Jump to content

Talk:Coldbath Fields riot

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
An 1899 depiction of the riot
An 1899 depiction of the riot
  • ... that a jury ruled that the killing of a policeman during the Coldbath Fields riot (pictured) was justifiable homicide? Source: I've cited it to a book in the article but you can also find it in the online sources, eg: "The coroner's jury that examined the death of Culley returned a verdict of 'justifiable homicide'. The jury justified its verdict on the grounds that the crowd had not been ordered to disperse under the terms of the Riot Act, and that the 'conduct of the police was ferocious, brutal, and unprovoked by the people'." from: "Public Order: Heavy-Handed Policing: The Killing of Constable Culley". International Centre for the History of Crime, Policing and Justice. Open University. Retrieved 4 January 2022.

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 20:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is DYK-eligible and well sourced. Appears neutral. Quite well-written, too, although that isn't a DYK criterion. Earwig looks good. Hook is hooky, good length, sourced. Image is PD and quite crisp at DYK size. Approved! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P4

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Coldbath Fields riot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review the article.

Review comments

[edit]

Generally, the main issue is concerned with the quality of the prose—the article would have benefitted from being copy edited before being nominated. However, I found the article to be an interesting read, supported by excellent references.

Lead section

[edit]
  • Link Southwark.
Done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add commas after the Reform Act of 1832, started the violence, dispersed the crowd, and two officers. This section, and elsewhere, lacks sufficient commas. Please check the article for other places where commas are needed.
  • and planned to disperse it – ‘in order to disperse it’?
I am not sure there is a direct link between the infiltration and planning to disperse the meeting. Had they not been able to infiltrate the NUWC I think they would still have planned to disperse the event - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are varying figures for the number present at the meeting of between 70 and 600 police officers and 300 to 6,000 members of the public. - consider amending to something like ’Figures for the number of police present varied between 70 and 600 officers; figures for members of the public who attended varied between 300 to 6,000.’
Good point, done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a portion – consider replacing with ‘a number’.
Done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • but no man – 'but no-one’.
Done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • as it had not been signed – what is the it being referred to here?
The declaration, have used "the document" to avoid repetition - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider enlarging the image (to upright=1.25), as at present the detail is hard to see, and the image is after all the hook that will pull the reader in.
Done, thanks also for improving the image - 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I would add the source of the image to the caption, as it's not contemporary (Arthur Griffiths, Mysteries of Police and Crime (1899), “Fight Between Police and Mob at Coldbath Fields in 1833”).
Done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 3 of the 14 lines (on my screen) actually describe the riot itself, which doesn't seem much. I would reduce the first paragraph, which contains a lot of background information.
Trimmed most of the first paragraph and reduced lead to two paragraphs - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 Background

[edit]
  • Link Metropolitan Police in the caption, and perhaps amend c. 1840 using {{circa}}.
Removed this image, per below - Dumelow (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • which had struggled – I believe it should be ‘who had struggled’.
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • rapidly growing looks better hyphenated imo.
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The public were highly suspicious of the police, viewing them as an extension of the arm of the state. – Did all the public feel this way?
Good point, changed to most and added additional source
  • by discipline issues is rather vague, could an example be provided, perhaps in a separate note?
Expanded in a note, most of the disciplinary issues were due to drunkenness (especially around Christmas) - Dumelow (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The public derided the police – all the public?
Changed to "some publications", and provided more detail in a footnote - Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was little respect and much resentment; two officers had been killed while on duty in 1830 alone. - It 's not obvious that these clauses should be connected. It also needs to be made clearer who were being disrespectful or resentful—the police, the criminal fraternity, politicians?
Removed the first part - Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the police as an infringement – can people be an infringement?
Changed to "establishment of the police"
  • called a meeting on open ground – presumably ‘called a meeting, to be held on open ground’
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the first image, it doesn't add much as the police of the period are depicted in the main image - Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 Riot

[edit]
  • Introduce and link David Goodway (I would also link him in the References section).
Linked. I've tried to introduce each of the historians. The paragraph got a bit bulky and distracting so I've switched it to a footnote.
  • Link public house (Pub).
done - Dumelow (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • had a low level of knowledge of how best to deal – ‘had little experience in dealing with’?
Agreed, changed - Dumelow (talk)
  • The refs that follow a NUWC meeting need to be swapped around, as multiple citations should be in numerical order. This issue occurs elsewhere.
Had a run through and think I picked up all these - Dumelow (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarah Wise (2012) gives only ... outnumbered 10-1 seems clumsy and inconsistent – I don’t see why the four authors need to be given prominence here. The text needs to be rewritten to reflect this point.
I've dropped them to a footnote. If still a bit much I can take another look - Dumelow (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is disputed – by whom?
Changed to "contemporary reports are unclear", the source doesn't go into much detail on this unfortunately - Dumelow (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and another reported that the police were drunk should be in a separate sentence, to help shorten the overlong sentence.
I've switched things around a bit in this paragraph, due to changes with the quote below - Dumelow (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider block-quoting the Times quote. (The quote comes from ‘The meeting of the National Union’, Tuesday, May 14, 1833, issue 15164, p. 5. The Times Digital Archive, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS84697262/TTDA?u=nl_earl&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=5007ac3a. (I can provide the full text of the article if you would like it).
Thanks, I've expanded the quote a bit and added a few details from the rest of the article - Dumelow (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 Aftermath

[edit]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • often anti-police – sounds too informal.
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo Campbell is a peripheral figure, and does not warrant being illustrated with a portrait. Ditto Cobbett.
Removed both - Dumelow (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (what would now be deputy chief constable) can be omitted as superfluous.
Removed - Dumelow (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • rendering it – what is it referring to here?
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a full stop after of a British jury, not after the quote marks (see the image in the http://www.open.ac.uk/ source).
I've always put the full stop outside the quote when it's the end of a setence but I've perhaps been doing that wrong, changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon arrival they were greeted with a cannon salute and a cheering crowd who had turned out despite the rain. - needs copy editing.
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo it comes over as strange that Joseph Sadler Thomas is not mentioned before, being accused as he was for his behaviour during the riot. Is his role during the riot known?
I've introduced him earlier on, seems he commanded one of the more significant contingents of police at the riot - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider including this facsimile of a broadside sheet issued after the inquest, which contains a lot of interesting details.
Good find, added. Though I'm wary of adding detail from it where it doesn't appear in a secondary source, as it is supportive of the jurymen - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, and as a primary source it shouldn't be used as a citation. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 Legacy

[edit]
  • for decades – consider amending to ‘from the 1830s to the 1870s’ (as given in the citation).
Went with "until the 1870s" - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • reformed and increased the size of the police in London – ‘reformed London’s police force and increased their numbers’ sounds better I think.
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green died of injuries sometime after the event so only Culley and Blakelock died during a riot. I see no need for this to be included (and he died of his injuries the day after riot, so surely the statement is misleading).
Agreed, removed - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar to Culley no-one was convicted of the killings of Green or Blakelock – ‘No-one was ever convicted of any of the deaths.’ sounds better?
Agreed, changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 References

[edit]
  • (Not GA) See here for the debate in Parliament on the death of Culley. It's a long read, but an invaluable source for anyone interested in researching the riot, and I would include it in an External links section, if you don't want to use it to expand the article.
Agreed, added as external link - Dumelow (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 9 December 12 December to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the review Amitchell125. I'm travelling this weekend so will try to address the comments from Tuesday, all the best - Dumelow (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added on another few days to allow you enough time. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review Amitchell125, I think I've addressed all your comments above, but let me know if I've missed anything or you disagree with any changes I've made. I'll try to go through (probably tomorrow) to look at adding additional commas. Apologies for the time I've taken to look at this - Dumelow (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

[edit]

The article has now passed at GA, many thanks for producing an interesting an informative read. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of meeting

[edit]

Hi!

I found this article very good. There's only one question on the text. It's this:-

"The meeting was to oppose the new police force and to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public.[6]" with the source being a reference to "Arming the British Police: The Great Debate".

Would it be more correct to say that the meeting was "to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public"?

The meeting poster you display (marvellous find!) makes no reference to the police but only to the Rights of the people, generally understood to mean universal (make) franchise.

The thing is, I suspect that the source you used for this will necessarily emphasise the aspect of the police, but might not be historically accurate as far as the primary intentions of the meeting go.

So I looked at the wiki article on the National Union of the Working Classes which is linked to in the article. It only says: 

"On Monday, 13 May 1833, at 2 p.m.,[27] The National Union of the Working Classes organised a public meeting on Thomas Cubitt's Calthorpe Estate[28][29] near Gray's Inn Road in Coldbath Fields in Clerkenwell, Islington against the Reform Act 1832.[30][19][31][32][33]"

...but the entire history of that Union and the founders is concentrated on universal suffrage, and I would wager quite a large amount that the five references provided ( [30][19][31][32][33]) for that meeting would give one the view that the meeting was essentially called over the question of universal suffrage, so that we could use those same references, rather than the police one, with my proposed revision "to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public" without meeting any great objection by a wiki editor.

Jyst to add I've no doubt that the organisers took the view of the police force ascribed to them, but I feel my proposed revision is likely more accurate. Whereas the police representatives and sympathisers at that time would be bound to bring up the opposition to the new force and represent it as the primary reason for the meeting, therefore justifying why they attacked (or were attacked) at the meeting.

Thoughts? Andysoh (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andysoh, thanks for your interest in the article; it's been a while since I wrote it. I haven't got time at the moment to have a proper look around but I would be interested in hearing what other sources have to say. Storch, Robert D. (17 June 2016). Popular Culture and Custom in Nineteenth-Century England. Routledge. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-317-21522-6. characterises it as an "anti-police riot" - Dumelow (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andysoh and Dumelow, I wrote most of the Rotunda radicals article, although not the bit about Coldbath Fields. Only one of the references in that section goes into any detail about the NUWC's reasons for calling the meeting. This is no 19, which takes you to the Francis Place papers on the NUWC. Towards the end of his (extremely long) para 81, Place quotes the resolution that was carried after discussion over several NUWC meetings, prior to them calling the public meeting. It says:

"That the conduct of the pretended reformed House of Commons clearly demonstrates that to look for any amendment in the political condition of the Working classes untill they possess the power [of] electing their own representatives would be little short of absolute insanity; and that this union conscious that such right will never be obtained so long as this country be cursed with a pampered Monarchy, an indolent aristocracy, and a bloated hierarchy, earnestly implore their brethren throughout the whole country to prepare themselves for a Convention of the people as the only mode by which they can devise means to extricate themselves from the grievous misrule under which they have too long and too patiently been suffering."

There is no mention of the police, and I think it is misleading to describe the purpose of the Coldbath Fields meeting as "to oppose the new police force and to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public". The reference supplied for this in Dumelow's article (no 6) is not the book by Robert Storch, but "Arming The British Police: The Great Debate" by Roy Ingleton. The pages referred to in that book are not accessible online, but I note that its author is a retired police officer, which may raise doubts as to his neutrality over such a contested event. If Robert Storch's book makes a similar claim, and provides a reliable source to back it up, it could be added to the article.RedKite (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both. I am not particularly well read in this area. The objectives quoted by RedKite from Place above seem fairly limited to extending suffrage, and do not mention the police. I am happy for the change suggested by Andysoh to be made - Dumelow (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks everyone. It looks like we have a consensus. I've waited awhile just in case, but on the basis of what RedKite quotes and thanks to Dumelow, I think my guess was right and I'll go ahead and make the change. Andysoh (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coldbath_Fields_riot&oldid=1234345563"