Talk:London Borough of Haringey

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

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

UK geography High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I would have liked to see mention of CONEL - College of North East London listed under the heading 'Education.'

Names

I'd be interested to know the significance of the two names Harringay and Haringey. Maybe this could be mentioned in the article? Duncan Smith 10:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[1] this might provide some explanation MRSC 11:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now better to look at the more comprehensive and authoritative History of Harringay.hjuk (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haringey Harringay

Excellent article - thanks for that. Looks like there is a good case for going back to calling it Harringay then! Duncan Smith 11:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I enjoyed the article too..although the big mistake in it was stating that Harringay pre 01/04.65 was part of the old Borough of Hornsey... it wasn´t, it was part of the Borough of Tottenham!! Maybe this is the reason that Harringay can´t be easily defined ..say like Tooting or Walthamstow IsarSteve 16:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact Harringay was split between Hornsey & Tottenham boroughs. See History of Harringay for the detail on this.hjuk (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population question

How can white British people be a(sic) ethnic minority when they make up 45% of the population if the next largest ethnic group makes up only 20%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.73.199 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 February 2007

Simple, a majority is, by definition, over 50%, and since 45% is less than that, it is a minority. The largest minority, to be sure, but a minority all the same. -- AJR | Talk 23:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not link to minority then too if it's so 'simple'? Minority means a lot more than just an opposite to majority. --Matt Lewis 06:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"White British people are in an ethnic minority" !?

Going by the quoted figures, this line should read 'White people of British decent are in an ethnic minority'. The original line without the 'decent' qualifier is just untrue.

I'm changing the paragraph - if anyone changes it back please can they explain here why I'm wrong. The population figures and categories were too inexact anyway, and the citation given was incorrectly made and a dead link too. (Note that Haringey council's own figures are slightly out - but only fractionally, so all the figures won't quite add up to 100%!). I'm assuming the figures about age and house-owning were broadly correct - so I've left them for now.

So my main reason for revision is that the other "third of white people" (20.3% of Haringey) are surely "White British people" too (or will be in the vast majority, for the sake of argument). Also, saying that "White British people" are "just 45%" has an unpleasant overtone for me. Simply put, around 65.7% of Haringey citizens are white and British first and foremost - and other details such as their heritage, Britishness or legality should be addressed at a later juncture, and only if relevant.

To try and avoid future conflict here, I've improved the accuracy of the initial figures and citation, and inserted another paragraph stating the 45.3% figure, briefly explaining that people are for and against ascribing importance to it. Please consider this before removing the paragraph (or look for a good citation for it if you want to help keep it). I have moved the uncited comment on whether the 2001 census underestimated Haringey's population figures to the bottom of here, and made it a more honest comment (merely to save somebody less sensitive from doing it).

If racism/cultural tension is an issue in Haringey, perhaps the contentious issues above could be included instead under another sub-heading dealing with that? In my wiki experience they won't go away, so are best dealt with rather than simply removed/reverted/removed etc!

ALSO NOTE - the Haringey article is currently labelled: "To comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may need to be rewritten." - so it needs some more good contributions! --Matt Lewis 06:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Demographics downwards?

It might be a good idea to move Demographics downwards. Perhaps to after Political Composition?

The opening paragraph actually contains the same statistics that are clearly visible in the Infobox on the right!

It would be a friendlier article if it began with the History too... --Matt Lewis 07:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the references to racial issues (inc. some census details)?

Hjuk - I can understand why you wanted to remove the material, though a little less why you call it 'irrelevant', and not at all the reasoning in your edit-note calling the census data ‘unsourced interpretation’. It was sourced and accurate! I included it because the old data was incorrect and deliberately misleading. If you had read this page first you will have realised that it was included for consensus. If people put new racially motivated stuff in now, my work will be lost unless copied out of a past edit. I spent a while writing the paragraph - adapting it from the very biased material what was already there, and making it hard to refute. It took half a second to remove, of course - tsk!

If you didn’t find it objective, please tell me why? I have made comments directly about removing the paragraph (in 4 above in bold), I would have appreciated some kind of comment before someone removed it. Given what has happened here before, I have to be a touch unsure of your motives - which could be very unfair of course. Unfortunately, if the racial issues do come back, it could be seen as some form evidence of relevance - unsavoury though it is. Also this article has gone on to be 'mid importance' – so should you be doing this without discussion?

If you have a good case I won't mind the removal at all. --Matt Lewis 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Matt. A little heavy-handed I guess. I hadn't been aware of the racist issues you'd been dealing with in the past. I know how frustrating it is when you've been beavering away diligently at something then some arrogant git like me comes and blasts it out of the water.

So let me be honest about my reasoning. Despite some recent noticeable improvements, my view of the article is that it's way below par. I guess I took the frustration I have with it out in part on your demographics contribution. It sounded to me like thinly veiled racism - but from your msg, you don't sound like you have that agenda.

The para:

The fact that white people of singularly British descent currently form less than 50% of the total population of Haringey has been in focus. It has been noted that drawing such a distinction between being of ‘white British descent’, and of being a British citizen who has ancestors from elsewhere (white or non-white), can be used as a racist argument.

seemed misplaced in this article. I can now understand, perhaps, why you wrote it like this. My exepreince has been, however, that what works best is to cram in sourced facts. That, above all else, makes something hard to refute. As it was written, I, and I'm sure others, assumed it was intended to convey the opposite of what appears to have been your meaning.

With regards to the para:

It has been noted that white people of British descent form 45.3% of Haringey's total population, while the other 20.4% of Haringey's 65.7% white population are comprised primarily of people with Turkish, Irish, Greek or Cypriot descent.

I'm not aware that ONS data specifies ethnicity down to the level of country of origin, which is why I took that out. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to learn from you.

Clearly this is Wikipedia and anything I've taken out still exists in History and can be reinstated. I do apprecite your communicating via this page - as I should have done . Whilst I don't currently have plans to do a huge amnount of work on the Haringey page, if it sounds like it would be useful, I'm happy to collaborate on nibbling away to create somethig better than what exists already. But it sounds like you've had a bit of a battle on your hands.

hjuk 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I can see you do a lot on the subject. I'm not even a Londoner btw, so can't help with the rest of the page I'm afraid! If my new paragraph actually looked a little racist itself, I would rather it wasn't there. Best is leave it out and see what happens. Now the page is looking more serious, hopefully it won't become a dumping ground for that kind of insidious racism again. I wasn’t actually in an edit war in the end by the way - though it did look a lot to me like the page was an aftermath of one. Certainly the page was unacceptable as it was, and I know how persistent some Wikipedians can be (especially politically motivated ones) – so I didn’t just delete what I saw, I added accurate detail.

The Ethnic Group Theme tables citied actually link to the data as Excel files. I had to extrapolate the figures myself - I did it because I could see the ones up at the time were exaggerated to add weight to a racist point. Technically the numbers are all there in the link - they just needed a little subtraction to be totally clear (not quite original work!?). I basically did it to pre-empt a challenge on my re-writing the statement on ‘white’ Britishness. If anyone has came back to see the change, no one has complained. I thought maybe it was more of a local issue too - it's heartening if it isn't such a deal, of course. --Matt Lewis 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Matt. I'll keep nibbling away and try and keep any racism at bay! hjuk 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Residents

A question as to whether this section has a place here. Many of the pages for the local areas in Haringey already have extensive lists. So this one just has a few that haven't made it on to those pages. If all the notable locals were put on, this list wd be huge. Might it not be better to refer people to local areas? In the meantime I've reformatted it a la Crouch End. If there are already Wikipedia articles for people, readers can find out who they are by clicking the link. Where there are no pages, I've moved the explanation to the footnotes. hjuk 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are far too many famous residents to put in this article. All people whose area of residence is known have been moved to the relvant area of Haringey page. All pages for the famous people have been tagged with a people from X tag and can be accessed via the see also category link in the article. The remaining people have been fact tagged pending addition of their area of residence. PLease add it as a note if you know it. hjuk (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture links

I'm going to remove a couple from this section; the Millfield Theatre is actually in LB Enfield and the Red Rose Club is in Islington.BTLizard (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the visual arts links (as of January 2009)lead to galleries or visual arts spaces within Haringey that provide normal open access to visitors - these links are to arts training and development services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dextercat (talk • contribs) 14:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should probably be removed. It's probably not helpful to qualify them in the article, in a discursive style. Kbthompson (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby P

Many readers would have been surprised, as I was, to find this article contained until a few days ago ago, absolutely no references to the cases of Victoria Climbie and "Baby P".

The fact that controversial issues are covered in British tabloids does not render them un-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored, and can be a valuable source of facts as opposed to rumour. A feature of the Climbie and Baby Peter cases is that Haringey failed, or refused to perceive its failure and that only national, Parliamentary and Ministerial criticism seems to have awakened the local authority to that.

It was also surprising that the page has been semi-protected against vandalism, even though there seems to have been ony one instance of this. WP rules state that protection should not be used against a perceived threat; only after a pattern of vandalism is evident, and I propose that the protection is removed until it is clearly needed, enabling non-registered editors to add information.

Hope this is helpful.--Straw Cat (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that this article is about the Borough, not the council. Haringey Council redirects here but the focus of the article is the Borough. I think it would be worth starting a new section on Haringey Council (I guess I'll start it based on what's already in the lead) which can then be expanded and possibly split off into it's own article if there is enough material to warrant it. GDallimore (Talk) 16:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't need a new section, after all. I'd just misread the current section breaks. I've combined separate sections into one politics section based on City of Westminster, which looked to be a pretty good model. GDallimore (Talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the article was semi-protected for one month as it seemed likely that people would use it to express their unconsidered anger. That's not what wikipedia is for. As the full report is now available, the opportunity should be given to allow the article to be improved, based on evidence - so, I'll unprotect it. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the resignation of George Meehan, the infobox is wrong. I cannot find who is his replacement. Any ideas? cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Meehan's success will be voted for tonight I think (9th December).--Mw-wsh (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Demirci

Did not Ali Demirci cross the floor at the same time as Catherine Harris? (Much as I would hate to rub salt etc etc...) BTLizard (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a little later - but fairly close. Don't worry about the salt - I hear he was considered as "not very active" ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the Politics section accordingly. BTLizard (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents - Yehudi Menuhin, Sting,

I have removed, for now, Yehudi Menuhin and Sting from the notable residents list. If you want to replace either, please provide a good reference which demonstrates that they did live in this borough. My concern is that they may only have been listed here because they lived in Highgate village and someone has wrongly extrapolated from that to take it as Haringey. In fact, they lived in the same house (not at the same time!) in The Grove, but that house is most definitely in Camden not Haringey. So if they are to go back in, it must be because they lived somewhere else (er - I mean two somewhere elses, I guess!) that really was/were in this borough. All comments and clarification gratefully read. Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed three further names (JB Priestly, Colerdige and George Michael) on the same basis. All relate to the Camden part of Highgate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathandt (talk • contribs) 04:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Our own article makes it clear that Coleridge lived in The Grove (same or neighbouring house I wonder?). I don't know about George Michael or Priestley but I agree with taking them out if you know they are wrong: anyone wanting them back in would only have to cite the evidence! :) This is clearly a problem that will be constant for this article given Highgate's nature and its boundaries ... DBaK (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Gatehouse really in Haringey? (No, it's in Camden)

I can't figure it out from the map. It looks like it could be in Camden too but it's hard to see precisely where the border runs. I'm taking no action (other than writing this message) as I am really unsure - does anyone have anything clear on this? Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (x-posted to Talk:Upstairs at The Gatehouse)[reply]

Oops answered my own question: please see this where it says "The boundary problem continued as the names changed, most recently with Camden and Haringey sharing the building. In 1993 the border was moved a few feet to allow one licensing authority overall control and The Gatehouse is now the last pub (going North) in Camden." I'm moving it - hope this is OK< if not please discuss. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Highlanders - interesting but unusable?

The article contains this: "The borough is very ethnically diverse. It has extreme contrasts:[4] areas in the west, such as Highgate, Muswell Hill and Crouch End are among the most prosperous in the country; in the east of the borough, some wards are classified as being among the most deprived 10% in the country.[5]". Very true. It's known in the borough that this sets up some interesting tensions, for example in spending priorities etc. It's also known, I think, to quite a few that some Council people - officers or elected, I don't know - have been known unofficially to refer to the population of those richer Western parts as the "White Highlanders". Obviously this is not a wildly affectionate description (see the linked article) and is unlikely to do anyone's career much good if they're caught using it. But it does, I think, say something interesting about the borough and its people and council. Trouble is, I think it's probably pretty much 100% unciteable, and should therefore stay out, especially since it's contentious and only has my or your word for it. I did find one possible reference to it online (Google for '"white highlanders" Haringey') but that leads to a paid-for service. Any bright ideas? Please note, to repeat - I am entirely clear that this cannot be used without good references: I am emphatically not repeat not advocating just whacking it in to see what happens! Without a really good ref it's nowhere, and rightly so. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Haringeywebcomms, 19 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Re: section 3.2 - Wards

The Ward Profile Pages have all been removed from the Haringey Council website and replaced by PDFs which can be founf on the main www.haringey.gov.uk/wardprofiles page (need to amend the text accordingly, update link 23 to www.haringey.gov.uk/wardprofiles and remove links 24-42).

Thanks

Haringeywebcomms (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Celestra (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Nextting, 25 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Haringey is an inner london borough.

Nextting (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✗ Not done. No it isn't; there's a formal definition of "Inner London", and it stops at Seven Sisters Road. – iride scent 14:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real bone of contention for Haringey Council and actually if you look at the page you linked to iridescent, the ONS include Haringey in their definition of inner London. Shouldn't that difference of opinion be recognised in the article? hjuk (talk)

If you can think of a way to work it in without being misleading, be my guest; it needs to be made clear, though, that for purposes of local government finance, London Weighting, policing levels etc Haringey (and Newham) are treated as "Outer London", since those are the reasons people are likely to be looking for information on the definition of Inner vs Outer. – iride scent 14:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actch, it already seems to be there in the opening para. So not clear on the reasoning for the request from Nextting hjuk (talk)

Proposed merge with Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion moved to articles for deletion MRSC (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly some trivia about LBH relying only on a number of primary sources for it's content. It would make much more sense if reintegrated back into the main article. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not trivia, that's a ridiculous claim. It's about the arms of the borough. It can't be "reintegrated" because most of the article was not in the borough article before the arms article was created. The article may be short, but that's no reason for deleting it. It should be developed in stead. Wikipedia has too little information about municipal heraldry, local constitutions and related subjects. Arms Jones (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for merging the articles (not deleting) is that we don't (currently) have reliable sources which talk about this subject as a separate topic from London Borough of Haringey. It's possible that we might find some better sources that delve more deeply into the heraldic significance, designers, committee of approvers (etc), but there's nothing like this yet.

The Coat of Arms article provides very little information which is not already in the main LBH article: It begins with a reiteration of LBH's history. The bulk of the article (and the most reliable source) is a quote from LBH's own website. The article ends with a mention of the BBC's broadcasting history at Alexandra Palace which is actually expressed more clearly in the main LBH article. In summary the correct thing to do here is not to make an article about this small detail of LBH, but to use the best sources to improve the article. 80% of the reliably sourced material is already present here! --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article can and should be improved, like any article on Wikipedia. This encyclopaedia is never finished. So improve it, and don't go around suggesting mergers without thinking it through. The arms is not a "small detail", together with the name Haringey it is the most important thing identifying the borough as a legal subject. Arms Jones (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arms Jones, I reject the accusation that I'm "suggesting mergers without thinking it through". If you read my previous comment carefully you'd understand that the reason for merging these articles is that apart from the quote, the new article duplicates the old one. On reflection, the article might better be a candidate for deletion since there's really nothing to merge! --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not duplicate any old article. Also, when I say you are not thinking this through, it is because you seem not to understand the nature of heraldry and coats of arms, probably just seeing them as any replaceable ad logo. They are not. Now you are even suggesting a deletion of the article all together. What's the next step on your crusade? To remove the name Haringey from the headline of this article? What is it you want, really? Arms Jones (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New logo

Haringey has a new logo. Unfortunately I don't seem to have permission to change the image in this article, nor can I upload it to this talk page (because I didn't create it). I do, however, have a SVG version of the new logo extracted from Haringey's 2015 brand deck which was released under FOI. How can I provide this file to somebody who is able to update the page? (apologies for my ignorance) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnm831 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it; thanks for letting us know. ‑ Iridescent 16:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Borough of Haringey. 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) 11:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on London Borough of Haringey. 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) 13:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation / Respelling

I initially misunderstood the purpose of the spelling added. However, even though I now understand, it's still not clear to the everyday reader without looking at the link. Making this edit only adds to the already widespread confusion about the difference between Haringey and Harringay. Given the value this edit adds compared to the everyday real-life issue with the confusion between the two differently spelt entities, in my view this change is unhelpful and helps further the confusion. Therefore I'd suggest that it is abandoned. HughJLF (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HughJLF: What about now? Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: Thanks, it's better. Let's leave it and see how it goes. It's grand on the Harringay article because it doesn't confuse anything.HughJLF (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit

Full disclosure - writing from Haringey Council offices to request changes to inaccurate information. The current council logo shown on the page is out of date - can this be changed? Also, the mayor's name is incorrectly given as Cllr Gina Adamou. It's now Cllr Sheila Peacock ^[1]

I've done so—thanks for letting us know. ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. One more change please, the Politics section includes the following sentence: "At the Annual General Meeting of the Council on 24 May 2018, Cllr Joseph Ejiofor was elected as Leader of the Council. Cllr Emina Ibrahim is the Deputy Leader, and Gina Amadou is the Mayor of Haringey."

Please could that be removed or updated? Cllr Ejiofor is still the Leader, but as stated above, the Mayor is Cllr Peacock. The Deputy Leader is currently Cllr Zena Brabazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.152.152 (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm going to remove that sentence because it does not have a citation and doesn't particularly add any additional value to the article. Hereward.Mills (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.haringey.gov.uk/local-democracy/councillors-and-mps/mayors-page

Tottenham

Tottenham is a worldwide-known brand, why has this borough an internationally unknown name as Haringay?

[1] ttps://www.haringey.gov.uk/local-democracy/councillors-and-mps/mayors-page

[1]