Talk:History of London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Further reading[edit]

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'm not sure on the correct guideline: but if the link's on the Internet, it's an external link. If a book is mentioned, it can go under References or Further reading...
The point is to distance Wikipedia content from our own. Further reading with an internet link doesn't do this properly, I think - Further reading can pertain to Wikipedia content too. When it points to a book, it is clearer. Dysprosia 00:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
ok fair enough Steeev 01:03, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Population[edit]

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:

London's population which has fluctuated with pestillence and prosperity since its foundation - it was just 1400-18000 in 1066 - reached a peak of more than 8.6 million in 1939. After the war, development increasingly spread outwards into suburban areas and density decreased slightly. The 1991 census put the population of Greater London at 7.6 million.

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)

Is this right?[edit]

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 don't know...
I added the original figures, which were from the book "Statistique Internationale des Grandes Villes" of the International Institute of Statistics (1931). In that source, it says that the numbers from 1855 until 1929 (last year given) are for the County of Londen, and apparently, the older figures were also for that same area. But someone changed the numbers for 1901 and 1925 to a much higher number. You could try asking him where he got those numbers... Eugene van der Pijll 22:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

18th century[edit]

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)

Saxon London[edit]

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)

The ending -ingas is commonly used in demonyms in Anglo-Saxon, so in the absence of evidence to the contrary the word 'suthringa' would be taken to mean 'of the Southerlings'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Travel Guide as a separate page[edit]

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)

  • Let's be precise: I did not delete Historical London travel guide; I made it a redirect. Greg is still not explaining clearly what he intends to put in that page. I get an hint that he may now be planning a fork of List of museums in London. Please explain clearly Greg, what you are proposing. -- RHaworth 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you waited a couple of days, you'd see exactly what I'm proposing. It is not a list of museums, although many interesting historical things are in museums. It is a list of things organized by era that are worth seeing in today's London. It will not copy info out of existing articles such as History of London or List of museums in London. Given that I have a group of a dozen people wanting to work on this project, you seem to be doing your best to make it hard for us to get organized -- I don't want to collect content outside of Wikipedia and then add it in a huge batch. Greg 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The best way is probably to work at user:Greg Lindahl/London museums and bring it to our attention as soon as possible. Incidentally, why does your list end at 1714 - has nothing museum-worthy happened in London since then? -- RHaworth 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think that was the Wikipedia way -- in the past I've just created pages without having someone like you wanting to have an immediate argument. As to the end date, you're totally jumping to conclusions again, and I really wish you'd stop. Greg 19:46, 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)

Thanks, I see that Wikipedia is no longer open like it was, I guess I'll have to develop in secret until this page is a beautiful, complete article, which is exactly how NOT to develop a Wikipedia page. Greg
No-one's saying you have to do this in secret. Start it in a sandbox and ask others for help - lots of articles start as collaborations outside article space. Also no-one's saying it has to be complete before it gets there - but you've surely got to realise that one patently obvious sentence plus several blank headers is too little to survive as an article. At least wait until you've worked out a few lines of what you're going to say before you start writing. Also, as I pointed out, unless you want this to be viewed as a fork - which is definitely how it looks at the moment - work out what is needed in the article first and get some sort of agreement on it. Otherwise no matter how "beautiful" and "complete" it may be, someone is bound to consider for AFD as a duplicate or forked article. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
When Wikipedia was young, a stub article would not be immediately nuked. Now that I finally got content (despite the 2 people who didn't add stuff because the page had disappeared), my suspicion is that it'll get blown away a couple of more times, given the enthusiasm for deleting things. BTW, I always knew what was to be in the article and why it wasn't a fork, so your advice isn't so useful -- what you seem to be saying is that the article has to immediately show such, which isn't the Wikipedia way. And that's exactly what I'm complaining about. Greg 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It has to show something - even if only one line with an objective, non-obvious fact. As it was, it contained one line which was so self-evident as to be pointless, and a series of empty headers. As I said, it was very close to being speediable. I suspect you're thinking of one-line articles which contain non-obvious facts, and ones that don't seem to duplicate other articles. Or perhaps ones with titles that don't indicate the aim of the article is one covered in WP:NOT. It's the Wikipedia way to keep them, but this article didn't fulfil any of that: no non-obvious content, no indication that it was other than a fork, and a title conflicting with WP:NOT. Is it any wonder it was redirected? Grutness...wha? 07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Greg. You say I really wish you'd stop. I echo that totally: will you please stop moaning - here and on my talk page. You cannot assume the right to create an article. Other editors are expressing genuine, reasonable concerns about it. You must address those concerns and be prepared to accept a consensus. My reaction to what you have created so far is that it is Wikitravel material. I have just had a look there and I think they would welcome you - see how short their history of London is! -- RHaworth 21:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer Wikipedia's terms to Wikitravel, and the content of that article is completely different from the content of the page I started. Tell you what: you start by addressing my concern that you're a power-mad twit for insisting all stub pages immediately follow the rules you think are important instead of waiting a couple of days to see what actually happens, and after you're done with that, I'll address one concern of yours. We'll alternate. Fair? Greg 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
first thing you need to address is WP:CIVIL. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of -wych/-wic[edit]

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)

There is a Norse root vik, meaning 'bay' or 'inlet', which underlies some coastal names in Scotland and the North of England. But it would not be expected in London. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2008 (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)

Missplaced text?[edit]

"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)

It's under the 18th century, which is the right place to put it. --Dave A 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


London's Local Government[edit]

There should be links to Metropolitan Board of Works-Greater London Authority etc. Jackiespeel 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

New template[edit]

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)

Long article[edit]

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)

I plan to split off Roman London to a Londinium (place) article unless there are any objections. I could do the rest as well. Walgamanus 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted?[edit]

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).

Pre-Roman settlement[edit]

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)

Un-referenced Statement[edit]

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)

Legendary London[edit]

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)

Cleanup[edit]

Here is the list of what is needed (please feel free to add to this if other things needed; also strike when things done)

  • Only one section is referenced whereas the other sections are severely lacking
  • In the section that is referenced, most of the references have come from books searches on Google. These MUST have the actual books in which they have come from otherwise the section is not properly referenced.
  • Tablise the population section
  • Add more information to the lead of the article.

Simply south (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

GIF of burning London[edit]

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)

Add External Link[edit]

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)

The IRA[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion here at last.
The OED defines "terrorist" as "A person who uses violent and intimidating methods in the pursuit of political aims; esp. a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects." It says nothing about the worth or validity of those political aims, but just concerns the methods. By that definition (which certainly matches my understanding of the word) the PIRA - and particularly their bombing campaign - was unquestionably "terrorist".
I am sympathetic to the grievances of the Nationalists, if not to all their goals, but I have no hesitation in describing some of their factions - and some of the Unionist factions - as terrorists. --ColinFine (talk) 15:11, 3 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 (talkcontribs) 02:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither what the English did in Ireland nor the Bombing of Dresden has anything to do with whether or not the methods (that's the methods, right, not the aims or morality) of the IRA match the description of "terrorist". And will you please stop changing the article until such time as consensus supports you. --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Seconded. nancy 15:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
UpTheRIRA, it is clear from your (somewhat questionable in the context of policy) username that you are not approaching this from a neutral perspective and your edits reflect this. Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source so justifying your actions here on whether the another article calls the PIRA paramilitary or not is doomed to fail. nancy 15:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Fighting a war against soldiers is one thing, and would fall under the 'paramilitary' heading. But leaving bombs aimed at civilians, with the aim of pressuring a government into fulfilling political aims definitely falls into the 'terrorist' category. G-13114 (talk) 15:33, 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 (talkcontribs) 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Updates needed[edit]

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)

Timeline of London[edit]

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)

URGENT - nonsense corrections based on approximated links[edit]

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.

Historical Sites of Note section[edit]

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)

Absurd population ranges for parts of the middle ages[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.