Talk:Peterloo Massacre

Poster

I bought a copy of a poster (cost me all of 10p) form Salford Local History Library the other day published by the magistrates on 17th August 1819. It is addressed to the "Inhabitants of Salford" and says "It has been proved upon oath before the magistrates that large bodies of men assemble in various places within the hundred of Salford for the purposes of training and practising MILITARY EXCERSISES which have in many instances been connectected with SEDITIOUS AND TREASONABLE PURPOSES" I goes on to say these are "CONTRARY to LAW" and "and we strictly enjoin all persons hereafter to ABSTAIN thereform" etc. My desktop PC isn't working at the moment and it will take me a bit time to set up the scanner to work with my laptop. If I do that is there room for the poster in the article - perhaps in the aftermath section? Richerman (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting image. I'm sure we'd be able to try a rejig of images if the need arose. I'd be very interested to see the poster! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. I think it should go in the Preparation section though. We could probably make space for it by putting the table of contingency numbers in a hidden box to avoid the text being squeezed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, scrub that, I just noticed the poster was dated the day after the massacre. Oops! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just testing to see if you were paying attention - wake up at the back there! Richerman (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, those of you who worked so hard to get this article up to FA status may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Holkham Hall - incredible! Richerman (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That discussion doesn't surprise me at all, given two of the contributors' (Giano II and Wetman) apparent behaviour towards people who make quite reasonable requests to them to explain their positions or to add references. WT:CHES#Little Moreton Hall is one discussion that blew up mostly because of Giano's edits together with his supporters wading in, some of whom I see in the discussion on Holkham Hall. Search on recent WP:AN/I archives for a discussion concerning Wetman's behaviour towards a numbers of editors (including myself) in the past, as well. The thing that disturbs me is the apparent charmed existence such editors have, in comparison with others closer to home, in the extent that Arbcom have restricted anyone from taking action against Giano for incivility now. It adds weight to the idea that we have at least a two-tier caste system of established editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's always seemed to me to be the case; administrators have always been free to say pretty much whatever they like with impunity, unlike ordinary mortals. The Holkham Hall FAR is a stark contrast with the collaborative effort we put into the Peterloo Massacre though. I just can't imagine the same sort of problem cropping up with any of our articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, just so there's no misunderstanding, I didn't go through RfA just so I could make myself invulnerable to charges of incivility ... although now I come to think of it ... :lol:

Don't tempt me! hehe! --Jza84 |  Talk  12:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're not telling me that Giano is an administrator are you? Please say no! But then, if not, how did he become immune from incivility actions? Richerman (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not an administrator – doesn't need to be one now he's invulnerable. I haven't followed all the Arbcom nonsense, but so far as I'm aware only a very few selected administrators are allowed to censure Giano now. Perhaps DDStretch will be able to explain better. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Giano isn't an administrator, and I think he hasaid he doesn't want to be one. The immunity he seems to have achieved seems to be mainly achieved via writing a lot of articles that have, in the past, gained FA status, together with playing a prominent role in many wikipedia fora where other admins hang out, the IRC channels, etc. I don't know how he has the time, but there again, I have the "attention span of a gnat", so what do I know. However, if the large number of FA articles associated with him are similar to the Holkham Hall one, I can see why he doesn't relish having to go and get them into current FA status with respect to the references, but that's just tough–he shouldn't have allowed himself and others to create an air of ownership about them, which seems to have happened (I saw one message which suggested it was "his day" because an article he edited was a Featured Article on the main page, for instance.)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Malleus, it would take a long time to explain, and probably would not be helpful (or, rather, would be even less helpful than the discussion has been so far). If you want to follow it all, a rummage through various pages found on this search may help. At the moment, if any administrator not on an Arbcom approved list (small in number) blocks Giano, it appears from what I read that they will be immediately "desysopped" (lose their admin status) without further discussion. I don't know if that has been modified from when I read it, and, rather more worrying, I don't think it has been widely advertised as far as I know.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I think articles like his would be fine for a book on architecture but far too POV for wikipedia. I really can't see why this one is thought to be such a wonderful article in the first place, but when I think of all the hoops you have to jump through to get to FA now it really pisses me off. Sentences like "this perfect but stark example of Palladianism" just scream POV to me. I'm sure the reason why he won't put more specific references in is that he knows it won't stand up to much scrutiny. And as for the immunity business - it's laughable. Richerman (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 8.14 of this page contains the relevant statement about desysopping. I agree with you entirely about the content you have flagged up in the article. Avoiding such turns of phrases was one of the first things that was drilled into me when I was first writing serious material (some of which went into a paper encyclopaedia.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a photo I took of the poster with my mobile phone in the local history library. It's not too brilliant as the bottom half is slightly out of focus, but I thought you may be interested to see it. I'll produce a better image as soon as I get some time to sort it out. Richerman (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it! Do you think you'll be able to get a higher res photo? It's probably a good image for the Salford (hundred) article too, once that expands enough. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A higher res photo's no problem as soon as I dig out my digital camera. I was going to get a scan but that will take some time to sort out. I'll have a look at the other posters they have to see if there are any others we could use for the Salford articles. Richerman (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

All the King's Men

Hello guys, I just removed a new addition (see this diff). Anybody have a ref? Are we agreed that this is an appropriate addition? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Initially I thought this about as plausible as the chicken biriyani from the Plaza Cafe on Brook Street actually containing some chicken, but I thought I'd give it a chance. A quick Goggle shows plenty of MySpace hits but not much else. I would discount what a DJ says, even one of Clint Boon's pedigree, because they are not generally noted for.. well, anything much. However, if the MHS had commented on the track, I might have expected that to have achieved a headline in the Manchester Evening News, for example, but it doesn't seem to have done so. All in all, nice try. --Rodhullandemu 19:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Magistrates' poster

File:1819 poster.jpg

Here's a nw higher resolution photo of the magistrates' notice - what do you think?

Ooooooh! Nice! I like it - but where to put it. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How about the political section of Reaction and aftermath? Richerman (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would work very well. Go for it! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Might it be better on the left, do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to fiddle - you may want to change the title too. They also had a copy of a notice published in 1832 or 4 ( can't remember which) by Queen Victoria. Wasn't there something about a visit by her and they were still worried about the aftermath? Unfortunately they couldn't find the master copy last week but I'll get a copy soon. I also got a copy of a letter that I put on the Bridgewater Canal page - very amusing! Richerman (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice letter, and a good addition. Bit depressing though to be reminded of how much work still needs to be done on that article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Queen Victoria would have nothing to do with the issue of a poster in 1832-34 - she wasn't then sovereign, her uncle William IV was who would have been the fount of authority. She was only Princess Victoria of Kent until the year she turned 18 in 1837.Cloptonson (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Autoformatted dates

What do we feel about delinking the dates in this article? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Date formats should follow the guidance set out in WP:DATE unless there is an important reason why an exception needs to be made. Even if an exception is made you should be aware that other editors and any maintenance bots that stumble on this page will alter it to conform with WP:DATE again unless they are aware of the exception. Is there a particular reason why dates should be unlinked? Road Wizard (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been a fairly recent change to the MoS, which no longer encourages date linking. And many recent FAs have had their date linking removed. Check out some of the current FACs, for instance. One of the important issues is that autoformatting hides the date inconsistencies that we as logged in users don't see, but regular readers are exposed to. The issue has been discussd extensively elsewhere, and the consensus is that, on balance, dates ought not to be autoformatted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"If the autoformatting function is used, the underlying formats need to be checked for consistency in the edit box, since autoformatting conceals such inconsistencies from logged on users who have selected date preferences. Inconsistencies will be displayed for all other users." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The dates seem to hold some relevance to this article in a way that is more striking than others I've been involved with by way of its chronological structuring and emphasis on key dates. However, I won't lose (that much) sleep if there's a desire to remove them - I certainly won't be navigating between date articles from this one. :D --Jza84 |  Talk  00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whichever dates are relevant can be linked to the relevant event, not to a generic list of everything that happened on that day. The present system makes no sense to me, but then so much of wikipedia makes no sense to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The cite templates are, shall we say, in a state of flux. Best to hold off for a little while, methinks. But, delinking is obviously coming. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. The{{citation}} template seems to work well though, and would give us the advantage of being able to use the {{Harvnb}} template as well, to link from Notes to Bibliography. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oliver the Spy

I see we have no background between 1815 and 1819. Oliver and the Luddite riots should fit nicely. Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Emmeline Pankhurst's grandfather

Whilst researching the object of my latest FA-ffection, Emmeline Pankhurst, I've learned that her paternal grandfather was present at the Peterloo Massacre. This tidbit is mentioned in both of the recent scholarly biographies (Bartley, ISBN 0-415-20651-0, and Purvis, ISBN 0-415-23978-8) as a probable influence on her early political awareness – especially since it related to parliamentary reform. Alas, I'm not sure where to add such an item into the article – so I'll leave it to you good people to decide (if you consider it worthy at all). The info appears on pp. 18–19 of Bartley and p. 9 of Purvis. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems like information worth including. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go in reaction and aftermath. Richerman (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Date at end of article

"In 1968 the Trades Union Congress commissioned British composer Sir Malcolm Arnold to write the Peterloo Overture, in celebration of its centenary."

Great article but this stood out - 1968 as centenary of an event in 1819? Surely 150th anniversary? - Dewi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.233.95 (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense ... Mr Stephen (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sentence very carefully, you will see that it is entirely correct. The error is in assuming (incorrectly) that the "its" refers to the Peterloo Massacre, when in fact, using normal grammatical rules, "its" clearly refers to the centenary of the Trades Union Congress. See Trades Union Congress and its Bibilography section to back up this correct interpretation.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, but the sentence could be reworded to make the distinction clearer. If a sentence needs to be read very carefully to be understood then the wording should be improved upon. Perhaps, "In 1968 the Trades Union Congress commissioned British composer Sir Malcolm Arnold to write the Peterloo Overture, in celebration of the TUC's centenary."? Road Wizard (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. my "very carefully" was a slight hyperbole, since I immediately understood what "its" referred to on reading it for the first time. However, your re-wording might be best.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As over two years have passed since this discussion and the sentence was still confusing, I have changed it to Road Wizard's suggested text.--86.31.1.117 (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

More than half MPs elected by 154 voters in total ???

The article on 16-Aug-2008 says "By comparison more than half of all MPs were elected by a total of just 154 voters". Huh? Half a voter each? That's overcooking it surely? The Rotten_borough article gives a rather more credible statement: "At one point, out of 405 elected MPs, 293 were chosen by fewer than 500 voters each." --Farry (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your change since you gave no time for the matter to be discussed before you instigated the change, and, furthermore, the change you made substituted for verified and cited information an unverified claim based on a different wikipedia article, when we cannot use wikipedia to verify facts in other articles (see WP:V for details.)  DDStretch  (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the claim made in Rotten borough on which you based your edit here is unverified and uncited.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not CREDIBLE. The statement in Rotten_borough is. And the citation is not verifiable, unless somebody orders the book to check and then checks the author's source.--Farry (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It has already been verified, unless you are stating that the editors and reviewers who wrote the article and got it to featured status were somehow sub-standard in the rigour they employed. As for its credibility, I find it entirely credible because I know that at that time, plural voting could occur, and one man one vote had not yet prevailed. Indeed, One man one vote#United Kingdom points out (unfortunately, uncited, but I know this from other sources) it was as late as 1950 that there were still people who still had more than one vote they could use in various elections in the UK. So, it is quite possible that at the time we are discussing many of the Rotten boroughs had had their votes "collected" by a smallish number of people who thereby had an undue weight in determining the composition of the House of Commons, partly because of the small size of the electorate in the rotten boroughs, and partly because they could vote in more than one rotten borough at a time. Hence it is credible.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the reviewers bought the book and checked for themselves, then they wouldn't know. I'd prefer to accept what's written in the Rotten_borough article where there's a whole table of figures, all of which would have to be wrong if the figure in this article is correct. It *is* unfortunate that no source has been provided for those. But why would this article highlight two boroughs as something special for each returning two MPs for one vote if there was something like 100 boroughs like that. It makes this article internally inconsistent as well as simply not being credible. The figures in the Rotten_borough article have the feel of authenticity unlike the figure in this article which has the feel of being exaggerated to the point of absurdity.--Farry (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the discussion that led to the current wording is here and here. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI as well, the following section: Talk:Peterloo Massacre/Archive 1#Typo? indicates that User:Malleus Fatuorum borrowed a copy of the book used to verify the text under question and used it to add material to the article. Is there any particular reason why Malleus should be believed to have made an error here at all in writing that section? (The message of most relevance is the one dated and timed at 13:51, 28 March 2008.)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Reply to Farry, who wrote: "I'd prefer to accept what's written in the Rotten_borough article where there's a whole table of figures, all of which would have to be wrong if the figure in this article is correct." There is no table of figures in that article, though I suppose you may mean the list which is given in section 1 here. That list just gives the number of voters for a selection of rotten boroughs, and there is no guarantee that a voter in one rotten borough was not also a voter in another, for the reasons I have already given about plural voting in the UK at that time. So, one cannot simply count the total number of individual people who could vote in those rotten boroughs by performing a simple addition of the figures given in that unverified list. It is the unreferenced and unverified rotten borough article that needs clarification here, I think, not this one.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For instance, in the list given in Rotten borough#Rotten borough, it is possible that there were only 42 people responsible for all the votes as shown, instead of the 209 one might think by doing a simple addition of the number of voters for each borough as shown. I worked that figure out by assuming that a person did not have more than one vote in the same borough, but could engage in plural voting in different constituencies.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussions pointed up by Mr_Stephen mention that the figure in the Reid book seems incredible and ask if it's possible to verify it, and the discussion gets no further. I've tried web searching on the author's name to get a sense of his credibility without any success.--Farry (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Poole tells us "The standard accounts are: Donald Read, Peterloo: The ‘Massacre’ and its Background (Manchester, 1958); Thompson, Making of the English Working Class, 734–68; and (for the authorities) Robert Reid, The Peterloo Massacre (London, 1989)." (See Poole, Robert (2006). "The March to Peterloo: Politics and Festivity in Late Georgian England". Past & Present. 192: 109–153.) Mr Stephen (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Robert Reid appears to be the person mentioned on this page here, thus: "The historian Robert Reid...". The site is the official site of a old public library in Manchester that is associated with, though separate to, The Chetham Society, which is a long established society which oversees the publication of many authoritative and expert books on matters concerning the history of Lancashire, Cheshire, and other parts of North West England. An article about The Chetham Society is in need of being written. From its official site, we read "The Chetham Society is the oldest history society in North-West England and was one of the first in Britain. It was founded in Manchester in 1843 by a group of gentlemen, of 'a literary and historical turn', who wanted to promote interest in, and access to, the rich historical source material of the region. The formal object of the Society was therefore to publish 'Remains Historical and Literary connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancashire and Chester', although since the 1870s the literary element has been dropped and the work of the Society has concentrated entirely upon the publication of history." and later on "For more than 150 years the Chetham Society has been publishing books which have made a unique contribution to our knowledge and understanding of local and regional history within the two counties. They have a wider relevance, too, for many Chetham Society volumes are primary sources for social, economic and political historians nationally and internationally. Over 260 volumes have now been published, and the list of their authors is a roll call of many of the foremost historians who have worked in the region since the beginning of Victoria's reign." Now, that doesn't conclusively deal with the matter of whether Robert Reid is an expert (and it is confounded by there being other Reids who have written about the Peterloo Massacre), but it does point to a way of focussing one's search for information about him more.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the 154 figure can be stood up without pondering the credibility of Robert Reid (although he should probably be retained as a reasonably accessible reference). Reading - for other reasons - the Berkshire Chronicle of 22 Jan 1831, I see that it carries a report of a Berkshire Reform Meeting, in the course of which W Hallett Esq recalls Charles Grey's petition for Parliamentary Reform , presented to Parliament in 1793. "In that petition it was stated and proof of it offered at the bar, that 154 Lords and Commoners returned by their direct influence a decided majority of the House of Commons" Grey's petition presumably is if not the ultimate source for the 154 men deciding most of the MPs returned pretty close to that source. If the figure was still being quoted 40 years later it won't have been wildly out (surely)Rjccumbria (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Grey's motion or petition of 1793, I have instead now stumbled upon a contemporaneous (1816) patronage list (from a work by an ex-Friend of The People) and used that to bulk out comment on patronage. Seems a better way forward than arguing about the credentials of the ipse who dixit Rjccumbria (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert Wedderburn

The reference to Robert Wedderburn gives an impression that he was an MP and made his comment in the House of Commons but the page for Mr Wedderburn shows plainly that although a campaigner he was not an M.P. Is some clarification needed?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My first question would be whether there were two Robert Wedderburns. It is possible that there was an MP of the same name and the link is to the wrong person. Can someone with access to the source material provide some clarification please? Road Wizard (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The source is available at Google books and it appears to have been misquoted. The debate occurred at Hopkins Street (probably at Wedderburn's Unitarian chapel) and not in Parliament. Road Wizard (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Another source

I came across this paper which might be of interest as I don't think it's been used as a reference in the article. Richerman (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How did you manage to get a free pubmed paper? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It just was, maybe it's because I accessed it from work at Salford University - does the link work for you? Richerman (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The link works fine for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Victims

Hello. The table of victims seems to have an error - James Cromton's field is coloured differently to the rest of the table. I can't work out why. Can anybody enlighten me? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (latest firefox browser). Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just for his name. I've purged my cache and restarted my PC but its still there. It's a couple of pantones more blue than the rest of the grey. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it look better now? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Spot on, thanks! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image of veterans

Manchester Archives have posted what seems to be an image that might be usable in this article. The image is here. If the date is accurate, it'd be compatible with Wikipedia's licensing policies. Parrot of Doom 12:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating image and it's got to be well out of copyright. Richerman (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a nice image. My only cautionary note would be that UK copyright law can, on occasion, regard a copy of a copyright-free image (e.g. a scan of a 19th century photograph such as this) as carrying its own copyright, and the Manchester Archives user that posted it on Flickr are indeed claiming copyright to it. I can't imagine it being a problem for a US-based editor to upload it (it probably doesn't have copyright in the US, and Flickr is a US-hosted site if memory serves), but a UK-based editor doing so might theoretically be infringing UK copyright law. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification required

"Voting was restricted to the adult male owners of freehold land valued at 40 shillings or more – the equivalent of about £80 as of 2008"

In ordinary, plain, modern English, "freehold land valued at 40 shillings or more", would mean land that it would cost 40 shillings to BUY. Even 200 years ago, land was not that cheap! However, I believe that this phrase actually means, land which would cost 40 shillings a year, to RENT. I've tried to find an explicit reference for this, I haven't come up with one, I am going to change it anyway. If anyone can come up with a source which says, land which would cost 40 shillings to BUY, then do so.Eregli bob (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Try here for some background - it was slightly complex, and I can't remember what the exact system in Manchester was! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

'Monday, 16 August 1819, was a hot summer's day, with a cloudless blue sky. The fine weather almost certainly increased the size of the crowd significantly.'

This says it all. To add 'marching from the outer townships in the cold and rain would have been a much less attractive prospect.' adds nothing, and is not an encyclopedic statement.

So I must disagree with Eric Corbett's reversion of my deletion of this statement, though I will not stoop to re-inserting it. Valetude (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to see this mentioned, having only read through this Featured Article yesterday. It is supported by citation, so the description of the weather is supported by published historians. The weather would certainly have been pertinent factor, as it increased the participation and the potential victims of the charge. Also heated weather is known to sometimes encourage heated behaviour, which could have contributed to the decisions and actions of the magistrates and military.Cloptonson (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Is it worth recalling how Margaret Thatcher wanted the Peterloo Massacre to be taught in schools as a response to the poll tax riots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.79.21 (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The change from {{Infobox military conflict}} to {{Infobox civilian attack}}, made in this edit, seems to have passed unnoticed, or at least has not been commented on. There is a similar issue, of how best to summarise military vs. civilian conflict, at Newport Rising. Has it been agreed that {{Infobox civilian attack}} is the best one to use for such events? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Riot Act ?

A generation ago one of the points for discussion about Peterloo was the legality of the magistrates' actions, and what had been done to comply with the Riot Act. Was it read ? Was it read far enough in advance of the attempt to arrest Hunt for dispersal of the crowd to be legal if totally ill-advised ? If the controversy has been resolved, it would be helpful to say so; if not it would be helpful to say so Either way, it would be helpful for the article to say something about the laws the meeting had to stay within (the article says Hunt and various members of the platform party were to be arrested, but is completely silent about what the charges were against them) and the options legally open to the magistratesRjccumbria (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Guardian survey

I cannot find a source for the 2006 Guardian survey reported in the lead. It suspiciously sounds like a voodoo poll. User:Rjccumbria's edit was therefore correct.--Britannicus (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The source is given in the Commemoration section.[1] Eric Corbett 13:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it is a survey of Guardian readers then. 269 Guardian readers voted for Peterloo; is this really notable enough for the lead, or even to be included in the article? Given that it's an unscientific poll I'm not convinced that it should be.--Britannicus (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's staying. Let's move on. Eric Corbett 18:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As will be clear from the reference the exercise was a write-in poll of Guardian readers of insufficiently commemorated events in "British radical history", so the source does not support the article statement that in a survey Peterloo was voted the second most insufficiently commemorated event in "British history". I put together an edit which corrected this, and did so in (on my word count) slightly fewer words than the existing text. This was promptly reverted as 'not an improvement'; the reverter offering no reason why it wasn't an improvement to report the reference correctly. On inquiry he had reverted because he felt the new text was too wordy. I don't quite know what is going on on this article, and on the whole I don't think I want to know. But , if there are people who feel they have 'ownership' of the article and are therefore entitled to rebuff other editors, I would make a suggestion to them.

If getting 270 votes in a write-in poll (total response c 1,0000) of readers of a paper with a circulation of c 350,000 (in 2006) is sufficiently notable to make the lede (with all numbers removed), anybody referencing a poll of Guardian readers surely should remember that it was a Manchester Guardian man who gave us the phrase about "comment is free, facts are sacred". Acting on that principle, one of them should correct the doubtless unintentional misstatement that the Guardian exercise was about poorly commemorated events "in British history" rather than "in British radical history". (While they are at it they might consider if they really want to follow the Guardian and report that the most undercommemorated event was a church; this in a paper that supposedly used to be written by Oxford firsts!) Rjccumbria (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's staying. Live with it. Eric Corbett 13:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As Rjccumbria is so particular about references, perhaps s/he'd like to look at what s/he wrote at Oswaldtwistle (an article really in need of improvement) and provide one. J3Mrs (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've de-watched the Peterloo Massacre article (as probably should have been inferred from my promise to tip-toe away from it) and also its talk page. I only came back because whilst doing something entirely different I accidentally stumbled across where '154 voters' probably comes from, and I thought it would only be courteous to share that information. I'm sorry but, yes, I do think it important to report references correctly, so thanks for the insertion of 'radical'; as for the rest I fully expected to have to live with it. I would suggest that if J3Mrs wants to comment on the defects in the Oswaldtwistle article (including my own small contribution to them) the logical place to do that is on the Oswaldtwistle talk page. The Oswaldtwistle article is certainly in need of TLC, but (as my moniker might indicate) that can hardly be blamed on me. My connections with Oswaldtwistle are tenuous, but in the course of searching for info on Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet in connection with the Factory Acts I found Hyndburn Council apparently claiming Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet to have been born in Oswaldtwistle, rather than Bury and it seemed wise to put enough info into the Wikipedia article to deter the wrong info being imported. (Pareto principle, 'a lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on' and all that). If it gives anyone that much grief that one para in the Oswaldtwistle article is not referenced to a higher level that the rest of it; give me a week and I'll probably get round to it. If not, please post a comment on the Oswaldtwistle talk page in a week's time. Non-gender-specific regards and goodbye Rjccumbria (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Battle of "Battle of ..."???

There seems to be a reversion war on calling the massacre a Battle in the lede. The last reversion to restore 'Battle' gave as its justification "that's what it was called" without supplying any evidence for that. I trust that the reversion was in good faith, but it does not reflect the article text: that does not use the phrase 'Battle of Peterloo' and hence does not give any reference supporting that designation. Who is supposed to have called it a 'Battle' and when? Surely the radicals of the day were keen to stress that the affair was a massacre, not a battle?
On a quick search through the British Newspaper Archive for 'Peterloo' (date ascending), the first 300 hits for 'Peterloo' have only two hits for 'Battle of Peterloo', and the first hardly counts, as it comes in a letter engaging in dark humour on the over-reaction of the authorities (suggesting, for example, that the forces of reaction need to confiscate icicles as these could be dangerous weapons in the hands of radicals). Over the same period, there are considerably more hits for 'the late meeting at St Peter's Fields' .... Regards Rjccumbria (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's rarely referred to as the Battle of Peterloo, and it wouldn't be much of a battle anyway if only one side was armed, so I think we can lose that. Eric Corbett 19:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Byng and 'York races coinciding with the Manchester meeting'

'Coincide' may not be the right word. The tale that he wanted to be in York to see his horses run, hence was not available on the 16th, is certainly what I always understood to be the case. However, if you look at contemporary newspapers, they are quite clear that the August meeting began on Monday 9 August, and concluded on Saturday 14 August... Rjccumbria (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we may safely say that the massacre coincided with Byng's visit to the races at York, so I've amended the text to say "The revised meeting date of 16 August, however, coincided with his visit to the horse races at York." Eric Corbett 21:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If this were Inspector Morse, I think we'd want to take a second look at his account of his movements now (especially since the Yorkshire Gazette noted how much less fashionable/well-attended the races of 1819 were than they were 20 years before) .., but yes, that mod seems about right. Thanks. Rjccumbria (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a few loose ends after the recent edits

I don't want to be any more disruptive then I already have been - and I want to get back to Factory Acts stuff - but there are a few points arising from the recent flurry of editing, where I would be tempted to further editing if I didn't worry it might be misinterpreted/counter-productive. Most are minor-ish

Radical mass meetings in Manchester

• The Wikipedia article on Blanketeers says” Each marcher had a blanket or rolled overcoat on his back, to sleep under at night and to serve as a sign that the man was a textile worker, giving the march its eventual nickname.” Noting that "eventual" is it safe for the current text to expand "the Blanketeers" to "a group who called themselves Blanketeers"?
• The account of the Jan 1819 meeting has lost the advice from Hunt about being nice to the 7th Hussars, which I put in because I thought it had some significance in the narrative, bearing on the later advice from the Home Office to the magistrates that they had strong reason to believe that Hunt would do his best to stop any disorder at the August meeting.

August meeting

“On 3 August”

• revision has lost mention of who Hobhouse was advising (although an attentive reader would probably have a good idea)
• it might be wise to use "representative" throughout rather than "MP" ; as at the preceding Birmingham meeting the representative was to be called a "Legislative Attorney" or some such.
• I am aware of two separate accounts of why the 9 Aug meeting was thought by the AG to be legal

1. That the intention to elect a representative was legal, it was the act of doing it that was illegal (the version in previous versions of the article, referenced to Reid (1989))
2. That the meeting was advertised to ‘consider the propriety of’ electing a representative and it is not illegal to ‘consider the propriety’ of an illegal act (the version given in Read(1973))

(2) is not the same as (1) (that the intent is legal) but rather that on a strict construction of the words used there is no statement of intent (Read (1973) has Norris writing back to Hobhouse how disappointed the bench were that the AG was giving advice based on a quibble about wording)

Hence my text when first introducing Read(1973)'s explanation gave them as alternative explanations.

Current version combines the two possibilities and hence gives two references to support an argument one or both of them has not previously been reported as making

((1) seems wrong to me (because it conflicts with the Liverpool lawyer’s advice and because any number of State trials in the period include charges drawn up on the basis that a shared intent to commit an illegal act was ‘conspiracy’ and illegal in itself), but (unless a check on Reid shows that it’s not quite what he says) should I suppose be retained)

Meeting

• Last para "By this time St Peter's Field, an area of 14,000 square yards (11,700 m2), was packed with tens of thousands of men, women and children" . Given that Bruden (Three Accounts of Peterloo) confirms Stanley’s estimate of 100 yards from Mr Buxton’s House to the hustings (corresponding to the line of constables in the article map), the area of St Peter’s Fields must surely be more than 14,000 square yards: is 14,000 square yards meant to be the area occupied by the crowd within St Peter’s Fields? In which case the sentence should presumably start “By this time, within St Peter's Field, an area of about 14,000 square yards (11,700 m2) was packed…”. That would also be in better agreement with the second half of the next sentence

Political

• 1st para : thanks for the great improvement on what was there before, but please see current version of Manchester Observer Wikiarticle. Unfortunately the key references there are British Newspaper Archive stuff, but one point that's more easily accessible is that the Observer’s last issue recommended the Guardian (founded 1821) to its readers. What drew me into revisiting the MO article was that some wikiarticles had the MO dead in Feb 1820, others had it surviving until after the launch of the Guardian more than a year later. On investigation, the later death date is right: the Observer did not close (or at least did not close permanently) until 1821; what happened in Feb 1820 was that Wroe sold it on to Evans (who then decided to make the lawyers' day by stating that a local clergyman was sleeping with his servants)

Incidentally, Archibald Prentice was a reporter at the 1838 Chartist 'monster meeting' at Kersal Moor, where, he said "our impression was there were more people than we had seen at any public meeting since 16 Aug 1819" ("The Numbers on Kersal Moor" Manchester Times 29 September 1838). When the speeches started, the tightly packed portion of the crowd was less than 80 yards across, but allowing for onlookers he calculated the total attendance to be at least 45,000 (taking the tightly packed portion to be packed at 7 people to the square yard)

Regards: I'm off to fight the wicked millowners and their accursed relay system, and hope to have the strength of character to stay away from this for a bit Rjccumbria (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat what I wrote on Eric Corbett's talk page, I think using too many contemporary sources and quotations led to the article becoming difficult to read, and in my case, understand. It should be written in modern terminology and not incorporate mini articles on newspapers or other linked material. Focus is in danger of being lost through over-detailed edits. Some interesting facts have been added but it is important to remember that an encyclopedia article should be a summary not a compliation of everything that can be gathered about a subject. J3Mrs (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

map of Peterloo

Can anyone help me. I am trying to find out about the map which appears in numerous places in relation to Peterloo. I call it the 'spider's web' map.

Can anyone tell me a. who created it b. when it was drawn and c. is it based on any known facts or is it just a representation of the towns that sent contingents without being a true record of the routes taken.

here is a link to the image.

I can be contacted directly at martingzzz@hotmail.co.uk

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0b%2FPeterloo_contingents_map.svg%2F640px-Peterloo_contingents_map.svg.png&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3APeterloo_contingents_map.svg&docid=t24BGxgigvctoM&tbnid=Jkt4na-pWV2pIM%3A&w=640&h=463&bih=667&biw=1366&ved=0ahUKEwjkn9L1gZvOAhUFBcAKHaCKA3EQMwgrKA0wDQ&iact=mrc&uact=8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.129.160 (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The image used in the article was created by user:Jza84 under an earlier username. If you click on the i symbol over the map it tells you what it was based on. Clearly the routes shown are representative and not the actual routes. You've seen it in other places because wikipedia content is freely available for anyone to use. Richerman (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

confused

It's says 11 died but I keep reading on and it says 15people had died??? I don't know which one is correct Likeaboss54545 (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, 15 is correct; a "test" edit was made by an IP almost a month ago that nobody has picked up on. I will change it now. There are some other edits that I think need to be checked but it'll need someone with more experience than I have. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had a go at removing some not very relevant "stuff" and tidied the refs which seem to have been unnecessarily altered. J3Mrs (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peterloo Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513012501/http://www.mcrh.mmu.ac.uk/pubs/pdf/mrhr_03i_marlow.pdf to http://www.mcrh.mmu.ac.uk/pubs/pdf/mrhr_03i_marlow.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Confirm comment on women's vote

We know from the Telegraph that modern reporting of women's voting rights is under question. Can someone please confirm that women were not allowed to vote in Lancashire from a credible source (specifically not the mainstream media)? There are many articles on Wikipedia that continue to misrepresent what we know. Suggest a scrub across many articles.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Women-voted-75-years-before-they-were-legally-allowed-to-in-1918.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.53.187 (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Home Office attitude

Where the article says "Over the next few months the government worked to find a legal justification for the magistrates to send in troops to disperse a meeting when riot was expected but not actually begun", it comes down on one side of the main historical crux about the event. In other words, that sentence as expressed fails NPOV.

We mostly don't have Sidmouth's views verbatim. We do have correspondence from Henry Hobhouse. We also have circumstantial evidence. What I have seen is certainly compatible with the idea that such government policy as existed in 1819 to deal with turbulent reformers was more along the lines of 25 years earlier, and trials for sedition. The Ely and Littleport riots of 1816 ended in executions.

The business needs to be dealt with by more specific referencing. I think it can be made to stand up that the magistrates were briefed with arresting radicals and securing evidence against them, so the judicial system could deal with the issue. Hanlon's razor should at least be given its due. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction of Henry Hunt

The introduction to Henry Hunt does not occur early enough in the current article. Hunt is referred to three times ("[...] where the Manchester Patriotic Union organised a mass rally in August 1819, addressed Hunt", "[...] local magistrates called on the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry to arrest Hunt", "[...] and finally apprehended Hunt") before he is introduced ("[...] the radical orator Henry Hunt"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.180.141 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Effects of the Tambora Eruption and "The Year Without a Summer" (1816)

The above-refenced event was purported to cause famine and associated unrest all throughout the world. But no mention of it here. Frunobulax (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"...chronic unemployment..."

"Chronic" describes the CHRONology of the unemployment, but not the extent. It should properly say something more like "widespread unemployment", if that accords with the sources. For the clarity of some admins, this is an EDIT REQUEST. 142.126.140.83 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)