Talk:Bethnal Green

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

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.

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

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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Multiple issues - this article requires a lot of work[edit]

This article needs a lot of work, especially in light of the recent disruptive editing (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Bow_/_Bethnal_Green_sockpuppet_damage).

There is a serious lack of inline citations with some entire sections either completley or mostly unreferenced.

The division of the article into subheadings is very strange, particularly the "Contemporary" section which should probably be reworked completely.

Significant parts of the article are just listing of facts and trivia which are neither relevant to, nor well integrated into, the wider article.

The article goes into excessive detail on some aspects and is low on content in other important ways.

The article includes reference to a number of locations which are not actually in Bethnal Green.

There are many paragraphs which are very clearly not relevant to the section they are in. These should either be moved to another section or removed, as appropriate.

I will work on this going forward but any help would be appreciated. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that wherever the article history shows a paragraph being deleted with no edit summary by a sockpuppet/IP of User:Hopeful2014, it's probably been moved to another article. In the case of Bethnal Green, content has been moved out to Shoreditch, Spitalfields or Globe Town, London whenever Hopeful2014 thought they knew best, possibly without any regard as to whether the original article should still mention the landmarks in question.

It's more visible when seen as a history of the user's edits for a given day, eg [1] --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am on mobile so it is a pain to track the history. Not sure if the above comments were acted upon but the article still seems to be disorganised, eg: the comment about Mendoza & another boxer is out of place in the Growth section. I am currently reading The Blackest Streets by Sarah Wise and am surprised that I cannot spot it being used here - ISBN 978-1-844-13331-4 - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2019[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Section: Community, paragraph 4:

The Nomadic Community Gardens, once an area fenced off and overgrown, is now a occupied by a temporary project or "meanwhile use" run by a private limited company[122] on behalf of the property developer Londonewcastle, which leases the site to the garden operator for a peppercorn rent and provided start-up funding[123]. The space has been filled with temporary buildings and installations made up of found materials, street art, sculpture and allotments.[124] Londonewcastle gained planning consent for a development of "affordable housing, townhouses and apartments"[125] on the site in November 2015[126]. Construction on the Fleet Street Hill Project was intended to commence in 2016[123] but, as of June 2019, no work has begun on the site.

I would like to add the following:

In the summer of 2019 Nomadic Community Gardens ltd made an application for a premises license to sell alcohol from the Fleet Street Hill site. The application was unanimously refused by the Tower Hamlets Council Licensing Sub Committee on 10 September 2109 at a public meeting. (http://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/g10723/Decisions%2010th-Sep-2019%2014.30%20Licensing%20Sub%20Committee.pdf?T=2). In the pack of evidence made public before the committee meeting, a letter sent by Tower Hamlets licensing officers dated 25 June 2019 warned Nomadic Community Gardens not to hold the unlicensed music events it had previously advertised, as the authority would not tolerate the use of a licensing loophole that allows community organisations to hold unlicensed music events. The Licensing Officer found that as Nomadic Community Gardens is operated by a Limited Company with two directors, it is therefore a private business, not a community organisation. (http://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/g10723/Public%20reports%20pack%2010th-Sep-2019%2014.30%20Licensing%20Sub%20Committee.pdf?T=10 Page 254). Within the same pack of evidence a representation from Tower Hamlets Council's Environmental Health Technical Officer concluded that the sub-committee should not support the license application because of "great likelihood of disturbance to residential premises if the licence was granted" (http://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/g10723/Public%20reports%20pack%2010th-Sep-2019%2014.30%20Licensing%20Sub%20Committee.pdf?T=10 Page 264) Spitalfieldtown (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Probably too much about Nomadic Community Gardens there, also only from primary sources; without secondary sources (some newspaper coverage may be suitable), it's unlikely to be significant enough to be included. Peter James (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]