Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priestley Riots

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:03, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Priestley Riots

This is a little article on an interesting late-eighteenth century religious riot. There is not much scholarship on the topic. Interestingly, most of what is published seems to rely on a single article. However, I have done what I could to flesh out the research. I believe the article is a good summary of the available research (and that it meets all of the other FA criteria, of course!). Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sources look good, links (what there are) check out fine with the tool. I'll try to get back later and do a fuller review. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support An excellent account of an important episode in British history. I've put a couple of nit-picks on the article's discussion page. GrahamColm^Talk 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, excellent as always. A few minor questions, though, to satisfy my own curiosity:

• "One man was killed" - do we know if this was a rioter or a constable?

• The rioters "were occupied in sacking the house when the constables arrived on the scene. After a savage struggle the constables were disarmed, with the loss of one dead and several injured. According to one account many of the rioters had been indiscriminately sworn in as constables and proved unreliable." (74) - What do you think? I wasn't totally sure, which is why I didn't say. Do you think we can be more specific? Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Too bad the source is confusing. Readers will have to make up their own minds. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it was a constable, from the phrasing; but it is probably best to leave the text as it is. Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Any idea what they did with Lady Carhampton's furniture or why they removed it?

• They put in the yard, basically, because she was a relative of the king - the king bit is in the article. Should I make it more explicit that the rioters were implicitly a "Church-and-King" mob? Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, if you can make itmore explicit that would be good. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tried here. Awadewit (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support although I have one picky wording issue

• Aftermath and trials section, second paragraph. This sentence "If a concerted effort had been made by the elite of Birmingham to attack the Dissenters, it was more than likely the work of Benjamin Spencer, a local minister, Joseph Carles, a justice of the peace and landowner, and John Brooke, an attorney, coroner, and under-sheriff." seems to be lacking something to me, the If at the start implies something more than the second phrase. I think I see what you're trying to say, but it was unclear to me at first what was meant until I reread the sentence a few times. Perhaps "If the elite of Birmingham really had intended to attack the dissenters, the leaders were Spencer, Carles and Brooke" (with fill in data as needed). Although it seems rather weasely still.

Very nice article on an interesting but little recorded subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is supposed to sound uncertain, since the sources are all uncertain. I think the verb is correct - it is supposed to be in the past subjunctive. Awadewit (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it was picky (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent read, well-written and fascinating. I've made a few points on the talk page, none crucial. Well, I'm glad to see you've thrown boring old literature aside at last and become a historian. qp10qp (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good stuff, Awadewit. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support a little more context on the wider British reaction to the Revolution in its early days would improve it further, but meets standard as it is. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will try to add more on this in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've added some more material on this, but I don't like how it is arranged yet. Suggestions on that front would be appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've played around with it - I hope the references will strech to cover my changes... Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And you've added Marilyn, long one of my all-time academic heroes!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Who wouldn't love Marilyn? :) Awadewit (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've made a bunch of copy-editing changes, with queries included in edit summaries and also hidden at times in the text itself. A couple of times I've had to make (un)educated guesses about meaning, so I may have got things wrong. Feel free to revert where that is the case.

One little issue is that the first paragraph of the "Historical context" appears to confuse events in Birmingham with national and/or London disturbances. Perhaps, as per Johnbod, a brief paragraph on the national situation could preface the discussion of Birmingham.

In 1714 and 1715, the townspeople, as part of a "Church-and-King" mob, attacked Dissenters (protestants who did not conform to the Church of England) during the London trial of Henry Sacheverell, and in 1751 and 1759 Quakers and Methodists were assaulted. During the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots in 1780, large crowds assembled in Birmingham but did not cause the same amount of destruction as those in London. - Perhaps you could suggest a rewriting of these sentences? These disturbances occurred in Birmingham, but were the outgrowth of and connected to events in London. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see now. You know, what's probably simplest (if you don't want a prefatory paragraph about the national situation might be simply to cut the phrase "but did not cause the same amount of destruction as those in London." A phrase that does, after all, rather undercut the point of the paragraph as a whole. Another way of doing it might be "During the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots in 1780, the destruction was concentrated in London but in Birmingham, too, large crowds assembled." I think the problem was that at first reading (and second, to be honest), "those in London" seemed to refer to the riots mentioned in the previous sentence, which therefore implied that the paragraph as a whole was mainly discussing disturbances in the capital, rather than (as the point seemed to be) the way in which Birmingham had established a particular name for itself as a hotbed of conflict. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make this more Birmingham-centric. Hopefully the new heading will help, too. Awadewit (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, I find the analysis rather confusing. At times, the disturbances are presented as political: supporters of the French Revolution versus conservatives. At times they are presented as religious: Anglicans versus Dissenters (and/or Catholics; note the "no popery" cries!). And there's also a suggestion that class issues are particularly important.

All of these issues were part of the riots - this is a very confusing time in British history. How would you suggest I make these issues clearer? Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, for a start, the lead oversimplifies by framing things as "the rioters' main targets were religious Dissenters." Again, it doesn't strike me that Rose would agree. And again, that's the only source I've looked at, but I looked at it precisely because I was confused by the article itself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and I note that you present this article (above) as being about a "religious riot." I know that's not part of the article, but I think it reflects the article's leaning. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The riot is most often presented as a religious riot - that is why I presented it that way. I take pains to do so by saying it in terms of who it attacked and its motivation, though, in the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, all three issues are at work, and in confusing and at times contradictory ways. And I am aware of the injunctions against Original Research. But it might be good to deal with the contradictions, if only to comment on them.

First, we shouldn't assume a riot is going to "make sense" - that people were rational actors in it. Second, I'm not sure if we can write in the article: "there are contradictory explanations of the rioters' motivations" unless someone has already said that - that is a pretty strong evaluation of the material. Wikipedia usually leaves it up to the reader to discover these things (for better or for worse). I'll look again at my sources, but I am not hopeful. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Complex historiographical, philosophical, and above all political questions loom when we come to the question as to whether riots "make sense" or rioters are "rational actors."  ;) But I take it that our task (fanstasy though it may be) is in part to make sense. But without imposing a sense that is too rigid. It does seem to me that the article as a whole tends to stress religious differences. Whereas Rose, for instance (the one article I downloaded, and by the way I'm a little confused as to why you took out the JSTOR links; I realize they won't help everyone, but they help som) rather deciseively concludes that the conflict was essentially about "latent class hatred," for which the "coming together of old religioius animositives and new social and political grievances" was merely "fortuitous" (84)... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID - JSTOR is unavailable to most readers. (I'll to get the rest of this later today.) Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rose offers several theories at the end of his article, before finally settling on "latent class hatred" (I'm not sure how decisive this really is). Unfortunately, the "balance of the evidence" in his own article does not really support that and other sources argue for other reasons, too - that is part of the problem. Rose himself cites the overlap between class and religion, anyway, so this is part of the problem. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Most obviously, for instance, there's the fact that the banquet is led by an Anglican.

History is not neat. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

...and his (her?) analysis would seem to be borne out by this. Although whether you want to go along with Rose or not, it would seem worth noting the discrepancy. (You do after all note as "bizarre" the anti-Catholic slogans; yet these two support the notion that religion is not really at issue, or at least not in terms of Anglicans vs. Dissenters in the way in which the article lead suggests.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I know that Lunar Society members were often associated with and hung out with Dissenters, so Keir's attendance does not seem strange. The fact that he was part of this group is very significant - it would seem much odder if he weren't. How to make this clear, without giving a long history of the Lunar Society? Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

More generally, the class analysis is rather inconsistent. It's not mentioned in the Lead. Then the "Background" first suggests simmering divisions between two fractions of the elite, previously united in their fear of the plebeians, before going on to suggest a fairly clear division between upper class Anglicans and their working class (now) followers on the one hand, against a Dissenting industrial middle class. Finally, the "Aftermath" puts the matter in terms of a gentry (well, previously "gentlemen") who have "no qualms" raising a mob against "revolutionaries.

I gave less prominence to the class argument because it receives less prominence in what little scholarship there is. The other problem is that class in British society at this time is so difficult to describe. Not all of the authors I use agree that there is a "middle class", for example (this is a great historiographical debate in eighteenth-century studies - when and how did the middle class emerge). Yet another way of looking at it: Dissenters in Birmingham could be considered as part of an "elite" intellectually and economically but not socially or culturally. Thus, they could be categorized as part of the elite in some contexts (e.g. as part of public library boards) and sometimes not. Any advice on how to handle these difficult matters would be gratefully appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See above on Rose, and also the interpolation I made to the article itself, that he describes the Dissenters as "prominent among" "an inner elite of magnates" (70). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rose's own article does not particularly emphasize class until the end - that is what is so odd. The evidence he provides can be used to argue several different theses (and is used by others to do so). Since so many Dissenters were attacked and responded as a group to the riots, which is acknowledged in all of the scholarship, we must try to explain that to the reader.

Of course, again, the sources may be inconsistent. But it would be worth commenting on that fact, rather than reproducing it.

Hope this helps. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing stuff, history! Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially the 1790s - why do I even bother?! Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Because that's what makes it interesting? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments in edit history:

• do we have the name of the hotel?

• It was removed in Jbmurray's copy editing. We could restore it. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• That was my comment, too. I didn't realize that "the Hotel in Temple Row" was the hotel's name. Was it? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that, confusingly, Rose gives the hotel either two or three names: the Birmingham Hotel (72); the Hotel on Temple Row (72, but surely that's not its name, then?); and the Royal Hotel (81). Rose also capitalizes "Hotel" in all other instances, which I find odd. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I must have had a reason for using one over the others - perhaps it was in another source. Unfortunately, I don't have access to all of the other sources. I'll check the ones I do have. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the primary sources refer to it as "the Hotel" or "the Hotel in Temple-Row". Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think there should be something on class issues and/or a divided elite in the lead, in that this is apparently important in the body of the article

• I'll try to come up with a concise wording (!). I'll need a day or two, though. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• this concluding paragraphs ignores the class issues earlier mentioned

• I will try to make the language of this section more precise later today. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I changed a few places. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy editing and helpful comments! I appreciate it! Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well written and good use of references and images. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.