Talk:Liberty of Norton Folgate

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

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parish church

It was the parish - i.e. Norton Folgate had its own parish church until 1921; then absorbed. Administration was divided between two civil authorities in 1899/1900. It's those pesky vestries again! Kbthompson 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not an ecclesiastical parish rather than a civil one? What is odd is that this remarkably comprehensive source Survey of London Vol 27: Norton Folgate, which even goes into the minutes of the Liberty trustees, doesn't make any mention of the creation or abolition of any putative civil or ecclesiastical parishes of Norton Folgate...though it does show - inter alia - that this particular 8 acres of England's not so green and pleasant land has an administrative history which rivals that of the Holy Roman Empire in its complexity...Colin4C 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer to that question is yes, and the confusion comes about when the problems of managing the city are too big for the essentially amateur vestry organisations to cope with. The gas works is particularly illustrative; it STANK! They got away with it, because they promised this tiny authority, acres of loot and damn the residents of Bishopsgate and Spitalfields. One of the few things to enjoy about living in a 2000 year old city, is surely these little anomalies? When you go back to source texts, they don't normally answer the question you're asking, because they're written from a different PoV, and that's good too! You're getting these from BritHist online? Why not include the link in the reference? Kbthompson 12:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting story: I see that Norton Folgate lived up to its status as a 'liberty'. Appeals to the anarchist in me. As for the reference, I put the reference-link in 'external links' - however I must admit that I'm mystified by the 7 or 8 different mutually contradictory and/or redundant ways you can reference things in wikipedia. Colin4C 12:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly enjoyed the bit about servants in Spitalfields Sq, floating in tubs across the cellar to fetch the beer from the barrels. Again, it was springs bursting to the surface, this was probably why the Priory was originally founded here. I think the 'in text' referencing system is fairly good, which is why I use it; bit, as you've said before, the system is flexible enough to accept multiple forms - just a tad inconvenient when someone goes ^{[citation needed]} on you! Kbthompson 13:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Census figures

TKU, but more useful if referenced to source - and possibly better looking as a horizontal table - a lot of white space in a web page leaves something to be desired. Kbthompson 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TKU for providing a reference, I remain a little concerned about the figures. If one compares these figures for (abt) 1890 with the 5 acre Nichol Rookery (200m to the north); there in 1890 are packed 6000 individuals. Norton Folgate was in a similar position, having become home to former soldiers, prostitutes and other ne'er do wells (probably actors) - see the Brit Hist online reference. (So, they seem comparable populations). The organisation of Norton Folgate was poor until it was adopted by neighbouring boroughs, and ruled by ancients, rather than the more normal vestry. It didn't has proper drainage, or even proper pavements until about 1880. The train tracks for Liverpool Street were driven through the area, abt 1874, and this took abt 3 acres out of the area. Yet, the statistics you've put up show a relatively stable population - on the low side. This leaves me puzzled for an explanation. Maybe it would be worth looking at the Charles Booth archive for his records of the area. Kbthompson 11:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The soldiers, prostitutes and vagrants reference refers to the 16th-17th century. The soldiers were associated with the nearby Old Artillery Ground which moved to Bunhill in the late 17th century. Colin4C 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I still think the area analogous to the Nichol, not as it appears from the stats, some rural underpopulated idyll ... Kbthompson 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top redirection message

maybe add a message on the top saying something like THIS IS THE PAGE ABOUT THE LIBERTY , FOR THE FORTHCOMING ALBUM BY MADNESS GO TO MADNESS Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned under cultural references, and that's not how disambiguation works on wikipedia. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, you dork. Add the disambaguation reference this instance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

Not sure if worth adding, but a group are claiming the liberty was never dissolved in an attempt to halt planning consent for a tall building. [1] MRSC • Talk 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty of Norton Folgate (administrative unit)

I have created a new page Liberty of Norton Folgate (administrative unit) to differentiate between the street called Norton Folgate, the Liberty of Norton Folgate and the single and album by Madness.James Frankcom (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation and meaning

The Liberty of Norton Folgate refers to this locality.

The liberty (lowercase) of Norton Folgate refers to a notional person.

What is the name of this linguistic trick? (Also scone/Scone, swede/Swede, polish/Polish - the change in vowel sound seems irregular). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberty of Norton Folgate. 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) 08:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty of Norton Folgate. 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.savethelight.co.uk/Book_The_Great_Eastern_Light.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222013800/http://www.norton-folgate.co.uk/ to http://www.norton-folgate.co.uk/

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) 21:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]