This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
A fact from Coldbath Fields riot appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 January 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that a jury ruled that the killing of a policeman during the Coldbath Fields riot(pictured) was
justifiable homicide? Source: I've cited it to a book in the article but you can also find it in the online sources, eg: "The coroner's jury that examined the death of Culley returned a verdict of 'justifiable homicide'. The jury justified its verdict on the grounds that the crowd had not been ordered to disperse under the terms of the Riot Act, and that the 'conduct of the police was ferocious, brutal, and unprovoked by the people'." from:
"Public Order: Heavy-Handed Policing: The Killing of Constable Culley". International Centre for the History of Crime, Policing and Justice. Open University. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
Article is DYK-eligible and well sourced. Appears neutral. Quite well-written, too, although that isn't a DYK criterion. Earwig looks good. Hook is hooky, good length, sourced. Image is PD and quite crisp at DYK size. Approved! ezlev (
user/
tlk/
ctrbs)
20:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Generally, the main issue is concerned with the quality of the prose—the article would have benefitted from being copy edited before being nominated. However, I found the article to be an interesting read, supported by excellent references.
Add commas after the Reform Act of 1832, started the violence, dispersed the crowd, and two officers. This section, and elsewhere, lacks sufficient commas. Please check the article for other places where commas are needed.
and planned to disperse it – ‘in order to disperse it’?
I am not sure there is a direct link between the infiltration and planning to disperse the meeting. Had they not been able to infiltrate the NUWC I think they would still have planned to disperse the event -
Dumelow (
talk)
10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
There are varying figures for the number present at the meeting of between 70 and 600 police officers and 300 to 6,000 members of the public. - consider amending to something like ’Figures for the number of police present varied between 70 and 600 officers; figures for members of the public who attended varied between 300 to 6,000.’
Consider enlarging the image (to upright=1.25), as at present the detail is hard to see, and the image is after all the hook that will pull the reader in.
Done, thanks also for improving the image - 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I would add the source of the image to the caption, as it's not contemporary (Arthur Griffiths, Mysteries of Police and Crime (1899), “Fight Between Police and Mob at Coldbath Fields in 1833”).
Only 3 of the 14 lines (on my screen) actually describe the riot itself, which doesn't seem much. I would reduce the first paragraph, which contains a lot of background information.
There was little respect and much resentment; two officers had been killed while on duty in 1830 alone. - It 's not obvious that these clauses should be connected. It also needs to be made clearer who were being disrespectful or resentful—the police, the criminal fraternity, politicians?
Sarah Wise (2012) gives only ... outnumbered 10-1 seems clumsy and inconsistent – I don’t see why the four authors need to be given prominence here. The text needs to be rewritten to reflect this point.
Consider block-quoting the Times quote. (The quote comes from ‘The meeting of the National Union’, Tuesday, May 14, 1833, issue 15164, p. 5. The Times Digital Archive, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS84697262/TTDA?u=nl_earl&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=5007ac3a. (I can provide the full text of the article if you would like it).
Imo it comes over as strange that Joseph Sadler Thomas is not mentioned before, being accused as he was for his behaviour during the riot. Is his role during the riot known?
Consider including
this facsimile of a broadside sheet issued after the inquest, which contains a lot of interesting details.
Good find, added. Though I'm wary of adding detail from it where it doesn't appear in a secondary source, as it is supportive of the jurymen -
Dumelow (
talk)
17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Green died of injuries sometime after the event so only Culley and Blakelock died during a riot. I see no need for this to be included (and he died of his injuries the day after riot, so surely the statement is misleading).
(Not GA) See
here for the debate in Parliament on the death of Culley. It's a long read, but an invaluable source for anyone interested in researching the riot, and I would include it in an External links section, if you don't want to use it to expand the article.
Thanks for the thorough review
Amitchell125, I think I've addressed all your comments above, but let me know if I've missed anything or you disagree with any changes I've made. I'll try to go through (probably tomorrow) to look at adding additional commas. Apologies for the time I've taken to look at this -
Dumelow (
talk)
17:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I found this article very good. There's only one question on the text. It's this:-
"The meeting was to oppose the new police force and to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public.[6]" with the source being a reference to "Arming the British Police: The Great Debate".
Would it be more correct to say that the meeting was "to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public"?
The meeting poster you display (marvellous find!) makes no reference to the police but only to the Rights of the people, generally understood to mean universal (make) franchise.
The thing is, I suspect that the source you used for this will necessarily emphasise the aspect of the police, but might not be historically accurate as far as the primary intentions of the meeting go.
"On Monday, 13 May 1833, at 2 p.m.,[27] The National Union of the Working Classes organised a public meeting on Thomas Cubitt's Calthorpe Estate[28][29] near Gray's Inn Road in Coldbath Fields in Clerkenwell, Islington against the Reform Act 1832.[30][19][31][32][33]"
...but the entire history of that Union and the founders is concentrated on universal suffrage, and I would wager quite a large amount that the five references provided ( [30][19][31][32][33]) for that meeting would give one the view that the meeting was essentially called over the question of universal suffrage, so that we could use those same references, rather than the police one, with my proposed revision "to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public" without meeting any great objection by a wiki editor.
Jyst to add I've no doubt that the organisers took the view of the police force ascribed to them, but I feel my proposed revision is likely more accurate. Whereas the police representatives and sympathisers at that time would be bound to bring up the opposition to the new force and represent it as the primary reason for the meeting, therefore justifying why they attacked (or were attacked) at the meeting.
Hi
Andysoh and
Dumelow, I wrote most of the
Rotunda radicals article, although not the bit about Coldbath Fields. Only one of the references in that section goes into any detail about the NUWC's reasons for calling the meeting. This is no 19, which takes you to the Francis Place papers on the NUWC. Towards the end of his (extremely long) para 81, Place quotes the resolution that was carried after discussion over several NUWC meetings, prior to them calling the public meeting. It says:
"That the conduct of the pretended reformed House of Commons clearly demonstrates that to look for any amendment in the political condition of the Working classes untill they possess the power [of] electing their own representatives would be little short of absolute insanity; and that this union conscious that such right will never be obtained so long as this country be cursed with a pampered Monarchy, an indolent aristocracy, and a bloated hierarchy, earnestly implore their brethren throughout the whole country to prepare themselves for a Convention of the people as the only mode by which they can devise means to extricate themselves from the grievous misrule under which they have too long and too patiently been suffering."
There is no mention of the police, and I think it is misleading to describe the purpose of the Coldbath Fields meeting as "to oppose the new police force and to call for the extension of the electoral franchise to a wider section of the male public". The reference supplied for this in Dumelow's article (no 6) is not the book by Robert Storch, but "Arming The British Police: The Great Debate" by Roy Ingleton. The pages referred to in that book are not accessible online, but I note that its author is a retired police officer, which may raise doubts as to his neutrality over such a contested event. If Robert Storch's book makes a similar claim, and provides a reliable source to back it up, it could be added to the article.
RedKite (
talk)
15:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi both. I am not particularly well read in this area. The objectives quoted by
RedKite from Place above seem fairly limited to extending suffrage, and do not mention the police. I am happy for the change suggested by
Andysoh to be made -
Dumelow (
talk)
15:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, thanks everyone. It looks like we have a consensus. I've waited awhile just in case, but on the basis of what RedKite quotes and thanks to Dumelow, I think my guess was right and I'll go ahead and make the change.
Andysoh (
talk)
21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply