Talk:Highbury

London B‑class Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Population

I've based the population on the total for Highbury East (10,278) and Highbury West (11,681). Potentially I could have included Mildmay, which would boost the population to over 30,000, but Mildmay lies in N1 and is south / east of Highbury N5. Rellis1067 11:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

for info, London postcodes do not overlay london districts at all well (nor, for that matter, do council or ward boundaries!) thus any population estimates unless using Census data and summing the enumeration districts concerned (which are much smaller) will be a very loose approximation. Postcode N1 is also a problem dues to its size and multi-Borough nature. [[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 11:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the whole this is true, but Highbury and N5 do overlay each other quite closely, so this could be the exception that proves the rule. Rellis1067 12:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Mildmay, right not to include it, as I have now given it its own page, though still a stub. The existing (orphaned actually) page for Newington Green described this as being the area, but it was not inclusive enough IMO to describe the whole Mildmay area, so this demoted to an open space entry. Not wholly happy with 'Mildmay' as I am not sure to what extent residents use the term these days, but I think it is the only viable title for the area - it certainly was never a part of Highbury or Canonbury. Adding it as a neighbour district on this page, too. Tarquin Binary 18:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody I ever talked to in Highbury/Islington ever mentioned Mildmay, not even the estate agents! Personally I would not regard it as a distinct entity. However, Islington Council use it and there is the Mildmay ward, and therefore there is census info for it. See the link to the census in References in the article. Rellis1067 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I'm not entirely happy about it. I can personally verify that back in the 70s and 80s 'Mildmay' was in some use, though not uniformly so (if you're not really sure of your area, you just tend to use the borough name). I certainly think you may be right about it falling into disuse, but I just do not think 'Newington Green' is an equivalent term. It's a tough one, frankly. I don't think that council wards are much guides, as these are pretty arbitrary, but if they offer some justification in this case, that's something. And I think it is possible to do a write up for 'Mildmay' that establishes its identity - in my mind the whole area, including the green does have a distinct 'feel' to it. Tarquin Binary 23:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Later note. OK, I ditched Mildmay, redirected it to and placed a small entry on Newington Green page. The fact is I have an 1868 source that mentions Newington Green as a district, but does not refer to Mildmay at all. Tarquin Binary 08:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've come to the right decision. What about your entry on the Highbury article saying that Mildmay is Southeast of Highbury? Are you going to remove that?Rellis1067 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thx for reminder. Will double-check tomorrow for other entries. Tarquin Binary 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Highbury Corner V1 fell on 27th June 1944, not 17th - correction made. I've also added an external link to an engaving of the old victorian-gothic railway station which sadly the bomb destroyed.

Whats going on with the name of the image for highbury barn, i have just re-sized it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakeyjamie (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Some of the language in the section marked doesn't seem to be very neutral - 'gentrification' and 'down market' don't seem to be very appropriate. Totallycrazyman 21:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is not neutral about stating gentrification has occurred? Rellis1067 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially a value judgement, such a phrase can be justified if it's a conclusion reached by a suitable source - eg article in a national newspaper. Otherwise, is remains a personal opinion, and not NPOV. The article would be improved by the use of inline sources (showing your working 8^) ); and a greater adherence to the formats used in neighbouring areas. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is revealed to be frivolous by Totallycrazyman's repeated use of seem as a weasel word .

When the investment of capital in a grouped housing stock and/or its circumscribed commercial properties is designed to effect the appearance of greater affluence, there is no more precise term than gentrification. While a common result of such a process is that occupancy becomes restricted to a wealthier demographic--often to the exclusion of former residents--the author's views on such a result are not intrinsic to his choice of the term.

While earnest vigilance against the influence of advocacy journalism on all media is a noble pursuit, Kbthompson's contribution is simultaneously rote and misguided. While I personally believe that gentrification can have devastating short-term effects, the observed sequellae of various projects are by no means universal--more to the point, the term itself is in common usage by both sides.

Strictly speaking, down-market is indicative only of lesser financial value, and is plausibly self-evident to the lay observer.

Patronanejo (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV removed, changed down market to high-density; same result with neutral term. Gentrification is what happens with millions flooding into an area. - Roy Boy 03:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman or Norman

"During the construction of a new Highbury House in 1781, tiles were found that could have been Roman or Norman; unfortunately these have been lost."

From the Romans to the Normans is approximately 650 years; it seems surprising that the antiquarians of the 1780s weren't able to distinguish the artifacts of the one from the other. BTLizard (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only reported on what John Nelson said in his book in 1811.Rellis1067 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure there were a handful of gifted English antiquarians in 1781, my sense is that most available practitioners employed ad hoc techniques and endured the many hardships of 18th century travel only in the pursuit of valuable artifacts. King George II had chartered The Society of Antiquaries of London by 1751, but its earliest collections reveal a preoccupation with the manuscripts, letters, and printed materials associated with the establishment of heraldry and geneaology. While the Society's own publications often presented depictions of crumbling Gothic architecture, these prints were independent commissions--not illustrations to complement articles on the subject.

I would be very surprised if television had not made you better-informed about ancient tiles than were the lot performing the 1781 work. As you are probably aware, the task of distinguishing between Roman- and Norman tile would have been complicated by the recycling of Roman-era materials in Norman-era construction. The ubiquity of mixed-material structures would have obscured their origins until such a time as a sufficiently-large sample of unadulterated structures--with features allowing them to be dated unambiguously to either period--could be compiled.

Patronanejo (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a picture of 38 Hamilton Road, Highbury,N In London for 1927 and a map my grandfather lived there. It does Not exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.105.214 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

famous residents

I see the famous residents section of the page has been removed? It was very useful and spot on information. It should be placed back, the current page isn't very helpful for people in the arts, like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.249.249 (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the page has been vandalized by the look of it. Matthewn5 (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, a good faith edit that you don't like is not vandalism - please do not misuse this term. If you have a look at the edit history of the article you will see @Philafrenzy: removing the list with this edit, commenting that it was unsourced and likely to date very rapidly. That is not vandalism, and Philafrenzy does have a point. Unfortunately their edit did also give rise to a load of pathetic and whingeing real vandalism from some fool (see again the edit history) so I suppose a benefit of having it back is that we might be done with that timewaster! :) But anyway, my referring to Philafrenzy above should have alerted them to this discussion. For what it's worth, I agree that the list in its current form is ludicrously long and wholly unreferenced. I suppose that something of the kind could be useful if it was manageable and had refs. I'm not sure what other articles about places do - there is probably some agreed practice in a Wikiproject somewhere! Hope this helps, cheers DBaK (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could have something like List of people from Hampstead. That's how it should be done. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is excellent - and referenced! And the link into it from the parent article is spot on. Thank you for pointing it out. DBaK (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Highbury. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Residents - removed again.

Famous residents have been removed again, I've contacted Wikipedia about getting it put back and then having the page locked so only I can edit it. The folks at Islington Council shouldn't be allowed to edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.47.167 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Is this meant to be a joke? DBaK (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]