Talk:Peckham

Good copy

I'm glad that someone wrote such good copy about Peckham, because I can see that it deserves a lot better than its media reputation (much the same as my 'hood, Hackney). Anyway, I was on a field trip, thought I'd add shots I took, I have a couple more including dept store, but it would overload the copy if I used any more. Hope more writings get writ, then I'll add some more pix. n.b. - I only write about places I know quite well - or those that feature well in the history texts :) Tarquin Binary 10:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete

Hi, as i live near rye lane, I know a bit more truth than what is written in that article, for example: - It is true that there is multiple wig shops, and many places to buy yams, but there are many better shops, for example, Dixons, WHSmiths, Primarks, Clintons, Mothercare, Blockbuster/Gamestation. Please could you add these to the article, thanks.

--Joshuarooney2006 14:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Better from whose perspective? Not those who want to buy wigs or yams, I'm sure. Those shops can be found on any high street in Britain, and so aren't worth mentioning. The Afro-Carribean shops are more unusual, and thus notible.86.0.203.120 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The article does not conform to WP:NPOV. Ring modulator 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why, and in the absence of anything to the contrary here, I've removed the tag. Care to elaborate?86.0.203.120 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not allowed to removed this tag before talking with others. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any issues with the POV either. No reason given be person flagging. I'd vote to remove the tag unless someone can give a reason why 3tmx 23:26 7 Feb 2007

Let's just remove the thing. There's no reason for it; Ring Modulator didn't articulate one, and Martial B. decided to lecture rather than explain why it belongs. There should be an articulated reason for the application of that tag, especially when three distinct users, at least one of whom has never edited the body of the article, can't see why it's there. GeeZee 04:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrible written English (too conversational and possibly subjective)

"Peckham is an area of great diversity: gang-related shootings, muggings and burglary characterise one picture whilst another emphasises the high population of artists and professionals."

So many problems with this snippet (and of course the rest of the article):

1) Since when are "gang-related shootings, muggings and burglary" constituent components of diversity?
2) Why use a colon?
3) "characterise one picture" - What kind of phraseology is that? What does it mean?!
4) "whilst another" - Another what?

I don't know anything about Peckham (and the problem is that after reading the article I still don't), but for the sake of sanity could somebody please rewrite, or even delete, this terrible article?
138.243.129.4 11:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write any of it, but I have a problem with very little of what you quote. Here goes.

1) Shootings, muggings, and burglary are not constitutent components of diversity, but the sentence doesn't read that way, either. Peckham is an area of great diversity because it's got a violent side as well as an artistic/professional side to it. Not "diversity" as in what "affirmative action" became called in the 1990s, but the actual meaning of the word: differences.

2) Why not?

3) Here, I agree.

4) Another picture.

Seriously, it's not that hard.

GeeZee 04:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Terrible written English" doesn't exactly give you an upper hand does it either?

Tommyhaych —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyhaych (talk • contribs) 07:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

North Peckham merge

North Peckham Estate had a merge tag to here, but I have merged it instead to North Peckham, as that article seemed a more natural merge, being about the same topic. However, seeing as I don't know a whole lot about Peckham, I couldnt decipher whether a) North Peckham was a geographical term or signified a more set-in-stone division ([[West Virginia/Virginia) etc. and b) whether, if the term "North Peckham" does indeed refer universally to the estate, whether the estate is itself notable enough to warrant an article. I figured people watching this page would know, hence the tag. There's not much information there anyway, so if it isn't really a valid article topic it shouldn't take long to incorporate the info into this article. Cheers! Jdcooper (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Having been brought up in Peckham I think this is a logical merge. The North Peckham article is really talking about the large housing estate rather than a geographic area and it would make more sense as a sub category of the Peckham article. Nshimbi 04:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Same, the merger is a good Idea, and, it would seem we now have consensus. Troplock (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Crime

Just deleted the "crime" section - it was nonsense. Peckham does not have a "murder a day" and Tony Blair did not brand the area "Pecknam" after Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatherlukeduke (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

High rates of crime?

The text in the introduction mentions the following:

Peckham is a high-crime area with high levels of gang violence, for which it has a notorious reputation, despite a £290 million regeneration programme in the late 1990s and early 2000s

The reference to 'high crime' is essentially derived from a 2003 BBC news report which states that 3 murders happened "...not too far from where Damilola [Taylor] bled to death". The problem with this is that only 1 out of the 3 murders happened in Peckham. Not too far in this sentence is actually referring to Streatham, Lambeth. This is misleading.

...despite a £290 million regeneration programme

Not verified, say, with any sort of statistical data, merely opinion. Even so, the original text that this sentence is derived from claims that the regeneration is working. For example the source states: "The reality is that levels of crime have reduced year on year," he said. "The individuals who are involved in these type of crimes are a very small minority.

The remaining to sources used to cite this original text are irrelevant. One is from a UK polling website, the other is a Guardian opinion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desilentiorules (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable Residents

Harriet Harman lived/s in Herne Hill not Peckham

Victor Ogunwusi & Agata Owczarek are sadly not notable enough for inclusion in notable residents as they don't even qualify for a Wiki page on themselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.71.148 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Location

Peckham is in Southwark NOT Lambeth. I changed it. 82.4.184.39 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

need to distinguish between Peckham town and Peckham ward

A number of statements in the article on Peckham are inaccurate because they conflate Peckham the place as a town and Peckham the name of one of the five wards that make up Peckham as the place. Over the last year or so I have made some small edits to correct some of these erors but then they have been deleted. Can someone explain to me how to get these edits accepted? Peckhamresident (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peckhamresident (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Marmora Road dab

The two Ferrero La Marmora brothers at the Marmora dab page were senior officers in the Sardinian army in the Crimea, Alfonso a commander. Whether that gained either of them a street in Peckham, I don't know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Marmora Road was named after these brothers, it's more likely an alternative pronunciation of Marmara. Nshimbi (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Crimean War connection

I've decided to tag this section about Crimean War related street names as dubious since they are largely or all apparently locations in Turkey, thus only indirectly associated with the war and not part of the theatre of conflict. Surely if they were commemorating the Crimean War, locations in the Crimea would be picked. I'm not that familiar with the area but think the houses are largely twentieth century, an impression confirmed by Google Street View. Is it more likely that it commemorates the Gallipoli theatre in the Great War?

Citations about the Russo-Turkish War are not pertinent - unless the street names in fact commemorate this conflict, which would seem unlikely. And they said nothing about the naming of streets in Peckham anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why you have undone the edits on Marmora and Mundania. I referenced a contemporary news paper report stating their names clearly in relation to the Crimean War and created likes to relevant pages. The article on the Sea of Marmara clearly states that an alternative spelling is Marmora and I will add a further reference that shows Mudanya was refered to as Mundania in letters at the time of the crimean war. As Ottoman Empire was an ally of Britain during the war many of the British naval and army bases were in modern day Turkey rather than where the battles were fought. Finally, the majority of the development of the housing stock on these roads took place in the 1880's and therefore the naming would not have come about form a conflict that would not happen for another 30 years. Nshimbi (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation is dated 1878, which is during the Russo-Turkish War, not the Crimean War, and the citations say nothing about naming of streets in Peckham. Any connections you are making are thus assumed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mutt. Whilst you seem to have issues with the editing I have done to resolve the lack of references with the four roads in question you have presented little or no evidence as to why you believe the names are not associated with the Crimean war. Yes, I agree that the newspaper article does refer to the Russo-Turkish war, but also refers to the Crimean war. It was not referenced to indicate the provenance of these roads' names, but to demonstrate the the contemporary use of the Anglicised names. As Britain was not a belligerent in the Russo-Turkish war I doubt the roads would have referenced that conflict, therefore the most logical conclusion is that they refer to the Crimean War. I think this is the place for a discussion and I'm happy to hear your views, but just removing the links is not helpful. I can see replacing the links would be fruitless so I have asked for some arbitration. On the matter of your additional view that the roads are not in Peckham all four fall within the parlimentry constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. Nshimbi (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

One does not have to provide evidence to disprove things written in Wikipedia - this is fundamental. The onus is to prove that something is the case. All we know is that names are, or seem likely to be, places which are now in modern Turkey. Listing documents which happen to have these place names in them does nothing in regard to the verification of the actual reason for the naming of the streets. These places have played parts in various parts of history that may have made them candidates for Peckham street names. Your speculation may be correct but it is only speculation.

The roads are in Peckham. This is not a matter of dispute. My point is that your citations do not address the naming of these (Peckham) streets, not whether they are in Peckham. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mutt, Is the issue here the geographic origin of the names of the roads or the link to the Crimean War? If it's the latter then let's reinstate the links and references and just remove the reference to the Crimean War. Insert something about the Black Sea region or modern day Turkey. Nshimbi (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See the title I gave this talk page section. Busy at the moment - can you hold off until I get a chance to reply fully (this evening or poss. tomorrow morning)? Also, have had an idea for some sources that may help, or even nail it if we're lucky... Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'll wait to hear from you. Thanks. Nshimbi (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't find anything definitive and nothing directly addressing the naming of the streets. However in these maps on the Southwark Council web site, the 1888 Dulwich/Sydenham map (high res. version needed) shows Mondania (sic), Therapia and Marmora Roads and an unnamed, partial Scutari Road, with no buildings. Clearly not connected with the First World War then.

This forum page is of interest but some of it contradictory and doubtful and clearly wouldn't count as a reliable source and doesn't point to any.

It's clear that the streets predate the First World War, Scutari barracks are associated with Florence Nightingale and British troops in transit or return from the Crimea and the other streets are apparently also places in the Istanbul area so may also have Crimean War connections, possibly indicated in the document you linked to. If I were to speculate, a Crimean War connection does not seem unreasonble. However, without a reliable source yet actually stating it's why the streets were named, that's WP:SYNTH.

Not going to make a stab at rewording the article at this late hour, if indeed that's appropriate. Will sleep on it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I had found the forum, but had also discounted it. The maps were a good find. I think all that can be ascertained from on-line sources is that the road names are linked to towns in modern day Turkey. I suspect something lurks in the paper records at Southwark Council. I'll wait to see your edit. Nshimbi (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mutt, I did a little hunting around. Using a Marmora Road postcode (SE22 0RX) on the Old Maps site I found a map of the area in 1880 which shows no Marmora, Therapia, Mundania or Scutari roads. So the date of development must be some where in the eight years between this map and the map you found. Nshimbi (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Have edited to reinstate the Marmara/Marmora dab (seems reasonable that 4 streets built in the same period would have the linked thread of places so close to each other) and removed the dubious tag. Have put a fact tag there though until we have a source which actual nails the naming, beyond (reasonable as it may seem) speculation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Well, you asked for a third opinion, but in my view you don't need it at all. It seems to me that you are moving forward rather quickly and without outside help. I was going to suggest a physical visit to the council offices as a possible solution, but you are way ahead of me. If you do still want an impartial opinion on any aspect of the article or the discussion, please let me know and I'll do my best to give one—Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)