Talk:Peterloo Massacre/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Number of casulites

According to Terry Deary in his Gorgeous Georgians book (part of the Horrible Histories series), he states that 500 were wounded, and not 400 - who could be deemed truthful in this respect ?

Nicholas

Number of deaths

'In our time' suggested 17 deaths, not 11. Njál 02:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking to relevent articles

There is an article on St Peter's Square, Manchester with no mention of this article, there is also the Free Trade Hall article which links here but is not linked from here. This article states the massacre happened in St Peters Street. Looking on a map it looks like the St Peters Square *might* of been the location of the massacre. If it was, it makes sense to link the mentions of St Peters Street with the St Peters Square article? Does anyone know if they are the same location? --RickiRich 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Public Inquiry

What was the result of the inquiry in 1820? Richard75 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there was one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There was at least an "Oldham inquest" which followed Peterloo. The Court of King's Bench, declared that the proceedings were irregular, and the jury were discharged without giving a verdict. I presume this only covered those folks from Oldham who were caught up at the massacre (there is a plaque under the civic centre that I'll try to photograph). --Jza84 | Talk 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonnote

It is also worth noting that john keats "ode to a nightingale " is also about peterloo .—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.16.130 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 June 2007

Image version

There's a different image of the contemporary print (larger and clearer in some respects, but cropped at the edges). Churchh 12:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Other images

I've come across the following (of mixed copyright status):

I have a Flickr account if anybody wants me to ask for permission to use these here. --Jza84 | Talk 03:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the Peterloo Veterans one, and the cartoon. Would you mind asking for permission to use those? I think that the Sam Bamford ones are used in his article already, or I've seen them before on here somewhere anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Image:SamBamfordPlaque.jpg is already uploaded. I'll see what else I can find.

Probably need to explain the "Peterloo" etymology. I have always assumed it's a play on the Battle of Waterloo, but have never actually seen this written anywhere. --Jza84 | Talk 03:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a play on the Battle of Waterloo, as I've said in the article. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I spotted it just before I went to bed last night. --Jza84 | Talk 12:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

A couple of small things:

Surely "a more proper monument" should be reworded (POV)
Even a cursory glance through material gives different totals for the crowd, deaths and injuries. According to the synopsis of The Casualties of Peterloo (2005) (found at Amazon and appears quite useful) there were 654 injured and 17 deaths. I've seen other material pointing to 400 injured and 11 deaths.

--Jza84 | Talk 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot conflicting accounts of numbers of fatalities and injuries; I'm not sure which is the most authoritative, but we obviously need to pick one and stick with it. A "more proper monument" sounds very awkward anyway - did I write that? - so I agree about rewording it.

I'm thinking that we also need a new section for the meeting itself, after the Background section and before the Charge. There's very little yet about the people like Bamford who organised marches from the surrounding towns, or the abortive meeting set up shortly before the massacre. And the account of the charge really needs a complete rewrite I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A new section on the meeting would, like you say, allow for more information about speakers like Bamford. I think such a section would also allow for the map I have ready to introduce into the article that highlights where the rally came from. There's lots of statements that need more context too, but one thing at a time I guess! I'm quite enjoying this article - makes a change from writing about places. :-) --Jza84 | Talk 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, so far as numbers of dead and injured are concerned, maybe we should go with the figure on the red plaque? It seems to have come from a reliable academic historical source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind, and I guess we can always put a "range" in, but just wondered, like yourself, which is the most authoritative. Looks like we'll almost certainly need an image of the new "red plaque". --Jza84 | Talk 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't wait to see the map. I'd start a new Meeting section now, but RL is dragging me away, so I may not be able to get back until later tonight, or even tomorrow. By which time you'll probably have finished this article at the rate you're going. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added the map as it (closely) appears in the book. I'm not sure the GM boundary is necessary, and I don't know if it's detailed enough, although Frangpulo, who's put together the map based on the various contingents, describes the crowd as "historically the very warp and weft of what is now the Greater Manchester County". --Jza84 | Talk 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A new point:

"The Peterloo Massacre of August 16, 1819 was the result of a cavalry charge into the crowd at a public assembly at St Peter's Fields"

Do we call it an "assembly" at this stage of the article? I'm thinking we swap "public assembly" for "public demonstration", but there might be a reason not to, or even a better term to use. --Jza84 | Talk 20:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My view is that we should call it what those who attended the meeting would have called it, not what the repressive forces of law and order later called it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've stuck with "mass public assembly". Hope that's ok, --Jza84 | Talk 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to my earlier point of:

Even a cursory glance through material gives different totals for the crowd, deaths and injuries. According to the synopsis of The Casualties of Peterloo (2005) (found at Amazon and appears quite useful) there were 654 injured and 17 deaths. I've seen other material pointing to 400 injured and 11 deaths.

According to the fifth paragraph of this source, the "latest research" indicates it was 11+4 deaths and "over 600" injured. Still no mention of those killed though. --Jza84 | Talk 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The figure for deaths is varying I think mainly because it depends on whether or not those who died after leaving Peterloo are counted or not. It seems fairly clear that 11 were killed at the meeting, but others like John Lees died later from their wounds. I guess the number for injuries is always going to be a rough estimate though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. John Lees -- is this John Lees of Oldham? I think I've read that he died in the Oldham entry of the History of the County of Lancaster. --Jza84 | Talk 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, John Lees of Oldham. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I remembered where I'd read it -- a fantastic book I have about Oldham (of course) that has two pages about Oldham's part in Peterloo. I've already started sharing my finds in the article. Oldham (together, it verifiably seems, with Lees and Saddleworth) sent a contingent of 10,000 people, including a vocal group of 150 of female reformers. I'd like to find out more about the other town's contributions first before adding this, as I don't want to make this article Owdham-centric... too much. :P --Jza84 | Talk 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruth Slater's written a book on Bury Folk at Peterloo, and the Middleton contingent seems to be fairly well described thanks to Sam Bamford. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Patriotic Union Society

Do we think the Manchester Patriotic Union Society is likely to have its own article at somepoint in the short-to-mid term? It wouldn't link to anywhere but this article and a google search ([1]) shows that it is basically synonymous with Peterloo. --Jza84 | Talk 19:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. I've been removing a few other red links from this article already.

Infobox

Forgetting the title of the template, and thinking purely about the outcome, do we think Template:Infobox Military Conflict might be a suitable infobox for this article? I think it could work, and nicely so. --Jza84 | Talk 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll insert it in a jiffy! Just been testing it, and I think it'll work. Article is coming along great! Just a bit of TLC was needed. --Jza84 | Talk 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a chunk of stuff I want to add about the charge and the confusion caused by not having one commander in charge of the military instead of a panicking magistrate, but yes, I agree, a little bit of TLC has done wonders. GA next week? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice yes! I've ordered The Peterloo Massacre (1970) by Joyce Marlow for a tiny price which should hopefully be with me sooner rather than later. I'm still sure that a list of those killed must exist somewhere. It would be thorough, if not befitting of us to list those massacred within this article. --Jza84 | Talk 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should if at all possible list the names of those who died. It would be disrespectful not to. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Once found, how about something under a new "Victims" or "Deceased" section like:

Name	Abode	Occupation	Date of death	Age at time of death	Notes
John Lees	Oldham	Cotton operative	9 September	??	Lees was an ex-soldier who had fought in the Battle of Waterloo.
John Ashton	Oldham	??	16 August	??	??
William Fildes	??		16 August	2	The first victim of the massacre. His mother was carrying him across the road when was struck by a trooper of the Manchester Yeomanry, galloping towards St Peters Fields.

I'm sure the look (and probably content) of the table can be improved upon, but this is what I had in mind. --Jza84 | Talk 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bush's 2005 book The Casualties of Peterloo seems to be regarded as offering the most reliable estimates for casualties. From the blurb on Amazon he says that 654 were injured, of which at least 17 died. I'll try to find the time to pop into Manchester library later on and borrow a copy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lancashire's representation

Even though Lancashire had grown in population, wealth and commercial influence, its people had no opportunity to elect an MP. Reformers increasingly sought parliamentary representation.

I moved this here from the Background section because Lancashire was represented by two county MPs, plus two MPs for Liverpool. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Jza84 | Talk 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Salford Radicalism

I've found the book I've got now - my wife had tidied it away :-) It's actually called "Salford Radicalism" and it's by the Frows, who founded the Working Class Movement Library. There are some eyewitness report in it and hopefully I should be able to remove some of those "fact" tags but I won't get time until this weekend. It also names all the people from Salford who were injured but sadly not those who were killed. Richerman (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side, maybe that's because nobody from Salford was killed. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo?

Bamford, aware that "We had frequently been taunted by the press, with our ragged, dirty appearance, at these assemblages" was determined that "these relections should not be deserved" --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"reflections". Sorry.

P.S. I have J Marlow's Peterloo Massacre (1969) with me. It's about as comprehensive as you can get really! --Jza84 | Talk 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been very impressed by Robert Reid's book, which I borrowed from the library last week. BTW, in case you haven't seen it, you have email! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got it. I'll see what I can do! --Jza84 | Talk 13:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A question though, which colour (from Azure (color)) most matches your idea? --Jza84 | Talk 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I had sky blue in mind, but I haven't seen a picture of the uniform, only a written description. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The various prints, paintings and caricitures have the uniforms a little darker. But I don't mind any colour really, I don't think it's a massive point of contention, just wondered. --Jza84 | Talk 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that they're maybe showing the 15th Hussars, who wore dark blue tunics. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, on reflection I don't think they can be, as the 15th Hussars had scarlet facings to their jackets, whereas the Manchester Yeomanry had white facings, as shown in the painting. Ah well, I don't know then. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Has anyone noticed Manchester Region History Review? If you scroll down to the spring/summer 1989 edition (Volume 3 Number 1) there's a special edition on Peterloo with a lot of PDF articles including books reviews with will no doubt contain more sources! It might not be necessary as you've already got a long bibliography but I thought it was worth mentioning. Well done on a phenomenal job by the way, the rate you two are working at is incredible. Nev1 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Field or fields?

Some sources describe the venue as St Peter's Fields, others as St Peter's Field. We're currently calling it both in the article. Shouldn't we pick one and use it consistently? I'd probably plump for St Peter's Field. Anyone else have a preference? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Marlow uses "Field", and that's my preference too. --Jza84 | Talk 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Yeomanry or Manchester and Salford Yeomanry?

I've seen the yeomanry called both, perhaps slightly more often the Manchester Yeomanry than the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry. Does anyone know definitively what the correct name was? I'm presently thinking that it's Manchester and Salford Yeomanry, and that Manchester Yeomanry is just an abbreviation.

That sounds likely. I'll see what Marlow says. --Jza84 | Talk 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Victims

I'm coming round to the idea that we will need to split into a new section for the "Deaths and injuries", "Deceased and injured" or "Victims" section (I can't decide on the heading name), between the current Charge and Reaction and aftermath sections. This part, I imagine, would have a/the table of the deceased, as well as the numbers of those injured (estimates and sources) coupled with some of the horrified disabilities some people were left with.

There's no rush, but that's how I personally see the article going at the moment, and thought we might want to start working towards that? On a simillar note, I'm struggling finding the ages of some of the victims. I haven't found anything in Marlow's book, yet.

I'm also thinking we might want to move the contingent map into the Assembly section, and perhaps replace that part of the Background with an image of Bamford, allowing us to put in a snazzy caption about his career during and after the massacre. --Jza84 | Talk 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with moving the images, and including one of Bamford. He did lead one of the largest contingents. I'm thinking that maybe we could drop the age column? I haven't checked when births were required to be registered, but I suspect that it's after 1819? Where the age is significant, like with William Fildes, we can mention it in the notes.

I'm also happy with splitting the Victims table as you're suggesting. It might help to make a bit more sense of the conflicting reports about the numbers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. We can state your find about people not wanting to come forward with injuries afterwards etc.

Births, marriages and deaths only started being recorded by law in 1837. Simillarly, censuses only started listing individuals in 1841. Only church records could elaborate really, or anything published in the inquests and hearings following the massacre. I guess that's why it's not widely known. I wouldn't mind it going, but it's a shame to loose that extra dimention of thoroughness. We can always restore it if something comes to light though. --Jza84 | Talk 20:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we can find enough ages, then let's keep it. On another topic, I found a report that 13 of the 60 Manchester Yeomanry who took part in that initial charge into the crowd were from Stretford. I wonder if there are any figures for where the rest came from? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look. I found that claim too the other day and meant to pop it in. I'll backtrack to see if it elaborates any further on these yeomen. --Jza84 | Talk 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Eye witness

I have the eye witness report of Archibald Prentice, Editor of the Manchester Times. Should I add it into the text? Richerman (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a few eye witness statements, brings the whole thing to life. Maybe a separate section? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one thought though, we need to make sure that it's balanced. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about a newspaper called The Times here - of course it's balanced :-) Richerman (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. ;-) But what I meant was a balance of eye witness statements in new Eye witness section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, just taking the piss. I've only got the one from Prentice and a short anonymous quotation but I see there's another one referenced in the text of the article Richerman (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have an transcription of the Manchester Observer's article:

PETER LOO MASSACRE ! ! !
Just published No. 1 price twopence of PETER LOO MASSACRE Containing a full, true and faithful account of the inhuman murders, woundings and other monstous Cruelties exercised by a set of INFERNALS (miscalled Soldiers) upon unarmed and distressed People.
— 28 August 1819, Manchester Observer

And Home Office concerns:

As the 'Peterloo Massacre' cannot be otherwise than grossly libellous you will probably deem it right to proceed by arresting the publishers.
— 25 August 1819, Letter from Home Office to Magistrate Norris

Both of these are from page 6 of Marlow's book. Seeing as a seperate section was suggested (a Commentary section??), I thought these might be appropriate. Failing that, if we wanted to disperse these, there are little blue quote boxes on the William Shakespeare article that might be appropriate. --Jza84 | Talk 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've put the section in, feel free to move the quotations if you think they'll look better elsewhere. When he says he "never saw a gayer spectacle" he obviously hadn't seen the Mardi Gras! Richerman (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't happen often, but I'll have to use the term/abbreviation LOL with that one! --Jza84 | Talk 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Gay, Oh dear. :-( I first saw that quote box idea on the Edward Low article, and I thought it looked pretty good. If we're going for a few selected quotes, which might be the best approach, then I'd go along with something like that. I guess that we have to temper our desire for completeness against the requirement to be comprehensive. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think either of those look pretty good - if they can get away with only putting in a few quotations in an article about Shakespeare we should be able to curb our enthusiasm too. What was it the elderly lady said when she read Shakespeare for the first time? "Well, it's all right, but it's full of quotations!" Richerman (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to rely moreso on quotations than other articles as there seems to be a distinct lack of images (I see the same print, as found in the lead, but in different styles over and over!). Though you're right, we do need to be careful. Do you think Eye Witness reports would be ok as Witness accounts?

Also (Richerman), I was wondering if your source has anything about the Salford contingent specifically? Perhaps something about its size, or its gender, class, age or who joined/led it? --Jza84 | Talk 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think we can make effective use of both. One of my favourite quotations came from a Chinese diplomatic on a visit to Paris at the backend of the 20th century who, when asked what his government's opinon was of the French Revolution said "It's too soon to say". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Witness accounts sounds better to me. The Frowds list 14 people and their injuries, including the one who had his nose cut off, as being "amongst the many from Salford". They also say that they were "the only ones who reported for medical treatment or applied to the Relief Fund for assistance. Many hundreds more kept quiet from fear of harrassment because of their presence at the meeting" (ref Frowd p.8 if you want to use it) - no ages mentioned though. Anyway, enough wrestling with the edit conflicts, I'm off to bed now Richerman (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

After your night's kip, could you let us know if it's "Frow" or "Frowd"? I'm guessing it's Frowd, but Frow seems to have made an appearance in the article. --Jza84 | Talk 02:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops sorry, it should be Frow but its an odd name and I keep changing it in my head to Frowd. Could you check ref 18? It said Reid(1090) so it changed it to 1989 but then realised there were two possible dates for Reid. Richerman (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref 18 should have been Reid (1989), so you picked right. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

"The Corn Laws were passed by the members of the Tory party in Parliament. The Tories were populated by the Landed Gentry."
=>
"The Corn Laws were passed by the members of the Tory party in Parliament, who represented the landed gentry."

Not sure how you'd convey the idea of "landed gentry" to a non-UK readership. "Establishment" might work, but the term seems to suggest a more feudal relationship which represents a class-system for which I can't immediately think of a parallel outside the UK. Over to you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right; we haven't got to that bit yet, or a few others either. This is a work in progress, so you'll have to bear with us for a short while. If you can think of a better form wording then just be bold. This is an article that deserves to be worked on by as many editors as possible, to get it up to spec. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I didn't realise you hadn't got to that bit yet. It's on my watchlist and I've been seeing the improvements day by day. Grand job! If I have time to pitch in, I will. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That bit's been rewritten now. I think it's a massive improvement, but it's just possible that I could be a little biased. :-)

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Best dressed from Crompton?

Who put that bit in about the "best dressed" coming from Oldham and Crompton , as if I didn't know? I think I'll have to get hold of that book and check the reference - I think he might have slipped that one in. I think I'll have to put a tag on questioning the neutrality :-) Richerman (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's in there! I've actually kept the material to a minimum. From Marlow page 118:

The Oldham contingent was the best dressed of all. As a centrepiece it had two hundred women in white dresses, which must have presented a very pretty spectacle, contrasting with the relieving the browns and blacks of the menfolk. Oldham also had what was generally agreed to be the most beautiful banner of the day. It was of pure white silk, emblazoned with the inscriptions Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments, Election by Ballot and No Combination Acts, Oldham Union.

Feel free to reword though if you think I've given this too much weight. I don't mind. --Jza84 | Talk 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll be telling us next they were the best looking as well! - was Marlow from Oldham by any chance? No, don't worry, I'll let the Oldhammers have their moment of glory. The road signs are still crap though :-) Richerman (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead (again)

For some reason, I can't help thinking that this page sums Peterloo up better than we have. It seems to flow and get the points across much better. What do others think? Perhaps we could adopt just some of the sentence structure? --Jza84 | Talk 01:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice summary, but there are some nice things about our lead as well. I'll have a go pepping ours up along those lines and you can let me know what you think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bash at it, but I think it'll probably be easier to get the lead right when we've finished the article. It's got to be a summary of course, but it isn't yet. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks better yes. I suppose it was due to the improvement of the main body of text, the lead just seemed to be lacking the same kind of spark. I have no doubt we'll have to revisit it again like you say. --Jza84 | Talk 02:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Corn Laws

I'm getting the sense that we're over-emphasising the Corn Laws in this article. Wasn't the meeting at Peterloo just about parliamentary reform? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Marlow suggests, strongly, that it was the distress caused by the fall in wages and rise in food costs (because of the corn laws) that gave birth to Radicalism and increased its appeal amongst the working classes. It was certainly a factor. Weather I've put a bit too much in, I'm not sure. I think I cut and pasted two paragraphs from Wikisource about the political history of Britain at that time. Perhaps a trim/copyedit? --Jza84 | Talk 02:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Marlow's right, in that the Corn Laws encouraged radicalism. But the assembly at Peterloo wasn't campaigning for their abolition, so, with your permission, I'd like to trim down the Corn Laws references. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I probably didn't make myself clear - permission granted!!! --Jza84 | Talk 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, done! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Much better! --Jza84 | Talk 11:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsenical line

There's a line in "Reaction and aftermath" that doesn't make sense. It reads "the discovery and foiling of the Cato Street Conspiracy to blow up the cabinet the winter." Richerman (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My fault. I meant to say that winter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it, must be battle fatigue setting in. By the way, I reckon this article will probably end up expanded enough to qualify for the DYK page. Richerman (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the DYK process, but if did that would be great. My target is to get this article on the main page on the 16th August. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To qualify as a new article it has to be expanded fivefold, then you have five days to submit a good "hook" which will draw people in to look at it. The number of hits you get once it goes on the front page is the usually in the thousands. Richerman (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Silk street

Re this, Marlow states that this street was in Manchester. I know there is a Silk Street in Salford, but I'd be reluctant to change this without knowing if this is one-and-the-same and that there was not (and is not) a Silk Street in Manchester in 1819. --Jza84 | Talk 11:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jones of Silk St, Manchester is listed as a fatality but Frow lists Sara Jones of 96 Silk St, Salford as "bruised in the head by Thomas Woodstock, a special Constable" but doesn't say that she died. I suppose she could have died later from a cerebral haemorrhage or something and he hasn't picked it up, but I've changed the address to Salford anyway. Richerman (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, if that's the source, I don't mind that being changed. We need to insert the ref for that (I'd put the hosue number in too). Jones was probably one of the four folk who died some time after the 16th. --Jza84 | Talk 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, bit of an edit conflict there, as we were both putting on a post at the same time Richerman (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I was confused too! I think we should go for Silk Street at Salford (I presume that's the one near Adelphi). --Jza84 | Talk 12:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure it is - I think Ive sorted the references now. BTW There's a satirical song of five verses by the "celebrated Dr Horsefood" about Peterloo in Frow - do you think there's room for it?Richerman (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have some poems too but was reluctant to add them for the same reason of lack of space. I was wondering if I ought to put it on one of Wikipedia's sister projects (I think it's WikiSource that keeps songs, sayings, poems etc). Perhaps you could add it here on the talk page and we can work out what's best? --Jza84 | Talk 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Richerman (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Shelley's poem, are you sure he heard of the news on August 5? Either it means about a year later or eleven days before the massacre. Was this a typo for "5 September"? --Jza84 | Talk 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It should have been 5 September. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New Cross

The listing of Joseph Ashworth being shot at New Cross reminds me that we've yet to cover the rioting that followed the massacre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I adding something breifly about the riots in Oldham (not the Oldham riots!) but that's all I had in front of me at the time. Perhaps a sub-section within Reaction and aftermath? --Jza84 | Talk 12:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it just needs a sentence or two about the rioting that happened later the same day, the worst of which was at New Cross. If nobody else has, I'll add something later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly is New Cross? (!) --Jza84 | Talk 12:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of Oldham Road, near where it joins Gt Ancoats Street. What do you think about the song I've mentioned above? Richerman (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I never knew that was called New Cross! --Jza84 | Talk 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that New Cross was in Salford until about 20 minutes ago! :-) Reid describes it as "one of the toughest sections of the town". I've found an engraving of the 1842 riots there,[2] but nothing for the rioting on 16 August. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a shop called New Cross Radio there some years ago. I presume that's the area being referred to. It's not far from Red Bank and that was a notorious area in the 1930's. Richerman (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely that image is in the public domain due to age? ;) --Jza84 | Talk 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, but it's showing the 1842 riots, not the rioting that followed the massacre in 1819. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact the GM county record office is at 56 Marshall Street, New Cross, Manchester M4 5FU. Not all the toughest areas are in Salford Malleus, just most of them! Richerman (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I shouldn't be so quick to rush to judgement. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Contingents map

I think the contingents map is a useful addition (even if I say so myself!), but I'm still not happy with the presentation and want to do something more fancy; I want to increase the size of the map.

What do people think about the ideas I currently have at User:Jza84/Sandbox2? Please ignore the text, it's the presentation I'm thinking about. --Jza84 | Talk 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the infobox style graphic very much. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks really good, all those years at university weren't wasted after all! Richerman (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They were!... So, assuming we go for the infobox style, I'm still undecided how to "list" or present the contingent localities. Originally I wanted to include the estimates for their sizes, but this doesn't look likely due to lack of material. Should I just list them alphabetically as they appear on the map? --Jza84 | Talk 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What information would be against each locality if we can't find estimates for contingent sizes? Oh, alphabetical order sounds OK to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started extending out the list, but it doesn't look right. I think we need two - three columns. I've tried setting up the table to display this but I can't figure it out. Anybody want to dive in the sandbox and try to improve this? --Jza84 | Talk 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've converted the table to two columns, and it could easily go to three just by doing what I just did. :-) If we can't find enough data on the numbers in each contingent it probably ought to go three columns anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion, what about increasing the size of the text (5 miles) against the scale bar, so that it's readable in a thumbnail? It would give readers a sense of scale, without having to click on the graphic for the details. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me a nudge about this in a few days if I don't get round to doing that. I was hoping to put a kilometer bar in too. --Jza84 | Talk 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nudge. ;-) Bush's book has got figures for contingent sizes from Stockport, Oldham, Ashton, Middleton, Bury, and Rochdale, which is likely to be about as much as we're going to get I think. Is it worth including those figures in the table do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Definately. I have a couple of figures (not as many though). I'll see if they match yours. --Jza84 | Talk 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Satirical Song

Here's the song, do with it what you will. Richerman (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

THE RENOWNED ATCHIEVEMENTS (sic) OF PETERLOO,
On the Glorious 16th of August, 1819,
By Sir Hugo Burlo Furioso di Mulo Spinissimo, Bart.,
M.Y.C. and A.S.S.

The music by the celebrated Dr. Horsefood; to be had at the “Cat and bagpipes,” St Mary’s Gate, Manchester.

Recitative

When fell sedition’s stalking through the land,
It then behoves each patriotic band,
Of Noble-minded Yeoman Cavaliers,
To sally forth and rush upon the mob,
And execute the magisterial job,
Of cutting off the ragamuffins’ ears.

Aria Bravura

Forte
How valiantly we met that crew,
Of infants, men and women too,
Upon the plain of Peterloo;
And gloriously did hack and hew,
The d-----d reforming gang.

Our swords were sharp, you may suppose,
Some lost their ears – some lost a nose;
Our horses trod upon their toes
Ere they could run t’escape our blows:
With shouts the welkin rang.

Andante

So keen were we to rout these swine,
Whole shoals of constables in line
We galloped o’er in style so fine,
By orders of the SAPIENT NINE –
First friends, then foes, laid flat.

By Richardson’s best grinding skill
Our blades were set with right good will,
That we these rogues might bleed or kill,
And “give them of reform their fill:”
And what d’ye think of that?

To me this is too large to effectively insert into the article. I would recommend we put this onto the relevant Wikimedia site (I think WikiQuote is what we're after, not WikiSource) and have a link, such as that pegged right.

How's that sound? --Jza84 | Talk 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. BTW does anyone know what was the rationale of the reversion by Dudesleeper on 31st March - was it because the website that was linked had .co.uk inthe address? Richerman (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Special:Contributions/Peacockpie is subject to discussion per WP:EL and WP:SPAM and Dudesleeper reverted an external link added by Peacockpie as part of that. I suppose we could invite Dudesleeper to confirm this though, that is, if you felt strongly enough about it. --Jza84 | Talk 14:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not really that bothered. It just looked like a fairly innocuous link to a video about Peterloo and I couldn't understand why it should be reverted using popups - but you've explained it. Richerman (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

The image Peterloo_carlile.JPG which is used in the History of Manchester article has a lot brighter colours than the one used in the infobox. Should it be substituted? Also, should there be a link to this article in the "see also" section of the History of Manchester? Richerman (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the See also section is for those wiki articles that are in some way relevant to the subject, but haven't been linked in the article. Peterloo is already wikilinked from the Reform section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok - I should have done a search. Richerman (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the image to the current one due to problems with resolution and cropping. The painting is the highest quality version online (currently). I was hoping to find a print version and scan it for the article, but perhaps further down the line. Is that OK? --Jza84 | Talk 18:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What does the panel think remains to be done?

What does the panel think remains to be be done before we can think about nominating this article for FA? (I'm assuming that we're aiming to go straight for FA).

We could do with a picture of the new red plaque to go alongside the blue one, and the Victims section needs a little bit of work yet. When Jza84 adds the elements he's been working on - no pressure ;-) - we'll hopefully have enough graphics for the article. Is there anything else? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a proper read through the article at some point (hopefully tomorrow) but at a quick glance it looks of high quality. I noticed that John Rhodes has his cause of death listed as "died several weeks later" which is in the wrong column; I would have moved this into the correct one myself but I don't have the source with his actual cause of death. Nev1 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like some additional sources to back up/verify what's in the fatalities table. We have claimed " in the majority of sources" afterall. Joseph Ashworth is missing his abode whilst others are missing their date of death. What does Reid say??? I'd also like to add a couple of examples of injuries to that section beneath the table too (as some are horrific).

I agree we need the red plaque. I'm also hoping to get an image of the plaque at Oldham too (whether we use it or not is a matter we can decide on once obtained). I'm working on the maps (they may take me over the weekend - but I am doing them properly I assure you!). Other than that, I'd be inclined to have/request a formal peer review and copyedit as a means to obtain more feedback. I don't think there would be any harm going for GA first (it might just throw up an idea or two and we have loads of time before our intended main page day). --Jza84 | Talk 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem with GA first, peer review, whatever. The more eyes the better. If nobody else has before then, I'll get a picture of the red plaque over the weekend. I agree about the fatalities/victims, and just as soon as I've actually managed to get a copy of Bush's book from the library (or someone else has) we can hopefully wrap up at least some of the details. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's looking really good, and if Malleus doesn't get to to photograph the red sign I could probably do it next week sometime. One other work that doesn't seem to have been plundered yet is Samuel Bamford's "Passages in the life of a radical". The whole text of the book is online and the section on Peterloo is here I think this a a telling quote from it from just before the assembly:

A circumstance interesting to myself now occurred. On the bank of an open field on our left I perceived a gentleman observing us attentively. He beckoned me, and I went to him. He was one of my late employers. He took my hand, and rather concernedly, but kindly, said he hoped no harm was intended by all those people who were coming in. I said "I would pledge my life for their entire peaceableness." I asked him to notice them, "did they look like persons wishing to outrage the law? were they not, on the contrary, evidently heads of decent working families? or members of such families?" "No, no," I said, "my dear sir, and old respected master, if any wrong or violence take place, they will be committed by men of a different stamp from these." He said he was very glad to hear me say so; he was happy he had seen me, and gratified by the manner in which I had expressed myself. I asked, did he think we should be interrupted at the meeting? he said he did not believe we should; "then," I replied, "all will be well"; and shaking hands, with mutual good wishes, I left him, and took my station as before.

I don't have time to do a lot at the moment as I'm at work and my employers like me to do a bit for them now and again - unreasonable as that may seem! I do have some descriptions of injuries of people from Salford in the Frow book I've been using and it also gives the street addresses for some of them. I'll put some on here later and you can decide if any can be used Richerman (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary Representation (switched from the Greater Manchester Project discussion page)

(To Malleus) Thanks for the alterations which makes it read better. However, I think it is still misleading, because the text now states that the two MPs for Lancashire represented all of the surrounding towns, when they did not: the two MPs for Cheshire represented the town of Stockport. The problem is present both in the lead and in the first paragraph of the Background section. I've made an attempt to correct this, but perhaps the text can be improved without removing the information? DDStretch (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, in the "Aftermath" section, the coverage of the new parliamentary representation may be a bit unbalanced. The Great Reform Act of 1832 also led to Ashton-under-Lyne being raised to a county borough, though I don't know how many MPs it had. The same goes for Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, and Stockport (which was given 2 MPs) which were all created by the same act, which are all now located within Greater Manchester, and many of which have been mentioned in the text before now. (Additionally, as a more distant aftermath, one could argue that Stalybridge's creation with 1 MP in 1868 followed directly on from Peterloo, though it is getting a bit too distant by then). Perhaps this discussion should move to the actual article page? I'll duplicate it there. DDStretch (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the Manchester incorporation bit, but at the time knew it was only provisional. It was from a (weak-ish) internet source about Manchester specifically. I think we need to establish if source material links Peterloo with incorporation and suffrage reform of certain towns and agree the current wording isn't sustainable. --Jza84 | Talk 12:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't help with establishing the direct causal link, but I am fairly confident that Ican supply appropriate verification for the dates that the constituencies were created, by looking them up in my copy of Youngs' book:

Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society. ISBN 0861931270.

If that would help, I'll be happy to add them, if required. DDStretch (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a great book (I once had it!). If you could find something about these places then that would be great. --Jza84 | Talk 12:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to say how many people, or maybe what percentage of the population of Lancashire and Cheshire were eligible to vote? Richerman (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A well-known online encyclopedia [3] claims that in 1800 there were 8,000 voters in Lancashire and 5,000 in Cheshire. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I was thinking it should say something like "almost one million people in Manchester and its surrounding towns were represented by four county MPs, two for Lancashire and two for Cheshire, but only 1.4% of the poulation were eligible to vote" but unfortunately there aren't any in-line citations that we can use in the Unreformed House of Commons article. Richerman (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have a means (read:WP:OR and therefore useless here) of getting rough estimates for later on, but as I mentioned before, the total size of the electorate is stated to have been vague, and detailed lists were not kept (using the Philips and Philips book I mentioned earlier.) So, the question is, on what basis were the figures given the the "well known online encyclopaedia" established in the not specified references which may have been one of the bibliography books? DDStretch (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just been t't library

I've just been to the library and got hold of a copy of Bush's 2005 book, Casualties of Peterloo. It's absolutely terrific; full casualty lists (with names), analyses of causes of death, deaths per contingent marching, numbers of males vs females injured, the lot. It's got to be about as definitive as we can possibly get. Lots of really good new information too, such as Captain Hugh Birley, in charge of the Manchester Yeomanry, sacking three of Wiliam Marsh's children who worked in his factory because their father had been at the meeting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! --Jza84 | Talk 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bamford

Having realised the short quote in the witness account was from Bamford (Frow hadn't said who it was) I've expanded it. If you think the article's getting too long please take it out again but personally I think it's the most graphic of the descriptions and shows the full horror of the day. If it stays, the external link to the short Bamford page will need to be removed. Richerman (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. If ever there should be a witness account, I'd expect it to have been a Bamford one. I'm happy with that section as it is now. Looks good to me. --Jza84 | Talk 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the external link now. Richerman (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Saddleworth, Lees and Moston Union

Just double checking that Moston isn't meant to be Mossley, a more likely town to unite with the others. :) --Jza84 | Talk 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It should have been Mossley, you're quite right. Mea culpa. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On this subject though, it makes me wonder about the claim that the only surviving banner is the Middleton one. Bush's book has pictures of the back and front of the Saddleworth one, apparently from the Saddleworth Museum and Art Gallery. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, curious. I wonder where that leaves us. It's definately the real thing, not a replica or anything like? --Jza84 | Talk 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell. They certainly look like pictures of a real banner. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging for unencyclopaedic content

I see that a section was tagged for unencyclopaedic content by an editor I have run into before for his overly-zealous tagging. I have removed it, and would ask that he contributes to the talk page in future to discuss the issues. DDStretch (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He's left a message on my talk page on this subject but not said what the problem is. Richerman (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've come across this editor on at least two occasions within the past week on at least two different articles, and a look at his talk page history is illuminating on the subject of what I would call overly-zealous tagging. I think mass-swooping in to tag a swathe of articles and then to leave is not a particularly good way of contributing to the collaborative nature of wikipedia. He has now warned me about being civil and of harrassment on my talk page now. DDStretch (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably ignore this user. I think between us there wouldn't be a problem over a formal consensus here. As no reason was given I can only assume this user added the tag in good faith as a misinterpretation, or, as DDStretch has said, a different motive. --Jza84 | Talk 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably sensible. Though I find the irony of being said to be engaged in "trolling" in his edit summary when he removed my message from the talk page is going a bit too far. DDStretch (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The reason he gave me after a bit of prompting was "Generally eye witness accounts should be avoided since it looks like reportage" I don't know where it says that, but to be honest if there was a newspaper reporter there, surely that would be an eye witness account anyway. If it does say that somewhere I would presume it means now, when we have 24 hour news coverage - not 200 years ago. Richerman (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

St Peter's Field

Although I know this would've been an inner-city square, every time I read it I can't help thinking that people are going to be confused that this was somekind of open grassland. Perhaps we ought to mention that this was a town square (of sorts)? Also, would an article on St Peter's Square not be in the pipeline, and, be a redirect for St Peter's Field, dealing with each? --Jza84 | Talk 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Frow (P. 7) it was "a croft alongside Mount Street which was was being cleared to enable the last section of Peter Street to be constructed. Piles of brushwoood had been placed at the end of the field nearest to the Friends' Meeting House, but the remainder of the field was clear." Richerman (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very good statement to put in. --Jza84 | Talk 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put it in with a description of a croft as "a piece of open land", as I know our transatlantic cousins don't know the word. Do you think that's a suitable description? The dictionary definitions I've found are usually "a small field or fenced piece of land " or "a small farm or piece of land adjoining a house" but I'm not sure that either of those work in this case. I did think of "a patch of land covered with cinders, old tyres and dumped supermarket trolleys", but - well, maybe not! Richerman (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think anything along those lines would be fine. Just something to give it a bit of context and dispell any idea that this was some kind of farmland! --Jza84 | Talk 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unconvinced

I'm unconvinced by the last paragraph of the Reaction and aftermath section, and I don't think it's supported by the source given either:

As a result of the Peterloo Massacre, the Anti-Corn Law League was established in Manchester in 1838, and used pamphlets, mass demonstrations, and torchlight parades to protest against the Corn Laws. In 1846, the Corn Laws were repealed under Bury born Prime Minister, Robert Peel. The government was still led by Tories, but The Great Hunger of Ireland led to the repeal, demonstrating the new power of the industrialists in England. The Chartist movement of 1848 had adherents in Manchester, and many arrests were made by the police.

I vote for removing it. Does anyone think it should be kept? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I lifted it from [4] (copy-vio doesn't apply as its a Wikimedia page). I thought of it as provisional to point us in the right direction. I don't mind it going at all, just thought some kind of wider impact would've been useful. --Jza84 | Talk 19:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for the claim that Peterloo was in any way responsible for the creation of the Anti-Corn Law League 19 years later, even less its link with the Chartist movement 29 years later. What's the message we're trying to end with? It seems to me that Peterloo's only significant legacy is The Manchester Guardian. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. if anyone can make a case for Peterloo having resulted in the setting up of the Anti-Corn League or affected the Chartist movement, then feel free to restore the material. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's no problem at all. --Jza84 | Talk 23:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of the end?

Just wondered if we're now coming near to a "close" (of sorts) for the article prior to taking our first formal step towards GA and FA? Are there any outstanding issues or burning desires at this stage? If we think we're almost ready, are we seeking to have a WP:PR first or go for WP:GA? --Jza84 | Talk 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're ready. We've got a well-written, comprehensive coverage of the event. I'd go straight for WP:FA, but if others want to go via GA, then I'm fine with that as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There's just one outstanding statement requiring citation "the newly created Manchester parliamentary borough elected its first MPs since the election of 1656". I think, or rather expect it to be something to do with the Second Protectorate Parliament. Once that's done, I think we're ready.

I'm sure what this means, either. I would just delete it, as, at the moment, without a great deal of extra work it just doesn't make sense: if it was newly created, it could be said to have elected its first MP since the founding of parliament! Any citation would have to have more explanation to take into account the apparent inconsistency and strangeness of this sentence, integrating it into previous material about Manchester not having any MPs, apart from the county ones, up to that time. It could always be added later if the details were found, and I don't think its worth delaying the entire article for such a comparatively minor point. DDStretch (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still keen on GA, but merely as a way of obtaining greater feedback. If we could perhaps invite a few "leading" reviewers to put something together for us informally, I wouldn't mind that as a substitute for GAC. --Jza84 | Talk 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

GA can take a month or more to get even one reviewer to look at the article. I think that this one is good enough to take straight to FA, where it will get more critical eyes than you can shake a stick at, and will improve rapidly as a result. At GA it may just languish for a while, and we'll lose our momentum. The 1656 reference is to Cromwell's parliament I think, but we can sort that out pretty quickly, or just get rid of it. I'm obviously pretty bullish about this article, but if other editors would prefer to follow the GA route then I'm happy with that as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could live with FAC straight away no problem. I would hope we get some brutal, but quality reviewers for it though to compensate! I've submitted articles straight to FAC before and found it quite fine. --Jza84 | Talk 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the editors at FAC are "brutal", but usually in a helpful way. As you know yourself, all oposition to an article has to be based on "actionable" issues to be considered relevant, so as long we're around to deal with them when they're raised we should be OK. The real killer at FA, it seems to me, is in not dealing with the issues raised in a timely or appropriate manner. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we could action any such requests - I don't think that'd be a problem. I think you're convincing me round to FAC. Sure, if we fail it, we'd still get feedback, AND, have enough time to resubmit for our intended WP:TFA date. --Jza84 | Talk 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We won't fail it, but we will get good feedback which will improve the article, which is what we want. Courage, mon brave. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So, when do we go for it? --Jza84 | Talk 01:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow? I'd like this to be a nomination from the GM project, any objections? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it - infinity and beyooooooond !!!!!!!!!! Richerman (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Is there any particular reason why footnote 53 in the table (in section 4) is not placed in the Ref(s). column, but in one of the opther columns? DDStretch (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that may have been put in before we had a Refs column, but I've moved it now anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Moaning Minnies

I read (somewhere) that each year on the anniversary of Peterloo, crowds would gather outside Birley's (I think - possibly one of the other leading lights) house and moan. If only I could remember where I read it. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably Kidd, now I think of it. Anyone have a copy to hand? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't, but been tempted to purchase his Manchester: A History. Is it this the book? Either way, can you recommend any of his work? --Jza84 | Talk 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. It's recommended by Claire Hartwell (She updated the Pevsner guide to Manchester) as the best modern single-volume general history. It's very readable. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo/Waterloo, the actions of the Stockport Yeomanry

I thought the 15th had seen action at Waterloo, and it was their presence which brought about the name Peterloo? Just FYI, the Stockport Yeomanry seem to have been an unpleasant lot. They had been thoroughly bested at meetings in Stockport earlier in the year, and apparently they took the opportunity for revenge, cutting through the crowd and seizing banners, which were later burnt in the market place. Interesting times. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting times indeed. John Lloyd, who led the "triumphant" Cheshire Yeomanry, was almost euphoric. I quote from Reid (1989) once again: "With enormous enthusiasm, he reported how they had captured two banners and now intended to present them to their Colonel, Sir John Leicester. He might perhaps have shown less pride in the achievement had he realised that one of those had been wrested from the hands of the women of Royton." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Arrowsmith has Lloyd saying "[a] glorious day in Manchester. We have come back with honour" Mr Stephen (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that there are some formidable women in Royton! But to be serious, are there any quotes from the yeomanry that could go in the witness accounts for "balance"? Richerman (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The yeomanry's position seems fairly clear. Including the bill for the sharpening of their sabres before the meeting at Peterloo would be unlikely to add any kind of a "balance". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it would make them look any better, as it clearly wouldn't, but the witness reports are both from the protesters and there are none from the other side, so we could be accused of not being "neutral" - not that I am of course. Richerman (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If nobody else deals with it, then I will. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now I think about it I'm not quite right there, Prentice was a neutral observer. Richerman (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

Use a cursor to explore Victuallers (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It's a little tricky to pin-point the links (but that's due to the nature of the image), but I think it's great. --Jza84 | Talk 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thx. If another of the prime authors of this article agree then it can be moved to the article if there are no objections. I'm afraid that as you say the image is difficult, but the hotspots should make it readable without expansion. I have changed the central click so that it gives a zoom in on the Field. Victuallers (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Added now .... you could consider removing the places listed underneath if they do not add to the story as they are all in the imagemap ... but its up to you guys. Oh and John Byrne ... is that the one at Waterloo? cheers Victuallers (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an accesibility issue involved with removing the text version. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the graphic calls it St Peter's Fields, whereas our article went for St Peter's Field. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It now reads "field" but someone with original graphic should fix that. As regards accessibility - I'd argue that the picture is more accessible now (an automated reader should now "read" the image)... need some advise from someone with sight problems or similar... but its your choice. Victuallers (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed "Fields" to "Field" as well as increase the size of the text by the scale bar. I'm still struggling to work out how to "click onto" the image, to see the metadata. Could an "i" be added (as in the map in the infobox at Greater Manchester)? --Jza84 | Talk 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can add an i but its a bright red one. I usually rely on the button supplied with "thumb" layout. To find the info at present then you just need to click on anywhere outside the greater manchester border. So you could add an i there? or I'll add a red one if you like? Victuallers (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind no! What do other's think? --Jza84 | Talk 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to enlarge the image wherever I click so I think an "i" would help as there isn't a thumb layout button to use that I can see. Also, is there a reason why Middleton doesn't have the number sent? - it seems to be around 3,000 according to Bamford. Richerman (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rehearsals

I don't want to fiddle about with the article in the middle of the review (too many cooks etc.) but the following sentence seem awfully long to me.

"Although banning the 9 August meeting had been intended to discourage the radicals entirely, Hunt and his followers were determined to assemble and a new meeting was organised for 16 August,[11] after the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, had written to the magistrates instructing them that it was not the intention to elect an MP that was illegal, but the execution of that intention.[12]

Shouldn't there be a full stop rather than "and" after "Hunt and his followers were determined to assemble" ? Richerman (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is a bit long on reflection. I'll break it up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, feel free to "fiddle about" with the article; we want it to be the best we can all make it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)