This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in London. |
yes they are external links, but they are also further reading, do you only have a further reading heading when the reading relates to books?... Steeev 00:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I was under the impression the population of London peaked at around 8.5 million in the 1930s, and declined in the postwar years, I've certainly read that somewhere. I'll check it out G-Man 14:02, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
My book the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Great Britain states that:
G-Man 23:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In 1097 I did change Edward the Confessor to William Rufus (Edward the Confessor died in 1065). But it needs a further correction: William Rufus built the Wetsminster Hall but there was Edward the Confessor who started to build the Palace of Westminster
Titus Atomicus
The line: In 1097 William Rufus the son of William the Conqueror began the construction of 'Westminster Hall', the hall was to prove the basis of the Palace of Westminster which throughout the Mediæval period became the prime royal residence.
needs to be rewritten.
That was Edward the Confessor who started to build The Palace of Westminster. And the Westminster Hall was a part of the Palace The important thing about Westminster Hall is that it (almost :-)survived the fire of 1837 and now it is still housing :-) the House of Lords...
Is the second line in the population chart a typo? Should it be 4.5-6000?
A.E.M. Baumann (
talk) 02:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Taken from the article:
The first Census was in 1801, so early dates are "guesstimates" based on archaeological density of sites compared with known population of the City of London between 1600 - 1800 (i.e., 50,000). Dates from 1300 onwards are based on what is probably better evidence, from historic records. The figures up to 1939 are for the urban area, which corresponded more or less with the City of London up to the end of the Middle Ages, but later rarely coincided with a political boundary. Those for 2001 and 2016 are for Greater London.
Is this correct?. I would have thought that figures from about the 1850s onwards would have been from the Metropolitan Board of Works and later County of London area (now Inner London). G-Man 21:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've added an expansion notice to the 18th century section, which is by far the thinnest part of the article. Bhoeble 11:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"...the breakaway of the American colonies and many other unfortunate events..." seems like an unsourced value judgement. And it's not really about London. We should either lose this or list some events considered unfortunate at the time, worded as such. Tynam ( talk) 17:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a linguist or etymologist, but has no one else noticed that bit at the end about Southwark- "Suthringa Geworc (defensive work of the men of Surrey)"- is most likely incorrect, if the part in parentheses is supposed to be the implied meaning? I think it means simply "Southern Works", since "Suthringa" easily becomes "Sutherne", the Old English for "Southern" (according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) with the "ing" at the end making it descriptive, and "Geworc" bears a suspcious resemblance to the modern German word "Gewerk", which means "works", as in a complex of buildings or engineering works. Although if it is "Works", in this case it probably really is a defense "works". So where do "the men of Surrey" come into it? Somebody tell me if I'm right. Just passing through. -- 84.56.251.36 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I created Historical London travel guide as a separate page because it's related to but very different from the history of London. RHaworth first deleted it, and then suggested that it be merged with this page. I think that's a bad idea. Yes, it's important that the two pages not overlap, and the two pages ought to have a similar structure (divided into the same historical eras), but I think it would be wrong to have museum info and such sprinkled through a history article. Greg 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I've just redirected the article to this one. Clearly there is some debate and doubt even here that such an article would be anything other than an article fork, and having a completely empty article (well, one sentence and a bunch of headings) is not doing anyone any favours - as it stood it was very close to a speedy deletion candidate. If you want to make a long complex article like this, start it in a user sandbox and move it out once it has content. But I'd advise you to work out exactly what you want the article to be before you bring it into article-space. That way you're less likely to run into trouble from people thinking a merge is in order. A cursory glance at the article's history would make anyone think it was a POV fork no matter what its intention (as I did when BL Lacertae asked for a second opinion on it), and the title looked suspiciously like it was going to be a travel guide (which is one of the things Wikipedia is not. Oh, and one more thing - history isn't a location, so it shouldn't have any kind of geo-stub template. Grutness... wha? 12:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that the suffix -wic (as in Lundenwic) which became -wych (Aldwych) means bay or creek, and is also used for ports, and does not mean settlement. This is consistent with all the various -wicks and -wyches I can think of in England. DrHydeous 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"OE wīc, an early loan-word from Lat vicus, means 'dwelling, dwelling-place; village, hamlet, town, . . ": Ekwall, Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names. . . . LinguisticDemographer 14:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Further to point on 'vicus' above it should be noted this is also the origin of 'gweek' in Cornish; a Brythonic language: Welsh is similar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.228.158 ( talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"In 1780 London was rocked by the Gordon Riots, an uprising by Protestants against Roman Catholic emancipation led by Lord George Gordon. Severe damage was caused to Catholic churches and homes, and 285 rioters were killed."
Why is this placed under the 1800 hundreds?-- Diablo65 07:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There should be links to Metropolitan Board of Works- Greater London Authority etc. Jackiespeel 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I have created a new navigational template for history articles related to London - {{ London history}}. Please add it to any relevant pages or add anything that is missing. Cheers, DJR ( T) ( WC) 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is 57 kilobytes and could probably get longer. Is there any appetite to split the article as for History of New York City into articles for significant periods? MRSC 09:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As of 14 Feb 2007 this article is blank. What happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.30.249.31 ( talk) 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I've added a couple of citation needed tags to the Roman section. The consensus on who was living on these islands when the Romans arrived seems to have broken down somewhat in recent years; see for example Steven Oppeheimer's The Origins of the British. BTLizard 09:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Although many people believe the earth is flat, the consensus view is still that it is roughly spherical. One individual has gone into print (not in an academic journal, and with no substantial peer review) saying that the population of pre-Roman southeast England was non-Celtic. The consensus view remains that the whole of what is now England was Celtic prior to AD43. Oppenheimer's theories may be interesting and challenging, but they do not constitute a "break-down of consensus". . . . LinguisticDemographer 15:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this statement should be referenced: "This left London as the only large metropolis in the world without a central administration." Anyone know a source for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.75.91 ( talk) 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a separate article on Legendary London dealing with King Lud, Gog and Magog and the rest of the gang? Good idea? Colin4C 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
—
Save_Us_
229 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the list of what is needed (please feel free to add to this if other things needed; also strike when things done)
Simply south ( talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Takes forever to load, almost makes the page crash on my computer. Anyone else with the same problem? Armigo ( talk) 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
History Channel - http://www.history.co.uk/explore-history/history-of-london.html Read articles, watch clips and explore image galleries from early London right through to the 7/7 bombings. Hillsshaw ( talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
In the history of London labels the PIRA for bombing London as terrorist. Now, in your wiki it clearly states PIRA as a paramilitary,so I think calling them terrorist is incorrct. They also shouldnt be called terrorist when the British killed millions in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpTheRIRA ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
They are labled as a paramilitary in the wiki. I know its not true but thats like saying the Dresden Bombing was terrorist. Besides, considering the English killed millions in Ireland, and supported loyalist terrorist and the Black and Tans, I dont think they should be calling any person from Ireland terrorist considering what they did. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
UpTheRIRA (
talk •
contribs) 02:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the majority of IRA victims were soldiers and very few bombs were aimed at civilians. Most IRA members died in gunfight with the British army, so their obviusly fighting. Actually, there just fighting British tyranny while the majority wish to leave the UK as far back as 1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpTheRIRA ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The most recent history of this article need to be updated. Most notably the staging of the 2012 Olympics, and possibly the Diamond Jubilee celebrations etc. Bleaney ( talk) 17:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 ( talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Can someone go through this with a fine toothcomb, please? At a cursory reading I've just had to eliminate the following: 1. A reference to Aldrich (disambiguation) which has no references to London. The link should be to Aldwich, an extant neighbourhood which might deserve its own meme. 2. A reference to "titan", a mathematical cotangent, when it should be the "witan", the wise men of the Royal Council.
If anyone can identify the cause of this nonsense, which I suspect is a rampaging bot such is the self-referential level of stupidity, they'll be doing us all a favour.
May I ask if any criteria are referred to when adding items to the Historical Sites of Note section? On what basis, for example, are Vauxhall Station and Croydon Airport included as two of the sixteen entries? HughJLF ( talk) 10:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=History_of_London#Population
For example, for the year 800, a population range of 10-12000 was given, which leaves a difference of 11990 people - the small estimate is less than a percent of the large estimate and, furthermore, seems absurd.