Talk:Peterloo Massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Peterloo Massacre is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 10, 2008.
April 12, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Greater Manchester      (Rated FA-Class) North West England Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) Top This article has been rated as top-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject. WikiProject Organized Labour     (Rated FA-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Organized Labour Portal FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. WikiProject History     (Rated FA-Class) (Rated low-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom      (Rated FA-Class) Politics Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Politics of the United Kingdom WikiProject. Military history WikiProject     (Rated FA-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Archives

Archive 1

About archives • Edit this box

Contents 1 Saddleworth, Lees and Moston Union 2 Tagging for unencyclopaedic content 3 St Peter's Field 4 Unconvinced 5 Beginning of the end? 6 Moaning Minnies 7 Peterloo/Waterloo, the actions of the Stockport Yeomanry 8 What do you think? 9 Rehearsals 10 Peterloo Print 11 Peterloo Banner 12 We've done it! 13 Spoken version added 14 Military lead by a Captain Worsley 15 The map 16 Plaque 17 Battle of... Piccadilly?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Peterloo Print

A bit late in the day I know, but I've just found this print Dreadful scene at Manchester, 1819. and also a useful site called:The March to Peterloo: Politics and Festivity in Late Georgian England from Oxford university with an interesting anlysis of the politics of Peterloo - and it's fully referenced too! Richerman (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's public domain (due to age). If there was a desire, I could clean it up (digitally) and have it included here or at commons? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good and gives a different viewpoint from the others, and also an idea of the size of the field - assuming it's an accurate representation, of course. It's really a question of whether it would fit in to the article. Richerman (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Might go in the Meeting section? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added it, but remove if need be. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good there to me, lets see what the ruthless "Malleus the Slasher" thinks about it:-) Richerman (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind! ;-) The picture seems fine to me there as well. As you say, it gives an impression of the field's size. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Had to change something though didn't you slasher? Richerman (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Slasher? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruthlessly ferrets out and slashes unneeded text, bad punctation, dodgy references and anything else that gets in his way. Richerman (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was worried it meant something else! Nevermind! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It did, I was just trying to save his embarrassment - it's no fun getting old you know:-) I see we made the front page with DYK today - and I thought we'd been ruled out. Watch out for a rash of vandalism for a day or so but check the stats in a couple of days and you should be impressed. Richerman (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, just a reference to my age, that's OK then. I thought you might have been referring to my ruthless slashing of the Eye witness accounts ;-). You wouldn't be the first to say that I have a tendency towards the zen idea that "less is more". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As if I would comment on your slashing of all my hard work at the behest of an FA reviewer, perish the thought :-) Richerman (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Slashed but not lost. It might be worthwhile putting those eye witness accounts into WikiQuotations, or whatever it's called, and building up a collection of them that we could refer to from this article? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

God, this space is so small I can't brea..... Anyway, I was thinking of doing something like that - something else I'll have to find out about now. Richerman (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This like a game of chicken. Who's going to break first and unindent? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not me! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'm back home now and my home PC is widescreen so I've got more room. Maybe I'll start using chinese charcters that read vertically - then I'll win hands down. Tee-hee Richerman (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese characters don't read vertically on this PC, this is a British PC. Admittedly all of its parts were made in China though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bugger! Richerman (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

我们是傻子. If you really wanted it authentic—and it would be old-fashioned now—it would have to be going from right to left as well as going vertical. A barnstar to the first person who can translate what I wrote in Chinese.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see clearly what you wrote, so I'm not sure why you're offering a barnstar. You wrote: "我们是傻子". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. "Translate into English", I meant. And, as for a barnstar, it was the first thing I thought of that could be easily given electronically as a token prize. If you want, I can send you 一个小奖品.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Would an "?????" be likely to bite me, kill me, or eat me? I think I'll pass on your offer to send me one, just on the off-chance that my Chinese may be a little rusty. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting it didn't come out right for you. In (untoned) Pinyin, I wrote "yi ge xiao jianpin" which means "a small prize" in English. The first Chinese I wrote was (again in untoned pinyin) "women shi bendan" which literally translates as "we are fools" , but, because of the way the Chinese language works, could also mean "we are being foolish."  DDStretch  (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well watch out for Malleus "the hammer of the fools" Fatuarum Richerman (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

8-) Glad someone got the allusion in the Chinese!  DDStretch  (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not unindenting :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to soon, or else invest in a very wide screen. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peterloo Banner

I'm shocked that an admin would get involved in such silliness so I'm starting a new subject before we get shouted at by the outlaw Josey Wales or Jimbo or whatever he's called :-) There's an intersting point made here about why there is only one banner from Peterloo left in existence. Is it worth putting it in? And when was Lord Liverpool's government that it talks about? Richerman (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What's happened? What silliness? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I shall treat that remark with the conserve it detempts. And now I've shown my ignorance about Lord liverpool, I've looked him up up on wikipedia and I now know he was conterperanuminious with Peterloo (blush!) Richerman (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I still have no idea what you're talking about. I am not an admin, nor ever likely to be one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, but I think the other geezer with the big chest is Richerman (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm probably wrong about that too Richerman (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who contributed to that thread is an administrator, and I know that at least two don't really want to be one, either.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My rash assumptions again - I should have said "such venerable editors". Anyway, moving swiftly on to cover my embarrassment I see the article got 6.9K hits yesterday (see here)- pretty damned impressive I'd say

My perception is that you are upset with me because I removed a section from this article that you had worked on, at the behest of an FA reviewer, and it's true that I did exactly that. You must bear in mind though that that reviewer had something like 14 FAs to her credit last year alone, is deservedly well respected, and I agreed with her opinion. FA is a collaborative venture, it shouldn't be a battle. Creating a separate Eye witness accounts section in WikiQuotes will enhance both the body of quotations and this article. I am sorry that my decision has upset you, but I remain convinced that I was right. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah, sorry, youve misunderstood me, I'm not in the least upset - just taking the piss as usual, that's why there's a smiley there. The sillines I was talking about is the bit I started myself with the indents. I thought DDstretch was an admin but I'm confusing him/her with someone else. You and the others have worked hard on this article and I'm happy for you to take out anything that gets in the way of FA. To paraphrase something you said a while ago when webhamster was having a row, if I was upset that easily I'd need to get out more :-) Richerman (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that WebHamster and I were soulmates, and I'd very much like to see him back. We've all worked hard on this article and we're so close now. Just a few more nerve-jangling days ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This has been a great team effort and certainly the greatest I've been involved with on Wikipedia. I really hope we get FA, it would be proof that we can work together objectively and generate quality articles as a collective. I'd certainly be willing to do another with you guys. (P.S. Neilston got 15k visitors last week!) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too, and I couldn't agree more about Hammy, one of the good guys (present company included of course!) I hope he comes back someday. It was tragic that he left the project. Richerman (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, I've got a pile of library books I need to return soon, so let's do this! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've only been tangentially involved in a very small way with this article (been busy doing other things, both on and off wikipedia), but I have admired the way you have all worked together to get it into shape.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold fast me hearties, we've got them on the run, victory's in sight. The project expects that every man - sorry, person, will do his/her duty, regardless of gender, age, race, sexual persuasion or edit conflicts. Richerman (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We've done it!

There should be a litle bronze star at the top of this article very shortly. I can hardly say how pleased I am that we've managed to get this article from start to FA in what, a month? It's a testament to the GM project that Jza84 set up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was just about to go to bed too. Splice the mainbrace, break out the champers congratulations one and all! Richerman (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great news! Though I merely helped to set WP:GM up, User:Pit-yacker was the original proposer.... anyway, that's a different story!!!! This is really great news. Do we book our main page slot now!? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent news, especially in view of the speed at which it was achieved. Incredible! I had no chance to help in any way, as I was busy with my own FAC (unsuccessful this time ... I'll try again!), but I'll do a spoken version as soon as I can (I'll probably start tomorrow). Incidentally I sometimes lurk around the "Today's Featured Article" request page, and there have been a few rule changes recently, including the introduction of a points system; the main rule is that candidates cannot be proposed earlier than thirty days before the desired date. We'd better put 17 July in our diaries now!  :) Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As I reflect on this now, I'm frankly dumbfounded that we managed to get the article from this to FA in just three weeks. So the moral of the story, Hassocks5489, is that's much easier to go to FAC with a bunch of great editors backing you up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military lead by a Captain Worsley

According to [2], the military were lead by a Captain Worsely (correctly spelled as "Worsley"), who resided at Platt Hall in what's now Platt Fields Park. It's a bit unclear, though, which military he was leading. It may be worth integrating this into the article somewhere, but I'm unsure as to where. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty dubious claim to me. Worsley certainly didn't lead the military at Peterloo, but I suppose he could have been an officer in the 15th Hussars, for instance. But I'm wondering whether this isn't a confusion with the Charles Worsley who was one of Cromwell's major-generals, and the first MP for Manchester? I quote from the ODNB: "Charles Worsley fought for parliament in Lancashire during the first civil war, rising to the rank of captain". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Worsleys have been in the area for a while (they owned the Platt Fields estate between 1625 and 1907 according to the same website), so there could have been more than one Captain Worsley. I would have thought the Manchester City Council to be fairly reliable, but it could well be a mistake on their part. Mike Peel (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The map

Hello,

This map (right) has been produced in SVG format as an alternate, improved, version of the current PNG map. What do people think? There seems to be a bit of bunching, and I'm torn on it. Can anybody improve upon this proposed version? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's an improvement at all, no. I'm sure we can do better than that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so too. Although I have a BA in this field, SVG is a format I'm not familliar with at all. I made the request to improve the map here, but like yourself, wasn't blown away with the result. I was hoping for something more like Image:Manchester parish map.svg, which appears to be by our very own User:Mr Stephen. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice piece of work by Mr Stephen. SVGs are easy enough to work with using something like inkscape. What do we want, just the text sorting out? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone is planning on creating a new image then please consider making the oroginal image as that on the main page. That way the imagemap will work without any adjustment assuming that the words are in approximately the same place. Otherwise I'll redo it. Victuallers (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the locations should be in the same place too. I was just thinking either we convert the map to an exact SVG version, or, something with a bit of colour and flare, a little like the Manchester (ancient parish) map. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you meant by an exact copy? (I'm not sure of the copyright declaration, by the way.) I just ran this off in a minute or so using some free tokens on vectormagic.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plaque

Just incase we wanted it in the future, I came across this image of a plaque at Middleton, at geograph.org.uk. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of... Piccadilly?

OK, this might sound a little odd, and I'm aware I might get opposition to this... but would the 2008 UEFA Cup Final riots make a suitable entry under the See also heading? For those not in the know, it's been dubbed the Battle of Piccadilly --Jza84 |  Talk  00:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh. Not sure I like that idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be a bit better than the Battle of Piccalilli, though. (sorry, just couldn't resist that)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's bad. Real bad. :O --Jza84 |  Talk  00:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One day DDStretch, jokes like that will get you in a real pickle. Nev1 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Is this a pre-arranged test for me NOT to abuse my hoped-for blocking powers?! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not appropriate. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

...well that killed the joke.

Alas, poor humour, I knew it well. Nev1 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)