conurbation and Wigan in the G.Manchester conurbation) and says nothing whatsoever about G. Manchester swelling to 3.12m that I can find.

I notice, BTW, that Mark Thomas is not taking time to edit the Manchester page to include a reference to Birmingham which he would surely do if he were the even-handed party he makes himself out to be. As the whole two-bald-men-fighting-over-a-comb scenario is laid out in the second city of the United Kingdom article a link to this article is sufficient to satify the tiny number of international readers who may care to indulge themselves in this essentially meaningless local squabble.

I've previously suggested the wording of the sentence should be Birmingham is often described as the second city as this can be factually demonstrated by reference to the numerous descriptions of the city as the second city. IMO "generally considered" makes me immediately ask "by whom?". The word "generally" implies that someone somewhere has counted all the uses of the term "second city" in the UK and confirmed that most of these are to Birmingham. Of course, no-one has done this and I find the use of "generally" weaselly in that it implies a majority that cannot be accurately measured. "Often" implies no majority, merely regularity. I'm sure that even Mr Thomas can agree that B'ham is often called the second city even if he doesn't think that's true. Is Manchester often described as the second city? It is certainly sometimes described as the second city (though mainly by people from manchester as faras I can see - all the sources that get quoted refer back to one poll conducted effectively by Manchester itself, which is therefore to be taken with a huge pinch of salt). Debates about the size of the urban conurbation or the population of the city as per its boundaries are pretty sterile as "second city status" - whatever that means - is clearly not simply a matter of size. Valiantis 20:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

'Often' is moot - I am not sure that I would say 'second city' is used all that often as a descriptive phrase, though when as such it is generally used of Birmingham. Even if it is used often, I think implying no majority of uses of the phrase in reference to Birmingham is under-egging the pudding and in itself being weaselly! Though you don't explicitly say so, you seem to be thinking this too with your distinction between 'often' and 'sometimes', and your note of all sources quoted for Manchester coming either from a partisan source or being in reference to the MORI poll.

Of relevance is that I was a bit bored last night (stuck in a hotel room in Chelmsford!) so started pulling together a list of links cribbed from various media sources by searching for 'second city' on their search pages. It's perhaps worth noting that there were several from the Manchester Guardian, and none I could find there referred to Manchester! Matthew 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Second city" is, for example, regularly used in the names of businesses in the B'ham area (see the Yell search). The same does not appear to be the case with Manchester [2]. Weaselly refers to WP:WEASEL. It's weaselly to state something unprovable as fact. I don't believe that it is unprovable to state that B'ham is often described as the second city - though I conceded this is still a fairly poor phrase. I do think it is unprovable to say it is generally considered. The issue about the majority is that as no-one has counted the opinions of all people in the world or in the UK on this issue, it is wrong to use a term that implies there is a majority view on this subject as this is not empirically verifiable. Personally, I consider that B'ham is the second city - whatever that means - and I think that this is the consensus in the UK as a whole. However, as I can't empirically demonstrate this, then I support avoiding language that implies there is a consensus. Valiantis 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think there are two key problems. The first, as you say, is that it's not possible to conclusively prove a general consideration or feeling. Fraud is generally considered to be wrong, for instance, but is this scientifically provable? I would suggest no more than that it is conclusively provable that Birmingham is generally seen as the second city.

The second is that we are currently looking at things from the perspective that Birmingham is generally seen to be the UK's second city. Would we be better flipping this around and finding some way of writing that when 'second city' is used, especially by non-partisan sources, it is typically used of Birmingham? My only concern with this would be of being too emphatic about it or about not being emphatic enough. Your thoughts? Matthew 14:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, I am certainly no weasel so there! Anyway, down to business. I did used to edit Manchester in similar terms but all the Brummies went over to that page and got rid of it. The problem I would guess is that the Mancunian:Brummie ratio on WP of people interested in editing UK-related pages is about 1:5 whereas the actual importance ratio between the two places (I would hardly glorify Birmingham by calling it a place - more of a coagulated heap of dereliction) - is about 473:11.2 - the result - chaos! Nothing makes sense on this Wikipedia thingy. Anyway, I digress. Second City. What is that exactly? Is it the second biggest by super-metrically time adjusted micro-analysed super dataanalytically assured totally confidently decided on by mega-confident statisticians of supernaturally gifted pan-paranormal weightistically giftamundod megabrainy guys in shiny government towers! Nope. It's what you think. And what most of us think is, well, (and I include all the Brummies because they secretly think it, they're longing to think it, they wish Michael Stipe or Razorlight or ELO would come and tell them) - we think that it's Manchester. That's what the surveys say. That's what the government thinks. That's what foreigners think. That's what the motorway planners (who've bypassed Birmingham with their super M6 Toll Road think and that's what generations of superbly gifted but under-financed railway engineers think. And that, fellow Wikipedians, is what you really think too, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Thank you. MarkThomas 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note I was referring to the use of the phrase "generally considered" as weaselly so in this much I am actually on your side. You may find actually reading others comments properly to be helpful. As to the rest of the nonsense in your last comment, it seems to me that you have a vehemently held POV and there is no evidence that you can put this aside when editing articles. I will therefore amend any POV-pushing edits of yours on this article and see little point continuing to debate the issue with you. Valiantis 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This Mr Mark Thomas has issues and I can't believe he still comes on this page and talks several paragraphs of rubbish. I too will amend his POV before they even get to be seen. MrBobla 11:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's extreme bad manners on WP to edit other people's talk and if you do it will be reverted. Manchester is Britain's second city; the fact that you Brummies don't like the idea on an emotional level, whilst typical, is neither here nor there. MarkThomas 12:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Bleh MrBobla 07:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Units of measure

As the result of someone's recent edit, I notice that the primary units of distance in this article are kilometers, not miles. Is this normal for UK articles? Given that the article is of a UK focus, should miles be the primary units instead? I had a quick look at the Wikipedia style guide but couldn't find anything concrete. Does anyone know the answer? Matthew 13:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what you have done is fine and I have no objections to it. If you changed kilometers to kilometres on an American city article then that is the problem. I found this out after changing meters to metres on American skyscraper articles using AWB and ended up getting blocked for it.--Erebus555 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not just suggesting a change from 'kilometers' to 'kilometres', but also a change from, for instance, '160 kilometres (100 miles)' to '100 miles (160 kilometres), as the primary unit of distance in the UK is miles and not kilometres. Matthew 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I skimmed your post quickly obviously misreading it. This maybe more controversial. Maybe something should be raised with other UK Wikipedians to decide upon this and put it into the MoS. - Erebus555 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem - I've raised this question at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board Matthew 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham moved to Birmingham, England.

When was this decided and who decided this? Also, whoever did this hasn't moved the talk page! Not too happy about it being moved and if this has been moved without a decision then I think we should make a decision to move it back or not. - Erebus555 15:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in total agreement Erebus555, this is a very US-centric move, I think most people around the world think of Birmingham in the UK if they hear "Birmingham" and not "Birmingham, Alabama"! It may be seen however as an accurate disambiguation. Wierdly we also now have a disembodied talk page. I'm for fixing this. MarkThomas 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So the obvious question is, should this be moved back? Simply south 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would do it, but I'm uncertain as to exactly how to - can someone more knowledgeable help please? I have attempted to discuss this by the way with the user who did it who lives in Birmingham, Alabama, but this has been ignored. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the edit can be reverted by an administrator (which i'm not). Simply south 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I can do it using a tool created by User:Lupin but I still think we should get a wider view before we make any moves as this could prove controversial still. - Erebus555 17:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Should this then be listed under WP:RM? Simply south 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but I consider this more as a revert than a move. What do you other guys think? - Erebus555 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the sloppy copy-and-paste move. It should not have been moved at all, by any method. The move caused a huge number of inbound links to go to a disambig page. Also, xxx, England was the wrong form for places in England that require disambig. It would have been (should a move have been warranted) Birmingham, West Midlands. MRSC 18:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Headings on article

Some headings on the article need to be removed or merged to shorten the table of contents. I have already done this to the Transport section but other section such as the Culture and Arts section are proving difficult. How can we do this and therefore turn Birmingham into a featured article? - Erebus555 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How about putting the subsection which are under Culture: Film, newspapers, television and radio under one big sub section called Media? Comments? - Erebus555 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Article title

I think the article should be moved to Birmingham, West Midlands. Birmingham could serve as an effective disambiguation page, and having the UK city located at Birmingham seems to be sort of unfair (at least to me), when you take into account the city in Alabama, which is quite large and notable as well. I moved everything around a bit ago, but it was reverted as something that might be controversial. I had no intention of inciting anything, but since it might be taken that way, what is everyone else's opinion? Voretus the Benevolent 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is with Birmingham, England being the topic of this page, but with dab links to Birmingham, Alabama and other Birminghams. --Portnadler 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the Transport section of the main article

I've moved this here because I don't understand much of it and because there are no citations at all for any of this stuff.

The Birmingham transport is basically a transport hub other than the 12 hour bus service. In the 2005 elections the political parties mentioned that they would construct an underground metro system (light rail system) with upto 12 different lines running through the West Midlands. However this has not been heard of since then. If built this would include over 300 stations all around the Midlands including Tamworth, Wolverhampton, Kidderminster, Solihull, Walsall, Sutton Coldfield, Redditch, Bickenhill, Cannock, Bromsgrove, Dudley, Wombourne, Halesowen, Sandwell, Stratford, Dorridge, Coleshill, Birmingham international airport and Drayton Manor theme park. 98% of these stations would need to be underground to decrease the traffic on roads. It would run 24 hours. This would have to reopen the Curzon street railway station which would make the Eastside a more frequently visited place and a hub for most of the trains coming in to Birmingham city centre along 30 other new stations that would have to be built in order for the transport system to be easy accessible in the city centre. The lowest station would have to be around 50 metres deep in to the city centre and allowing people with disabilities to go there without any help.

If anybody knows where this came from and what the first sentence is supposed to be saying, please clean up and drop back into the article! Matthew 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Article title

I, and I think most Americans don't think of Birmingham, England when we hear "Birmingham". The most common usage in the US is Brimingham, Alabama. I think that "Birmingham" should be a disambiguation page instead. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Birmingham, Alabama is just as important and notable as the Birmingham in the West Midlands. Birmingham should be a disambiguation page. Voretus^talk 14:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Birmingham, England is four times larger, in terms of population, and is also the original city with the name. In the world as a whole, I would contend that Birmingham, England is the first place people would think of when the name is mentioned. --Portnadler 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear link to Birmingham AL at the top of the page, so I don't see how anyone should have trouble finding there way to that article. G-Man * 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Portnadler. Birmingham, England is much larger than Birmingham, Alabama, and so should be the primary meaning. 'Birmingham' should therefore be about the city in England, not a disambiguation. Atomic1609 22:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that Birmingham in England is clearly the most important Birmingham. Gem 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Triumph Motorcycles

Since when have Triumph Motorcycles been a Birmingham manufacturer?

They are originally a Coventry maker, the nearest they got to Brum is Meriden. Now they are in Leicstershire.

Waste Management

Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in the city. Snowman 17:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This would be a good section and Birmingham.gov.uk has many pages which could help. However, there are enough sections as it is and I think we need to find a better place to put it than a section - Erebus555 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1912-1967 Census Figures

What's going on with the figures between these dates? Matthew 20:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have searched lots of websites and none of them contain these dates. One website, which I believe maybe there as a source, notes that the records were destroyed for this period. I have continued searched to get these two but I have discovered nothing. - Erebus555 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How about going old school and going to the library? :-) Surely this information can't have been in one place only! Matthew 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many references to Birmingham.gov.uk

The city website has a vested interest in promoting a positive image of Birmingham and may be a POV source. An effort should be made to introduce better sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarwinPeacock (talk • contribs) 11:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

When I went through the article sourcing statements, I did look at the websites I was adding in the reference tags. I am sure that 90% of what I added is factual and NPOV. I understand how the council website can try to present a positive image for those looking into Birmingham but at the same time it is providing factual information. It is difficult finding other sources because the majority that will provide information on these detailed points are on websites which are providing tourist information for Birmingham. - Erebus555 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed cut down of headings in Culture and Arts in Birmingham

As I have said earliar, I believe there are too many headings in the Culture and Atrs in Birmingham section and some sections need to be merged. This comes as I have recently read the guidelines for featured article status and one of these was that the table of contents must not be long. When comparing the table of contents to other articles, it is probably the largest I have seen. If this was cut down, and I already have commenced this with the transport section, then we could be well on our way to getting Birmingham featured article status.

I believe that two sections need to be created to merge the majority of the sections under Culture and Arts.

The Music section will merge together the Popular Music and Classical Music sections together. The Media section will merge Radio, Television, Newspapers and Film.

I am undecided over the Literature and subsection of Libraries.

Are there any queries or suggestions? - Erebus555 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a split by the way the culture and art is appreciated? Something like reading, seeing, and hearing? Matthew 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Praises

And this is an example of why Wikipedia is great. signed Mr Unknown.

WikiProject:Birmingham, is the time right?

I'm considering putting in a request for WikiProject Birmingham however I don't want to go this alone. I see there are some other contributors to many other Birmingham articles so I just wanted to see who out of these would be willing to participate.

The Birmingham category is very big and detailed and I think the scope of the topic is broad enough for a WikiProject. There are articles on everything and everyone has done a sterling job on them but the beauty of the project is that we can maintain these better and improve upon them.

So please say here if you would participate in this Wikiproject, if created. If you want more information on WikiProjects yourself, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject. Thanks! - Erebus555 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Go on, then - why not? Matthew 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better under the title WikiProject West Midlands. Simply south 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this would give a much greater scope, and it would be more constructive too as the non-Birmingham parts of the West Midlands generally have fewer articles and of less-polished quality. Matthew 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I will put in a request for Wikiproject West Midlands either today or tomorrow depending what's happening. - Erebus555 16:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed the creation of WikiProject: West Midlands at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#West Midlands. If you are interested in participating in the project, if created, please add your name to the list. Thank you. - Erebus555 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"and is generally considered to be the United Kingdom's second city."

This article [3] suggests that this is no longer true - a BBC poll suggests that nearly half of the population think Manchester is now England's second city (Scots cities are usually ignored higher up the list - if Manchester is England's second city, it would be assumed to be the UK's), compared to only 40% of people who think that Birmingham is. The only age group who consider Birmingham as "more important" is 65s and over. Therefore I will remove this sentence from the introductory section. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just beaten you to it! I've changed the 'generally considered' to 'considered by some'. Opinion polls (especially those that don't detail their methodology, like this most recent one) are by no means definitive and 'a bubble doesn't mean a boil', but with this and the 2002 poll there's certainly good indication that the question of second city is becoming closer. I've implied earlier today on Talk:United_Kingdom that the people responsible for marketing Manchester and Manchester's council are doing a far better job at raising awareness of the place than their Birmingham equivalents, and in the eyes of the wider population at least this seems to be being listened to! That said, find me a reputable, non-partisan media source that uses 'second city' in a UK context to describe anywhere other than Birmingham. Matthew 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the way the second city status is decided is now completely different to how it was done back in the past. It used to be done officially but now it is all down to public decision. Back when Birmingham was 'officially' declared second city, it was all down to the population of the city. Now so many other factors are being introduced such as culture, arts, media, sport and even the buildings it has. I'm more aware of the buildings side of things as I regularly take part in such discussion on internet forums and the amount of times such an issue is raised, buildings are quick to be introduced. As a result, this poll proves nothing. There is only a gap of 8% between the two and if a wider poll was carried out, that could change. No government or council website can prove that either Manchester or Birmingham is the second city. - Erebus555 15:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No dissent from me, though I do think that the newer measure is better, albeit far harder to quantify or define because of its more holistic nature. Matthew 15:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that it would be impossible to definitively state that Manchester has usurped Birmingham's position, I just thought that it can no longer be "generally considered" to be the second city any more. I have to admit being biased towards Manchester, however, and this latest report did fill me with a little bit of glee! Besides which, if there is no longer (and I didn't know there ever was, excuse my ignorance) an "official" second city status, it is obviously extremely difficult to assign this title to any particular city, and define all of the criteria by which it is judged. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 16:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This debate is getting tiresome. It should be, "is the second largest city in the UK."

The article already says that, but also mentions that Birmingham is widely considered to be the second city. This should be acceptable by all, I'd have thought. Matthew 16:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the "largest" being Birmingham (although it's very, very close on conurbia comparisons, so close that it is within error margins) but isn't that the problem though Matthew - that it isn't "widely considered" to be "second city" (whatever exactly second city means). I grew up in the North of England and I think everyone there just assumed Manchester was second city. I was very surprised that people in Birmingham thought differently. I worked a long time in local government in London, and pretty much everyone I discussed it with there thought it was Manchester - this view appears to be shared in central government. I personally believe that the "second city is Birmingham" view is mainly a West Mids phenomenon although granted that on population grounds it is (narrowly) true. MarkThomas 17:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh - I can tell a similar story, but from the other side of the fence, having been born in the East Midlands and grown up in Tyne & Wear and Northamptonshire, and being at university in Yorkshire; and at the same time seeing all media references to 'second city' being descriptions of Birmingham. So when there was the 2002 poll after the Commonwealth Games I was understandably taken aback by something I'd previously attributed to particularly parochial Mancunians. Naturally, the current government courts Manchester because it's a Labour heartland; Birmingham is much more politically diverse, especially at a local level. It will be very interesting to see what happens come a different ruling party (be that by general election or Scottish seccession - either way I expect the current government to be shafted)! ;-) Matthew 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to hear about it from another perspective. Didn't it always used to be the case supposedly that the government focused politically on the West Midlands because it was a key battleground in the elections with many marginals? I believe this was stated on TV coverage of at least the last ten general elections and probably further back. I actually don't think it's anything to do with current governments - it's a long running cultural belief especially I think in London. When business people or government officials in London think where to have a "second office" Manchester usually is the first thought. I'm not saying they are right to think that way, just observing. Personally I have to say I think central Manchester is a bit of a dump compared to central Birmingham, but each have their good and bad points. MarkThomas 17:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but there's certainly a body of feeling locally that the current government has something against Birmingham and the rest of the West Midlands county - a good example being the decision to locate the new Wembley in London rather than back Birmingham's bid, which seemed to have more popular support. (Personally I'd have thought somewhere just off the M1, slightly north of Northampton, would be a decent central location for the English national stadium. This is because the geographic centre of the UK's population is, I understand, somewhere around Stoke-on-Trent and gradually slipping south east - so shift it east and south a bit to account for the removal of the non-English countries.) Matthew 17:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that way, with the Millennium Dome and that was the biggest flop ever. As you said it would have made more sense for the National Stadium to be located centrally. --86.140.8.93 09:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Such things like this are nothing new. Such claims were raised a long time ago and there is a sense that the government are favouring Manchester and the generally northwest area over the Midlands. There are so many points that could be made, even the BBC decision to move to Salford is believed to be a politically spurred move. Transport in Birmingham is the main problem. Birmingham has been shafted so many times. New Street Station is one example as the government have left it in the dark for years and now that people such as Richard Branson are calling for change, they are finally waking up - only problem is, they are only proposing a cosmetic change to the station (obviously to reduce costs). Next is the Midland Metro, Birmingham is being ignored over and over again by the government. Birmingham is probably the biggest city in Western Europe to not have a significant Metro system. I personally believe in this anti-Birmingham conspiracy. - Erebus555 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One could consider the amusing mental map of a North Londoner as an example of how different people visualise Britain. I don't think personally it's a clear-cut case of London favouring the North-West or some such. I do think there is a cultural bias against the West Midlands in Britain, along with other similar ones against for example the Welsh. It's partly denegration of the Brummie as having a poor accent, working-class and stupid. This was admirably well discussed on Radio WM recently by Carl Chinn who probed the history of the accent and it's role in Britain. I believe he thinks the roots of this attitude go back to before the industrial revolution and include catholic/protestant bitterness and even inter-regional feuds from Anglo-Saxon times. So it's not something that will shift in a hurry! My general impression of the "London view" is that Birmingham (and the Midlands as a whole) is almost invisible. It's not that they are down on it, just unaware. They have heard of Manchester and Scotland. MarkThomas 15:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Being ignored is as bad as being disfavoured, if not worse. With regard to the accent, it would help if when an accent was on television it wasn't some overblown stereotype, as Benny from Crossroads was, but was more like most people actually speak. Additionally, there's a study out there somewhere that indicates that there is some UK-based snobbery at play, because foreigners who aren't aware of the connotations tend to quite like the Birmingham accent. Anyway, from the above I surmise that Midlanders have either got to incessantly harp on about how fantastic the place is, so much so that everyone else starts to believe it, or threaten to declare independence! :-) I'm for the latter - it would be interesting to see how the north and south managed with a whole new country separating them by land. ;-) Matthew 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There would have to be a connecting Euro-tunnel, "trans-Brummie-link" or some such. I presume the new country would be called Mercal or Brummo or something similar? Would it be a republic? If so, I propose Ed Doolan as first president. Never mind that he's Australian. MarkThomas 18:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mercia would be the natural name for such a country, and the capital would best be at Tamworth! Matthew 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You might get UDI from Nottingham. Plus the tank barriers snaking across country would cause traffic problems on the A417. And god only know what would happen to Oxford. MarkThomas 18:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Plebiscite! :-) Matthew 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)