Talk:Second city of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

PoV

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

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

Culture

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

Endless reversions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sprigot 15:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I owe you a response too, don't I - so here goes:

• The sentance "You're burning up my WP:AGF here mate." is by no means friendly in tone - which led to my "cod gangster" quote - as I said earlier - it's by no means friendly is it and nice to see that you go on to say "I assure you that I was not" - so let's forget it then.
• We both agree the "demographics of respondees to polls" matter - excellent - some common ground - I look forward to hearing back from Ipsos MORI North in the near future - although I concur to the recommendation made by User:Ngb below and would look forward to the article being closed (or rather 'stabalised') in the manner he puts forward.
• Yes I can and did (User:Mr Stephen:"I asked what Hoskins Hopkins wrote because the book is not available in the libraries open to me, and it would be easier for someone who posseses the book to give a quote than it would be for me to get librarians to try and track it down via ILL. Can't you do that?") - as responded to in an earlier edit here 09:49, 19 July 2007 - but crikey, talk about nit-picking - what other subject could possibly be broached by a book called "Birmingham: The Making of the Second City 1850-1939" - having (temporarily) procured a copy I can honestly say it's never going to top the Booker Prize lists - but it 'does what it says on the tin'.
• Re: Second diff - just another example of plain 'badger'ing - "Obviously not true given the general tone of the paragraph and article. If it can't be rendered correct through modification, then let's remove it altogether.)" - I mean it's a book about Birmingham, it exists, you can get it from Amazon here if anyone would want.
• Finally the two polls five years apart - the first one done by Ipsos MORI North here was commisioned by 'Destination Manchester' - Manchester City's PR and Tourism department - how valid is that ? When good ol' MS commision a 'report' from Gartner on the TCO of Windows vs Linux - who listens ? Only the MS press and those with a vested interest... unsurprisingly.
• As to the BBC poll - well - good on Manchester - as this BBC article says: "Manchester 'close to second city'".

All the best. Sprigot 17:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

BBC 'Second City' Poll

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

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

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

I think it would be valuable to add the following:

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

Source: Wikipedia - Birmingham City Council

Sprigot 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think it would be valuable to add the following:

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

Using the previously mentioned BBC poll article: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6349501.stm |title=Manchester tops second city poll |accessdate=2007-02-10 |publisher=BBC NEWS |year=2007}}</ref>

Sprigot 11:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

A few points on this quotation:

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

Sprigot 14:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Ministerial Opinion

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

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

Surely "No, it's rubbish" is WP:POV - potentially biased and against WP:NPOV ? Although as an administrator I'd expect you understand this more than I.

Being pedantic about the subject - in considering the subject of 'Second city', I would assume that there were two primary sources of reference:

• Firstly - Fact / Data - such that can undergo 'Comparative analysis' - i.e. Size (square miles / kilometers - City itself, Metropolitan area, Conurbation), population (of the above), contribution to GDP, administrive powers (devolved from the central administration), measureable impact on the culture of the country in question, and the society of that country, possibly even 'pidgeon count' apparently - as well as a host of other data (population, contribution to GDP, etc.).
• Secondly - Opinion - only two sources of opinion probably matter in this regard - that of the population, and that of the representatives (or rather Government) of that population. I fully agree that the opinion of "arbitrary" people should be ignored (pop stars, academics, business people, etc.) - but the opinion of senior Government figures and representatives effectively speak for the Government itself - the incumbant government (in the case of the UK) which was voted into power by the people. In this case their opinion must matter because they represent the Government of the country.

Sprigot 11:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it - it is clear nonsense trivia and makes no sense to the article. Trivia sections are discouraged in Wikipedia articles and should really be moved into paragraphs. If that is not possible obviously the quotes are meaningless. Mike33 - t@lk 11:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the edit you made on my Talk Page and I think that I owe it to you to try and answer as you prescribe. So here goes:

• How is the opinion of Senior representatives of the UK Government on the subject of the 'Second city of the United Kingdom' trivia ? As I put forward above two sets of opinion probably matter - that of the people of the United Kingdom and that of the Government of the United Kingdom. No higher secular authority exists than these two groups - the people and the Government of the people.
• The quotes in question (not all of which I supplied) are from Senior representatives of the UK Government - and to an extent, unless later rescinded - speak for that Government - this is definatly not trivia - unless of course if you believe that what Government officials say about subjects like Council tax, the Iraq War and National ID are other examples of trivia of course.

I look forward to your response - is there any chance you could kindly explain why you think these quotations are 'nonsense trivia' - without resorting to 'they just are'. The comment you left on my Talk Page says "No, you don't discuss my concerns about trivia. You don't discuss my concerns at all" - perhaps if you could help by telling me what those concerns are I, in turn, could respond in a helpful and productive manner to address these feelings. Sprigot 15:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What's all this about 2001?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinions on the following quotations and associated article

Re: Mancunian appreciation of Birmingham Second City of the UK

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

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

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

Sprigot 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is an advert for airtravel / flights an appropriate reference ?

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

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

Sprigot 00:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Request for Rational Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I believe that there is a Second city of the United Kingdom. Sprigot 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that this article should be deleted and the smallest amount of information be taken from it and moved back to Second city. The entire intro of this page is copied from the Second city article anyway and most of the stuff on here is rubbish anyway. Also the article says that Birmingham's population is 1,001,200 but this article is "Second city of..." which means it is looking at the city and on List of English cities by population the population figure is 970,892 so much of this article is rubbish. There is no point in semi-protection as the same "people" from Birmingham have plenty of user accounts to constantly change this page to make it more of a Brummie POV. So in conclusion this article needs to go to WP:AFD in my opinion as it is making Brummies come to Manchester article and make unhelpful edits whilst it is on its way to WP:GA. XAndreWx 09:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The population of Birmingham is 1,001,200, according to its article, where the figure is sourced. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The two figures arise from the two different measures of population: the figure for Birmingham local authority area is 1,001,200; whilst the figure for the Birmingham Urban Sub-Area (which includes Castle Bromwich but excludes Sutton Coldfield) is 970,892. Fingerpuppet 10:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation of sock-puppetry is without foundation and is unacceptable; as is your use of quote marks around "people". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett if you would be so kind as to find me the Wikipedia page which forbids the use of speech marks that would be most wonderful. Until then I shall use speech marks as freely as I like until you stop with the personal attacks aimed at me. """"""""" XAndreWx 10:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your false accusation of personal attacks is also unacceptable. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

According to the Department for Communities and Local Government, the population of Birmingham is 2,293,099 [1], [2], and [3]. TharkunColl 10:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The source of those figures have been shown as being invalid, and are for the Primary Urban Area, a figure solely invented for a single report for which the FAQ document says:

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 such as this one is invalid. Defining these areas (which in the case of "Birmingham" includes the separate city of Wolverhampton as well as other Metropolitan Boroughs) as cities is incorrect and misleading. Fingerpuppet 10:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps someone should remove it from the Manchester article, where this very same report has been used to produce a grossly inflated figure of 1,741,961 for that city's population (still smaller than Birmingham's though). TharkunColl 10:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have suggested exactly that on Talk:Manchester. Fingerpuppet 12:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it last night and it was re-edited with reference to the city of Salford (216,400 + 441,200 = 1,741,000) yeah right. The whole sentence is misleading and just pushes the boundries of relevence, I have simply bracketed it now in the hope of explaination. It's meaningless and certainly doesn't help the article, but does help to push an idea that doesn't really have any meaning outside of this article. Mike33 - t@lk 12:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was directed here after I made an edit to the page. Discussion is not an invitation to ignore all rules. I removed a sentence about partisanship that looked like it had been chalked on a blackboard after a bad history lesson. I have removed the "ministerial quotes" on the basis that it forms a trivia section. If the quotes are important, they should be incorporated into the body of the article. As they stood with a whole section they were meaningless. I couldn't care less who is the second city, as the opening says it is at best a nominal title and I have tried my best engage support on Manchester that it be removed completely. As to "third city" that is just nonsense, only four cities describe themselves like that and in the case of Limerick it is scraping the barrel. The whole of the editing on this page has been petty, as have edits to Manchester - are aim is to make Wikipedia good, not try to make one point over another. Mike33 - t@lk 11:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies when I was initially adding the Request for Rational Debate I inadvertanly left it off your Talk Page. When I saw you had deleted an entire section which was under discussion I thought it sensible to invite you to discuss the matter rather than the article start to slip back into the 'Edit War that had been going on leading to individuals being blocked - purely for holding an opinion dear to them. In response to above:

• Partsanship sentance - I have no opinion on - removed or not - however it has been there for a long time.
• Re: Ministerial Opinion - I've replied above, and alerted User:Mike33 on his Talk Page - however again I believe that the opinion of the Government (and it's senior representatives) on the subject of the Second city of the United Kingdom is not trivia. If the Government of a country say's X or Y is the Second city then to all intents and purposes it is.
• If you believe that I am trying to ignore all rules then you are very much mistaken - I just want to avoid the article slipping into an Edit War.

Sprigot 12:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitary Break

For the simple fact that Manchester and Birmingham were distinguishable in the early 20th century is one thing, but for the "title" now to be claimed by data that presents itself in such a way that in places it, conflicts, aggresses and pronounces information which can be untrue or unbiased reflects the intentional disregard for the United Kingdom today and the disrespect for it's cities as a whole. R_O (Talk) 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

big words have consistency and follow patterns of grammer. talk pages should be easy to read and inclusive like Wikipedia. Not sure what you are trying to achieve, but it seems very unhelpful. Mike33 - t@lk 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no need for that sarchasm there "Mike33". R_O (Talk) 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is fundamentally flawed

Because it gives the impression that there really is a genuine debate in the country about which is the second city, rather than a couple of random polls and a huge marketing campaign rammed in our faces by the Manchester City council PR department. TharkunColl 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This page does agree with everybodies theories even "ministers". The opening gives us There is no official mechanism by which second city status is conferred on a city, rather, it is a description which is unofficial carrying no authority. (a solid idea about the nobility of any statement after?) - second city is probably non-notable if we are to use our own text. The great flaw is that it can never be found. 1000 ppl doing a poll or a few Mps or brian rehead saying its a toss up between london and birmingham. This article doesn't help Wikipedia and I have tried to stop any refence on the Manchester page which tries to support it. I would now support an afd on this page. based entirely on the opening sentences which make the whole article redundant. Mike33 - t@lk 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the suggestion of Ngb above. I also find his quote acceptable too (apart from only mentioning the one poll by the BBC - not the one commissioned by the Manchester tourist board, obv.) Sprigot 06:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Raising an Afd

We open the article with -

^{Identifying the second city of the United Kingdom is a subject of some disagreement.}

^{A country's second city is the city that is thought to be the second-most important, usually after the capital or first city (London, in this case), according to some criteria such as population size, economic or commercial importance, political importance or some cultural sense. There is no official mechanism by which second city status is conferred on a city, rather, it is a description which is unofficial carrying no authority, and arguments often take place between citizens and civic leaders of rival cities making conflicting claims.}

If an article is so vague about what it is saying it surely has no place in Wikipedia. It can easily be merged back into Second city without any other problem. For an article to erupt so much debate from just a few editors something is very wrong. I would suggest an Afd. If the article has notability it will remain, but as I suspect it is doomed by conflict of editing by two small groups, it needs outside help - 5 days on Afd and real comment may work wonders. Mike33 - t@lk 12:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A good idea - though I have concerns about it. This article was, AFAIK, spun off from the Second city article precisely because of the issues and debate. I am concerned that should the Afd come out with "delete", that the pointless edit warring would simply move from here to the Second city article itself.

If we have editors that refuse to accept that there is a debate on the subject (simply due to there being opposing PoVs), and that their personal opinions are the only correct ones, and that there is no possibility that anyone can hold the opposite PoV, then it is entirely doomed. There certainly appears to be a number of contributors who insist on pushing their personal opinions to the detriment of the article. Fingerpuppet 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Towards a Consensus

In an attempt to reach a consensus, how about we:

• WP:AFD the Second city of the United Kingdom (as suggested above by Mike33)
• Use the following text (as suggested above by Ngb):

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

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

All opinions more than welcomed - please lets all work towards getting this stabailised soon. Sprigot 12:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be opposed to deletion. I think it's an interesting article and actually adding more rival claims is not a weakness. People in the "Birmingham camp" tend to resent those that promote the Manchester case and the same in reverse. The real problem is that up to now the "Birmingham camp", who tend to be more sensitive and perhaps a little precious on it, are much more vociferous than the other camp. The public reality outside of the narrow little WP clans (I know one or two of the editors personally in this battle - they are very narrow-minded people in real life too!) is that this is a contested and uncertain question. The pro-Birmingham POV is that there is no doubt and anyone who thinks otherwise hates Birmingham, Brummies and very possibly Sutton Coldfield as well. The pro-Manchester POV is that probably it's Manc but who really cares. The official government position is, and has been for more than a century, that it's Manchester. Well worth having a page and the debate is actually rather good and enjoyable, albeit sometimes rather pointless. MarkThomas 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If we merged text from here back into Second city then I don't think an AFD would be necessary here; we'd just turn this article into a redirect. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we try and reach a consensus on the text to go in the "Second city" article so the edit war doesn't spread there (Afd or Redirect work fine with me). Ngb can you action this if we reach a consensus on the text - and then get the page semi-protected ? Cheers. Sprigot 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If the text is as in your proposal and includes the contentious phrase "Birmingham has generally been described as the second city of the UK since around the First World War" then I for one will want to add more material, since it does not give an accurate view. The government of the UK for example have long regarded Manchester as the de-facto second city. MarkThomas 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this, Mark? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will do so if a consensus is reached. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing

Andy, I am aware you used to work for Birmingham City Council, is this still the case? If so, is it fair for you to be making really quite determinedly POV edits to the article? Thanks. MarkThomas 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry MarkThomas but I'm afraid your edits do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines which require valid sources to substantiate the addition of encyclopedic content. Given that your edits were unsupported POV I fully support Pigsonthewing in deleting these as his actions were upholding the values of Wikipedia in achieving verifiable encyclopedic content.195.212.52.6 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, (a) totally irrelevant to the question in this section and (b) total rubbish. Why don't you sign in and discuss properly? An obvious attempt to thwart 3RR rules by editing from a number. The material was referenced, you just don't like it - that's against the spirit of WP NPOV article formation. MarkThomas 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

Could we not just delete the page, the one's who want to keep it open are the one's that are ruining it! Either that, or we could introduce a system where disruptive users are blocked from editing the page. R_O (Talk) 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I want the page deleted - with a short entry (as put forward by Ngb) - see "[Talk:Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom#Towards_a_Consensus|Towards a Consensus]" above. Sprigot 16:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and I want to reach a consensus on the text to go in the "Second city" article so the edit war doesn't spread there. Sprigot 16:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But it did in the past - that's why it was moved here! Come on, stop using technical issues to manoevre. Let the different POVs be reflected in the article and we can create an NPOV article - at the moment, the Brum crowd are as usual trying to suppress anything they don't like, rather than countering with good material on the Brum case. MarkThomas 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would entirely go along with the deletion idea. There is an interesting issue to do with how a ranking scheme for cities could be constructed making use of a range of relevant attributes various cities have, so that a second city could be identified (things such as Pareto Optimality would be relevant), but that would be a different issue to the arguments about the reliability and the validity of the separate attribute-values that could be used, and it would definitely be Original Research. Given that the arguments about this article are now futile and disruptive because such original research has not been done, and certainly cannot be done in this article. Even to describe the different viewpoints in a seemingly NPOV way would involve some degree of Original Research in doing anything other than a simple listing of the alternative conclusions. So, I think simple deletion is required.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You could use logical arguments like this to delete articles like Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations but they are fascinating articles - if each "side" would let the other "side" contribute referenced material, they give a valuable resource to the average visitor to Wikipedia. This is a real issue - if it isn't, why do the BBC conduct nationwide polls on it? It deserves an article, and the article deserves to be NPOV - that means letting each case build and not fighting the other editors. MarkThomas 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point. But from what I, as a passive observer, with no real opinion either way, have observed, it hasn't happened up to now, and from very recent accusations, etc made on this talk page, it doesn't seem likely to happen in the future. If what people want to do is to proceed, the best feasible way of doing that, as far as I can see, is for each "side" to prepare their case in isolation, only advancing arguments that directly support "their side" and not attack the other side's imagined arguments. Then, the article begins with a general account of the disagreements and contested claims, with the two sections that advance their own "side's position" put one after the other (in alphabetical order to prevent another set of squabbles about precedence), and with no cross-side editing allowed. No synthesis would be allowed, unless it was done in independent and verified sources that can be cited. If such evidence can be found and cited, it could go in a final section. Otherwise, it would not be added, as that would be ruled out by NOR. I can't see the article's integrity lasting, though. Go one, all of you. Prove me wrong!  DDStretch  (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support this proposal. There has been far too much negative editing on this page recently, with the "Third City" rubbish being a case in point. I feel that the article should be split into three sections: Birmingham, Manchester and Other Cities. Only the pro-Birmingham case should go into the Birmingham section, the pro-Manchester case in the Manchester section and any other claimants, both modern and historical into Other Cities. Whilst I hope that this compromise will work, I also doubt that it will! Fingerpuppet 09:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. Either that, or go to 'Mediation', then Arbitration (if needed). PS- I thought Edinburgh was the second city of the UK (shows what I know). GoodDay 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree this article should be deleted, and share the viewpoint of MarkThomas. I think the content has massively improved in the last week or so, and if neutrality is applied, we could have a perfectly acceptable article here. Jza84 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

I suggest we redirect Second city of the United Kingdom to Birmingham, and Third city of the United Kingdom (currently a redirect to here) to Manchester. TharkunColl 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Which is exactly why this article is in such trouble. Fingerpuppet 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's list all the arguments here

West Midlands

Greater Manchester

Under Hard statistics we should have, for example, all the conceivable population permutations, e.g. those for urban sub-area, metropolitan district, conurbation, metropolitan county, etc. (which Birmingham will win each time, by the way). If the Manchester people wish to have the article say that size is not the only factor, then they must provide citations to this effect - currently the article just states this as if it were true, without any evidence. Under Subjective criteria we should then place all that cultural stuff that the proponents of Manchester appear to believe gives their city the edge, but these supposed factoids must be fully referenced. The defenders of Birmingham may do the same. Since I have a personal interest in maps, I have placed maps of both conurbations and their local government boundaries on the right, at the same scale. One thing becomes immediately apparent - the Manchester conurbation is a great deal more fragmentary than the Birmingham one, and clearly much smaller if we remove all the bits of countryside inbetween. The bounderies of GM metropolitan county have been drawn very generously, and include large areas of open country, but the WM boundaries by contrast are drawn very tightly, and the conurbation itself is very dense (with the exception of the Meriden Gap which separates it from Coventry to the east). As for local authorities, Birmingham is clearly so massive that it dominates its whole conurbation, whereas Manchester appears small, squashed, and distorted, as if it is dominated by its conurbation, instead of the other way round. Looking at these maps makes it palpably obvious that Birmingham is in a league of its own when it comes to size (quite literally - no other city has a million inhabitants), and that Manchester (with well under half a million) is just one of a dozen or so British cities that inhabit the third division, and isn't even top of that division. If the Manchester supporters wish to move up the table from ninth to third place, they can only do so by using the conurbation figures rather than those of the actual city, but they need to provide a citation that this is appropriate for an article entitled Second city of the United Kingdom, rather than Second conurbation of the United Kingdom. TharkunColl 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If we consider cities and not connurbations then Birmingham is the First City since it is bigger than any other city in the UK by far and the City of London is the smallest. However, the city boundaries have moved over time and are fairly arbitary. To make any sense of this argument we need to think of connurbations or perhaps more simply the metropolitan counties set up in 1974. In this case the West Midlands has a larger population than Greater Manchester and would win on that basis.

So I suggest we change the article name to "Second Metropolitan County of England". Say West Midlands wins on population and then that is factual.

This does not make Birmingham and the West Midlands a great place, I have never liked them and I am unlikely to ever like them. I think Manchester is a great place to be in and also a great place to get out off, it has better access to the National Parks than virtually anywhere else in the UK and Birmingham/West Midlands will never have that. Size is not everthing!

Keith Plumb 13:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that those two maps are to the same scale? They don't look to be to me, but I'm willing to be wrong - as the GMUA and the West Midlands conurbation have roughly the same population, to within the error correction of the census (with WMC being slightly the larger). As we have discussed previously, Birmingham does not dominate the entire conurbation in quite the manner that you imply - after all there is another quite large city to the north west of the conurbation, and Birmingham is also off-set to the south east. Birmingham is certainly the largest city (measured by both local authority and Urban Sub-Area) in the country by some way, but you don't need to overstate the argument.

However, the point is that it would be better if you listed the pro-Birmingham arguments without using anti-Manchester arguments. This is not the place to persuade everyone that your (and my!) personal PoV is correct on the issue! Fingerpuppet 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The maps are to scale, I made sure of that. Measured west to east the two counties just happen to be almost the same length at their furthest points, with GM a hair's breadth longer. The maps reflect this, and were clearly designed that way by their creator. In my introduction above I listed the points as I see them, which I believe the Manchester people need to address. In particular - can they provide any evidence, and appropriate citations, that size is not the only criterion? TharkunColl 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(To TharkunColl): You are perpetuating a conflict which is not desirable here at all. What is needed is a cool, dispassionate statement of why your own "side's" place is entitled to the label "second city of the UK" without any disparagement of the other side's arguments or claims at all. That you seem unable to do this merely backs up my idea that any stable article that doesn't collapse into squabbles and edit wars seems very unlikely, and, hence, the article may be better off just being deleted. As I said before "Prove me wrong!", but so far, any proof has been quite short in duration. The same kind of things will be said to anyone doing the same thing when arguing for the "other side", by the way.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that it treats the situation as if their are two cities bidding equally for the title. What I'm saying here is that there is no competition, because the Manchester people have yet to prove that factors other than size are what determine the title in the first place. TharkunColl 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But we've been all round that before with you Tharkun and you utterly refused to engage in any discussion points you didn't like. You have a POV. Fine. So do others. That's why this article exists. Something you don't like do you? Which is why you are being so provocative right now in the hope that it gets deleted. MarkThomas 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a citation that size is not the only factor, then I'd be more than happy. TharkunColl 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's sad this, but TharkunColl does the same thing in a number of articles, repeatedly ignoring attempts at mediation and just constantly bashing the same wearisome point with the same wearisome utter lack of self-conciousness. Oh dear. Probably we should just delete all the articles he participates in until he gives up as an editor of WP, then we can re-introduce them. Otherwise a prolonged block for edit-warring might help. MarkThomas 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't matter one jot. There is a non-trivial number of people who believe that Manchester is the second city - this article is not meant to persuade people either way, simply to report that fact and give the arguments for each proponent. If the pro-Manchester arguments are weak, then they are going to look silly and visitors will decide for themselves that Birmingham has the best case. Or the reverse, obviously! Just do your best pro-Birmingham (without reference to Manchester) case that you can, eh? Allow people to come round to your way of thinking... Fingerpuppet 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, that's why I placed the subheadings below. TharkunColl 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You may say "yes indeed", but you need to see why your pre-emptive attacks on your "rival's position" does not go with the "yes indeed" situation, and just STOP DOING IT! The same goes for MarkThomas, as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not really a reason but I actually hate this page, it turns into people hating each other/having a go at each other. Interesting there are rarely women wanting to edit on this page as far as I know (but I can't claim to know the gender of everyone, that's just a guess.) But I suppose a lot of wikipedia articles go through this stalemate etc at some point. You could all go to arbitration, but half the people wouldn't be happy with the outcome so it would just end up gradually happening again and again. Lots of people's edits on both sides, I gather are just getting undone one way or another, so maybe we should all edit where our edits can count long-term, or go back to our other hobbies. Myself I'll stick to the articles about lovely (but useless) alternative therapies, knitting and kittens.:) Except if/when one of you has a serious go at Tharkie, who I consider a friend IRL.:) Having said that he loves to argue, and is very clear about the 'right' viewpoint on a lot of issues, bless him.Merkinsmum 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what's next (for deciding city size rankings)? The city with the highest building? Suggest this page be deleted (it's a magnate for PoV battles). GoodDay 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've not heard of a page being battled over, being accepted/mentioned at AfD as a reason for it to go. Unless it was a marginally-noteable biography of a living person and defamatory trolling kept happening. But if you feel able to build a case for AfD please do, maybe the nominator's grounds for deletion could be "the page has bad vibes and is making us all spiritually diseased" :) lolMerkinsmum 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Or "it's very controversial and we're really, really scared and miserable about all the arguments going on round here". Oh dear. That applies to half of Wikipedia. MarkThomas 11:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I know lol, that's why I don't think it can go. Those at AfD would just say (in the words of the immortal Touch_Me,_I'm_Karen_Taylor) "I hear what you're saying, but to me it sounds like this:- Mwaaah, waaaah waaah,boo hoo hoo!" lol:) Merkinsmum 16:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here we go.

Hard Statistics

It isn't just about population, but....

(1) The populations of local authority areas are irrelevant - they have no bearing on true urban size.

(2) The difference reported between one commonly used method of urban comparison, contiguous conurbation size, gives a clear lead to Greater Manchester.

(3) The difference reported between another commonly used method of urban comparison, official National Statistics Office figures for conurbation size, gives a lead to Greater Birmingham that is so small it must be regarded as essentially a dead heat. This figure was generated from the 2001 census which was a notoriously bad census and the huge influx of hidden immigrant populations into all major British cities has no doubt further distorted the figures.

Just an aside - there's no such thing as "Greater Birmingham" - it's "West Midlands". Fingerpuppet 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this section was intended for the actual statistics themselves, rather than assertions of their irrelevence. If you can find any statistics that favour Manchester, feel free to include them. TharkunColl 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you now agree they should be included Tharkun, you vehemently opposed their inclusion before. I refer of course to the most authoritative, detailed and comprehensive statistical analysis of European urban areas ever conducted, the Largest urban areas of the European Union - this clearly shows that Manchester-Liverpool is the 7th largest urban area in Europe with 3.85m people. Birmingham-Wolverhampton is 15th with 2.37m people. MarkThomas 11:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you could find a source which says population is the only factor which should ever be considered when allocating the title of second city as this is the POV you are pushing for TharkunColl. Also if population was the only factor then surely Birmingham must be the first city as the City of London has one of the smallest populations. Therefore conurbations are valid measures of a city's population or else London would not be the first city and the population of GMC and WMC are very very close. XAndreWx 19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The "City" with a capital C of london may not be often residential but the surrounding suburbs/whatever you call it hold about 1 in 10 of the population or something. One reason Birmingham became the 2nd City is because being centrally positioned, it's useful for transport/people meeting up who for some reason (such as more members from the North/Scotland,) want to meet outside London.etc.Merkinsmum 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, we could refer to the Largest European metropolitan areas. On those figures, Greater Manchester is the 11th largest Metropolitan Area in Europe, with 4.2m people and the West Midlands is the 17th largest with 3.2m people. Of course, I know that you are going to say this article is about cities. But if it is, and those cities are based on local authority boundaries, than Birmingham is first and I believe Glasgow second or something. MarkThomas 12:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Subjective criteria

(1) More government offices in Manchester.

(2) More foreign consulates in Manchester.

(3) More corporate headquarters in Manchester.

(4) Bigger media presence in Manchester.

(5) First port of call for relocation of major national institutions from London such as the BBC is invariably Manchester.

Again, please give figures and references for numbers of government offices, consulates, ice cream vans, or what-have-you. TharkunColl 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Guardian, Birmingham is the Second City

I'm not sure why no one has added anything useful to the above sections, since that was apparently what people wanted. Oh well, here's a Guardian article from last November that unequivocally calls Birmingham the second city, without further comment - and given the content of the article the fact that there is no further comment is even more significant.

Britain's second city has an image problem. But one disgruntled resident is on a mission to prove there's life beyond the Bullring [4]

TharkunColl 11:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It's just in the heading, so it's not as unequivocal as you think. Try this Guardian article for another view. It's about Birmingham and Manchester. Quote: "another skirmish in the long campaign for ownership of the dubious title of England's second city" Mr Stephen 12:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham is very frequently mentioned as second city in the media with no further comment. If Manchester is ever mentioned as potentially the second city, Birmingham is always mentioned as well. This is a significant difference of emphasis. TharkunColl 12:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that "If Manchester is ever mentioned as potentially the second city, Birmingham is always mentioned as well" does not stand up to much searching. See Conference and Incentive Travel (me neither), The Age, Guardian and New Yorker (joke) for some examples. Mr Stephen 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is almost unsalvageable now. Can we please try to stick with being positive about one city, and not being negative about the other? Please? Fingerpuppet 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, but that was quite a funny and informative article, it says for example "Officially, there is no second city. In the UK, second cities are an arbitrary concept with no definitive supporting criteria. Not population. Not culture. But there's one thing they all agree on - whatever the second city is, it isn't Leeds". We could use that article as a source for saying there are no official criteria and then have lots of claims for each city. MarkThomas 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kojak loves Birmingham - it's official

Here's a film made by Telly Savalas in 1979 showing wonderful scenes from Birmingham with his own inimitable descriptions of them (you'll need RealPlayer). It's from the Birmingham: It's Not Shit website - [5] (scroll down, it's the second item under "Classic stuff"). Manchester, eat your heart out! TharkunColl 11:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kojak's lolipops secretly symbolised Manchester's indisputable pre-eminence though, as did the extraordinary hair in The Professionals. MarkThomas 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that "cities" is an old, outmoded term that rank traditionalists only cling onto

It might be worthwhile airing an accusation that was levelled at myself on another talk page concerning populations: Talk:List of largest cities in England by population. User:Concrete Cowboy accuses me of being similar to the Historic Counties advocates (ludicrously, for anyone knowing my editing history). He did this because I argued against a now apparently vanished editor ("EasyBird") who argued that cities are largely undefined and so the term "city" is not worth dealing with anymore. If easybird's view prevails, a simple solution to the problems of this article would be say it deals with defunct concepts and that it no longer reflects reality in the way it is claimed to do. Thus, the people engaging in so much energy one or another place are perhaps not just arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, but they are also getting worked up about the kinds of fashion accessories they are wearing when they dance. (note that EasyBird created that article, but the record of them seems to have been expunged to such an extent that on my view of the history of the article, his name no longer appears. My own contribution, which corrects a serious flaw in his/her arguments, appears to be the first edit to the article when it was the third or fourth.)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL'ed at several bits of that DD, particularly the fashion accessories bit. To some extent, the nationalisms that infect all cities and for example dog football teams, are charming and eccentric and no more worthy of comment in a serious cyclopedia than is for example the concept that the moon is a balloon. But alas - Wikipedia is stuffed full of such articles. It's a fun place. Let it hang out a little - this article is certaily more valid than many another. I think we will try to systematise it a bit more though. As this article is really about a dispute, we should list key aspects of the dispute, supporters and detractors, etc, wierd and fantastical claims and so on, without in any way getting too bogged down with actual facts, over which both "sides" have a somewhat slippery grasp. MarkThomas 17:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we not then rename it "Second City of the United Kingdom Controversy"? I know that's probably frowned upon but it might take the heat off things a bit.Merkinsmum 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome that title change for one - though dispute might be more appropriate than controversy. Jza84 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too, good idea. Or "debate" or "competition", or "battle to the death". :-) MarkThomas 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Manchester or Birmingham

Why not have a consensus vote? Birmingham or Manchester. The city which gets the 'support' (backing by majority of editors) gets the 'Second City' tag. It may help, as this page is filled with 'sources' supporting both cities. Give it try (it can't hurt). GoodDay 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be for this as definitive proof, but it must be a telephone poll, with me holding the casting vote. MarkThomas 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural reasons...

OK the following table is a little bit of fun, but it does have a serious underlying point. Alot of the debate here so far is about size... I'm not one to shout that "size isn't everything", but in the case of Manchester vs. Birmingham, we really can't rule out the cultural factors of the debate from the article.... afterall, the proper City of London is one of the smallest cities in Europe (much smaller than Birmingham too). Have we not thought to consider writing that it's capital status is only de facto and not written in law etc??

Below is a table of some of the cultural contributions of our two leading cities... joking aside, imagine if Manchester had a population of Birmingham's!!!!

Topic	Manchester	Birmingham
Population	441,200	1,001,200
County	Greater Manchester (ten boroughs - first to suggest it's own Manchester-region county after London)	West Midlands (seven boroughs)
Music	Oasis, Happy Mondays, The Smiths, Mock Turtles, Take That, The Buzzcocks, The Fall, New Order, Joy Division, Shane Ward, Simon Webbe, Stone Roses, Jay Kay, The Haçienda, Morrissey, and many more...	Black Sabbath
Art	Chris Ofili, Peter Saville, L. S. Lowry	- pass -
Architecture	Manchester Town Hall, Beetham Tower (tallest residential building in Europe), Manchester Ship Canal	The Bullring... Spaghetti Junction
Events	Commonwealth Games, Peterloo Massacre, IRA bomb, Industrial Revolution, Madchester	- pass -
Football	Manchester United (founded in Newton Heath, Manchester - not Trafford), Manchester City	Birmingham, Aston Villa
TV and film	Corronation Street, Life on Mars, 24 hour party people, Mrs Merton, Granada TV, Channel M, Queer as Folk, The Royale Family, Boddington's Ads,	- pass -
Nicknames	Cottonopolis, Capital of the North, Madchester, Gunchester	- pass -
Comedians	Steve Coogan, Bernard Manning, Caroline Ahern (Gtr. Mcr - Peter Kaye, John Thomson, many many more)	- pass -
Founded	Roman times	Anglo-Saxon times
Rank	Largest economic centre outside of London[6], most motorway, most complex transport network outside of London, third most visited city in UK (no Birmingham is not 1st or 2nd)	Most populated place with city status
Gift to humanity	First passenger railway station, Splitting of the atom, First programable computer, the Industrialised World, world's first inland dock	Howard Brown, Brum

I think the cultural aspects of Manchester should be given more weight in the article, as it is central to Manchester's case. I'm not from Manchester btw, and not stating that any city holds any official title, just making a point. Jza84 12:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Really cool. Can we make edits to your table Jza84, or should we add our own new ones? MarkThomas 12:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent addition to the dispute. If we can encourage people to add positive aspects of their own "side's" aspects to the table, and not attempt to rubbish the other side's, then this table could form a basis for a good article that would be correctly called "The Second City of the UK dispute". I can, however, see some people selectively shouting WP:NOR (on the grounds that this would yield a novel synthesis of information) when, in fact, collating information into a table like this happens all the time in similar articles. If this happens, we should stand firm and not allow the table to be brow-beaten into deletion.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite. The above table's content was a little bit of mischief I admit, but I think the point I made was a valid one. I also think that if we are to place something like this in the article, we should consider having other cities, and decide upon the content here or in a sandbox before adding it to the article. Jza84 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No the above table is my comment and point - please lets draw up a new one for the article. Jza84 13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, shall we create a separate sandboxing page for tables? BTW, we could have more serious entries in it like populations at different dates, that kind of thing. Your jokes were good though! MarkThomas 13:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that editors are adding unreferenced information to the table, regardless of my comments that they do need referencing, given the dispute, and that we should be doing this anyway, I can see that even this strategy to add to wikipedia will soon collapse into disputes. COME ON, GET A GRIP, FOLKS. ADD THE REFERENCES OR ACCEPT THAT UNVERIFIED CLAIMS WILL BE REMOVED!  DDStretch  (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3