Jump to content

Talk:Burning of Parliament/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

(Untitled)

Reword for clarity?

"The account of this historic event in 1834 is due to the English novelist Charles Dickens, as described in a book by Tobias Dantzig. "

At first glance, I read this as saying the event itself, rather than the following account of the event was due to Charles Dickens. I cannot think of a more clear way to write the sentence, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.25.191 (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Split request

What’s the point of this page? It deals with totally unrelated events. A “burning of parliament” is not a topic and I doubt there’s any source dealing with “parliament burning” as a general notion through history. I think each burning should be dealt with in the related parliament’s article, unless there’s enough content to make a dedicated page like Reichstag fire or a possible Palace of Westminster 1834 burning. 83.199.17.199 11:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me, although a List of... page could be useful. I suspect the phrase "Burning of Parliament" would be most associated with the UK parliament in 1834, though perhaps the WWII damage should remain in the same article. The Reichstag fire already has its own article. Where should the information on Canada and Denmark go? -- Perey 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I’d say in Parliament Hill (but #Great fire and rebuilding is already there) and Christiansborg Palace. See also Palace of Westminster#History : there’s as much about the 1834 fire than here apart from the Dickens quotation, and the paragraph about the 1941 fire could be added there. 83.199.19.70 06:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the page could be better titled - "Governmental buildings destroyed by fire" or similar - and could include eg the Burning of Washington: and develop as a list (for those looking for obscure connections, quiz-setters etc). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

'Ten reasons why destroying records is bad for you' (No 1) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we ought to glad be (!) be glad that tally-stick shredders did not exist in the nineteenth century. Oh, wait...
I have long thought that a separate "History of the Palace of Westminster" article is not just desirable, but necessary; not only is there much more to say about the 1834 fire and the Blitz damage, but all sorts of events have taken place in the building (including a major terrorist attack in 1885 that's not even mentioned in the main article), and its construction and renovation history is long and complicated. And that's just the New Palace we are talking about, as the Old Palace has a centuries-long history of constructions, demolitions and reconstructions, including the 1512 fire that left almost as little as the next one and drove out Henry VIII, the last monarch to live there. Therefore, if no alternative focus can be found for this article, I am thinking that it could constitute the core of such a "History..." article. Creating it from scratch would not make much difference, but we'd avoid the deletion and provide some continuation this way. Waltham, The Duke of 06:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the tally sticks still existed they could have been sold as a "piece of England's heritage" (using the familiar style from newspaper/magazine adverts and TV selling channels) - possibly to be used for housing into which MPs can duck from annoyed constituents, and moats in which filthy lucre can be cleansed. (g)

Given that the tale is likely to be more Original Research than suited for WP's rules, and probably being best suited to a collaborative structure, what would be the best place to develop and place the history? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand entirely what you are saying; what little information there is in this article is basically true, although I cannot speak about a couple of details.
Now, I believe the simplest and most straightforward location for the article is History of the Palace of Westminster. If we choose to use this article as the base and work straight on it, then we'll have to move it when it starts expanding beyond the subject of fires (probably right at the beginning). However, I think that we need a place to develop the new article in our own pace and without fear of breaking any policies. (We also have to remember that it will take a relatively sudden and significant expansion of the article for it to be eligible for DYK.) I offer my userspace for the task. I already have a Palace of Westminster workshop, although I haven't done much work there, as I am still trying to obtain some good printed sources on the subject. We'd create a new sub-page in my userspace, copy this article there, work on it, and in the end have some sorry admin perform a merger for us. The way I think of it, it will be more discussion than editing, but I promise not to be possessive with the draft. It would be preferable for one to have declared an interest in the project first, though.
By the way, I haven't actually asked you what the intended extent of your involvement is... I seem to have taken it for granted momentarily. My bad. Waltham, The Duke of 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this is not a good plan. The 1834 fire was a major disaster, and there will no doubt be material for a separate article of a decent size; all one has to do is find it. (Someone with a library nearby, I should suppose.) Waltham, The Duke of 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was making a humorous comment relating to the MPs expenses scandal (involving duck houses and moat cleaning among other things) and noting that 'bits of history' (from the Berlin Wall to crockery retrieved from sunken ships) are regularly sold at vast expense.

There are a couple of files (being 'bundles of documents') at The National Archives on the subject - quite a few people reporting that they had overheard comments that someone was going to burn Parliament down and similar claims. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive the delay in my replying, Jackiespeel, but my access to the World Wide Web is not what it used to be. In any case, I got your joke straight away; what I did not understand properly was what tale was likely to be mostly original research.
Regarding the files you mention, I must point out that the use of primary sources in Wikipedia is discouraged (their interpretation tends to be uncomfortably close to original research, for one thing), and that it is next to impossible for me to reach the National Archives anyway. Since my last message here, however, I am happy to report that I have acquired several books on the Palace of Westminster, and that a couple of them include details on the fire. In time, and along with on-line sources, this should help me expand the article considerably... But I think my clean-up and new introduction will do for now. Waltham, The Duke of 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion?? Hardly! Merging?? When, where and how?

The page certainly has its shortcomings, including its organisation, and it is possible that it could be merged with, or even replaced by material in some other page, but there is not yet any clear indication that that would be appropriate, let alone desirable. The topic is notable and important in its own right and if every event in the history of the British Parliament had to go into the same article, it would be hopelessly unwieldy. The sensible thing to do until an adequately structured Parliament project is in place, would be to maintain this article, tidy it up a bit, make sure that the citations are adequate and that the text is not too much like literal quotes, then make sure that there are appropriately generous cross links. The suggested DYKs and Workshops sound fine, and I have no quarrel with them, but I reckon that until they are complete and ready for use, and there is adequate basis for readers to look up tally-stick fires and so on, this one should remain in place; Accessibility always is every bit as important as content; often more so. And a third-rate article now is better than a first-rate article in the indefinite future. JonRichfield (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The fire was caused by the destruction of tally sticks?

how does the destruction of tally sticks have anything to do with the burning of parliament? (Fdsdh1 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

The tally sticks were being got rid of in the furnaces (rather than my anachronistic suggestion above). The old Houses of Parliament were recognised as being (anachronistic again) seriously in default of Health and Safety Regulations (much old wood etc) The BBC webpage here [1] describes what happened. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

'From what I understand' (several sources including the BBC Parliament channel programme): some components of the Houses of Parliament complex were largely of wood and the possibility of fire was a recognised issue - the 'H&S' comment was summarising the arguments.

Like the Crystal Palace the destruction of the Houses of Parliament is notable for the absence of loss of life. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Standard measurements

Quote: "The British standard measurements, the yard and pound, were both lost in the blaze; the measurements had been created in 1496 by Edward I." That would be the Edward I who died in 1307? More research, please. GrindtXX (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Titling

  • If we standardize "Burning of Parliament (London)" and "Burning of Parliament (Montreal)", perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Perhaps we could ask Cassianto to clarify, because when he said "I quite like the current one" I took it as not worrying overmuch about changing it. In terms of the Montreal burning, I'm not saying it isn't an important event, but is it ever called the "Burning of Parliament"? There are some very limited references in a Google Books search, which seem to relate to the library only, rather than anything else. The same search seems to show it is more commonly used to discuss the British parliament. As you know I am not overkeen on the name, but having looked into it a little further (although not to any great depth) it does seem to be the WP:COMMONNAME for the event. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I saw your point CT and gave you my preference if it came to it that we had to rename the title. However, given all the names, the current one wins by a furlong. CassiantoTalk 10:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of course it's the most attractive name. That's not the issue. Consider that "Burning of Parliament" is not the WP:COMMONNAME of either, and the Montreal burning had been part of the "Burning of Parliament" article since 2003—a mere two months after the article's creation. One cannot reasonably assume that a reader seeing the title "Burning of Parliament" will assume it's a British event, nor can one reasonably assume that someone entering "Burning of Parliament" into the search box is searching for the British event. Could we perhaps get some non-British voices to weigh in? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where the "attractive" bit comes in? (If you're refering to my comment on capitalisation, the title contains "Parliament Buildings", which does not seem correct capitalisation). As I've said above, after a little digging around, it appears that "Burning of Parliament" may actually be the WP:COMMONNAME for the British parliament (that's only based on a Google and a Goole Books search). Does anyone know if there is a "proper" name for the Montreal fire? - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There doesn't appear to be one, though "Montreal" is normally a part of it as the capital moved frequently at the time (due to, say, parliament burnings). How are you conducting your Google Books search? Because the first three hits I get are bookified versions of the Wikipedia article, and three other hits on the first page are for "burning of Parliament House(s)". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As per the link I gave earlier: Google Books search - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't look like evidence of a COMMONNAME—it's a grand total of 66 hits, the first three of which are bookified versions of this very article (out of four), at least fourteen (!) are about the Montreal burning, several others are "Burning of Parliament House(s)", at least one is aprediction of a Parliament burning in New Zealand in 1907, and several seem unrelated. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Except many of the Montreal references are not titles for it tho: they are generic descriptive references, not proper names for the event. They are also not using "Burning of Parliament", except as part of a wider term, including "Burning of parliament library", "Burning of parliament buildings" or and "Burning of parliament house". - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It's not a question of resistance: it's a question of examining if the move is needed and, if it is, what the best titles would be. It certainly hasn't been an issue on the Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal article since it was formed back in February 2009, with no page moves since, and no conversations on the talk page. I'm not sure it's worth all the discussion, it really is something of a non-issue because there is no confusion between the two. This is more of a common name for this subject than Montreal, which is why no-one has questioned it in the last six years. I'm also not sure why this needs to be discussed here - this should be something for the article talk page, not for FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree: it isn't resistance – it's that we seem to be frantically searching for a solution to what is not noticeably a problem. But is there some nationalistic issue here that I'm missing? Anyhow, I concur that the matter is best pursued, if pursued it must be, on the article talk page, allowing us to make progress here. – Tim riley talk 14:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Interesting discussion (to me at least). Comes down to two questions really. First, what is the common name in reliable sources of this topic currently titled "Burning of Parliament"? I don't think this has been conclusively proven one way or the other, SchroCat and Curly Turkey both provided some evidence and were then divided on the analysis, as were other commentators. So I don't think there was a consensus on the common name, therefore we default to the status quo which assumes the current title is it. Next, we have to ask which: is this British burning the primary topic for the term "Burning of Parliament"? That is, when that term is used in reliable sources is it much more likely that it will be referring to the British event? Again, some evidence was provided but there was no consensus on the interpretation. So again we arrive at no consensus which defaults to maintaining the status quo.

Should this discussion be revisited I'd recommend doing the RM separate of a discussion about the title of the Montreal article. And focus the proposed title on what this topic is called in sources. I'm leary of suggestions towards the end of the discussion recommending "Burning of the Palace of Westminster" when there is no evidence provided that it has ever been called that. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


– Which "Burning of Parliament" this article is about is not immediately clear, and from 2003 until 2009 the Burning of Parliament article actually covered both. Both current articles are quite substantial. Searching Google Books has determined that there is no WP:COMMONNAME for either burning. As there are only two "Burning of Parliament" articles, I hope this proposal is the simplest, and that the Burning of Parliament page can be made into a redirect. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose change; support current name. Utterly counter-intuative. A Google web search and a Google book search shows only the page of the PR. That's it: one hit only, and it's one of our own discussions. People will struggle to find the subject if we start to invent entirely unconnected names for something that already has a relatively common name. A Google Books search shows "Burning of Parliament" is more of a WP:COMMONNAME for this article than anything else, while the Montreal references in those results tend to be as part of a wider term, including "Burning of parliament library", "Burning of parliament buildings" or and "Burning of parliament house". - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What if we where to say Burning of Parliament (Canada) and Burning of Parliament (United Kingdom). -- Moxy (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Moxy, go ahead and change the articles to your suggestion. It's unnecessary and pointless, but atr least it'll mean more constructive things can be done instead. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd also support that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's no such thing as "more of a COMMONNAME"—it's either a COMMONNAME or it's not, and this one's not. The Google Books search shows 66 hits total for "Burning of Parliament", four of which are book versions of this article, eleven of which use "Burning of Parliament House(s)", fourteen of which refer to the Montreal burning, some of which are duplicates (Modern Painters, 67° Tally sticks and the burning of Parliament), and a surprising number of false hits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, this one is the common name then: it certainly isn't any name for Montreal. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You've misunderstood what WP:COMMONNAME is about—it's not a relative thing. It's about using the name that the subject is most overwhelmingly known as—it's what determines that the Ringo Starr article is not titled Richard Starkey, and the Down syndrome article is not titled Trisomy 21. The event is not overwhelmingly called "Burning of Parliament", nor do readers necessarily associate "Burning of Parliament" with the British event (I certainly don't). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Just because you have not heard of something, or do not understand something does not mean that it isn't right. And just because the phrase "Burning of Parliament" is used as part of a variety of other names for the Montreal parliament doesn't in any way make it less of a COMMONNAME for the Palace of Westminster fire. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope this will not get personal, SchroCat—the "Delphic oracle" comment is not called for, and completely misses the point I was trying to communicate. I do have to point out this comment, where you call the current title "the least satisfactory part of the article ... as only a few of the sources refer to the event as such". Which, if you read WP:COMMONNAME, makes it clear that this title is not the COMMONNAME. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Using the argument 'I haven't heard of it therefore...' (roughly summarised) invites such comparisons. None ofus are Delphic oracles, but to try and claim something on the basis of one's personal knowledge or ignorance isn't the way to go about "proving" a common name. We will have to disagree on the COMMONNAME: the sources speak for themselves, and we judge them differently. All is moot, however, as I have already agreed to go along with Moxy's suggestion, altough this is a change for the sake of change, I feel. - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
SchroCat, I never did use the arguemnt "I haven't heard of it before", did I? I wrote nor do readers necessarily associate "Burning of Parliament" with the British event (I certainly don't). The difference is not even subtle. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agnostic, leaning to oppose – Try as I may I can't work out what the fuss is about. I'd gladly support if I thought the change of title would be helpful to the visitor, but hand on heart I can't see how it would be. I have considerable respect for Curly Turkey, but on this occasion I'm struggling to see where he is coming from with the proposal. I remain open to conviction, nevertheless. – Tim riley talk 15:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree: I am not sure why the need for the change. "Burning of Parliament" is not the name applied to the Montreal fire, so I don't know why we're inventing something just for the sake of it. If someone can start giving good reasons for the chnage then I'm all up for it, but we have two different titles for two different events already, and no need for false disambiguation just for the sake of it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Can easily by resolved with a hatnore/dab pages. By default Burning of Parliament should refer to this monumental event which garner the most hits. And Parliament by default does mean the British one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
And Parliament by default does mean the British one: No, that is very untrue. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – For the reasons cited above. How sad that you couldn't have done this during the peer review. CassiantoTalk 17:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the only event known as the Burning of Parliament. Hat notes can be used to link readers looking for a different article. Calidum T|C 19:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppose support moving the British Parliament, since it is highly ambiguous what is meant by this title. Oppose moving the Montreal parliament article, since the Canadian parliament has burned multiple times, including the one now found in Ottawa. ; Per the nom, this article has been a hash of British and Canadian events, and local bias will favor local parliaments, so we should clear the base name for all Parliament burns. WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS on the issue of "Parliament" meaning the one in London, clearly highly biased viewpoint not supported by people who live in places with Parliaments. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as Burning of Parliament → Burning of the British Parliament,
There is only one British parliament. GregKaye 19:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

See also searches on (westminster OR parliament) AND 1834 AND (burn OR burning OR fire) in books, on the web and in scholar GregKaye 19:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Sussexonian, most people wouldn't know from that title that the parliament building burned, because most people don't know that the parliament building is the Palace of Westminster. Could we just add the word "building" to the proposed move, so it would be Burning of British parliament building? Or how about Burning of British houses of parliament? The phrase "British houses of parliament" seems common at Google books.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Those are gramatically poor, let alone incorrect. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
User:SchroCat, if someone were to offer you a billion dollars to clarify the title so that it more clearly refers to England, and more clearly refers to the Houses of Parliament rather than parliament itself, how would you do it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what England has to do with it. And I wouldn't accept dollars - I'd want sterling, preferably in guineas. As I've already said above, Burning of Parliament is sufficient as the title. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but you still have to answer the question to get the guineas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I haver already answered this point on several ocassions. For the benefit of doubt I repeat what I wrote a few lines above: Burning of Parliament is sufficient as the title. The Montreal title is also fit for purpose. I don't intend repeating my very clear position any further. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, but you don't get the guineas, because you did not say how you would clarify the title so that it more clearly refers to England, and more clearly refers to the Houses of Parliament rather than parliament itself. I will have to spend the guineas myself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I have trouble wrapping my head around what "sufficient as the title" is supposed to mean. "Burning of Parliament" means the burning of non-British Parliament buildings to millions of people. The title is insufficient to let those people know what the topic of this article is about.
For the record: I don't care what term is used to disambiguate the different Parliament burnings, as long as they're disambiguated. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion remains "Burning of the Palace of Westminster" which is concise (not too many words), accurate (official and well-known name of the building) and unambiguous (obviously relates to the place in England). Replying to User:Anythingyouwant, who says most people wouldn't know from that title that the parliament building burned, because most people don't know that the parliament building is the Palace of Westminster, even if true it's not the purpose of an article title to provide information for readers, that's the purpose of the article and the lead in particular. And if "Burning of Parliament" is kept either as a redirect or disamb page, that job too is done. --Sussexonian (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I support that, Sussexonian. I will support any new title that clarifies which country (your suggestion does that), and your suggestion also happens to clarify that the building was destroyed rather than the institution or the members being destroyed. I would prefer a title that people would be more likely to understand as referring to parliament, but I still think "Burning of the Palace of Westminster" is a disambiguating improvement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Exchequer in background section

The word "Exchequer" is explained and wlinked later in this same section. So, I would change "exchequer buildings" to "revenue buildings". In any event, the issue should be addressed somehow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Revenue buildings" means nothing at all. The Exchequer does mean something, – SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
No, no, the correct term is revenue, as we Americans understand. Anyway, thanks for fixing the problem, albeit in a British way. And you're welcome for pointing it out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that this isn't in American English: it's in BrEng, so "revenue building" means absolutely nothing – indeed it would be grammatically incorrect here. – SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote is too long and is redundant as well

The hat says: "This article is about the 1834 fire in the Palace of Westminster. For the 1849 fire in the Montreal Parliament buildings, see Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal." No need to say Montreal Parliament buildings twice. I would say: "This article is about the 1834 fire. For the 1849 fire, see Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal." That's 19 words instead of 29.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What's a "Black Rod's box"?

The Wikipedia article Black Rod doesn't mention a "box". Black Rod itself ought to be explained or removed. I will be BOLD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm all done proofreading, and found very few things to edit. By the way, the Black Rod's "box" refers to box seating,[2] and I wikilinked it accordingly. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Any deaths?

I didn't see it mentioned. Am I to understand that nobody died in this fire? That might be worth noting. Possibly in the lead. Dismas|(talk) 12:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the last line of the 16 October 1834 section: "Despite the size and ferocity of the fire, there were no deaths, although there were nine casualties during the night's events that were serious enough to require hospitalisation." Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"Biggest conflagration"

All done and dusted, and no need for more insults and incivility from the IP. – SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The resulting fire spread rapidly throughout the complex and developed into the biggest conflagration to occur in London between the Great Fire of 1666 and the Blitz of the Second World War

Who measures these things? The Conflagration Measurement Board? How, exactly, do we know that this was a larger conflagration than, say, the burning of the Palace of Whitehall in 1698 or the fires during the Gordon Riots, which destroyed, among other things, the prison of Newgate? Easily edited, but I point it out b/c unsubstantiated and unprovable statements like this should be avoided. 199.108.124.254 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

As with all articles on Wikipedia we reflect what the reliable sources have to offer. This statement is adequately supported by the sources. – SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
There is neither a citation to that sentence nor a further reference to "biggest conflagration" anywhere in the article (there is a reference to "momentous"--they're not synonyms, in case you hadn't noticed). Your statement is patently false. Passive aggressive "scholarship" by editors using the royal "we" to defend indefensible edits is exactly why I and, I daresay, so many others have given up editing--we're tired of dealing with editors who can admit no wrong, even when their mistakes are glaringly obvious. I've reverted your unsubstantiated change--I have no doubt you will again revert it, which is hardly a good-faith edit since I've pointed out your error. 199.108.124.254 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Please do not edit war over this. The citation is in the body of the report. The lede summarises the body, so you need to look at the body of the article to see the citation. I suggest you look at the body of the article before you revert. There is no error here, and no mistake, "glaringly obvious" or not. – SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
YOU are the one who is edit warring--you have twice now reverted a perfectly reasonable change that increases the accuracy of the article. I see NO citation that refers to the superlative size of the fire, and in any case you could have easily pointed it out if it existed. You are simply one of the many editors on wikipedia who can't stand to have their articles edited. Too bad--that's one of the many reasons people laugh when wikipedia is referenced as a reliable source. 199.108.124.254 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x2 Then I suggest you read the article properly, not just the lead. The rest of your comments about Wikipedia editors are fairly baseless and incorrect and your approach is doing little but wasting time. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
And I'll thank you NOT to edit my comments--really, your protectiveness of this article is just tad compulsive, don't you think? Can't even let other people have an opinion . . . 199.108.124.254 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
My apologies--I thought you'd deleted something I'd written. At least some people can admit a mistake . . . And I'm still waiting for you to provide that citation you claimed exists--if you don't we'll know whose veracity is rather sketchy. 199.108.124.254 (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
As,above: read the full article properly. The lead summarises the rest. – SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thought so. You don't have a reference; mendacity, thy name is SchroCat. If you were really serious about this business, you would either provide a reference or accept that that superlative statement is wrong. But this is about your ownership of this article, not about accuracy. Again, too bad. You're part of the reason people laugh at wikipedia, and why I, at least, will not give them a dime while there is no remedy for "editors" like yourself. 199.108.124.254 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the insults, not assuming any good faith at all, and not bothering to read the article. The information is in Shenton's book, just as the body of the text says it is. Time for you to go now, as it appears you are doing little more than trolling. – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me--you imply I can't read English but *I'm* being insulting when I'm pointing out your inaccuracies. I'm just trying to get you to provide a citation for a statement you've made, which you seem unable to provide. A quotation, a page reference? Surely you must have something? And how is one able to assume good faith from someone who claims a source but won't provide specifics, and constantly reverts a perfectly acceptable, and more accurate, revision? You are the troll, if anyone is. I will not go until you provide your evidence, which you seem incapable of doing so far. What are you, an accurate editor, or a liar? And that's not an insult, that's just the cleft stick in which you find yourself. 199.108.124.254 (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I've told you it's in the Shenton book. I've told you its in the article. If you're too lazy to read the article to see the reference then I am not going to spoon feed it to you. Bye bye. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
And I've told YOU that it's not and asked for your specific reference. If you can't produce what you claim is obvious, I can only conclude that you are lying. Good faith requires you to back up what you say--and yet you have the audacity to question my good faith? 199.108.124.254 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Since you've refused to provide a citation to verify the accuracy this statement, I have submitted this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. 199.108.124.254 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You should have saved yours and other people's time by reading the article. Its clearly referred to in there, but if you only go by the lede, you won't find it. It's also in the Shenton book. That's two major hints for you, and I suggest you do some reading to join the dots. – SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
LOL!!! Just because you keep saying so doesn't make it true. There is no statement either in the article or in Shenton that specifically calls this the "biggest" fire between the Great Fire and the Blitz--Shenton certainly is too intelligent to be caught out that way. And since you again fail to provide a specific citation, I can only conclude that you are lying and acting in bad faith. How hard can it be to provide a page reference to a source that says this was the "biggest" fire ??? Yet you still haven't . . . 199.108.124.254 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/estatehistory/reformation-1834/destruction-by-fire/ Good bye. – SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

Misleading reference to yard & pound standards

The current article states that "The British standard measurements, the yard and pound, were both lost in the blaze; the measurements had been created in 1496.[59]" The footnote ref is to p.37 of Gupta.

This sentence seems misleading to me: as if the standards that were lost dated from 1496. The burned-up yard standard that had to be replaced was from 1758, and this matters. If reference to the earliest yard standard created is what is desired, not what was burned, that should be made clearer, no? If the (no longer used) standard from 1496 was burned there should be evidence of that. It may be true but I have never seen that fact. Cheers. (Jonathan.h.grossman (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC))

Spaces

In this edit summary SchroCat writes that "BrEng does not use spaces [after initial letters in a person's name] – ENGVAR applies here". As a native speaker of British English myself this is a new one to me (but then again I never noticed these things before I started editing Wikipedia). I don't see any mention of it in WP:INITIALS (quite an important omission from there, if true) or WP:ENGVAR. SchroCat, can you point to anywhere this has been said? Cheers, Ham II (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fairly common practice as far as I am concerned, particularly in numerous FAs (and the lack of spaces were there when this went through FAC. Tim riley, can I ask for your input on this one too please? - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Modern British usage is out of step with WP's MoS. The BBC, Her Majesty's Government, and most newspapers don't use full stops at all, and would print "W S Gilbert". Those that retain them, from my observation, omit a space. (Those that omit the stops tend to have a space, except for The Guardian, which goes the whole hog and prints "PG Wodehouse".) I think, despite the bran-tub that is British usage, it is true to say that Intial-full-stop-space-Initial, as in P. G. Wodehouse, is distinctly antiquated. But as to amending the MoS, though I can pretty confidently say what British usage isn't, it is, as you can see from the above, hard to give a firm ruling on what it is.Tim riley talk 21:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. To give another example, the Oxford Style Manual, §3.2, requires "spaces between the elements (W. G. Grace, G. B. Shaw, J. R. R. Tolkien)". I'm British, and for preference would normally omit spaces. However, the MoS is quite unambiguous (MOS:SPACEINITS): "An initial is followed by a full stop (period) and a space" – and again uses J. R. R. Tolkien as its example. (And, of course, your preferred J.M.W. Turner simply redirects to J. M. W. Turner.) Pleading MOS:ENGVAR is irrelevant: that applies to "vocabulary, ... spelling, ... date formatting, ... and occasionally grammar", not to the detail of typographic style conventions – which is why, for example, we invariably put quotes in double quotation marks, contrary to standard British practice. GrindtXX (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The OSM also uses ~ize, not ~ise and this article eschews both the z endings and the spaces between full stops. The MoS is a guideline, not a cast-in-stone unbreakable policy, and some flexibility is allowable. – SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The MoS is widely ignored when its diktats are clearly daft. I suppose there are Featured Articles that don't defy the MoS rule about not putting blue-links within quotations, but I can't remember seeing one, and at PR and FAC one is asked for more, not fewer, links within quotes. It's a question of common sense rather than blind obedience. Same for initials here, meseems. Tim riley talk 22:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, I'd have thought the "common sense" solution is normally to bluelink directly to another article (i.e. to use the form of name used in that article title), unless there's some good reason to go via a redirect, which in this case there isn't. However, this is too trivial a matter to argue over, and I don't intend to contribute further to this discussion. GrindtXX (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on this admittedly minor mater. Modern British usage is out of step with WP's MoS. – agreed, and so is the OSM for usage outside of Oxford University Press publications, as in the "–ize" example given. However: Pleading MOS:ENGVAR is irrelevant: that applies to "vocabulary, ... spelling, ... date formatting, ... and occasionally grammar", not to the detail of typographic style conventions – I agree with this too, and the guidelines in the MoS are our house style just as "–ize" endings, serial commas, etc. are the OUP's. If there's no ENGVAR argument (and I also don't see any clear "common sense" argument for one form over the other here) I'd prefer to restore the spaces, but if I'm alone in this preference I'll leave it. Cheers, Ham II (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I would, obviously, prefer that the spaces are omitted: we do not have to slavishly follow a guideline, and flexibility is inherent in spirit in the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
By coincidence I have just needed to link to PJ Harvey (sic) from an article I'm writing. A classic example of how local usage is given precedence over the general MoS conventions. Tim riley talk 08:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Parliamentary Archives to relocate?

They probably will, although we'll know their definite plans next year. They're certainly considering it, and I think it would be appropriate to include this in the "Legacy" section, but I'm not sure whether the first paragraph or the last would serve best. Mentioning that the surviving parliamentary archives have been stored in the Victoria Tower (designed for this purpose) ever since it was built, and are still there but might now leave, would be a nice addition, considering what is already said about the New Palace. Waltham, The Duke of 15:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Elementary grammar

"Vast gangs of the light-fingered gentry in attendance, who doubtless reaped a rich harvest, and [who] did not fail to commit several desperate outrages." In what English-speaking universe is that a grammatically complete sentence? There are two subordinate clauses, but no main clause and no main verb. It is a sentence fragment. GrindtXX (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No comments, so I am reverting to correct punctuation. GrindtXX (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burning_of_Parliament/Archive_1&oldid=1168363920"