Talk:Gloucestershire

Certainly, policy clearly states that:

Articles about counties should not be split up and should not be disambiguation pages. They should treat the counties as one entity which has changed its boundaries with time. We should not take the minority position that they still exist with the former boundaries.

G-Man 21:01, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in matters of policy, but as a matter of fact, all three Gloucestershires (traditional, administrative and ceremonial) can be accurately described as comprising part of the Cotswolds, part of the Severn Valley and the entire of the Forest of Dean. Furthermore, the changes in the borders were perfectly clear in the original text, so I don't really see that clarification was needed. Cambyses 21:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you're treating counties as a "single entity" then obviously you must make a choice between the administrative county and the ceremonial county, since they cannot both exist and be a "single entity"!

The policy (what was actually voted on) states that we should "state which county a place is in is to use the current (administrative) county." (aproach 1) - this is obviously contrary to the current organisation using ceremonial counties, which are certainly not used for administration. In short, the policy is already a mess, self-contradictory and every single county article breaks it.

However, I shall quote from the same policy:

Examples of acceptable things: Middlesex is a traditional county of England"

Thus, so is gloucesterhire! It is also quite obvious that (even ingoring traditional counties) we must make a distinction between administrative and ceremonial counties, since they are manifestly different, and both refered to. Therefore, I shall continue to qualify them with "administrative" and "ceremonial" as appropriate. This is also perfectly acceptable under the policy. You will also notice that given Middlesex is a traditional county is acceptable, traditional counties should also be qualified in a similar way. Such clarification goes without saying in an encyclopaedia. The policy may be extremely badly written and full of contradiction, but I am not breaking it! 80.255 21:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The 1972 legislation clearly refered to "administrative counties" as "counties" therefore the use of the term "administrative counties" is obsolete. Legally speaking administrative counties are counties, you may not like this fact but that is how it stands.

This also assumes that traditional counties still legally exist, a view which is far from universally accepted. G-Man 19:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Terms can have more than one meaning in different contexts. "X, Y and Z shall be known as 'counties'" is very different from saying "All counties shall be abolished and replaced with X, Y and Z". Any legal entity that has never been abolished exists, whether you like it or not. The fact that a seperate set of entities has been created with a similar name is neither here nor there.

Another fact which completely demolishes your argument is this: in the 1888 legalislation, and subsequent legislation dealing with consituency boundaries (which continued to be defined using the historic Counties until around the 1920s) explicitly refered to these boundaries as belonging to the "ancient or geographic Counties". These, of course, haven't never been abolished, and no subsequent legislation has ever sought to name new entities "Ancient Counties". Thus, "ancient or geographic counties" exist (and before you claim that "geographic county" mean "lieutenecy area" or "ceremonial county", it doesn't - this terminology has never been used in law, and was created single-handedly by ordnance survey). So, to recap...

1. entities are refered to in law as existing as "ancient or geographic counties"
2. "ancient or geographic counties" have never been abolished, either implicitly or explicitly
3. No subsequently created legal entities have ever been legally called "ancient or geographic counties"
4. Thus, "ancient or geographic counties" exist - this cannot be disputed on a factual basis! 80.255 00:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As has been pointed out the 1888 legislation has been overwritten several times, so the question as to whether 'traditional counties' still have any legal existance or not is anyone's guess. It is certainly far from the ironclad fact you claim it is. I dont know how long your going to keep up this absurd pretence that medieval county boundaries still exist unchanged in the present tense. If you insist upon adding this claim then it should be stated as an opinion not as a fact G-Man 22:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, this article was using a perfectly sensible compromise of using the ceremonial county for geographic reference. I really dont care what you say, everyone else seems to think they exist.

See this: http://www.tellmeabout.thelocalchannel.co.uk/home.aspx?p=0&m=86

Which states

Ceremonial County – These are areas for which a Lord Lieutenant acts as the Queen’s Deputy – every Administrative County has a ceremonial County of the same name, but the ceremonial county is in many cases larger, as it takes in areas served by Unitary Authorities. (So, for example, the Ceremonial County of Hampshire includes the area administered by Hampshire County Council, plus the Unitary Authority areas of Portsmouth & Southampton.)

And interestingly also states:

Traditional Counties – These are counties that have no LEGAL or administrative standing, but still represent what many people continue to think of as “Counties” (These include Rutland, Berkshire, Herefordshire, Bristol, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, East Riding of Yorkshire

Pehaps you should also read this: http://jonathan.rawle.org/counties/hist.htm

Which states:

There is much debate as to what constitutes a 'county' today. Really, this is a matter of personal choice and opinion. Some people use the names of unitary authorities as counties, others advocate the use of the so called 'historical counties' which EXISTED before the 1974 reorganisation.

Firstly, POV websites don't prove much, as you have many times pointed out! Facts prove, opinions on websites do not. So let's get on to the facts!

Reference to the 1888 (and 89) Acts as being still in force are not necessary to demonstrate the "Ancient or Geographical Counties" have never been abolished. The fact that after both these acts had been passed the term "Ancient or Geographical Counties" was still used to define entities that obviously still existed. Therefore, you argument that because the 1972 LGA Act refered to the newly created areas as just "counties", it somehow "overwrote" the original entities obviously doesn't apply - because the original entities had already been previously called "Ancient or Geographical Counties" in law - and as such obviously weren't "Overwritten".

The General Register Office's Census Report of 1891 distinguished between what it called the "Ancient or Geographical Counties" and the new "administrative counties". It made it clear that the two were distinct entities and that the former still existed. It provided detailed population statistics for both sets in its 1891, 1901 and 1911 reports. Note that this report does not refer to counties and administrative counties, but Ancient or Geographical counties and administrative counties - redefining the term "county" in 1972 had absolutely no effect on the former!

Prior to 1917, parliamentary constituencies were also defined using "Ancient or Geographical counties", so the term obviously had full legal currency. This being the case, it matters not that the 1888 act was repealed, nor that the 1972 act used the term "county", because it neither altered nor abolished the Ancient or Geographical Counties, which thus still exist.

You have yet to offer any reasoning to the contrary of this, and I rather doubt that you could, because it is fact, not opinion. By all means demolish it if you can, but simply claiming that it is and "absurd pretence" while all the legal and leglislative evidence goes against you is not very convincing! 80.255 20:12, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is merely your interpretation of the law 80.255. As I have clearly demonstrated to you many well informed and knowledgeable people obviously do not share your view that traditional counties still 'exist' (In what form exactly you think that they still exist I really dont know). I am no legal expert but your claim that just because the traditional counties were not formally abolished means that the legislation still applies sounds mightily dodgy to me. The fact that you are refering to reports from 1911 merely reveals the anachronistic nature of your arguments G-Man 11:53, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have protected this page, as a request was made to Secretlondon, who is not available at present. I have protected the current version. Please continue the discussion on the talk page with a view to resolution of the debate. Reference to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) may prove useful, and in particular Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) with the discussion which produce those guidelines. Warofdreams 14:25, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Sorry for the curious edit description; as I sent "Added links", my browser autofilled the rest from some previous page!) Bill 08:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)