Talk:East End of London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Featured article star East End of London 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2008.
This article was the showcase article of the London Portal in May 2007.
Archive
Archives
/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Moving the Political Centre

I am puzzled by the assertion at the start of the history section that there was a 'relocation of the ruling court and national political epicentre to Westminster'. As far as I know Westminster was the seat of power in London since at least the time of Canute. Could you provide a reference for this claim? PoochieR (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mainly introduction to Alan Palmer (see book list). There was a palace at Westminster, but it did not come into it's prime until Charles I/II. William I held his first courts at Barking Abbey, there were a couple of palaces in the East End to access the hunting grounds, including Epping Forest and the marshes. John had a hunting lodge at Poplar and Henry VIII at Bow. Edward II (?) established the major royal palace at Greenwich - which remained popular until Charles I and the interregnum. The parishes of Stepney and Hackney were particularly popular with the Tudors for the amount of ecclesiastic land that was appropriated for their country estates.
Prior to Charles II parliament met irregularly, and the epicentre of power was the Royal Court. If you find it confusing, it probably requires expansion/revision - but it's difficult to retain the focus of the article in explaining everything. Kbthompson (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There is some expansion of that point further down the para, referenced to the Victoria County Histories (Brit History online). cheers, Kbthompson (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added some details of Stratford Langthorne Abbey, and Edward II. There was also a bishop's palace near Victoria Park (Bonner, Bishop of London) - the park was partially established on the remains of his deer park. Not sure about including him - need to keep the focus on 1850-200?. Maybe spin off a history of the parish and manor of Stepney? Kbthompson (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues to follow up

  1. Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky
  2. Political epicentre phrase, needs revision - or tighter referencing.
  3. Immigration - the recently added distinction between rural and foreign immigration could do with rephrasing. It's not that I don't disagree that incomers also came from the British countryside. The focus of the article is the end of the 18th century and, partly, the ways in which successive waves of immigration changed the character of the area over two centuries. Around 1881, for instance over a third of the inhabitants had been born in the parish (census) - and by the end of that century, Jewish immigration still amounted to only 20-25% of the densest area around Whitechapel, Aldgate and Spitalfields. I think if we include rural immigration to the district, we really need some reference for it. It's true for the main body of London, but what were the effects on the East End? Kbthompson (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minder

Was Minder (TV series) set in the East End? If so it could be mentioned in the TV section. PiCo (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was made by Euston Films at their Teddington studios. The only plausible link to the East End was Arthur Daley's faux cockney. Some of the derelict sites may have been in the East End, but I think the predominant locations were in West London. Kbthompson (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London docks

Sorry to nitpick about an excellent article, but I notice another instance of a link of the text "London docks" to the article London Docks. This is confusing to the casual reader since the East End article refers to the London docks closing in the 1980s (which is true when using the term London docks in the broad sense to mean "the enclosed docks of the upstream part of the Port of London within the area of London Docklands", but the London Docks article to which it links says that they closed in 1969 (which is also true). Taking the article's tight definition of the East End to exclude the Isle of Dogs and all points east, the East End docks all closed in the 60s. Perhaps 'local docks' or something similar might be better? Pterre (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, clarity was sacrificed on the altar of brevity, and the expression got linked in a way that was not intended. I notice the reference in the Dock section also contains nasty subordinate clauses that make it hard to read, too. I think I've clarified both occurrences. Kbthompson (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions from the article

During the last two days, this was deleted. Should it have been?: "Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin all attended meetings of the socialist newspaper Iskra in 1903; three years later they met in a warehouse in Whitechapel to plot the October Revolution."

Also, the External Link to the "Jewish East End" site was deleted (see Feb. 22 state of the article). Should it have been? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking those, I did notice. I didn't think it worth digging into those while it was on the front page. Many of the changes were fine, some need rewording, some need putting back, some elements of the original text could do with revisiting.
I was going to check whether the Jewish East End site is still going before adding it back. I let the communist triumvirate deletion stand because the original text was poorly worded. I have evidence that they were here in 1903 and 1907, and that in the 1907 meeting they decided to ferment revolution in Russia - but October, who knew ... Otherwise, some good points were raised and the article stood up reasonably well to the battering ... (chips with that? - which was, naturally an East End invention!). Kbthompson (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Few accents are heard?

That's a very, very strange statement to make - anyone who lives or works in East London or London in general (especially in working class areas) is likely to disagree with it. Some Cockney features are certainly less likely to be found in the speech of youngsters but the sentence should be corrected to reflect that. If anything, things such as th-fronting, the dropping of Hs and the glottalised T, have become more common, the only speech features which seem to be in decline are the changes in the way certain vowels are pronounced. Sorry to complain, /Rant over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makist (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the article is improved through such whingings! Much of that material was summarised from the cockney article. Yes, I was brought up in the East End and still live in the area. I would say that estuary English is the predominant accent in London - sharing with cockney some of those aspects you identify. With younger speakers, there's also an introduction of rising intonation from strine (watching too many soaps, I guess). I'd also say I don't hear many Yiddish, Romani and costermonger borrowings anymore - with modern introductions coming from Bangladeshi and other patois'.
The predominant ref there is from Rosewarne, if there are other ref's that contradict him, then we can look at changing it. Kbthompson (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed that to a long decline and rephrased. Hopefully, that's acceptable. Kbthompson (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong number of nights?

Between 7 September 1940 and 10 May 1941, a sustained bombing campaign was mounted, and London was bombed for 57 successive nights, an era known as 'the Blitz'.

This reads wrong. I assume the 57 nights occurred at some point within those two dates but it sounds like the writer of the sentence made a math error. Could a knowledgeable person rephrase suitably? Tempshill (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've clarified that by stating that the attack began by targeting London for 57 successive nights (72 if you count the one where it was too cloudy for bombing). I believe that after that, they switched to targeting air-defences - but that is beyond the scope of this article. Kbthompson (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Opening statement

The second sentence here reads:
“Use of the term began…
…and arose…
…which led to extreme overcrowding…”
I’m sure that’s not what is meant so I’ve changed it. Swanny18 (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I’m not clear from this why the term “East End” is significant; I know the area has a particular identity, and East-Enders see themselves as a particular community, but it really isn’t clear from this. Any ideas? Swanny18 (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem achieving clarity.
The term arose in the 1880s - see quotation from The Nineteenth Century, it was then synonymous with poverty and crime, and became a metaphor for them. The area of the East End has a historic and literary significance. The article draws that out over time, as the meaning of the term changes with time. Later it becomes a synonym for pluckiness and resilience under fire; in modern times themes of kinship are drawn out - I don't think there's a definitive answer. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Kbthompson (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a term cannot "begin" AND "arise". That sounded like two separate events. I put a quick fix on the sentence. I also agree that "arise" is a funny word to use, even if a source uses it. How about "popularise" or "spread"? Suggestion: "Use of the term, coined in the late 19th century, spread with rapid growth of the area." -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's moving away from the primary meaning: which is that an essentially pejorative term came about to describe disgusting human conditions. It is beginning to say something less punchy and with less consequence - what about Use of the term began in the late 19th century and arose with the rapid expansion of the population in London, which led to extreme overcrowding throughout the area and a concentration of poor people and immigrants.? Kbthompson (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I clarified that it is a pejorative term, but a term cannot "begin" and also "arise". See if the new sentence works. If not, feel free to rewrite without using "began" and "arose" in the same sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor, poor Shakespeare ... still, she'll do ... Kbthompson (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, it looks like it's me that wasn't being clear.
My first point was only that it wasn’t the use of the term that caused the unemployment, which is how it was reading, and I thought I'd fixed that.
My second was that the article starts by saying:
“.. the "East End"... is the area of London east of...the City of London...although it is not defined by universally accepted formal boundaries”.
Which raises the question, so why is it significant? It sounds like it’s merely a geographic abstraction.
I would have thought the answer was that the “East End”, wherever it actually is , has a particular character, and “East-Enders”, whoever that includes, are a recognizeable type (stereotype?). A sentence on that was what I thought was needed, somewhere in the opening; though I didn’t feel qualified to write it, not being an East-Ender.
Swanny18 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The term arose in the late 19th century popular press - in that sense, it is an abstraction - but one about which have been written a significant number of scholarly books, government studies and something that has a character. The East End is a geographic district - roughly the parish of Stepney, and as is explicitly stated at the end of that first para: Over the course of a century, the East End became synonymous with poverty, overcrowding, disease and criminality. As to the nature of East Enders, that depends on which period you're asking about, that's not a static property. It's fashioned through circumstance and the interpretations forced upon it - (say) by newspapers, governments, and in literature.
Significance, is another aspect that changes with time. The aforesaid poverty and suffering. The formation of trade unions and the labour party. The infrastructure for trade to create an Empire, the first council houses, the suffragette movement, an end to the Poor Laws, the general strike, Target area 'A', post-classic theatre>
To provide such a sentence would ignore change and ignore time - for instance, is an East Ender: poor basal stock, a huguenot, irish, jewish, or bangladeshi? Is an East Ender, a 19th century slum dweller, or a 21st century stockbroker living in a former warehouse overlooking the river? There's really no such characterisation possible. Kbthompson (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:D017.JPG

The image Image:D017.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image is PD-UK. Noted there. Kbthompson (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, despite an unknown photographer and date, this is claimed to be a german photo - which has a +70 year PD expiry. I have a crashed one to use if all else fails ... Kbthompson (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, replaced by an official Air Ministry photo - which is PD-UK. Almost where we started, but the prior aerial version featured the Isle of Dogs. Kbthompson (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In popular culture

In view of the length of the main article, I'm considering splitting off the section In popular culture to a new article East End of London in popular culture - a copy of the introduction would remain here, but the three sections would be moved in their entirety. Any thoughts, objections? Kbthompson (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)