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 Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
They appear to be somewhat similar:
[1] and
[2]. I must admit I was reacting more on the basis of their names, but the military conflict one seems to be more geared towards a formal battle.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
18:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)reply
It's not altogether clear whether a military v. civilian conflict like this counts as a "military conflict" or a "civilian attack" in terms of WP infoboxes. Should we ask for an opinion at somewhere like
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history? But the existing infobox does the job, doesn't it?
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
19:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)reply
PS: At
Talk:Peterloo Massacre/Archive 1#Infobox there was a discussion that seems to have concluded that the "military conflict" infobox was appropriate. It was only changed to the "civilian attack" one a few weeks ago
here, and no-one seems to have commented. I'll ask them whether they've noticed!
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The National Library of Wales have released a high resolution version of the 1840's Newport tithe map to Commons. Perhaps it would be good to include the map/or part of the map in this article. See the
full map and
high res sections. Thanks
Jason.nlw (
talk)
16:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Commuting the sentence
In the recent TV series
Victoria, it was shown that Chartists' sentence was commuted personally by Victoria. The wording given here - "the government eventually commuted the sentences" - does not explicitly contradict that, as "the government" is often interpreted vaguely as "someone upstairs", although it is somewhat incorrect. Hence, if there is any direct evidence about who made the decision and when, it would probably be appreciated. --
82.131.109.135 (
talk)
19:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)reply
TV historical period dramas can be so very seductive, can't they. And very believable. But see the Radio Times article
here where it says, quite categorically, "Victoria made no personal intervention, and in fact was generally not known to have much sympathy for her poorer subjects, in contrast to how she’s more sympathetically portrayed in the ITV series." We can't always
trust the scriptwriters, alas.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
20:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Different Thomas Phillips
I've removed this from the In popular culture section.
My reading of the ref from The Genealogist is that the Thomas Jones Phillips who was the ancestor and died around 1842 is not the
Thomas Phillips who was mayor at the time, was unmarried, and died in 1867. The Argus writer clearly thinks they're the same but The Genealogist says Only three years after Frost's conviction, Thomas Jones Phillips died. Do revert if I'm wrong.
Cavrdg (
talk)
12:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This article has unfortunately had some editing in recent years that have skewed the POV of the article too far over towards those who consider this purely a massacre of civilians. Sympathise as we might with the Chartist cause, all reliable sources agree that the Chartists were armed (and hence not simply "marchers") and no source states definitively that the soldiers within the hotel opened fire first, though some sources state the opposite, and the most reliable sources we have (e.g.,
David Jones's book) basically state that no-one knows who opened fire first. All sources also agree that the Chartists did fire on the troops in the hotel (Jones states that about 80 shots were fired on the hotel), so to term this a massacre of civilians or mere "marchers" again does not appear to fit with what the sources are telling us.
I've therefore changed references to "marchers" to "Chartists", added a section on what the sources say about who fired first, and added details of the Chartists firing to the article.
FOARP (
talk)
10:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)reply