Talk:Leeds/Archives/2019/January

Lead

We are back to the awful "Leeds is a city in the City of Leeds" type situation. The current intro is not helpful or even accurate as it conflates different things ("principal settlement" and "urban subdivision"), includes random facts about the area which are not even mentioned in the rest of the text and is ultimately original research (do the balance of sources say that it is the "principal settlement", and what is it if so?) I don't think it is even possible to attempt such a clarification in the lede, and ultimately there is nothing wrong with simply stating that "Leeds is a city in West Yorkshire, England." Polequant (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

To add to that, the lead actually contradicts the main text which says:

Attempts to define the exact geographic meaning of Leeds lead to a variety of concepts of its extent, varying by context include the area of the city centre, the urban sprawl, the administrative boundaries, and the functional region.

Leeds is much more a generalised concept place name in inverted commas, it is the city, but it is also the commuter villages and the region as well. Polequant (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually Leeds is not a city as that was transferred to the City of Leeds authority when it was created. Keith D (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If you take that view then neither is Birmingham, Sheffield, Carlisle etc. But it's OK, as sources state that Leeds is a city, and do not attempt to say that they are only talking about the wider borough. The clarification on what entity legally has city status is in the text, as it should be. Attempting that clarification in the lead is confusing and results in an unsatisfactory word soup. Polequant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead should include an attempt to explain what the article is about, i.e. that it's about the settlement rather than the local government district. If you simply say "Leeds is a city in West Yorkshire, England", the reader will not know if the article is about the "city" in its historical sense of a kind of settlement, or the City in its recent sense of a local government district given city status. The modern British habit of granting city status to districts which are not themselves settlements creates this kind of ambiguity. Of the examples you mention, Birmingham does not present this problem, because the City is coterminous with the settlement. Carlisle is at the other extreme - the City is a large, mostly rural area. It's not surprising that sources use the word "city" to refer to the settlement, not the district. But a WP article, especially when it starts discussing area or population, needs to be clear what it is discussing. It is not helpful that the article starts "Leeds is a city...", with "city" linked to City status in the United Kingdom. That is just not accurate. It would be better if the lead simply started "Leeds is a place in West Yorkshire, England". --Mhockey (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that Leeds District would be a better title for the district, but if that was done, it should be done with all of them. Carlisle District would be clear. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That is just inventing a name rather than using the actual name of the district. We should not be inventing names. Keith D (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources call Leeds a city. It is not simply a "place". Exactly what that means in the context of Leeds is described in the article, and is too complicated to adequately describe in the lead. Asserting that the settlement of Leeds ceased to be a City in 1974 is original research. And Birmingham is very similar, given that in 1974 the administrative boundary expanded to include Sutton Coldfield, and the ONS still have a separate subdivisions of Birmingam and Sutton Coldfield. Polequant (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Added to which, there is a disambiguation sentence at the top with the link to City of Leeds, which highlights that they might be considered to be different. Polequant (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

How about this for a lead paragraph?

Leeds (/liːdz/ ^ⓘ) is a place in West Yorkshire, England, historically a city and now the principal settlement in the administrative district known as the City of Leeds. Definitions of its extent vary. The Leeds urban subdivision of the West Yorkshire Urban Area, as defined in the last census, constitutes 112 square kilometres (43 sq mi) of the 552 square kilometres (213 sq mi) of the City of Leeds, which also includes a number of towns and rural areas around Leeds.

This leaves in the idea of "principal settlement". A quick search shows that the term is widely used in WP, and not just in the UK, to mean the largest and most important place in a geographic area. We do not normally need a source for such an assertion (WP:CK, WP:FACTS). But "urban subdivision" (or "built up area subdivision") is an ONS term for a section within an urban area (or built up area), as explained here, so needs explanation. That seems as close as we'll get to a reliable definition of "Leeds".--Mhockey (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That is awful. Reverted. Looks at reliable sources. They say that Leeds is a city. The exact definition is in the text. Why confuse things with this terrible piece of original research? The implications of sticking to cities only being exact administrative boundaries are massive. What about London? Let alone, Sheffield, Birmingham etc. Polequant (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

London is a good example of the problem. It's a city but not a city. The same problem does not arise with Birmingham, but it does with Leeds. What's your solution?--Mhockey (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware all other articles other than Westminster and Salford refer to the settlement as a "city" as well as the district, see Carlisle (referred to as a city) City of Carlisle (local government district with the status of a city). The Oxford Dictionary entry for Salford describes it as a city and metropolitan district and gives the settlement population. Likewise Collins refers to Leeds as being a city in Leeds unitary authority. I'd be inclined to add the Collins ref. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Westminster is a tricky one again, given its status as the seat of government etc, the borough having the status of a city, yet being within the "city" of London. I also think that calling Salford a town is original research. Birmingham is no different in principle to what happened with Leeds - in 1974 the borough boundaries expanded to include Sutton Coldfield. Even Nottingham, which is generally regarded as having 'tight' city boundaries, expanded to include Clifton. Ultimately, places change and grow, encompassing previously separate settlements. The relationship with administrative boundaries is not that simple, and that does not just apply to Leeds.

The solution I propose is simple - "Leeds is a city in West Yorkshire, England." It is how reliable sources term the place. The precise nature of what entity legally has city status is explained in the text, and also has the note to point people towards the administrative district if required. Polequant (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Polequant in calling it a city. It doesn't matter what precisely holds the status, Leeds in West Yorkshire as a whole can be considered to have it even if the borough specifically holds it. Other than the fact that Leeds includes more separate settlements than Birmingham the only major difference is that we have separate articles for Leeds but not Birmingham. The question of if Sutton Coldfield is part of Birmingham has been pointed out at Talk:Sutton Park#Requested move 5 December 2018. Salford has gone from being described as a city to a town[1], but for most of the recent history of the article it has been described as a town. I agree that should be treated like the rest. Westminster might need to be discussed separately but the same principal would appear to apply there except for the fact that more people (and apparently sources) appear to know that the borough, not settlement holds the city status. The same applies to civil parishes, for example Ely the parish holds the status but includes several other settlements, however that's less of an issue since we don't usually have separate CP articles, although for St David's and the Cathedral Close that may be more complicated since that has a different name (thus may be split unless it is an alternative name for the settlement, which I'm not sure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

According to MOS:LEAD "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." In the case of this article, I do not see how you can identify the topic without making it clear that the article is about the settlement (however you describe it) and not the entity which has the formal status of city. You can't leave that to the body of the article, it needs to be in the lead. The hatnote does not do it (if the article is about the city, why isn't it about the city?) If you refer to both as city, that's not a problem, as long as it is clear that "city" is being used in two different senses. That's what London does - the reference to the area of the City of London and its description as the "ancient core" make the difference clear. So here's another go:

Leeds is a city in West Yorkshire, England, the urban core of the administrative district known as the City of Leeds which now has the formal status of "city". Definitions of its extent vary. The Leeds urban subdivision of the West Yorkshire Urban Area, as defined in the last census, constitutes 112 square kilometres (43 sq mi) of the 552 square kilometres (213 sq mi) of the City of Leeds, which also includes a number of towns and rural areas around Leeds.

This issue was raised because of an edit war about the population of "Leeds" - which seemed to me pointless unless you are clear about what you mean by "Leeds".--Mhockey (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I would be happier with that version. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that even saying it is the 'urban core' isn't backed up by sources. It might be what people think when they look at a map, but without sources how can we even say that? Bringing the BUASD into it adds further confusion without adequate context (given that it is purely a statistical device, which for example doesn't include Roundhay Park). I quite like how Bradford deals with it, though I don't quite agree, as the city status for both Leeds and Bradford has always belonged to the Borough, whether you call it a County Borough or Metropolitan Borough. So I would suggest that we follow the same sort of approach but the last couple of lines would be: "Leeds became a Municipal Borough in 1835, County Borough in 1889, and received its charter as a city in 1893. Following local government reform in 1974, the County Borough was abolished and city status was bestowed upon the new, larger, metropolitan borough." Polequant (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Leeds Council as part of their development plans, did carry out a study on the various settlements within the district. See here, and in particular this. But it only talks about the 'Leeds Main Urban Area' - it does not say anywhere that I can see that they are defining this as the settlement of 'Leeds'. Polequant (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a source for the fact that Leeds is in West Yorkshire either. It's worth reading WP:CK, in particular, acceptable examples of common knowledge. I would have thought that the assertion that Leeds is the urban core of the district easily falls within "Geographic pieces of information easily verified by a non-specialized map ("Dallas is in Texas")". Call it "principal settlement" if you prefer.

You seem to be implying that the metropolitan borough is the same kind of animal as the old county borough, but if they were, the current problem would not arise. Apart from the fact that both are or were local government districts, they are quite different. One covers just the city, the other is a much larger district which includes other towns and rural areas. To take another local example: Harrogate Municipal Borough covered only the town. The Borough of Harrogate (since 1974) also covers other towns (and one City) and rural areas over 20 miles away. I do not think the opening paragraph needs a potted history of local government, but it does need to make clear what the article is about, which means making clear the difference between the city called Leeds and the City of Leeds.--Mhockey (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

We do now have a source for Leeds being in West Yorkshire, the Collins Dictionary ref. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We could easily source that Leeds is in West Yorkshire, or that Dallas is in Texas if required. You seem to be under the impression that it is obvious what the settlement of Leeds is, when it is anything but (as it says in the article). Even the council sources I showed above refuse to call the main urban area 'Leeds'. What I disagree with is calling it the 'urban core' when that is unsourced and contradicts what is said later in the article, even more so when it is implied that the urban core is the BUASD. The concept of a settlement is not that easy to define. For example, Anchorage has a population density of only 151.94/sq mi, not even 5% of the density of Leeds.

The Boroughs have all changed significantly over time. The county borough nearly doubled in size in 1928 and included a lot of rural land. If you go back and look at the 1835 map there looks like there is a lot of rural space within the borough boundary.

I know what you mean about a potted history. What I was trying to do was to stick to facts, and try to avoid personal opinion on what Leeds is. Polequant (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And just to add, you want to make it clear what the difference between 'Leeds' and the 'City of Leeds' is, but to do so you need to define 'Leeds', which we cannot do as there are multiple definitions (one of which would be that it is the borough...) Polequant (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not think it is obvious what the settlement of Leeds is (and I thought my proposal made that clear: "Definitions of its extent vary."). But I think that it is obvious that Leeds is the largest settlement in the City of Leeds.

It is not surprising that the Leeds City Council sources you cite do not call the main urban area "Leeds". The City Council describes its whole area as "Leeds". On the other hand Otley Town Council here and Wetherby Town Council here describe Leeds as a separate and distinct place. The councils are not really independent sources. Leeds City Council wants to promote itself as responsible for services across the whole district, whereas Otley and Wetherby Town Councils want to promote the separate identities of their towns.

The significance of the BUASD is not that it is the one and only definition of Leeds, but that it is the only one that I am aware of for which there are reliable statistics. The BUASD is defined by a reliable source (ONS) according to a documented methodology. If WP is to make statements about the population of Leeds, or where Leeds ranks in the populations of British cities, then the ONS-defined BUASD carries weight.

I do not agree that you need a precise definition of Leeds in order to make clear the difference between the city named Leeds and the City of Leeds. The point was exhaustively discussed in the last discussion on whether to merge the Leeds and City of Leeds articles here. In the course of that discussion there was an analysis of sources, which showed that while some sources (particularly those from the Leeds City Council or derived from Leeds City Council sources) referred to the district as Leeds, rather more sources referred to the settlement as Leeds. To my mind, Leeds is a place which has an identity, geography and history separate from Otley or Wetherby or the district, and our challenge is to find words which capture that identity.--Mhockey (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The BUASD is not the only definition of Leeds for which there are reliable statistics. There are reliable (and better) statistics for the borough. You say that you don't want a precise definition of the settlement but you are making it very clear that to you, the settlement cannot be the borough, but the borough is one of the ways the settlement is viewed. The BUASD is pretty much based on 90 year old boundaries, and does not remotely reflect the current 'urban core' as shown in the council sources. Ultimately, you are engaging in OR in claiming that the borough and the settlement must be different, when that is one of the definitions of the settlement, and directly contradicts the sourced statement in the article.

I still think attempting to convey this in the lede is pointless. You would end up with an over simplified, inaccurate statement, or something that is overly complicated. And for what purpose? It is explained fine in the article. Polequant (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not just me that is saying that the district and the settlement are different. That is the current WP consensus, after extensive debate and consideration of many sources. I was starting from the assumption that you agreed with the consensus - I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position. All I am saying is that the lead should make clear what the article is about. If you think that this article is about the same subject as City of Leeds, then clearly we are not going to agree on what should be in the lead. If you think that this article is not about the district, it would be helpful if you could say what you think this article is about.--Mhockey (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That was not the consensus. The consensus is that there is nothing definitive to say what the settlement 'Leeds' is, which I agree with. That does not however exclude the district as being one possible definition. And that is what the best source we have that actually discusses this says, as reflected in the article.

The vast majority of the sources do not make it clear whether they mean the settlement or the district. Just picking a random news article example. When they say 'Leeds names', do they mean the district or settlement? Polequant (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said that the current consensus is that "Leeds" is not the same as the district. Nobody is saying that "Leeds" is tightly defined, certainly not me. But you keep avoiding the question of what this article is about. It's that which creates the present mess. Some examples: "Leeds ... has seen the fastest rate of private-sector jobs growth of any UK city." "It also has the highest ratio of private to public sector jobs of all the UK's Core Cities, with 77% of its workforce working in the private sector." "Leeds has the third-largest jobs total by local authority area, with 480,000 in employment and self-employment at the beginning of 2015." "Leeds is also the UK's third-largest manufacturing centre with around 1,800 firms and 39,000 employees, Leeds manufacturing firms account for 8.8% of total employment in the city and is worth over £7 billion to the local economy". "Leeds has the second-highest population of any local authority district in the UK (after Birmingham)" "At the time of the 2001 census Leeds had a population of 183,000 young people aged 0–19 of whom 110,000 were attending local authority schools". The infobox has statistics which appear to refer to the district, and the apparent claim that the city has the 2nd largest population in the country. What do all these facts and figures refer to? It is not clear because the article does not say what the article is about. It's about the "city" but apparently not about the "City". If the statistics are about the district, why are they not in the article about the district?

Leeds is one of several UK cities where the local government district does not correspond well with the urban area. In other cases (e.g. Bristol and Nottingham) the urban area is larger than the district. Leeds is a more difficult case because the urban area is significantly smaller than the district. The ONS produces statistics for urban areas (aka built-up areas) in an attempt to compare like with like, but the ONS does not give Leeds its own urban area. So statistics for Leeds need to carry a health warning: "it depends what you mean by Leeds".

I've put forward my suggestion for the opening paragraph. Do any other editors have a view?--Mhockey (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What you now seem to be arguing is that because we can't properly define Leeds we can't say anything about it at all. Or that unless a source states that it is specifically talking about the settlement we can't use it. But incredibly few sources make it clear. (And what you should really be comparing Leeds to is Sheffield, which somehow flies under the radar on all of this despite having a very similar population density, distinct towns from the main urban centre etc.) Polequant (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

References