This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
More nitpicking: the link to the City of London is actually a link to The Corporation of The City of London, the public body which governs the City. (Sorry.) -- Robert Brook
Don't nitpick; Edit! :-) Thom2002 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
25 wards - elect one alderman and the rest common councilmen. There are 4 predominantly residential wards - Aldergate, Cripplegate, Portsoken and Queenhithe. Each ward returns between 4 and 12 members. Only 6 wards were contested in 2002. The lowest vote received to be elected was 11.
Corporate voters:
Based on workforce on 1st September 2003.
if less than 9 employees - 1 vote up to 50 employees - 1 vote for every 5 employees more than 50 employees - 10 voters, and one additional per extra 50 employees
if an organisation has more than one office each office has votes - even if they are in the same ward (as long as they are not physically linked)
Qualifying bodies are:
any incorporated or unincorporated body includes churches, hospital trusts. Need to physically occupy premises in the city.
The business vote is approx 26,000, there are approx 6,000 residential voters.
The above should be a page not a talk page!
Temple
In what sense are inner and middle temples separate enclaves in the City = I don't think they are but am not totally sure? one could equally say that St Pauls is a separate enclave or the Barbican is a separate enclave.
True or false: there is a difference between this article and London, England. 66.245.6.21 23:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
The article seems to imply that The City of London is part of Greater London, which I was always lead to believe it actually isn't - rather Greater London in an administrative county which includes all of the London Boroughs but excludes the City itself.
Of course, I mean this in a political sense rather than a literal sense - in that that the Corporation of London and the Greater London Authority are two separate entities governing two entirely separate areas (the Mayor of London and the GLA having no authority over the City of London whatsoever). They are, of course, all part of the same conurbation in practical terms.
Aren't the parks and suchforth owned by the City just that - parks in other boroughs owned by the City? Who is responsible for granting planning permission here, for example. Morwen - Talk 09:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is it marked sui generis? josh ( talk) 19:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
reqmapin|England Added because a request for a more detailed map has been up at Requested_and_orphan_maps for some time. I did a quick search but didn't find anything that wouldn't be a copy vio.
Where's London rollercoaster no images of them here in Wikipedia
One thing not addressed in this article is what it is like to be in the City of London or to live in it. Unfortunately I don't have time to write such a section at the moment, but here are some thoughts:
It is incredibly quiet at weekends. Eerily so, some might say. I'm pretty sure that the video to The Specials' song Ghost Town was shot in the City early on a Sunday morning (the actual song was in all likelihood about life in Coventry).
There was a very interesting documentary on BBC Radio 4 a few years ago about life in the Barbican complex, a high-rise housing estate built and (largely) owned by the Corporation. While many of the people who live there are wealthy financial folk, not all of them are. Some residents receive housing benefit (a means-tested rent subsidy) from the Corporation as they would from any other UK local authority. The Barbican is probably the only place in central London where you stand a chance of living a quiet life. Many of the Barbican apartments were sold off as an unforseen consequence of Maggie Thatcher's forced sale of council housing.
The Barbican Centre is a world class arts venue, but it is also a place where the City provides some services to its residents, such as a public library. - Ireneshusband 20:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone make an article explaining the business vote in City of London? I don't really understand what this involves. Kernow 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Its staed here [2] that the queen would have had to ask persmission to enter the city, and body know how that would have happened?
The Queen would stop at the entrance to the city, most notably Temple Bar, where she would be received by the Lord Mayor of London, in the same way that she is received by the Lord-Lieutenants in the counties. There he would offer to her his Sword of State in a show of loyalty. She would not be asking permission as she has control of the City. See Lord Mayor of London SGoat 14:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The current article is very much about the history, demographics, government, etc but very little about what the City is about today. The bullet points give a quick insight. It balances out the article. Of course it could also be written as a continuous text. I though some bullet points showing some numbers are more pleasant to read and avoid the risk of original research. JGG 10:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
How long shall Bart's be about to in an encyclopedia ? One has to find a formulation thats lasts - or to come back in less than one or two years. Thanks. -- DLL .. T 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What was/ is the Secondary of the City of London? Cutler 12:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
City is often referred to as a district in some senses so shouldn't this be mentioned? Simply south 11:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a city and Ceremonial county now what is Sui generis about that ? -- Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:18, 14 December 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.
— Κaiba 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Similar to the District of Columbia in the US?
If so, is this why institutions such as the Bank of England and Temple Bar reside within those boundaries - to allow the sovereignty of the Crown to self-perpetuate, within its own jurisdiction?
If not, indeed why do the world's key institutions (or at least their HQs) reside within these boundaries? Is there a specific reason why they are all grouped within the boundaries of the City of London?
Is it the same reason why the IMF, World Bank and Federal Reserve institutions reside in their own sovereign district in the US?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 ( talk)
Additionally to Kbthompson 's comments: The City is not a 'Sovereign State' it is simply a local authority. 'Temple Bar' marks the site of the old west gate into the City - a Bar is a gate. The nearby Temple is the location of two Inns of Court (Inner Temple and Middle Temple)which developed within the old Knights Templar monastic enclave. Therefore the City does not have "its own jurisdiction" but the same as any other town anywhere else in the UK. As for "The Crown" you do not actually explain what you mean by this. If you mean the Queen and Royal Family then they have little authority in our constition, Elizabeth II is Head of State. The other use of the term 'The Crown' is merely a way of refering to the Government, so as we have "The Crown in Parliament". 79.72.81.131 ( talk) 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.185.211 ( talk) 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
As simple as possible Your comments are bsed on some simple misunderstandings: Having read very many 'peculiar historical documents', as you term them, such as the City of London's 'Liber Albus' and 'Letter Books' there is nothing mysterious about the nature of the City at all - indeed its records are the most copious of any City in Europe next to Rome. The principal owners of the 'Square Mile' that is the territory within the City's boundaries are firstly the City Corporation itself, then the leading 12 Livery Companies and followed by numerous commercial investment companies, eg British Land plc. The Rothschild dynasty have never really been land owners but bankers. So that most of the land is either owned by public bodies, charities or publicly listed companies. Most banks and financial institutions are within the City boundary for historic reasons, the Royal Exchange, the Bank of England, Lloyds of London and the Stock Exchange were founded there; they had to be in one place just like in any other capital city or financial capital eg Wall Street, New York, Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt. As Kbthompson explained in the late 20th Century these have started to move out of the City because modern communications means that they do not have to be there. 79.72.81.131 ( talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S
Dear Sir/Madam: How does a ship of a navigator know how to calculate a time change in a aparticular country?
Regards,
Rosemarie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.93.45 ( talk) 19:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Carriden ( talk · contribs) proposes adding the following to the article:
In the 1600s, and as part of the plantation of Ulster, London livery companies arrived in what is now Northern Ireland, and in 1613, commenced construction of what was to be the first planned city in Ireland. The city, which was subsequently named Londonderry in honour of its parent[5][6] was built across the River Foyle from the earlier small town of Doire/Derry, with sunstantial walls to defend
Londonderry's coat of arms
it from Irish insurgents who did not welcome the English and Scots occupation. The walls are extant to this day with Londonderry being the only remaining completely intact walled city in Ireland and one of the finest examples of a walled city in Europe.[7][8][9]
According to documents in the College of Arms in London and the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland in Dublin, the coat of arms of the new city were confirmed in 1613 by Daniel Molyneux, Ulster King of Arms. The devices on the city's arms are a skeleton and a three-towered castle on a black field, with the chief or top third of the shield depicting the arms of the City of London.[10]
While it is worth mentioning in the article that Londonderry was named after London, but this is far too much weight, deviating from the subject of the article. For instance, the info about the walls is completely irrelevant to this article. I suggest something more along the lines of:
The settlement of Londonderry was named after London due to its trade connections with the city. Londonderry's coat of arms incorporate the flag of the City of London.
Nev1 ( talk) 23:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that the 'dragons' were, in fact, griffins. They are always facing out of the city and they are supposed to defend the City against corruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalcolmSm1th ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
They are dragons (cross between a bat and a crocodile) Griffons are different (cross between an eagle and a lion). The Draghon is a very common heraldic beast and the City adopted it a a 'supporter' for its coat of arms in the Jacobean period. The statues of dragons at the entrance to the City are holding its coat of arms. They are not defending anything, just notifying the public of the boundary. Tony S 89.168.71.51 ( talk) 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It says in the article that businesses located in the City of London have the right to vote in elections and it explains it well, but it gives no information about the people that live there. Do residents have a vote? If so, how many residents? I would guess that it would be all of them, but given the City's unique structure, that may not be accurate.
169.231.32.17 ( talk) 07:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
There are just over 7,000 residents. About a fifth are barristers in the Temple (technically tenants and residing in their chambers) Half live in the Barbican complex and the rest are scattered in various small residential developments. Quite a few are resident caretakers of office blocks and landlords of public houses. All residents over the age of 18 vote in their Ward elections and also in the Parliamentary elections. Tony S 89.168.71.51 ( talk) 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says: "The City of London is today a major business and commercial centre, ranking just below New York City as the leading centre of global finance.[1]"
However, the document [1] cited by the article shows that London ranks just above New York, though not in a statistically significant way. Another concern is that the document cited was published by the Corporation of London, which raises a question of bias.
Unless there is a range of supporting material I would recommend the article instead says that London is one of the most important global financial centres. Flux 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The Corporation works closely with all of the leading companies and institutions to collatew material as to the UK's - effectively 'The City' - performance and standing internationally. It uses such information to lobby and promote these interests. Nobody challenged the statements when the City recorded in the 1980s that it was slipping behind other centres, and was third behind New York and Tokyo and being caught by Frankfurt. Therefore why challenge the research which now indicates its improvement ? The point is that the City cannot benefit from providing false information and status, it needs to know the truth to plan and develop strategy. 79.72.81.131 ( talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S
I agree with User "Flux" that the article should state that the City of London is today one of the most important international financial centres. Thmc1 Thmc1 ( talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
That it is is a VERY common misconception bound up with many, many people understandably not realising that 'The City' is just the Square mile. By putting a one sentence explanation at the end of the opening section I believe this misconception can be reduced. I am sorry not to have given this explanation before and hope it is now acceptable or a comment is made explaining why it is not acceptable. I appreciate that there are many, many things that NOT connected with 'The City' and they cannot all be given a reference, however as the Prime Meridian is researched world wide I hope an exception can be allowed. See Link to one of many WikiAnswers that is an example of this problem. The WikiAnswers link may not yet have been updated to show the latest Article here. Stranger on the shore ( talk) 14:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
... is here [3] if anyone wishes to update it (or develop the red links). I am the only person on the wiki at the moment so others are welcome. Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
In the elections section, there is the following sentence:
"In fact it effectively leads to the death of opposition politics and reinforces a political elite captured by the finance industry."
The phrase 'death of opposition politics' strikes me as un-wikipedia like and the whole sentence (though it may be true) lacks citation . Is there perhaps a better way to word this? -- CGPGrey ( talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Under the 'economy' section, there is a sentence referring to Foreign Exchange that occurs in the City:
"Of the $3.98 trillion daily global turnover, as measured in 2009, trading in London accounted for around $1.85 trillion, or 36.7% of the total.[7]"
If you do the sum (1.85 / 3.98) you will find that the percentage is 46.5%.
The citation for [7] is:
This links to: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Business/Business_support_and_advice/Economic_information_and_analysis/Research+and+statistics+FAQ.htm but the link is currently broken.
Can we find a current source to find the real statistic, or remove this statistic from the article?
T3Roar ( talk) 11:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This new section strikes me as being somewhat sensationalised and I question the verifiability of the source (i.e., is it actual fact, or rather the author just stirring up conspiracy theories about City operations?). Is it fair, also, to have an entire "criticisms" section based on one source — a book, no less, which not many other people can verify actually contains said criticisms described as they have been by Andromedean ( contribs) here? -- TBM10 ( talk) 09:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am Nicholas Shaxson and I want to clarify a couple of points, related to the Griffin chapter in my book Treasure Islands, referenced below. In the days following publication of my book Treasure Islands, I went to interview the City of London Corporation after they had had a chance to read it. Indeed, there are some claims in the book which I believe overstep the mark somewhat, based on faulty information provided to me. (This is the only section of the book, as far as I am aware, which has a problem of this nature.) Immediately after the interview, I posted the clarifications and corrections on the Treasure Islands website, here. http://treasureislands.org/updates-and-errors/ Revisions to the book for future editions will contain amendments. (To be clear, though: these amendments to the Griffin chapter, and there are not many of them, do not structurally affect the argument of the chapter. They merely rein in some claims made to me, which went a little too far.)
I think that the big questionable claim made was on page 254 of the UK edition: "The Prime Minister has to meet with the City if it asks for it within ten days; the Queen has to meet the City within a week if it requests." This claim was made on BBC Panorama and I trusted the source, but I didn't check it back with the City Corporation as I should have. The City Corporation denied this assertion absolutely, and I have not been able to substantiate the claim. It's just possible, still, that it's true in one way or another, but I will only believe it if I see evidence. The other major one concerns the City's Cash - there is somewhat more disclosure of this pot of money - although far from complete disclosure - than I had asserted. I am very sorry indeed that these particular claims got into the book.
I don't know enough about how to use Wikipedia to make the changes required; I hope this web page will help guide others as they make changes.
To understand what I mean by a tax haven, when I refer to the City of London Corporation, it is essential to read the whole of the book. If you think that a tax haven is merely a place to avoid tax, then the City of London Corporation does not fit the bill. If you take a broader view of tax havens, as Treasure Islands does, then it begins to look very different. The commenter below I think explains this reasonably well.
finally, one other thing I'd say, too, about what's written below:
"writes regularly for the Financial times, The Economist and many other publications"
it is more accurate to say
"has written regularly for the Financial times, The Economist and many other publications. Basically, writing Treasure Islands stopped me from doing much of this, though I did still write occasional things for these publications while writing Treasure Islands.
END Nicholas Shaxson ( talk) 14:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I had already toned down some of Shaxson’s claims in an attempt to avoid a revision. However, these are all meticulously referenced. There are 83 references alone in the ‘Griffin, the City of London Corporation’ chapter.
Shaxson is an Associate Fellow of the Royal Institute of International affairs and writes regularly for the Financial times, The Economist and many other publications. The book is endorsed by Nicolas Stern as “Outstanding” and Richard Murphy Director of Tax research UK as “the best book on Tax havens ever”.
David you say ‘The City is not a state within a state or a tax haven’. I doubt if HMRC would agree! Shaxson and Taxjustice certainly don’t. In fact that is one of their main points. Havens are not just exotic islands or central European states, but include the likes of Delaware and the City of London. They will refuse to accept they are of course.
Shaxson agrees there is no official definition of ‘offshore centre’ or “tax haven.” This is little to do with the official taxation level since tax it is rendered meaningless through various means, trust etc. He identifies several key features, amongst these he includes: “secrecy jurisdictions and local politics captured by financial services interests” and “where meaningful opposition to the offshore model has been eliminated.”
Quickly looking through the ‘City of London’ chapter he writes on p.247
“Another source of power [in the City] is its offshore structure. Since the 1950s financial services have flocked to London because it lets them do what they cannot do at home… when the US introduced the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations in 2002 to protect Americans against the likes of Enron and Worldcom the City did nothing”….”Every Russian firm listing overseas chooses London not New York”. “A Luxembourg foreign minister said “all our bankers and financial lawyers say that if you really really want to hide money go to London and set up a trust… it is impossible to know who the real owners are.” “In Feb 2010 Alexander Zvyginintsev Russia’s deputy prosecutor general said that Londongrad as it is sometimes known, was a giant launderette for laundering criminally sourced funds” (you can see I have toned it down considerably)
You query “de-facto State within a state” again by adding de-facto I am toning it down, perhaps we should just reference Tax Justice linked below and remove the de-facto bit altogether?
“Tax Justice: The City of London Corporation: the state within a state”
When people ask – as they often do these days – which is the biggest tax haven in the world, our answer is almost invariably the City of London. The City hosts Britain’s largest offshore financial centre and is intimately linked to satellite tax havens across most time zones, ranging from Hong Kong and Singapore in the East, to the British Virgin Islands, the Turks & Caicos Islands, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas in the West. All of these havens are in some respects the Frankenstein creations of the City, as are the Crown Dependency islands (Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey) which are easily accessible in less than one hour by jet from London
The term "state within a state” is also strongly implied throughout the chapter there is ample evidence to support this.
· Shaxson writes: “The city is connected to the British nation but remains constitutionally elsewhere… Whilst some laws do apply to the Corporation many acts of parliament specifically exempt it…In this, the City resembles Jersey or the Cayman Islands”
· Shaxson writes p. 263 “Corporations get their licence from the state…. the City of London Corporation is something else.”
· Former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, wrote in the Labour Party in Perspective, p179 Over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the Government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which has been decided by the people”
· When King William I invaded England, the City retained its freehold property, libraries, militias and the King had to disarm before entering. The City encouraged the American colonialists to rebel, then applauded their Declaration of Independence to the annoyance of the King. The Queen still cannot enter the City unless accompanied by the Lord Mayor!
· The Statute of William and Mary 1690 states: ‘confirming the privileges of the corporation’ "all the charters, grants, letters patents and commissions" touching or concerning any of the liberties or franchises, immunities, lands, tenements and hereditaments, rights titles, or estates of the mayor and commonly and citizens of the city of London made or granted to any person whatsoever… be and are hereby declared and adjudged null and void to all extents.
· The City helped engineer Cardinal Wolsey’s downfall after he attempted to tax the City, and instituted the role of Remembrancer, to remind the King of his debt to the City. The Remembrancer is the only non parliamentary person allowed in the Commons chamber and is charged with maintaining and enhancing the Cities status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded. A recent Remembrancer boasted that his operating principle was to ‘oppose every bill which would interfere with the rights and privileges enjoyed by the corporation’
I also notice you have also edited the paragraph on the IASB. Note Shaxton writes “Through the IASB hosted by the City of London Corporation these giant Businesses write their own disclosure rules”
wiki 22:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean ( talk • contribs) wiki 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
After reading your own comments
"Shaxson has clearly just gone onto google or youtube and found some conspiracy nutter stuff about the City, most of which is totally untrue or totally misunderstood"
I don't feel as if you have any serious intention of seriously researching this book. I would strongly recommend you NOT to attempt to remove this without reading the book and examining the references, and explaining why the statements in the article are wrong! A tax haven is not determined by headline rates. Neither is this a minority view, SEE TAXJUSTICE it is also a majority view of those who have read the book.
I have serious concerns about your views. This was not even remotely a balanced article before these criticisms were included! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
TBM10 You are not listening. I have no problem including taxjustices views on the City, it is a good idea.
These are all the press reviews using the following search
There are six newspaper reviews here some right wing
There is also a short Wiki article on Shaxson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
all this is unreferenced,
The Corporation points out that its regulatory regime does not extend to the financial services sector, this being controlled by central government agencies and ministries through primary legislation; the confusion arises because so many financial institutions originated and maintain their organisations in the City. There are no tax exemptions in the City. However, as of May 2012, the Canary Wharf development claims it has now exceeded the City in occupied square feet, jobs, and the number of banking and financial services activities. These do not have any City connection, being based in neighbouring Tower Hamlets. Multiple attempts by the City to reform itself were thwarted by central government claiming it would involve too much Parliamentary time, until the City succeeded with the act of 2002 which extended its franchise.
the points are misleading or are covered by the information below it. It seems to be a defence of what comes afterwards to provide false balance. It needs to be removed
However, as stated here: In fact the Corporation boasts that it "handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City", such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts "extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services......This illustrates another of the Corporation's unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks".
The 'no tax exemption' is just down right misleading, as the references have shown the City is a hive of tax fiddling by legal means or otherwise.
As explained towards the bottom of the section, the 'City' can be a somewhat ambiguous term for financial and legal power which is merely centred in the City location and it isn't intended to cover a rigid geographic area but the web of connections covered under English law. Therefore the Canary wharf part is a stawman argument.
I don't know what the City reformations were in 2002 but I think we can be assured it was nothing which would have reduced its own power and influence! -- Andromedean ( talk) 07:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
So, the City of London is 1.12 square miles. I'm with that up to now. But, a population of 208,000 in 1700 ? That made it approximately four times as populated as Macau, which is listed as the most densely populated country in the world.
The mind boggles!
92.239.71.235 ( talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 10, 2013 the City of London article states the population as 20 million and the density as 18 million per square mile, while the article text states that the resdident population of the 1.12 square mile City is only 7000. -- 148.184.174.61 ( talk) 12:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
An edit just now changed the date style where "AD" is specified from, for example: "It is believed that London was established by merchants as a trading port on the tidal Thames around 47 AD, during the Roman occupation of Britain." to "It is believed that London was established by merchants as a trading port on the tidal Thames around AD 47, during the Roman occupation of Britain." For now I have changed it back as I was surprised by what seemed to me to be a change to an unfamiliar style, but I am not keen on a fistfight over it. :) Do we have a standard here, or is there some other need to move from what I thought was the established style of the article ... or what? Cheers DBaK ( talk) 11:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I removed a sourced assertion that the City ranked "as the world's leading centre of global finance" with this citation. [4] Zyen is far from a neutral source; their homepage states that they've worked on a collaborative project with... wait for it... the government of the City itself! [5] Even if zyen were unbiased, we cannot simply pass along one think tank's claim as if it were a fact. See also Talk:World financial capital. Red Slash 03:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and if anyone ever actually read that reference, they would find that it explicitly lists both NYC and London as TIED for first place and therefore does not even support the assertion. Red Slash 03:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia article he does, but I read somewhere that he doesn't. Can anyone clear this up. I know parliament has no authority over the City. 72.204.66.161 ( talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
NebY, sorry, I don't want to give the impression I'm edit warring. The information is already contained within the blue bar at the top of the infobox below the name of the city. Rob ( talk | contribs) 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Rob, but I don't understand the difference between 'covering the same area' and being the same as, I am guessing that the distinction is a legal one or concerned with local/regional civic bodies/responsibilities.
I followed the Greater London link and it says: Greater London is an administrative area … within the London region of England. The administrative area … covers the whole of the London region, this might make legal sense, but it doesn't make much sense in plain English (how can you be within something and cover the whole area of something without being the same place ?).
My motive for making the edit was that I thought that the many definitions of London were already baffling (and I lived in London for over 30 years). Since the purpose of the passage is to make the distinction between the CoL and the conurbation called London, would it make sense to put :"London" usually denotes the Greater London administrative area … comprising 32 boroughs (including the City of Westminster), in addition to the City of London itself. ie removing the London region reference, where I have put an ellipsis.
I agree that we have an obligation to be accurate, but as the reference to 'London' is mainly to distinguish it from 'the City', is there a form of words that makes that distinction simply? Pincrete ( talk) 23:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Rob,I agree that any definition of either London (or the London region) is problematic, both terms having both every-day and historical usages and also more precise legal definitions, (and the every-day usage varying according to whether the speaker is in Kensington, Rickmansworth, Edinburgh or Katmandu).
Simply for my own understanding, have I understood correctly that the GL Admin. Area and the London Region occupy the same physical area, but have distinct civic functions and definitions?
For simplicity, I will remove the 'region' reference, since the GL and Lon Reg legal history and definitions are made on the Gr Lon page.
I don't know if this helps, but to answer your last point (the flexible use of 'London'), would some un-apologetically every-day term, such as 'the modern city' help if inserted somewhere in the definition of 'London'? Pincrete ( talk) 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
'distinct civic functions' isn't very clear I agree, 'distinct administrative entities, with distinct functions', might have been clearer. The answer being clearly 'yes'.
I noticed that you slightly re-phrased and bracket-ted when you restored the 'exact' version, the effect is to make it considerably clearer (or I've spent too long staring at the same page!). Thanks for your patience. Pincrete ( talk) 18:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It may be that this is a current policy. But based on the census equivalent (which in this case is just slightly bigger to almost all sides) it had a population of 319, 4.3% of the city, whereas covered 7.9% of its area. I think this could be a mistake. At first glance it seems Farringdon Without has a better claim to be residential. But that may be because the ONS bizarrely and no doubt wrongly combines it with most of Castle Baynard and they both are about the same as Queensgate in terms of proportion of residential or lower % as are 2 of the 3 the biggest wards.- Adam37 Talk 14:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps someone who knows the City better than I should check, but several of the historic buildings mentioned, (specifically Staple Inn in Holborn, in Camden) are actually OUTSIDE the City, I'm unsure about some of the others mentioned and the links don't specify the borough. Pincrete ( talk) 18:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ernst & Young Head office is also outside of the City. Namely in Southwark which is across the river from The City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.240.128 ( talk) 15:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
You have the City of London's sovereign state as the UK. But it's its own sovereign. In the same way that Vatican City is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.224.85 ( talk) 22:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The current (new?) infobox image actually seems to show more of the London Borough of Southwark than of the City of London. The Shard, for example, is not in the City of London. I'm not sure where it has gone, but a few weeks ago there was an excellent image of the skyline taken from the west in December 2013 which encapsulated almost the entire City of London. The current image needs replacing. -- TBM10 ( talk) 09:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
City of London. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"Research and statistics FAQ". The City of London. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
see:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Business/Business_support_and_advice/Economic_information_and_analysis/Research+and+statistics+FAQ.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.231.37 ( talk) 18:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
this link should work for the citation:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/statistics/Pages/research-faqs.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.231.37 ( talk) 18:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on City of London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.agi.org.uk/SITE/UPLOAD/DOCUMENT/Events/AGI2009/papers/MartinLaker.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
'Time immemorial' seems a little poetic considering many people still remember that it was once London Town, before that Londinium etc etc. Not time immemorial...more 'time well documented'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.254.117 ( talk) 00:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on City of London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on City of London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://web.barclayscyclehire.tfl.gov.uk/mapsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
According to the UK census in 1931, population of the City of London was 19,657 in 1911, 13,709 in 1921, or 10,999 in 1931, respectively. I suspect that the edit by 72.79.27.143 on 13 August 2017 must be wrong. Orichalcum ( talk) 18:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Article says: Q:
Does this mean "Augustine consecrated Mellitus as bishop and Sæberht as King"? If you use "as" for the bishop then use "as" for the king. If king Sæberht is the direct object of consecrated, it is far removed and makes that unclear. As written it suggests: that there was a kingdom of the East Saxons and their king. How can there be a "kingdom of their king"? The sentence also rouses the curiosity as to how Augustine got into the businees of consecrating kings in England??? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 18:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC))
Having read the Shaxon article and a few other online sources on the matter, I still don't understand which aspects of the city's special administrative status have these economic consequences. Many sources agree on this "tax haven" status and its connection to the city's sui generis form of government, but nobody (except for some conspiracy theorists) seems to be able to say in what this connection really consists. The business dominance over the city authorities, after all, should be a merely local matter. Is the city really - as German Wikipedia states - exempt from UK taxation? Or from some aspects of it? Which? I imagine that it's a really complicated matter, but maybe somebody can throw some light on it.-- Oudeís talk 10:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The Governance section of this page says, "Each ward elects an Alderman to the Court of Aldermen, and Commoners (the City equivalent of a Councillor) to the Court of Common Council of the Corporation. Only electors who are Freemen of the City of London are eligible to stand." However, the phrase "Freemen of the City of London" is linked to a section of the page Freedom of the City which implies that Freedom of the City is now for the most part ornamental and carries no substantive rights. So which is it? Either:
Bayle Shanks ( talk) 20:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Why is this not mentioned in the article? It was actually the first “great fire of London.” Its affects can still be seen if you dig deep enough into the grounds of the City. 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:14DB:8E4C:942C:20E ( talk) 00:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This is clearly deeply misleading "This wider usage of London is documented as far back as 1888, when the County of London was created.[5]" The wider usage of London dates back long long before 1888. john k ( talk) 20:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)