Talk:Hampstead Heath

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Largest ancient parkland" but Richmond Park 3 times bigger?

The article calls HH "London's largest ancient parkland covering 790 acres", but Richmond Park is officially almost 2500 acres and 2360 according to Wikipedia. Should this claim qualified with "one of ...", or maybe removed? --William —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.209 (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and the source doesn't support this statement, only the figure itself. I propose to remove it as it is misleading and unsourced. Pob1984 (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late, but I'd suggest putting it back. Richmond Park is larger, but not ancient - it is a relatively recent creation, whereas the Heath has never been farmland or similar. Also, someone would need to check this on a borough boundary map, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Richmond Park is actually part of the borough of Kingston these days, and so not part of London. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Dave[reply]

The Heath isn’t ancient, and is partly reclaimed brownfield land, having been commercial sandpits and brickfields in the past - the part known as “Sandy Heath” actually has a board up showing the presence of one old tree (which survives) surrounded by virtually nothing as a result of the works there. The Heath Extension was farmland until campaigners had it included. Jock123 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 St Mary Axe? Not on my gherkin!

Why do people insist on calling it 30 St. Mary Axe here? Is it because "The Gerkhin", the name by which it is known universally to Londoners, isn't thought suitable to an encyclopedia? Even the owners of the place have started to refer to it by its common name, The Gherkin, on their website. 30 St. Mary Axe is just an address, like 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

er the website at www.30stmaryaxe.com in the FAQ says thats the official name. Boring it may be. Personally I am disappointed that people just call it the gherkin not the original "erotic gherkin". Justinc 22:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions copied from main page, where they must have been misplaced.

Hampstead Heath is NOT owned by the Corporation of London. It is owned by the Sovereign as part of the Royal Parks asset portfolio but is managed by the Corporation of London under an agreement ratified by Parliament to provide unlimited enjoyment of its acres to the public.

Its category as a World Heritage Site is the result of intense lobbying by the Sovereign who went to considerale litigation lengths to block housing development on it during the 1970s and 1980s when it was under threat by local planning authority submissions.

In 1992 the Crown Solicitors published a number of legal documents relating to the Sovereign's ownership of the Heath and the management arrangements held by the Corporation of London. Access to these under the Freedom of Information Act is sparse at present. (68.198.181.134 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Merge Parliament Hill

Parliament Hill, London is proposed for merging into the Parliament Hill section on the Hampstead Heath article as Parliament Hill is a part of the Heath - there is no differentiation between the two other than a metalled footpath. Both articles are small, and the intention is to build the one. The Parliament Hill article is a stub, and it is unlikely it will ever grow much beyond what it is at the moment - and if it does, that would be the time to break it out in Summary style as per Wiki guidelines. This link (which can be found as a source on the Parliament Hill stub) is a map of Hampstead Heath showing how Parliament Hill is part of the south side with no physical or visual differentiation. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely disagree, on three points. Firstly, that Parliament Hill and Hampstead Heath are, legally, two separate entities; one is not 'a part of the other' although the City of London presently manage them both (they didn't in the past). You might as well say that every road in the country should have the same name because they are all contiguous! Secondly, their history is separate as regards how they came to be private then public spaces and, whilst they may be adjacent, to link them together intimately in a single article would be a disservice. Thirdly as there are other 'Parliament Hill's. That you believe both these articles to be stubs is not a reason to merge with loss of information (as you did) but a better reason to expand both articles. --AlisonW (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions of Hampstead Heath

A quick check on Google revealed that the area of Hampstead Heath is given as 320 hectares or 3.2 squ km. However, the acreage is variously given as 790, 791 or 792 acres. This works out as 319.71, 320.106 or 320.511 hectares. As the area in hectares appears to be more stable this would appear to be the primary unit. Perhaps it would be better to put either hectares or square kilometres in first place. Michael Glass (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See 791 acre - the heath is managed by the corporation, and they should know. I've ref'd it in the article, 790 is an acceptable approximation. Providing the figure in the larger unit will just make it more approximate! Kbthompson (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

The coordinates need the following fixes: 51.5635723978476, -0.168142318725585

This point is much more the center of the heath.

173.12.21.129 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done, the previous co-ordinates were for Golders Hill Park, in whose section they appeared. Ehrenkater (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High-Way Men

NOtorious hangout in the old days. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is all rather whitewashed

No mention of the various Hampstead Heath sex scandals? Was Alan Amos the only one? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Les Bicyclettes de Belsize" feature Hampstead Heath?

“The 1968 film "Les Bicyclettes de Belsize" was mainly filmed in Hampstead Village and Belsize Park.” That is as maybe - although it is contradicted by the article on said film, which says that in spite of the title, it wasn’t filmed in Belsize Park - however, there is also nothing in this entry in the “Culture” section which says that it features Hampstead Heath. The article on the film doesn’t corroborate this either, although it talks of someone cycling in a “park”. Anyone who has seen the film and can confirm one way or another? Jock123 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hampstead Heath. 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) 19:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Hampstead Heath

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hampstead Heath's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

From British Admiralty: Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons (1959). "Admiralty Office". House of Commons Papers, Volume 5. London, England: HM Stationery Office. pp. 5–24.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
From The Guardian: "Guardian cartoon of cow in relation to Priti Patel sparks outrage amongst diaspora in Britain". The Hindu. 9 March 2020. Archived from the original on 11 September 2020. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
From London: Bynon, Theodora (2016). "London's Name". Transactions of the Philological Society. 114 (3): 281–97. doi:10.1111/1467-968X.12064.
From Metropolitan Police: "Police Workforce Data, 2014: 14/03/14". Retrieved 23 May 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

Can anyone explain the reference that reads:

Thompson, Hampstead, 130, 165, 195, 317-18, 329- 30; G.L.R.O., E/MW/H, old no. 27/15 (sales parts. 1875)

(This is currently footnote no. 9.)

If I'm not mistaken, G.L.R.O refers to the Greater London Council Records Office (and should rightly be G.L.R.C.O). And E/MW is the Maryon Wilson Papers within the G.L.R.C.O. If that's right, this looks very much like original research. Presumably "Thompson" is Professor F.M.L Thompson who quoted from the above papers in his 1974 book about Hampstead.

Unless anyone objects, I will change the citation to a proper bibliographic reference (assuming I can reconcile the page numbers)

Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I have now replaced the above reference with a citation to the ODNB. I also replaced a "citation needed" template with a reference to the same source.

While I am here, I must say that it is surprising that a Wikipedia article on Hampstead Heath does not mention Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson, who was surely a key figure in the history of the subject. I will try to rectify that (unless another editor cares to do so).

Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023 edits

Following my above remark about the absence of any mention of Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson, I have now greatly expanded the History section to include an account the battles to preserve the Heath in the 19th century. Previously, there was a big gap in this section, between Henry II and the 1871 Hampstead Heath Act. It is this gap which I have tried to fill. I would welcome any comments or additional material from any editors who have specific knowledge of this part of the world. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"contains the largest single area of common land in Greater London"

Afraid I'm no expert on this, but thought I should point out that the above statement is disputed in this blog post - though it may be London's largest "registered common". https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/ Sfjohna (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]