Talk:London Borough of Hackney/Archive 1

AboutHackney[edit]

Removed the rather unuseful AboutHackney link (isn't just that this is a promotional inclusion, the site contains almost no useful information about Hackney). Replaced it with Hackney Council (why was this missing?) and a little links directory that I know and often find useful. May not be the best one, but will help for now, I think - there are a few other such resources that are good top-level starting points, which I will dig out.

Tarquin Binary 11:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up[edit]

Bit of a clean-up. We have now:

Redirected 'hackney' to this page
Added top link to disambiguation page on this page.
Edited some of the borough-wide content out of the Hackney (central) page, though it still needs more work.
Referenced the Hackney (central) district page from this page, besides its link from disamb.

Besides cleaning this up, hope to add more substantive content to all the Hackney pages.

Tarquin Binary 16:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest renaming Hackney (central) to Hackney Central. There is a railway station called that and people often talk of the area around there by that name. MRSC 17:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that seems reasonable, and there is a bar called that too. :) (I'm from Stoke Newington, we usually say 'I'm going up to Mare Street', or the like.)

Tarquin Binary 18:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better? (Trouble is that Hackney Central piece is a bit of a mess, too many postcodes etc etc. Will work on bringing it in line with the other districts later.)

Tarquin Binary 18:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good - I was thinking it needed a para like that instead of just a district list. I've put Homerton back in though, because it has Marc Bolan :) and because I have a pic for it. (Though unpractised of late, I am happy to trundle around Hackney getting pix for each district. Have a crappy one of the Empire, better than nothing though, plus Homerton Hospital, The Lea at Hackney Wick, the Marshes, and Vicky Park...)

Tarquin Binary 14:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to work out how to get Homerton in, considered mentioning the hospital but couldn't think of anything exciting to say about it. MRSC 15:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Marc Bolan and a couple of hospitals. Chats Palace, I suppose, though that's pretty boring these days. I say this without much fear of offending Homerton folk - my best friend lives there, and she feels the same. Only put that link in because it's got a pic (I've put a better one up now, plus a rubbishy but conceptual one for the Hackney Marshes) Tarquin Binary 16:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

What are the sources for the demographic figures? --TheParanoidOne 13:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stats are all from the 2001 UK census, except the owner-occupier figure which was already here. I adapted statistics of Country of Birth from table KS05 [1], Ethnic Group from table KS06 [2], and Religion from table KS07 [3]. I should probably add a reference. zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea putting those in. This is the place on the ONS site to go for reference and validation, I think: ONS neighbourhood stats - you can even get stuff for districts like Hackney Wick. Glad you're doing it - used to work on this sort of thing (GIS-based), and I've had my fill of dem demografix :) I'm in artwork mode now...

Tarquin Binary 16:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

I really like the map. One suggestion is to change Victoria Park (edge) to South Hackney. The renaming of the area as "Victoria Park Village" has been an purely estate agent driven one. MRSC 16:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's true. I thought about using a different colour to show open spaces, you see, but it was all getting a bit crowded. Fortunately, I have the map set up as a PSD, so making that change should be easy. We need an entry for South Hackney, though. It hasn't even got a stub right now - I'll set one up...

Tarquin Binary 16:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added stubs for South Hackney and Shacklewell, too - these were both dead links already on the page. They need infoboxes, but means checking grid refs and stuff.

Tarquin Binary 17:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buses[edit]

Perhaps it might be useful to add the principal bus routes, not here, but to the individual district pages?

Tarquin Binary 17:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attractions[edit]

Is it worth having a famous places/attractions list as the Camden page does ie Broadway Market. Also what about Hackney in film/tv?

I'd say so. Unfortunately Ocean closed down :) We're kind of understated over here, nice parks, nice pubs and restaurants, but no very big venues - except for Shoreditch/Hoxton and the club scene. But I've been adding a few attractions to the district pages, like Dalston Culture Centre and the Geffrye Museum, so a list at borough level could be gleaned from those already.

It's worth noting too that WP is particularly bad on East London art galleries, many of which are in Hackney, and contemporary art in general, IMO. I was hoping to compile a list, because it's a big local industry.

Re: tv/films. I'd meant to IMDB for some, but not a lot comes to mind. If you've any candidates, I'd put them up there... Tarquin Binary 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Cronenberg's 'Spider' was filmed in Hackney and it was announced he is doing the film version of 'London Fields'.

I think I may have pix, actually - I came across a location shoot down by Hackney Road, they look like some sort of Cronenberg thing was going on. I'll look them out, though not all that good. Oh - I reverted your Graham Road thing on Haggerston, I'm afraid (left the Russian thing). That is way way too north - in fact I would have Westgate Road, not Middleton Road, as the northernmost point. Plus I'm shortly going to add a section on Old Dalston to Dalston, and the area you annexed is part of that. Tarquin Binary 11:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art galleries/scene...[edit]

Well, since you've started... In fact I have a long list of galleries hereabouts and in East London in general. The whole phenomenon gets nary a mention on WP and it is part of the area's appeal. But I was contemplating whether to set up a new section or even a new page. Might as well put a few up for now, though. Tarquin Binary 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sport[edit]

- that local rugby club would be better dealt with under Upper Clapton (local page). Boxers need to be filled out in proper pages, or lost. They're just blatted in in the middle of nowhere at the moment. No mention of the Olympics? Maybe a separate Olympics 2012 page, so as not to duplicate in Hackney Marshes?

Hackney Griffens Rugby Football Club play at Springhill Park, near the Lea Bridge Canal. The ground is one of the oldest rugby pitches in the country, hosting sides since 1879. The club play in quarters of yellow, green, blue and light blue. The name "Griffens" is taken from a local school. The team currently play in Herts/Middlesex north 3, and play regular friendly games against local sides. Planning is underway for a new club house at Springhill Park, which will incorporate a range of excellent facilities.

Was removed from text; better put under Clapton, there's a link to this club in the external links, and it's Springfield Park and the Lee Navigation (errors in text). Kbthompson 23:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films[edit]

New Terry Pratchett Xmas TV was filmed at Sutton House, The Hours partly in Sutton Place. Kbthompson 16:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That List[edit]

Only a matter of time before it turned up here, which is at least the right place. Personally, I think it's a 'tear up and throw away' part of media culture. They spend a series telling people that vibrant inner city communities are the place to spend your readies on housing, then the next junking what they just told you. I put in the opposing view, let the reader make up their own mind, and referenced both the programme and the Mayor. Ultimately, if you leave it there for a year, the next series will say the opposite, and it can be taken off. Kbthompson 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted, now not even a contender (see) Kbthompson 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney- East or North London??[edit]

Hackney borough is generally classed as East London however this tag surely is deceptive and cannot be entirely accurate. It is evident that a significant swathe of the borough in the Northern and Western-most areas bare an N' Postcode (including the N1, N4, N5 & N16 postal districts- which pervade areas such as Stamford Hill, Stoke Newington, Kingsland, De Beavoir town etc..)

Wikipedia itself states that North London can possibly definied as anywhere with the N' or NW' postcodes- which one would logically assume would be the case. It also states loosely that boroughs such as Waltham Forest and Hackney could be construed as North London, whilst in every day parlance they are East London. Perhaps this is anomalie/inconsistency which cannot be definitely answered. i suppose the best answer would be what people who live in these areas class themselves as. personally i would think it wierd that anyone with an N' postcode would wholeheartedly class themselves as an East Londoner. who knows???

I'm sure that was a rhetorical question. It is an error to conflate the post code system with geographical reality. Most of the area concerned was in the NE postcode, when the system was introduced in 1857. London postal district says:

NE and S
There are no London postal districts labelled "NE" or "S". These were in the initial division but were later removed as they were considered unnecessary.
Following a report by Anthony Trollope in 1866 most of the NE district was transferred to the E sector; the rest was left without a letter designation until the introduction of the IG and RM postcodes almost a century later (though only a part of the area covered by these new codes was in the old NE London district). The S sector was divided between SE and SW in 1868.

That probably addresses your question, as regards the postcode element. East London, well historically London was in Middx and was bounded by the Lee (and originally the Thames). By your argument, a small sliver of the East End would be all that would be considered East London; and London would be heavily weighted to the North and West. Most of the modern boro' of Hackney was in the manor of Stepney, so again, the relationship with 'true' East London is historically strong. Stokie is perhaps more complicated, in that west of StN HS was in the Finsbury division, and the east side in the Tower division. The pre-1965 boro removed that distinction, and it merged with two definitely E.London boros in 1965.

Essentially there is no definitive line to be drawn, and these things are subjective. I have heard Islington regularly described, on news reports, as an East London boro. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, except to estate agents. Kbthompson 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure of all what you were just saying. Basically i gleam that ur reiterating point that boundaries are very blurred and subjective. BTW i have never ever heard of islington referred to as east London and i'm sure it in no way is. Why would Arsenal F.C be constantly refered to as a North London club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Girard (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 December 2006

See East London, England for a good article on the contradictions. Kbthompson 12:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's in East London or not, it certainly isn't entirely a part of the East End, as the article currently implies. Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill, for example, are not East End districts.Lfh 16:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree only a small part of Hackney was ever in the East End. I would note that North East London includes East London as one of it's diverts. I, and it would appear the Olympic delivery authority (and others), would place LBH in East London. I think North East is even more difficult to define than the cardinal points - what next North-East by East? We should return to it, now the article's been revised - but not before the bot has killed the facebook spam. Cheers. Kbthompson 12:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[update] LB Hackney is a part of North (London sub region), as a part of the London Plan. I've adapted the intro accordingly - since it now seems to be the 'official position'. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney Central RM note[edit]

I have put a RM for Hackney Central to Hackney, London. See Talk:Hackney Central#Requested move. Simply south 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borough of contrasts[edit]

Need some demonstration and local references for these opinions. Otherwise they are simply points of view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monophysite (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 June 2007

You're probably right there, a new user added much of it, was encouraged to ref what had been written and wandered off. They're not particularly controversial though, are they? Kbthompson 14:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref for the only fact in the lead two paras. The opinions expressed there are rather flowery, and could do with rewriting in less general and more factual referenced terms, but generally fair statement - Hackney had problems, it's improving. The last bit, about the channel 4 programme is rather carefully referenced. The two paras in the middle is about geography, check the map link at the top of the page. Perhaps more useful to tag sentences you have a problem with, with a citation tag. Kbthompson 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this section has been renamed "introduction", I have two problems with this section:

This section seems to have replaced the lead which should be the introduction to the article.
Although I broadly agree with the information, the section seems to be one persons essay on the borough not a summary of the article.

I propose that the section be cut and pasted to this talk page so the information is not lost. Then the lead can be left to grow naturally. Grim²³ ★ 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Council and Education[edit]

Council and Education in Hackney is a very large subject. To provide a genuine picture of the aothority for readers, these sections need to include details from expert with experience and references to illustrate the nature of the Council. League Tables, Government intervention, Corruption allegations, and action in these respects. These are the major features of LB Hackney in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monophysite (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 June 2007

Yes, education in Hackney did have a troubled past, this is noted and referenced to the Learning Trust, who acknowledge it on that page of their website. The entry is a referenced list of schools in the borough, with access to league tables from that website. I would not expect large swathes of government statistics repeated in an encyclopaedia, when they can be linked to. Kbthompson 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up this article[edit]

This article is beggining to become very large, so i'm going to split the article into diffrent pages, including Districts, Education and notable people like other boroughs are. Pafcool2 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of areas[edit]

The lists of nearby areas in the district articles - see for example Stoke Newington - are potentially useful but two things need to be changed: the directions need to be given (e.g. "Dalston to the south", not just "Dalston") otherwise the list is difficult to understand; and non-bordering districts (e.g. Dalston and Stamford Hill) should be deleted to keep the length manageable. Naturally this goes for all the other boroughs too. I have made a start, does anyone want to help? Lfh 09:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overground[edit]

There seems to be some confusion (I don't know whether mine or others') about the new London Overground service we're apparently getting in November. Lots of Hackney articles state that such-and-such an area will be served by the "Tube" in 2010, when the new East London Line extension opens, but neglect to mention that the existing North London Line stations will in fact become Overground stops in 2007 - see e.g. the transport section of this article [4]. Am I right that the NL Line stations (e.g. Canonbury railway station) will become "Tube" stations (in the same sense as the new EL Line will be "Tube") in 2007, not 2010? If so we need to make some amendments. Lfh 08:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it: Tfl take over the North London line in November and the first priority is to integrate the line with Oystercard, after that there will be extensions to platforms and station improvements to prepare for the 2012 Olympics. When the extended East London line opens in 2010, the whole kit and kaboodle will be rebranded London Overground, with various plans to link the ELL with Highbury & Islington, etc.

I doubt if rebranding will take place before at least some major improvements are in place - at least the new tube style rolling stock. I don't think they will ever say tube, as the lines are embankments, cut and cover tunnels and cuttings. The official line appears to be London Overground, with better integration to the tube network.

I guess confusion takes place because there is a mixture of announcements of actual construction and future plans, the later of which could still become vapourware if the money runs out. I've tried to limit my changes to linking to the lines and the proposed stations (with dates of opening). Then the substantive facts can be added to those articles. I've not aggressively pruned back the speculative parts that have been added, as they're so well publicised people will just add them again. Some of it seems to be estate-agentism, where either editors are believing, or estate agents are actually editing the articles to make areas seem more desirable than they are. (Like the seemingly constant argument as to whether districts of west Hackney are actually in Islington!). The best line is to correct the most fanciful, and not try to anticipate the changes. Kbthompson 09:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed De Beauvoir, it wasn't well phrased anyway. Kbthompson 09:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The East London line article seems to have it about right, Canonbury is wrong, it will remain on the north london line, but also be served by ELL trains. Got at least three years to worry about the exact phraseology of that stuff! Kbthompson 09:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hackney Today, the Overground brand will be launched on TfL's surface lines next week, with Oystercard introduced immediately. New trains by 2008 on existing lines, with anticipated ELL completion in 2010. Kbthompson 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borough of contrasts (NPOV)[edit]

As it says in the template Please see the discussion on the talk page. As there is no discussion on the talk page, do I presume it can be removed? Personally, I find it overly flowery, requiring a healthy trim and references. The later section is largely matters of physical fact; so, I presume the problem is with the first two paragraphs. Most of which were written by a drive by editor some time ago. Anyone want to have a go? Somebody's sprinkled a whole bunch of ampersands throughout, they should be replaced with the common, or garden 'and'. Kbthompson 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No interest, so rewritten - in much the same vein - with reference to the Audit Commission report on LBH. Kbthompson 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage of ethinicity is utterly wrong for nearly all of the Lonodn boroughs and now some1 has changed it so you cannoy edit it[edit]

this is a big problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbb66 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are the October 2007 estimates published by the GLA wrong? Kbthompson (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crime[edit]

"Gun and knife crimes continue to be the borough's biggest problem. " - Aren't they just? I moved to Peckham and did my situation improve? Please Labour get your house in order. Please.Kingkong77 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion here should be concentrated on the article, but that aspect (of the article) still requires a citation. The police claim a continuing overall drop in crime. We all know it occurs, but what's needed is a comparison with London as a whole. Murder Mile no longer lives up to its name, somewhere else now has that epithet. Kbthompson (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claim. This map shows the 19 teenage knife murders this year. Only one has been within Hackney. Yes, it's a London problem, no it's not a specifically Hackney problem. Really need a table of London crime to support such claims. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teen pregnancy[edit]

Rem'd claim as Ev Standard Teen pregnancy soars says problem throughout London, but particularly worst blackspots in Enfield, Harrow and Redbridge. So, while a problem throughout London - not esp. Hackney. Claim can be reinstated if there's a cite to support it. Kbthompson (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate[edit]

I have deleted the "climate" section for a second time. It just doesn't make any sense to quote climate data from Greenwich (several boroughs away) in an article about the London Borough of Hackney. Even if the climate data were from Hackney, it still wouldn't make any sense to quote it in this article. London covers such a relatively small area that there is no significant difference between the climate in one London borough compared to another - meaning that it only makes sense to quote climate data in the main London article or another article about the whole city. Yes, WP:UKCITIES#Geography can be taken to read that climate data should be included, but it also says that common sense should be exercised, and common sense says that that particular piece of guidance wasn't written with London boroughs in mind. If anyone feels the need to revert my edit, kindly justify yourself here first. Cmch83 (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, London has something like five weather stations - Greenwich, Kew, Heathrow, Gatwick, and Northolt - so, the granularity is below the city - but, above London Borough. Personally, I'm happy to wait and see if it's identified as an omission at GA. See London Borough of Croydon for something that has gone (partly) through that process. Other local and metropolitan authorities within counties also show climate data. I've also seen it identified as an omission at the settlement level. My view is that (once templated) it is a small matter to tick that particular box. Perhaps you'd like to raise it at WP:ENGLAND, or WP:LONDON, if you want to create specific policy on the matter? Kbthompson (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated. This is basic information for a locality article. MRSC (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2001:2002:D9D7:23B1:B802:B4E7:1863:7514 (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

51.544264, -0.054289

Done, although the coordinates you've given above are too precise (six decimal places is equivalent to a precision of about 6 cm on the ground), so I've made them less prrecise. Deor (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on London Borough of Hackney. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]