Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tottenham outrage/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2017 [1].

Tottenham outrage

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The events of the Tottenham outrage of January 1909 read like a piece of particularly tawdry prose from a penny dreadful. Two dastardly anarchists undertake a wages snatch and are chased by police and members of the public (including, at various times, football teams and workmen). The dastardly anarchists keep up fire from automatic pistols throughout the subsequent chase; the police are largely unarmed, but manage to borrow firearms from passing members of the public on four occasions (yes, seriously!) The chase was on foot, by car, grocer's cart, milk float and, bizarrely, by tramcar. In the end the dastardly anarchists commit suicide rather than be taken by the forces of law and order (even though one of them fails in his attempt), but the £80 they stole has gone missing... It all sounds like a ripping yarn, except it was all true and cost the lives of one unarmed policeman and a ten-year-old boy caught in the crossfire. All constructive comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

...so I did. Here goes:

  • "Paul Helfeld (also given as Hefeld[12]) aged 21 in 1909, and Jacob Lepidus (also given as Lapidus[13]) aged 25 in 1909..." -- A little repetitive. Any chance of one "1909", "aged", and "also given as"?
  • "the terms "socialist" and "anarchist" had been conflated in the British press, which used the terms interchangeably to refer to those with revolutionary beliefs." -- terms/terms
  • "Special Branch thought that there was a political element in which Salnish was involved..." -- "Special Branch suspected that there was a political element to the robbery in which Salnish was involved..." May as well use the lingo?

Robbery and chase See this and this for my copy edits - I feel like Dank saying that! Support. All good, feel free to revert any of them CassiantoTalk 20:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I may've undone your intervening edits in an ec.

Many thanks, Cass, these (and your copy edits) are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A few quibbles in doing so, and I apologise for missing these points at PR. (One – well, I at any rate – will invariably spot additional things on rereading.)

  • Lead
    • "The robbery was undertaken by …" – "undertaken" seems an odd term, as though the robbery had been put out to tender. I think perhaps "committed" might read more naturally.
    • "Jacob Lepidus, two Latvian immigrants who were pursued" – perhaps a comma after "immigrants" to close the subordinate clause?
  • Background
    • "the largest Jewish community at the time" – just belt and braces, but I wonder if "the largest Jewish community in the world at the time" might avoid any doubt.
    • "because of the influx into one part of Tottenham, north London, gained the nickname Little Russia" – on rereading this I struggle to break it into its constituent parts. Does it mean one part of Tottenham was "Little Russia", or north London was "Little Russia"? If the former we need something like "because of the influx into one part of Tottenham in north London, the area gained the nickname Little Russia". If the latter, we need to lose the comma between "London" and "the".
  • Criminals
    • "a bomb he was carrying … detonated prematurely" – I don't know the answer and ask merely to check: can "detonate" be used intransitively? Bombs are certainly detonated, but do they detonate?

These very minor points do not detract from my support for the promotion of this article, which seems to me to meet all the criteria. Highly readable, widely and thoroughly cited, well illustrated, and balanced. – Tim riley talk 19:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Leaning support, very interesting, I had never heard of it. Quite a slow motion urban chase. A few comments.

  • "The car from the factory joined in the chase, driven by Wilson; he paused and PC Newman boarded the car before they gave chase again." You use chase in two slightly different ways. I might change one of them.
  • "As the car neared the two criminals, they turned and open fire." opened?
  • "He was taken to hospital by a member of the public on a bicycle," I might reverse "on a bicycle" and "by a member of the public"
  • "One policeman borrowed a pistol from a bystander, made his way round through the scrub until he was close enough to fire, but the gun was faulty;" an "and" is needed somewhere.
  • I gather Lepidus shot himself as he was being shot by others. I don't think you clearly convey it.
  • I might put the exact date in the lede. I had to chase it down a bit in the article.
  • "Oak Cottage" later referred to as "Oak Cottages".
  • "In early February 1909 Herbert Gladstone, the Liberal Home Secretary defended the government's record on immigration, including those who had been subsequently expelled from Britain for criminal activity." I'm not certain the sentence as a whole makes sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very enjoyable.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ritchie333

[edit]

Looks good, I've just got a few comments:

  • I've changed the "Little Russia" link to Little Russia, London. Although that article says "It became commonly known as "Little Russia" when a large number of Russian immigrants settled there after fleeing the 1917 Russian Revolution", that can't be right as the Middlesex source used here name-checks it in 1906.
  • "The influx of émigrés" - any particular reason to use "émigrés" here?
The word specifically, I'm just wondering if there was a purpose to use that term instead of, say "immigrants". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for variety - we use "immigrants" a couple of times earlier and "immigration" in the next sentence. I'm fine swapping it over if you think it misleading or something. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see your point about avoiding repetition of "immigration" - this is an encyclopedia article, not a Daily Express rant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wilson 2015, Chapter 2" - did you mean to cite the whole chapter, or should there be specific pages?
LOL. If you think the Mail and Express are bad (and they are), you ought to have seen what the press was saying back then! The Manchester Evening Chronicle in 1905 was banging on about "the dirty, destitute, diseased, verminous and criminal foreigner who dumps himself on our soil". (although I'm sure the Mail would love to print things like this again now!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's about it. No surprises to see the Daily Mail being an apologist for racism; some things never change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor point, so I don't see any reason to not support at this point, so I will. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Ritchie - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

[edit]

I know this area well, so I read this excellent article with great interest, although I was slightly surprised that the Tottenham outrage article wasn't about the even more dastardly Arsenal F.C.. I agree with Ritchie333's final comment too. Just a couple of comments that you are free to ignore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • six miles (9.7 km); nine yards (8.2 m).— In the circumstances, I wonder if the metric conversions are over-precise
  • known Russian revolutionary— Is the "known" necessary?
  • gold, silver and bronze— Usually the lowest value British coins are described as copper, whatever alloy is used
  • Police Constables— Query capitalisation.

Many thanks Jimfbleak - all tweaked accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise

[edit]

Hi Gavin, how are you? I hope all is well. Pretty sure I’m going to support, just noticing some very minor stuff.

  • Legacy: “The lengthy procession included white-plumed horses drawing Joscelyne's coffin and black-plumed horses drawing Tyler's; both were draped in a Union Jack, which were escorted by policemen, a police band, men from the local fire brigade, a contingent from Royal Garrison Artillery and tramway employees.” Slightly awkward phrasing in that “which” looks like it is tied to Union Jack, but is then followed by a plural verb. Moisejp (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • “On her death, the capital sum was paid to the Metropolitan and City of London Police orphanage fund.[63][64][i] Mrs Tyler later married PC Williams, who had taken part in the chase; he died in 1925.” I think this is the same person? If so, it is a bit jarring to read that she was “later married” after her death is mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moise, all is good, thanks; I hope you are also well and thriving. Thanks for the tweaks you've done on this article. I've amended the two points you've mentioned; do they look OK for you now? Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

[edit]

I (lightly) edited this fine and pacy article as I read through in more or less one sitting, so have nothing to grumble about here. Not sure what the scrolling equivalent of a page turner is. Timely and relevant, and am very impressed. Ceoil (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Ceoil - that's much appreciated. Thanks also for the edits. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Malik Shabazz

[edit]

I think SchroCat has done a fine job of bringing this article to FA standards. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll point out that I've made a few minor edits to this article over the past nine years.[2][3] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

I've come to this cold hopefully I bring a new perspective.

  • Can we make the opening sentence or two a bit ... punchier? I find this one of the hardest parts of writing an article, but the reader should know what the subject of the article is and why they should care within the first few seconds.
  • at the nearby station Police station? Might be worth specifying—"station" without further qualification usually means a railway station, which is what I initially assumed.
  • Relatedly, is it safe to assume these officers belong to the Metropolitan police?
  • a pistol borrowed from a member of the public Can we say anything about whether it was unusual for random members of the public to have access to firearms like that, bearing in mind that Britain has never had the American obsession with guns?
    • I've gone back over the sources, and none of them really address this point. The fact that police borrowed guns from FOUR members of the general public (and that the duck shooters also joined in), speaks volumes to us, but not even the newspapers at the time commented that it seemed excessive! – SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One policeman commandeered a pony If you're going to link to commandeering (personally I probably wouldn't, but it's a matter of editor judgement), it should be on the first mention.
  • Eagles descended pun intended? ;)
  • while entering the room while Lepidus shot himself repetition
  • What's a Coroner's warrant?
  • the firearm used by the police It's worth noting here that British police officers didn't (and don't) routinely carry firearms, and a link to police use of firearms in the United Kingdom could be included.

A very nice piece of work. That was all I could find to criticise and even that is mostly nitpicking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Harry. I think I've covered all I can (the public gun ownership point isn't covered in the contemporary or modern sources), but I've worked through the rest. Let me know if there is anything else you think could be addressed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One last quibble, which I just spotted while I was looking for something else: I notice you have two books dedicated to this incident in the "further reading" section whereas the books you use as references all cover the incident within a broader scope. Far be it from me to tell you how to write a article, but shouldn't the two dedicated works be cited, both for strict compliance with criteria 1b and c but also because they might contain details that the authors of the more general works didn't think worth including in their books? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

A couple of minor formatting issues:

  • Should the BBC news item be included among the websites rather than the "News articles"? And "BBC News" should not be italicised as it's not a print source.
    • I think it could be in either section, but as it is from BBC News, rather than from one of the other parts of the site, I think it's probably best in the news section. I've tweaked the citation.
  • There's a minor format inconsistency in that the Morgan news item is cited by its title, whereas the others seem to be cited by author's name. Is there a reason for this?

Otherwise, all sources look in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from GRuban

[edit]

Mostly minor issues, gripping story.

* The lede states "much of the press coverage was anti-Semitic in nature" without ever having mentioned the two were Jewish. Either remove this until the body, or mention they were before then (it mentions they were Latvian something like 4 times).

  • On that note, "The two Latvians committed suicide at the end of the pursuit." - how about "The two criminals" or "The two robbers" or something in that vein; surely that is the key point, rather than their nationality?
  • The "weapons used" pictures are in the Criminals section, though the text that they illustrate isn't until the Robbery and chase section. Either pics down or text up.
  • "Christian Salnish, who Special Branch considered to be" - whom
  • "£80 in gold, silver and coppers" - copper? Seems strange that only it has the "s"
  • Can we write a few sentences on why, though the police were unarmed, the public generally carried pistols? It seems very surprising that the public was so heavily armed.
  • " Lepidus threatened the conductor with a pistol and ordered him to drive; although he had never driven a tram before, he managed to get the vehicle moving." - "he" is a bit unclear ... how about "the conductor managed" ... ?
  • "window–locked in with her children—she" - seem to have different types of dashes there
  • "he died in 1925.[63] On her death, the capital sum of the money raised for her was paid to the Metropolitan and City of London Police orphanage fund" - date of her death seems called for
  • "The board was also instructed to examine whether the firearm used by the police—the .450 Webley Revolver—was suitable, and whether sufficient numbers had been issued." - In what sense was the revolver used by police? Didn't the ones involved borrow most of their pistols from the public?
  • "The two victims" picture box seems badly titled, given that one picture is of the grave of a policeman, while another memorializes either the whole gun battle, or Lepidus, very debatably a victim. I'd expect Joscelyne.

* "Although there was some initial confusion about the backgrounds of Helfeld and Lepidus—The Star reported that they were Italians—the actions of the two men led to a debate on immigration control." Dates would be good here - when did the Star report, and then withdraw, that they were Italians, and when was the debate?

  • No pictures of Helfeld and Lepidus?
  • "Donald Rumbelow, in history of the event" - ...his history of...?
  • "£1,0550 in 1909 equates to" - comma after 4 digits?

--GRuban (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • All covered, except where commented otherwise. - SchroCat (talk)
  • Methinks you missed a number, actually.
  • "The two Latvians committed suicide at the end of the pursuit." -two robbers/criminals/fugitives...
  • "Christian Salnish, who Special Branch considered to be the organiser" - whom
  • "although he had never driven a tram before, he managed to get the vehicle moving"
  • "Memorials to the two victims" - does not, in fact, contain pictures of memorials to the two victims

::*No. These do not need to be done, except the Salnish point. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

also
  • "was felo de se ," - remove space before comma
  • Very strange; you are right that it's not there in the source, yet it's clearly there when you either look, or copy and paste. I'm guessing it must be an issue with the template. OK. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""felon of himself"; it is an archaic legal term" . can be just ": an archaic legal term". Not that there is anything wrong with semicolons, but brevity is wit.
--GRuban (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::* Oppose over what seems to be trivially easy to correct. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - may I just change it, myself, rather than oppose? It seems such a small thing. If you don't like my change, you can revert. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How staggeringly petty. You are, or course, entirely able to edit the article yourself and change it to whatever you desire: I have no greater say over the text than anyone else, but if you'd rather oppose than make the edit, I'm sure the co-ordinators will make up their own minds on the best course of action. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, I'd rather make the edit; just didn't want to edit war. Thank you for your kindness, and thanks for a fine article. --GRuban (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the death date of Tyler's widow, Emily! 1937. Barton, Geoffrey (2017-01-16). The Tottenham Outrage and Walthamstow Tram Chase: The Most Spectacular Hot Pursuit in History. Waterside Press. p. 73. ISBN 9781909976405. Retrieved 14 December 2017. It doesn't say anything about where her fund went, but I'll trust your source on that. From your comments above, I assume you will not object if I add it to the appropriate place? --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source - see my response to HJ Mitchell's question about it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Testing times

[edit]

[It has been a while ... lets see if I can remember how this works...]

Congratulations on this tour de force. I seem to recall quite a lot of the content was there some years ago. But is it much much better referenced and illustrated now. (If you are looking for other articles to improve with a similar pedigree, perhaps the Garden House riot?)

Some comments:

  • Many of the sources - even the more recent ones - seem to use the capitalised version, "Tottenham Outrage".
  • Sorry, I am struggling with a sentence in the lead: "There were twenty-three casualties; two fatal and several others serious, among them seven policemen." Why the semicolon and the comma? Seven policemen were serious casualties? (One of them was killed.) And I may be wrong, but isn't it usual to include the (dead) perpetrators among the number of casualties? Four killed, 21 injured?
    • It's since been re-written in response to Harry Mitchell's comments. How does that look now? I'm happy keeping the deaths of the two criminals separate from the other casualties as they are dealt with in the next sentence and are the only ones who committed suicide. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the chase section, the roads are still there, so some of the detail of the route from the old versions (shown in the Daily Mail map) could be added, if desired
  • Perhaps one more mode of transport to add: as I understand it, a Police Inspector Large gave chase from the factory scene on a horse.
    • That's not coming up in the reliable sources, or in most of the news searches I'm doing (although I see it repeated in unreliable sources and internet searches). I'll keep looking for something we can use. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the police commandeered a tram going in the opposite direction and reversed after the perpetrators as they escaped by tram - that tram-chasing-tram incident is shown in the lead image, I think.
  • In the aftermath section, the article gives the names of three of the five PCs who were promoted to Sergeant. The other two are already mentioned in the article but not named. One was PC Nicod - he was the one shot while creeping through the scrub with the faulty gun - and the other was PC Dewhirst - he rescued the children from Oak Cottage.
  • Two constables were advanced in pay grade. One was PC Newman - already named before, so he could easily be mentioned here again. The other was PC Zeithing: do the sources say what his role was?
    • It sounds odd to say, but nothing that would really justify inclusion. The Waldren source states that:
"Lepidus was still being chased by a crowd of police and public and when 38-year-old Frederick Mortimer threw a brick at him he turned to fire at them. A bullet passed over the shoulder of Constable Zeithing and hit Mortimer in the chest. Several more shots passed through the lapels of Zeithing's greatcoat."
I was trying to avoid putting too many minor details into the sequence, which is why this was left out. - SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One old version had a nice quotation about the Outrage from a report in The Times on Monday 25 January 1909, Issue 38865, page 9: "An amazing series of outrages, singularly rare if not entirely without parallel in a civilized country, occurred on Saturday forenoon in the neighbourhood of Tottenham marshes."
    • I saw that article, but aside from the slight hyperbole of The Thunderer, it doesn't seem to add anything to our understanding (and it's factually questionable, given what revolutionary/"anarchist" got up to in Germany, France and Italy!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps worth mentioning that PC Tyler did not receive the King's Police Medal because posthumous awards were not made until 1977.
    • Yes, I took that out of the version when I gave it a full re-write. I think it crosses into synthesis to mention that point. It is probable that Tyler would have got an award if only wounded, but we cannot say he definitely would have got the award and only his death stopped that. If there is a source that states that, we may be able to work it in, but it would have to be a news item from the time, rather than speculation from a modern source, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done again. No doubt this could be featured on the main page on the 110th anniversary in January 2019? -- Testing times (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose from John

[edit]

Nice article. Why "committed suicide"? --John (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending resolution of this, I'm going to note I oppose this article's promotion. --John (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution of what? From question to oppose in eight hours because I haven't answered you? I am sure that the co-ordinators will draw their conclusions from your rather unclear comment and decision to oppose. (I don't know what your question is about. Is it why they committed suicide: feel free to ask them, if you wish to know. Is it that you don't like the terminology: perfectly acceptable, given the court determined that they committed suicide. Or is it something else entirely?) - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, please do try and grow up. I had you down as being better than this. CassiantoTalk 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I oppose because I don't think this wording matches the court verdict and it doesn't represent good encyclopedic practice. One commits a crime, usually. It'd be like saying "committed abortion"; just a little bit prejudicial! Having said that, was suicide still a crime in England at this time? --John (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
felo de se was the verdict, which is suicide. See note F. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Until 1961, apparently. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but an oppose, seriously? This could be fixed as a result of a simple comment. Please don't allow your opposing views on the Butler talk page to bleed through to this one; it comes across as very much sour grapes. CassiantoTalk 17:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the only sense in which this is influenced by our other recent disagreement is the strong conviction that I'd rather sort this out here than wait until TFA or later. If it can be fixed, then let's fix it. --John (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to fix, let alone using this as a basis for an oppose. @FAC coordinators: , just so the co-ordinators can keep an eye on how an Oppose !vote is being misused. SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good guide to responsible terminology in reporting suicide. See p11. --John (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something; it was illegal at the time of the outrage to "commit" suicide. Thus, you commit it, as you would theft, and you would expect to be indicted for it. Since 1961, people who "attempt" suicide are institutionalised sectioned. CassiantoTalk 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh, I see that your attempts to change the terminology in the MoS last year was rebuffed, and that there is no consensus or guideline against using "committed suicide". We do not need to follow what the Samaritans say when the coroner was talking about the pair committing suicide, and when yes, this was an offence in UK law. (And good luck working your way through Suicides by occupation. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, we truly have the tin ear for language, don't we? Since 1961, people who "attempt" suicide are institutionalised. is my quote of the year right there. There is also nothing in the MoS specifically prohibiting us from calling Albert Einstein a kike. And yet we don't. Hmmm. Maybe it's a 1a and 1d thing. This was what caught my eye, and it's worth opposing over; also, in my experience, where there is one gross infelicity like this there will be many. But this is enough for now. --John (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where abouts in the world you come from, but in the UK, people who attempt suicide are often sectioned under the Mental Health Act. What would you call it? CassiantoTalk 21:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the co-ordinators will take into account that your attempt to have this term banned at the MoS didn't gain a consensus, is used on articles of all standards and as (sub)categories here, is used in publications like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and was used in the coroner's case that we're talking about here, which is reported as such in cnotemporary and modern sources. Still, in your opinion this is worthy of a strong oppose, or even a normal one? I'm afraid that your campaign to somehow change the language from what is expected and commonplace just looks a little silly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's not like the Samaritans would know anything about suicide, is it? Here are some stats for you: One person in 15 in Great Britain has attempted suicide. That's about 4 million, many of whom will have made more than one attempt. 63,622 a year are sectioned, not all of whom will have attempted suicide. Still think it's true that "Since 1961, people who "attempt" suicide are institutionalised"? Your unfamiliarity with the nuances around this sensitive topic is showing, and the article fails on NPOV as a result. You could change it to "killed himself" which is neutral and unobjectionable, but if you can't or won't, my oppose still stands. As regards "somehow change the language", this is already the language that informed sources use, as I've shown. --John (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would be better if you split your comments into two, one each aimed at the person you are replying to. Given your poor formatting, you are replying to me on things I have not said, which is sloppy. Regardless of all that: this is Wikipedia, not the Samaritans. Your attempts to change the language at the MoS gained no credibility, and your Oppose is, frankly, laughable. We could change the language, but this would not reflect the reliable sources. I think it's time to take your little crusade elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: I'm afraid my well of good faith on this died a long time ago, given this editors recent behaviour (at Butler, threats at my talk page, a little 'hitlist' of diffs in his sandbox, ready to bully me into ANI, his miraculous appearance on a thread at ANI I have commented on, and now this. I am always happy to deal with editors acting in good faith, but this editor falls a long way short of such behaviour, and I'll have no more to do with them. - SchroCat (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was drawn to this by the unintended TFA ping, and I have to say that it seems extraordinary to slap in an oppose within hours over a single phrase. Whatever the Samaritans say now, at the time suicide was a crime, and could be committed just like theft or murder. I can see why SchroCat sees parts of WP as a hostile environment. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "strong oppose" is such nonsense one can hardly believe one's seeing it. The time may come when "commit suicide" is not considered acceptable, but it has certainly not come yet, nor is it Wikipedia's function to agitate for it to do so. In The Guardian, which I have read for more than fifty years but cannot deny is so politically correct that its style guide bans the term "politically correct", the phrase "commit suicide" appears this very day (page 38), and the excellent Newsbank site records 2,065 incidences of the phrase in the past year in UK papers. Tim riley talk 15:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel I need to recuse as coord and say that I'm with those who find "committed suicide" a common term without unusually criminal-related connotations (though I daresay it was indeed a crime when these events took place anyway). I'm afraid that "took their own lives" or some such sounds rather like a "passed away" kind of euphemism... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting a euphemism but the clear and neutral "killed himself". Sad but not shocking that so many are tone-deaf on this matter in late 2017. Would they be fine with "committed adultery"? "Committed blasphemy"? The world moves on. John (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "committed adultery" and "committed blasphemy" are valid comparisons -- perhaps it's just me, perhaps it's a regional thing, but I think the terms adultery and blasphemy themselves are heard far less than they once were, meaning that "committed adultery" and "committed blasphemy" are also heard less. The same can't be said for suicide, nor, as I think is fairly clear from the participants at this FAC as well as examples noted in the real world, for "committed suicide". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you're welcome to your opinion. Labelling something as a crime which was not prosecuted as a crime nor in practice actually a crime at the time seems a valid comparison with adultery and blasphemy. Would we say "committed abortion"? I think at one time we might but in 2017 it would look funny. So we wouldn't. NPOV is a FA criterion. Some of the hysterical and bad faith responses to my oppose indicate I've got a nerve here. Why not just use neutral language? But if it's vital to keep the Victorian phrase then you'll have to manage without my support. John (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...I'm confident the article will manage perfectly well without your support. CassiantoTalk 16:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SarahSV

[edit]
  • Support. I've read this through twice and thoroughly enjoyed it. The writing carried me along, and I was able to imagine it all very easily. I made a few changes, including swapping an image and adding some section headers to create shorter sections. The impact section at the end now covers the King's medal, monument, plaques, etc. Feel free to undo the changes. A couple of issues:
  • I wasn't sure how to copy edit the following, and I can't see the source: "Special Branch suspected that there was a political element in which Salnish was involved, but as both Helfeld and Lepidus died during the chase, it is not known whether this was the case or was a straightforward criminal act."
I changed it to: "Special Branch suspected that Salnish's involvement meant there was a political element to the crime, but as both Helfeld and Lepidus died during the chase, that aspect could not be pursued." I'm not keen on "that aspect could not be pursued" but couldn't think how best to express it. Is it correct that, with the men dead, they had no way to investigate the political angle?
  • I've tweaked to "Special Branch suspected that Salnish's involvement meant there was a political element to the crime, but as both Helfeld and Lepidus died during the chase, the motivation behind the crime was never established." Does that work for you?
  • "Although his wounds had begun to heal, surgery was carried out on 9 February to remove pieces of bone. The injury caused him to contract meningitis ..." The original injuries or the surgery?
  • The original wound: now clarified
SarahSV (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi SarahSV, Many thanks for your edits and comments. I've been watching them all, and I don't think any should be reverted. The only one I am mulling over is the picture of Tyler's grave, and wondering if the sculpted element is better than the full monument. (If it was a better picture I would be more inclined to retain, but I think I'll live with it for a few days to see if the slightly odd angle is OK or not!) I've made two alterations based on your comments, which should clarify matters, and which I hope you like. Thanks again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome, and I like your changes; it's all clear now. I know what you mean about the odd angle. But it seemed to look better in that section with the other images, although I'm not sure why. I assume that you've seen these images of the cottage and the spot where Helfeld was captured. [4][5][6] They seem to be postcards. If that's true, and if they were created before 1923 (which seems likely), you could upload them. SarahSV (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither fish nor fowl, and the 'twisted' aspect of the picture looks worse in the crop. I think it should be the full monument, or the close up of the sculpture. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

It's a fascinating, and well-written, article on a decidedly odd little historical byway. I had my say at PR, and it's improved further since then. I've no wish to reignite the debate, but the Strong Oppose above is as absurd as it is depressing. KJP1 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, KJP1, for your thoughts and comments at PR and again here - they are always appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

[edit]

Since I've recused as coord anyway, I thought I might go through the article in detail. It certainly moves along at a fair clip -- appropriately given its subject -- and my ce was pretty minor, nothing particularly vital. My only question -- and I'm assuming I didn't miss anything -- is whether there was any informed speculation as to what happened to the missing money? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Many thanks for your tweaks and comment. Speculation, yes; informed speculation, no! There are a couple of blogsites who say they think they have guessed, but nothing reliable we can use. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent

[edit]

A few (minor) points, that don't impact on my supporting but which you might want to look at:

  • Jewish immigrants—mostly poor and semi-skilled or unskilled—settled in the East End of London—what is the relevance of this? As any football fan who's fallen into the "Liverpool Street to White Hart Lane is only a couple of stops and it doesn't look too far on the map, it's such a nice day I think I'll walk" trap has found out to their cost, the East End is a good six miles as the crow flies from Tottenham, by 1910 standards practically a foreign country.
  • Was the population of Little Russia really close to 100% Jewish, rather than just generic Russians? As far as I'm aware the Jewish communities were mostly further south, around Seven Sisters and Tottenham Green; the location of the old Tottenham synagogues (near Markfield Recreation Ground, just south of Tottenham Police Station, and on Lansdowne Road a little way south of Spurs) would appear to back that up.
  • I'm normally no great fan of the {{inflation}} template and its kin, but on this occasion it would probably be worthwhile to give some kind of indication as to what £80 was worth—something like "£80 (about £10,500 in 2024 terms)". Otherwise, to anyone unfamiliar both with English currency and with relative inflation over the last century, there's no way of knowing whether this was a trivial sum or the equivalent of the Great Train Robbery.
  • Off-duty policemen from the station—all unarmed—I know what you mean, but it's not technically the case since even if they didn't have firearms, they would still have had assorted truncheons and clubs.
  • (very nitpicky) Re a plaque in [Tyler's] memory was installed at Tottenham police station, is this a reference to a now-lost plaque that was installed at the time, or to the existing plaque which was put up in 2009? Either way, there should be a picture of the plaque at Tottenham if we're going to have the others—if Commons's editors have more common sense than to have a camera in open view in N17, I can take one next time I'm in that vicinity.
  • (even more nitpicky) Is there anything in declassified Soviet (or Tsarist) archives that sheds any light on whether the suspects were in fact agents of an international conspiracy rather than just a couple of chancers? This is very much a case of "it would be nice to know"; I'm not expecting anyone to wade through handwritten secret police archives if the material hasn't already been published!
    • I've found no reference to anything. It's such a minor event in history that if there was anything, it's been overlooked. On the other hand, it could just have been a local thing by a couple of desperate bad boys doing something on the side. Maybe something will come out in the future, which would be good. – SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue at all in supporting this. This is a topic with which I'm reasonably familiar, and I can't see any apparent deal-breakers. (And I agree with every other person to comment thus far, that "committed suicide" is the correct term to use in this case.) ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

[edit]
  • Nice work. Question on short footnote formatting. Is there a rationale behind your choice, when author is unavailable, to use article title + publication title rather than just publication title + year? I would think the latter is more consistent with the standard author + year format, but open to being wrong. czar 16:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are no set formats for these links that I managed to find, as long as the link in the reference drops onto the correct link. As the wording on the reference link matches the wording on the first part of the source, it seems logical. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To any one of the admins here, it appears we have a collection of IPs...*ahem*...who have a problem with the "committed" in the widely used and wholly accurate term "committed suicide". Can someone keep an eye out? Thanks. CassiantoTalk 20:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What would an admin be keeping an eye out for, exactly? --John (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring and using multiple accounts, both of which they were doing. CassiantoTalk 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pff. Not really. It takes two to edit-war and that's a dynamic IP making a reasonable edit and defending it in article talk. --John (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

(with apologies if these have already been covered above, and as always, take or leave, nothing is fundamental...)

Trivial stuff, but I thoroughly enjoyed the article. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments: We seem to have a clear consensus to promote here, and I cannot remember the last time one article had so many supports. The only sticking point seems to be over "committed suicide", but the consensus is that this is fine, despite one oppose over the issue. Therefore, I shall be promoting shortly. I notice that most of the images have alt text, but not all. For consistency, I think we need one or the other, but there is no need to hold up promotion over this issue. Sarastro (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tottenham_outrage/archive1&oldid=1138474082"