Talk:Great Fire of London/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Buckets and Engines

The last line of the Events section has been altered to read: "Buckets were of no use, from the confined state of the streets." I'm not sure if this is subtle vandalism, or someone who thinks fire engines would be an anachronism in 1666 London. Anybody have any comments? Roddyp 22:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Do the fires of 798, 982, and 1666 have names? Anyone know? --Koyaanis Qatsi

1666 is just known as The Great Fire of London, the others...? Why are Pudding Lane and Monument in quotes? -- User:Robert Brook

I imagine each was called "The Great Fire" - until the next one. It's much like the Great Plague - a puny affair compared to those of the 14th century, but it's still the most recent, and therefore "Great". User:David Parker

I seem to remember that fish porters from Billingsgate used to race up and down the Monument with crates of fish on their heads, but I haven't been able to track down the circumstances of this. Mintguy 14:23, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I edited Charles II of England for James II who is the proper Stuart King at the time. Sparky 07:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And yet the king for whom the baking was being done was Charles II. Go figure. -- Someone else 07:21, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
No I erred. Sorry

I removed some really excessive, unnecessary linking. One sentence ended, I'm not making this up, "managed to escape the burning building, along with his family, by climbing out through an upstairs window." Every vocabulary word in a sentence shouldn't be linked in this manner. Tempshill 05:36, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"but incredibly only 9–16 people are known to have died."

I've read accounts that 6 deaths were "recorded." Recorded by the government? Given that the fire originated in the King's Baker's house, there could be an effect of information control. Does anyone know the origin and context of the "recorded data"? 1-2 hundred thousand were left homeless. Most of those people had to have left or died. It was not helped at all in the context of the 17th century, including Cromwell (who's head watched london burn from pole outside Westminster), and Three Dutch Wars that left England bankrupt and defeated. (viz. [1] [2])

I have never edited a page before so I'm not going to change the text. I prefer discussion. ~Rotsujin

'In 1666 London burned like rotten sticks.' - what the hell? perhaps this quote(?) needs some explanation...? [User:Musschrott|musschrott] - Mar 19 2005

Part of a children's rhyme for remembering dates of events in UK history. EdC 13:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

on the subject of recorded death

The reporting of deaths in London at the time was one of the jobs of the Parish Clerks, who published official statistics (of debatable but fairly good accuracy) every week in Bills of Mortality.

Now, this dispute over recorded deaths in the Great Fire of London is essentially semantic. Because London burned, and everyone in it ran away, the parish clerks of the City could not go around and check who was alive and who dead in the parishes because they would have been fried, not that there would be anyone around to count of course, because everyone had to flee. Furthermore, had the parish clerks been magically flame-resistant, they would not have been able to publish the data they collected, because Parish Clerks Hall burned down on the evening of Sunday 3rd September. Moreover, the heat of the fire was sufficiently intense that cremation of bodies was entirely possible, so they might not have found anyone anyway.

The Bills of Mortality were not printed for three weeks, until late September 1666 and when they were, no mention was made of the fire, only of 10 people who met their death through various accidents unaccounted for under the usual headings of TB, cancer, plagues, old age, etc. The fact that this figure probably bears no relation to the real number of people who perished in the fire does not detract from the fact that, inasmuch as there was any official figure at all, this was it.

Hope that helps to clear it up.

And whoever wrote that James II was the king at the time really needs to do more reading and less writing.

A modern city?

The article states that "...today's London is a modern city..." How can a city with so many 100+ year old homes and buildings, that still relies on mass transit, be considered modern? All of the top attractions in London (Big Ben, Westminster Abbey...) seem to be very old. London's tallest building is merely 50 stories tall; not very modern. Should this statement be removed? Rmisiak 04:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by "Still relies on Mass transit", surely the hallmark of a modern city is an advanced public transport infrastructure? Westminster Abbey is very old, that is true, but Big Ben isn't, nor is Tower Bridge, nor are the Kensington Musea. In fact, out of the top attractions, only the Abbey, St. Paul's Cathedral, and The Tower have any real age, you could say Buckingham Palace is reasonably old too. All European cities have old buildings, such as churches and castles that attract visitors, are you saying that by that measure there are no modern european cities? Also, a city's modernity has little to do with what foreign tourists come to see, you could say theat LA is not a modern city, because tourists go there for the Beaches, which are older than any of the London Attractions.PRB 08:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Cause of fire

I read in a history book that the fire was started because a boy tried to steal some bread and the baker turned around with a shovel of coal for fuel. The coals were burning as the baker was putting them in and he turned around too quickly and scattered the coals and started the fire. This just a theory however. Should we include that in the article?

If you've got a quotable source, maybe. Without, it feels like speculation. Roddyp 22:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)sls

Pepys a neighbour?

The article makes it sound like Pepys lived virtually next door to the baker. He actually lived in Seething Lane which must be a good 500 yards away and, in a city that was only a square mile in size, I wouldn't describe them as neighbours. Also, Pepys's house survived the fire intact! Bluewave 13:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Having written this, I thought I'd check my copy of Pepys: I find that he was not "awakened by the fire at 1AM" at all! He says "Some of our maids sitting up late last night....Jane called us up, about 3 in the morning, to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City." Bluewave 16:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

It appears that this entire article has been plagiarised from this source:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11401/11401.txt

which is a copy of an article in a journal written in 1827. Most of this article is paraphrased, but a lot of it is still word-for-word copy. We need to find out if this is a violation of copyright, and if it is, then we need to rewrite this article.

First, let me agree, if the article includes word for word copies of material, it should be cited.
But the Project Gutenberg's goal is to make available important works whose copyright has expired. Copying that kind of material is not a copyright violation, merely bad scholarship. -- Geo Swan 19:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Destruction section

I have been trying to improve this section. There was a bit that attributed long term benefits to the fire, including "Most of London's public structures, the regularity and beauty of the streets, and the great salubrity and extreme cleanliness of a large part of the city of London are due to this." At first sight this looks complete nonsense: a lot of the public structures are much later; the streets aren't regular (they are still based on the pre-fire pattern); "salubrity and cleanliness" are debatable (I vote against) but in any case don't seem to owe much to the fire. Hence, I've left this bit out! Bluewave 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Map

How about a map of which areas were burnt by the fire, preferably on a map of London as it was at the time, but it could also be interesting to see the same area on a modern map to get an idea of the scale of the area involved. 83.201.152.180

The chapel was St Pauls Church, NOT cathedral

I am changing the beginning of the article to read St. Paul's Church as opposed to St. Paul's Cathedral. At the time of the Great Fire (my history teacher informs me) St. Paul's was not a cathedral.

Jrothwell 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything to support this (other than your history teacher, presumably). St Paul's website (http://www.stpauls.co.uk) says "A Cathedral dedicated to St Paul has overlooked the City of London since 604AD, a constant reminder to this great commercial centre of the importance of the spiritual side of life...The current Cathedral – the fourth to occupy this site..."

I am changing it back until you come up with a better source than an unnamed history teacher. Bluewave 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Later in the article, it actually states that St. Paul's Cathedral was then St. Paul's Church. I don't know if this is verifiable, so I'll not change it until I find a concrete source. Thanks for your help. --Jrothwell 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See Cathedral. A cathedral is literally 'the seat of a bishop'. St Paul's was the seat of the Bishop of London and headquarters of the Diocese of London since the 7th century AD Colin4C 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Have removed the implication that it was not a cathedral Bluewave 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For Discussion

The following edit moved here from Great Plague of London for comment and discussion. Sources and accuracy of the statement?WBardwin 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Plague cases died out with the arrival of winter, 1665. Although it is widely thought that the Fire of Lodon 1666 effectively stopped the plague outbreak, probably due to the destruction of London rats and their plague-carrying fleas, this seems unlikely since the fire was confined mainly to the wealthy business and residential districts and left the rat-infested slums untouched.


It might also be worth noting that the Black Death page discusses multiple research sources which collectively suggest that rats and fleas may not have been the disease vector for the plague at all. Nasajin 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite alert

Hi, fire devotees. I know I haven't been visible at this article, but the fact is I'm planning a major rewrite of it, which has its sights set on WP:FAC. My work-in-progress can be viewed here. I feel a little embarrassed about doing this in a sandbox, rather than by editing the existing article gradually and collaboratively, but the fact is the present article is kind of uncited. It's hard for me to use the facts in it without knowing where they come from, as I want to do a well-sourced article—from books—with inline cites wherever needed. (Though it's not supposed to have as many footnotes as it's got right now, that's an intermediate stage. They'll be pared down to a reasonable number.) Also, my worksheet is at the fragile stage where I'm still moving the sections around all the time, hoping that some lucky arrangement will make them jell into a good structure—something I could hardly do in article space. Some sections are barely begun, while a few are reasonably complete (like "17th-century firefighting"). Anyway, I hope nobody minds my doing it like this. It's not that I don't want to collaborate—I do—and I'd love for you all to hammer it into shape eventually, when it's ready for it. As soon as I think it is, I plan on pasting it in. If people don't think it's an improvement on what's there now, all you have to do is revert (seriously), and I'll retire in dudgeon (just kidding). OK, I thought I should let you know, even though I'm the slowest worker on the wiki and it may be a while before you next hear from me. Comments, cries of protest, etc. welcome. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC).
P.S., hello, WBardwin! What on earth is that about the fire leaving the slums intact? They weren't left intact. They went up in flames, please see my draft. However, as for the fire putting an end to the plague, I don't believe a word of it. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

Looks good. Colin4C 08:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

the great fire of london

the great fire of london was not good.

Doh! - Homer Simpson junior

Predictions and Weasel Words and Unverifiable Facts - Oh My!

Just a brief note that the section on Predictions suffers from a rather credulous tone, and includes the weasel word "many". As it reads now, it somehow legitmizes the claims of Nostradamus et. al. by relating them in much the same way that an article on Hurricane Katrina might discuss the foreshadowings. The difference, of course, is science. I don't personally think that the section should be eliminated, but perhaps retoned to make clear that the first two paragraph's worth of these "predictions" were "predictions" in much the same sense that a properly folded American $20 bill "predicts" the events of 9/11. The last paragraph could definitely stand to gain from some source citing, but compared to the new age woo-woo which precedes it, is inoffensive. --70.108.140.252 12:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite ready to go live

Hey, 70.108.140.252 and others. My sandbox version is ready to go live, please see section heading "Major rewrite alert" above. Here it is. As I said back in September, I've started from scratch, mainly because I needed to work from sources, and there basically weren't any. I've only kept the first sentence (more or less), really. There's no woo-woo and there is a sourced discussion of the effect of the Fire on the waning of the Plague, and of the number of deaths. There wasn't much in the way of comment to my announcement back in September, I have to say (but Colin4C liked it, thanks, Colin). Anyway, I've sort of changed my mind about pasting in my version. That doesn't seem to be the GDFL-correct thing to do, considering how much I've actually edited it. I'm thinking of moving it over the present article instead and merging the histories. This would mean that everybody who has edited either version is credited in the history, and all existing versions can be accessed. If you're interested in the Great Fire, could you please let me know:

  • Are there any objections to a History merge?
  • Do you like my version, can you see yourself contributing to it, adding any aspect you think I haven't done justice to, and so on? Of course all versions of the present article would be available through the History, in case there are things in there that you think should be added. (I have to say I agree with 70.108.140.252 about objections to the woo-woo stuff, though.) I know the ending is kind of curtailed, both because my patience ran out, and because I realized how horribly long it was becoming... and because I have some plans for a full-scale separate article on the rebuilding of London after the fire. The last section is going to need expanding before this baby is FACable, and I hope that fresh eyes will see other things, too. Anyway, I'll wait for comments for a day or two before I do anything at all. The reason I ask so many questions instead of just going ahead is that a History merge is quite a business to undo, or so I'm told (I've never done either a merge or an unmerge before).

Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it doesn't look like anybody minds or cares, so here goes: replacing article with my sandbox version and merging the histories. Fire in de hole! Bishonen | talk 22:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC).
Just to say again that you have done a very good job on this, Bishonen. As for the Aftermath, maybe we could tack on some of the more usable/useful portions from the old version, as an interim measure, before you or A.N.Other provide us with a possibly definitive account. Just thinking that the users of wikipedia would benefit from some info on Monsieur Hubert and the Monument etc. Colin4C 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Colin. Yeah, I know it's cut off too short at the end. I have plans (provided Giano will help) for a full-scale "aftermath" article, to be summarized in a paragraph at the end of this one. Hmmm [/me checks out the ending of the old version.] OK, good call about Hubert, I've added it. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Amount of deaths recorded

On BBC 2 on QI last night (27/10/06), Stephen Fry said that only 5 people died. 2 of those people were trying to reclaim possessions from their homes, and I can't remember the reasons for the other deaths. Should the introduction to this article be updated? --rjcuk 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Not really. Please refer to the headings "Major rewrite alert" and "Major rewrite ready to go live" (immediately above), and you'll see that the new version of the article I propose to post (here it is again, please see what you think) contains among other things a sourced discussion of current disagreements among historians about the number of deaths. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

A few minor comments

  1. Our article on London Bridge implies that the houses on the bridge were destroyed in 1632 and had not been restored by 1666 (it could be wrong, of course). Did they really burn again 34 years later?
  2. How did the fire get out of the city walls? It was held within the city boundaries from roughly Moorgate to Newgate. If it was the strong easterly wind, why was the area west of Cripplegate not consumed?
  3. Would Image:Old St. Paul's Cathedral after the fire - Project Gutenberg eText 16531.jpg be better as an "after" image of the Cathedral?
  4. Can we get a better-quality image of Charles II?
  5. On the plans, is Smithfield the large white area left of centre? Should it be labelled? And shouldn't "Bankside" be labelled "Southwark"? Why is St Dunstan-in-the-East labelled? Bishop's Gate or Bishopsgate? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(I numbered the questions for ease of reference.)

  1. According to my sources, lots of people were living on the bridge in 1666, and according to Pepys, friends of his were, so I guess our London Bridge article must have it at least partly wrong.
  2. Search me. I've been thinking maybe that part of the wall was defunct, but I don't have any source that focuses on it. Of course a good tall firefront would have any trouble sending sparks and burning flakes over a 5-metre wall (check out the page Firestorm).
  3. Hmm. It looks so whole there, though—it hardly illustrates the claims in the text that the cathedral was a ruin, that the lead roof had melted (and cascaded down the street—you know, I don't more than half believe anything Evelyn says, after that—lively imagination, clearly), that the stones had exploded like grenades. It must have been drawn from its pretty side. The upside is that you see better what the building looked like. I think the one in the article now is more evocative, as well as more ruinous, thereby presumably more realistic. But change it if you like.
  4. Better..? It doesn't have to be really high technical quality, with the thumbnail being so small, does it? It's a great portrait, IMO. Very expressive, unlike the various oils of a doll-like Chuck in his coronation robes. I'm glad to have one where he's not sitting on a throne, as he's actually very active in the narrative, going down to Pudding Lane and stuff.
  5. Bunchofgrapes? I know the answer to the St Dunstan-in-the-East one, it's my fault: I had a piece about how the boys at Westminster School, including William Taswell, were marched to that church by their headmaster, and saved it by their efforts, but it burned down the next day. Then I removed the story—the page is so long anyway, I've removed lots of stuff— and forgot to mention it to BoG. In other words, I guess that label needs to go, sorry, BoG. Nice catch, ALoan. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC). [edit conflict, arghhh--after i reformatted the questions--Colin, i had to move your reply to down below, i hope you don't mind.]
OK, I've uploaded a new map - Smithfield is labeled, St Dunstan in the East is gone, both Southwark and its neighborhood of Bankside are labeled and it is now Bishopsgate". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks. I have only just realised that Pepys said he watched from Bankside, hence the reason for the annotation. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
(Question 2.) Burning cinders were carried by the easterly wind right over the city walls, thus creating new centres of fire. Besides, at its peak the fire was approaching the ferocity of an unstoppable fire-storm (as seen during the bombing of Cologne in WW2) . The most dramatic thing it did after it had breached the wall was to the west was to leap over the Fleet River into Whitefriars. I think Pepys notes (from the safety of the South Bank) how great streams of fire were arching high up into the air - an awesome sight.Colin4C 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. On 1, I got the impression from London Bridge that perhaps the northern end of the bridge had not been redeveloped after 1632, but that article could easily be wrong. On 2, I understand how the fire escaped near Newgate and Ludgate - my question is really why it didn't escape elsewhere. On 3, the current image just looks a bit, um, "foxed" (fold lines, holes). Similarly, the image in 4 is nice enough, but seems a bit faded or overexposed down the right side. I'll leave BoG to deal with 5 :) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you note the location of Pudding Lane and then posit a strong easterly wind plus the presence of highly inflammable material all along the river-front, then the westward spread of the fire makes sense. Also, though it is not depicted on the maps in the article I think the Fire DID breach Cripplegate to the north and set St Giles's [?] church, at least, alight, on the other side of the wall. I've got a book about it somewhere....

What Pepys said on the evening of the 2nd: "we to a little ale-house on the Bankside...and saw the fire grow...in a most horrid malicious bloody flame, not like the fine flame of an ordinary fire...we saw the fire as only one entire arch of fire from this to the other side the bridge, and in a bow up the hill for an arch of about a mile long" A fire storm? Colin4C 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Shopping malls and consumer goods

I think it is misleading to apply the 20th century term "shopping mall" to the Royal Exchange. Addison, writing 50 years later, described it as "an Emporium for the whole earth", but that is not the same as a shopping mall. Surely it was basically an indoor market, wasn't it? Similarly, the reference to "consumer goods shops in Cheapside" conjures up very 20th century image. Surely, the whole idea of "shops" was totally different in the pre-industrial era and there was no concept of consumer goods. Bluewave 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure there was a concept of consumer goods! (Not indeed a term "consumer goods", but I'm sure you'll agree we're not to be limited to 17th-century terminology for discussing the 17th century.) Consumer goods were just starting to become an important cultural factor--maybe not much of an economic factor yet, I don't know, the upper class was so small--anyway, 18th-century consumerism and its growth with the growth of the middle class is a whole scholarly field. 1666 is admittedly at the very beginning of the "long 18th century", but still, being at the beginning makes it all the more interesting for later developments. I don't know what to call the Cheapside shops if not shops--they were shops.
I agree about "mall", I guess, though I'm pretty sure I've seen the term used about the shopping part of the Royal Exchange. But it does jar. The trouble is I don't quite know what else to call it. It wasn't the kind of shopping I'd associate with the word "market"--it was clothes, luxury goods, trinkets, it was aimed at the women of the upper classes. Persons of quality coming in from the country for "the season" (another novelty), to enjoy London, including its shops. I'd like to think of a third term, other than "mall" or "market". Any ideas? Bishonen | talk 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

Recent copy-edits

The recent copy-edits to the lead, some by me, have largely been reverted by two editors. I'm not going to touch the article again, but for the record: the article is good, but please get someone—whom you respect enough not to revert—to copy-edit the article. It needs it.

Some examples:

  • 1) The passive-voice

    Flight from London and settlement elsewhere were strongly encouraged by Charles II, who feared a London rebellion amongst the dispossessed refugees

is apparently preferred to

Charles II strongly encouraged residents to flee London and settle elsewhere; he feared a rebellion among the dispossessed London refugees.

on the basis that "it's about the flight and the refugees, not about Charles"—yet you refer to his actions or thoughts twice. Come on!

  • 2)

Order in the streets broke down as rumours arose of suspicious foreigners deliberately setting fires.

is preferred to

There was disorder in the streets as rumours arose of suspicious foreigners seen setting fires.

Neither sentence is a gem, but "deliberately setting fires" is redundant and silly. Why add "deliberately" back?

  • 3)

    The fears of the homeless focused on the French and Dutch, England's enemies in the ongoing Second Anglo-Dutch War; these substantial immigrant groups became victims of lynchings and street violence.

Whose fears? It is possible to read this two ways. If the fears belong to someone not specified, then the homeless are the "French and Dutch" "substantial immigrant groups", and the homeless were lynched. If the homeless had the fear, then someone else was lynched.

What does it mean for "fears to focus"? Do groups get lynched, or do members of the group? Reducing the sentence makes the problem clearer: "the group was a victim of lynching". How about "The homeless directed their fears at the French and Dutch..."?

  • 4) My use of the contrasts "however" and "finally" (as in, "However, coordinated firefighting efforts were finally underway") was removed as "POV" and "unencyclopedic", while before my edit the article contained:

the Tower of London garrison used gunpowder to create ruthlessly effective firebreaks

The article is curently full of these loose "editorial" words, much worse than my trivial use of the word "finally" to convey that the firefighting was overdue, as just mentioned earlier in the paragraph. ("critically delayed"—oops, guys, better remove "critically"!)

  • 5) Another reversion was back to

Various schemes for rebuilding the City were proposed, some of them very radical. In the event, London was reconstructed on essentially the same medieval street plan which still exists today.

"In the event" is incorrect and leads the reader to expect the stock phrase "In the event that". The better alternative, edited by ALoan, was reverted.

I'm not a professional, but it is very frustrating to spend half an hour trying improve three paragraphs and having it all changed back to poorer prose. F*** it. –Outriggr § 02:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you read the edit summaries explaining the reversions of your efforts. Half an hour? ..to think Bishonen and BunchofGrapes knocked this page out in 10 minutes - you are slow! Giano 08:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
What? I read and responded to all the edit summaries, and most of my point was that they aren't sound, and make no sense to me. –Outriggr § 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I apologized to Bishonen on my talk page for my rhetoric above. I also apologize to anyone else that was bothered by it.

I believe that small improvements should be accepted as small improvements, even if seemingly "trivial"; of course my changes were open to argument, but having most substantive changes reverted, on unclear grounds, felt like "trolling" and "territorialism" to me. Thus my reaction. Regarding the ostensive writing issues, I will say: encyclopedia writing is abundant in non-specific and awkward sentence subjects (Researchers..., Other [generic noun]s have..., Flight from London and resettlement elsewhere...), and passive voice. When a sentence can be rearranged to avoid these, with no resulting stiltedness, it's an opportunity not to ignore. When a sentence can be construed two ways, it should be fixed. When a word is redundant or implied, remove it.

Nevertheless, it was hardly productive of me to rant about it. When I wrote "F*** it", it was short for "what's the point of all this". If you consider my original motivation, I think you will only find that it was to try to contribute in some small way. I didn't sit down to review three paragraphs of this featured article candidate so that I could write a rant when my edits were reverted. I thought they might be accepted in the spirit in which they were offered. This wiki stuff is tough.

Sincerely, –Outriggr § 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Text with prose issues identified, and suggestions

Following Tony's practice, I'll stick to "London in the 1660s." Notes omitted.

  • "By the 1660s, London was by a huge margin the largest city in Britain, estimated at 300,000 inhabitants—10% of the population of the entire country—which made it the third largest metropolis of the Western world, surpassed only by Constantinople and Paris."
    Flabby. "By the 1660s, London was the largest city in Britain, housing roughly 300,000 people, a tenth of England's population, and it was the third largest city in the world, following Constantinople and Paris."
    By "country," does the article mean England, England and Wales, or what would become the United Kingdom under Anne? It seems like there's a lot of nuance here that would be lost to people not familiar with British history.
  • "Compared to these two capitals, London was architecturally a poor relation, a "wooden, northern, and inartificial congestion of Houses," as John Evelyn called it in 1659. By "inartificial", Evelyn meant unplanned and makeshift, the result of organic growth and unregulated urban sprawl."
    Flabby. "A poor relation" is a little too informal for my taste, and you spend an sentence explaining "inartificial" when you could trim the quotation and simply state that London was an unplanned, makeshift sprawl.
    The next sentence about London's extramural (that word, beside being redundant in this sentence, could also be confusing to some readers) growth seems like it could be trimmed: "London, a Roman settlement for seven centuries, had become overcrowded within its defensive wall, and had pushed beyond the wall to incorporate Shoreditch, Holborn, and Southwark, and even the nominally independent city of Westminster." By the way, are you speaking of the City of Westminster or its district? It's not clear.
  • The rest is okay until we get to "17th-century firefightng": "Fires were common in the crowded wood-built city with its open fireplaces, candles, ovens, and stores of combustibles. There was no police or fire department to call, but London's local militia, known as the Trained Bands, was at least in principle available for general emergencies, and watching for fire was one of the jobs of the watch, a thousand watchmen or "bellmen" who patrolled the streets at night."
    Flabby. "Fires were common in the crowded, wood-built city with its open fireplaces, candles, ovens, and stores of combustibles, but there was no organization meant speficially to response to emergencies. Aside from the local militia, the Trained Bands, who in principle were available for general emergencies, watching for fire was one of the jobs of the thousand watchmen, known as "bellmen," who patrolled the streets at night."
  • Pudding Lane is not explained in the text.

If you don't like what I've suggested, that's fine. I've tried to avoid simple stylistic differences and stick to what I think are major issues.--Monocrat 18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Where you see "flab", I see richly textured and nuanced prose. For example, I am not convinced that London was "the third largest city in the world" - there is a world outside Western Europe. And Pudding Lane is mentioned in the lead section, immediately above the one you reviewed - are you asking for it to be linked again? Your country (England? GB? UK?) point is a good one, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Pudding Lane is indeed mentioned in the lead, but it doesn't seem to be explained within the context of the fire in the first section. (We've covered quite a lot of ground, so some repetition is perhaps worthwhile.) You're right about "the world." I mistakenly cut the "Western." Sorry. :) In any case, I'm usually a fan of rich texture, nuance and repetition as a literary device in my arguments and writing, but it seems to me that this article takes them a little far.--Monocrat 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A few other things, from "Deaths and destruction" and "Aftermath:"
  1. This, "been disrupted to the point of non-existence," strikes me as needing a rewording.
  2. "These markets were for buying and selling; there was no question of distributing emergency aid." Question: So people had to pay for the bread brought in by the King? Can we just say so? Or have I misread the text?
  3. The sentence starting with "Hanson also maintains that" seems unweildly, but I'm at a loss how to address it.
  4. Would it be advisable to start a new paragraph with the sentence "The fire, fed not merely by wood..." I think it would lend some visual balance to that section. My eyes at least would prefer it. (This is not a sticking point.)
  5. I'd like a citation for the poor not having teeth, and for the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of "Aftermath," in particular for the claim of a redesigned London rivalling Paris in Baroque magnificence.
  6. I've spotted a few sentences elsewhere that could use some work, but I think this is enough for now.--Monocrat 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My feelings about those:

  1. Possibly, although I actually rather like the forcefulness of the statement. It's quirky and eye-catching to me, rather than disruptive.
  2. These are markets. They cannot be aid stations. Therefore, it would be wrong to think that aid could get to the people via these tiny markets, as the English king did not/could not commandeer private businesses (hence the inability to remodel London until all rightful owners are found, rightly bought out, etc., later). The English monarch was never absolute.
  3. Meh. I think it's fine.
  4. Really? Honestly? It's pretty famous. Sugar began to be refined from cane around 1620. It was a rare commodity until mercantilism got going, but by the 1660's it was getting somewhat common. You get refined sugar, and you get toothlessness. The rich got artificial teeth, and the poor got gums. This is one of those "common knowledge" bits. (I tell my own students that, if you can find something from 3 or more sources, it's a fact that is simply well established. Poor dentition among the urban poor of London 1666 is a well established fact.)

Geogre 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If changes are not made to the text, so be it. I really am only trying to help the article improve. Responding out of order: 1) If "poor dentition among the urban poor of London 1666 is a well established fact," then there should have no problem finding a source and putting it in the article. I have the article's word to go by, and that is not sufficient, either by your criterion or Wikipedia's. 2) "Quirky" does not strike me as encyclopedic. "Clear" and "concise" do. How "eye-catching" is effectively different from "distracting," I'm not sure. 3) I understand that the English king was limited, but not all readers--in a world of rapid responders, FEMA checkcards, and the Red Cross--will. The last part of that quotation is entirely unnecessary.--Monocrat 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not intending to be antagonistic. 1. Sure, but it's just not necessary, and we ask whether overburdened notes are better than uncited, unsuspicious statements. 2. It does me, and I do not think that it an antonym of clear and concise. Readability is a compromise between easily decoded (expected) structures and intriguing/interesting (unexpected) structures. It's possible to zero in on any usage and call it too predictable or too unpredictable. In place, I think this is a leavening sentence structure. You don't. De gustibus non disputandem est, as the man said. 3. Perhaps there can be expansion, but there was no lack of clarity in the original. Could there be, "Because these were privately owned markets and the royal authority did not extend to abridging property rights?" I'm sure there could be. I don't think it's unclear, though, especially because there is material before and after indicating that the king had to be very seriously motivated to override the mayor's authority even in the case of a fire and the need to create breaks (described in the Monday section and the Tuesday section). It's true that it isn't spelled out explicitly with reference to property rights, but I don't think there's anything obscure here. (Then again, as I've stated, this is my field.) Geogre 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Geogre: We're agreed that we don't want to fight. :) To that end, I think we've said all that needs to be said. To summarize: I think my requests for citations for the teeth statement and for those relating to the King's proclamations and the Duke's offer of the Life Guard are valid, nor would the three overburden the article. (In any case, the burden is already on the article, as I can--but won't--remove uncited material at will.) I very much agree that there is no disputing taste (even though there really is). Nevertheless, I have deemed specific, significant elements of prose as objectionable and tried to constructively (if brusquely) assist with them. I disagree with you and ALoan, and I suppose we will have to leave it at that.I'm sure we all have other things to do than continue this. As the FAC stands, my objection will likely be overruled.--Monocrat 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not fully convinced. This is definitely a higher register than is typical for a Wikipedia article, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some issues:

  • "pushed outwards beyond the wall into squalid extramural slums"—"beyond the wall" implies "extramural", doesn't it?
  • "dominated and politically controlled by the trading and manufacturing classes"—what does "dominated" mean here?
  • "The decisive creation of firebreaks by blowing up houses with gunpowder finally began to take effect on Wednesday, 4 September." Not sure why we need to hide who was doing the action ("take effect"?).
  • "the fact that"—Strunk and White hate this one =). Same thing with "in many cases".
  • "At the same time as order in the streets was breaking down, especially at the gates, and the fire was raging unchecked, Monday also marked the beginning of organized action." Doesn't flow to me, but I might be missing something. In my mind, should be, "Even as order in the streets was breaking down, especially at the gates, and the fire was raging unchecked, Monday also marked the beginning of organized action." Or, "At the same time as order in the streets was breaking down, especially at the gates, and the fire was raging unchecked, organized action began."
  • "During the Tuesday"—Can't remember ever seeing this construction before; is "On Tuesday" too simple or what?
  • "On Tuesday evening, the wind dropped."—seems unnecessarily dramatic to me, and doesn't tie into the following paragraph at all.

Feel free to disagree, but if you do please explain. Thanks! --Spangineerws (háblame) 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, wow, I came to comment on what a wonderful article I just found, and people are arguing over the prose? It looked marvellous to me. I am uncomfortable with the idea of trimming quotations on the grounds that the attached explanation is flabby (this is the suggestion with Evelyn, yes?) and replacing them with paraphrases. I'd far rather the original plus any necessary gloss. Telsa (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hollar?

Did Wenceslas Hollar really create that panorama when he was 9 years old? Isn't it by Claus Visscher? Chick Bowen 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Fixed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreat_Fire_of_London_Archive_1_dcaa.html"