Talk:Great Fire of London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Great Fire 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 November 28, 2006.
November 11, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article was the showcase article of the London Portal in September 2007.


Talk:Great Fire of London/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

Given that this is today's featured article, shouldn't it have been temporarily locked? The vandals are having a field day... --Owain loft 19:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. The selection of the daily featured article is crucial: anyone not already a Wikipedia addict may base a substantial part of their judgment on its appearance and content, so it should be a model, and this means not just proof that we can be as good as Encyclopædia Britannica, but a demonstration that, because we're open source, we're better. To lock would be to turn this from a model Wikipedia article to something less than a Wikipedia article. There have been dozens of works of vandalism here today, most of them replacing the entire article with a single sentence. Examine the history page, and you'll see every single one has been reverted within a few seconds.

I'm sure I've seen a "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled" message on featured articles before now. The reason I made this post was that I kept getting redirected to some random movie every time I clicked on the featured article link, it was starting to get annoying. --Owain loft 10:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note re. wording

Re. "This reasoning has recently been challenged on the ground that poor and middle-class people were not recorded anywhere..." in the intro, perhaps the words in bold should be reworded. I don't have any specific suggestions, but perhaps even just saying "this reasoning has been challenged by modern scholars on the ground...". 211.28.226.29 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hansen

How reliable is The Dreadful Judgement: The True Story of the Great Fire of London? Secondary deaths from lynching or hunger really don't count - otherwise the death toll becomes negative as the fire killed remaining plague rats and flees cutting the number of deaths there would otherwise have been. (The last plague death was in fact a few years later in Rotherhithe). This is a fire which travelled 1 mile or 2 km in three days - most people can travel a little faster than that. --Henrygb 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of "City"

I noticed this throughout the article- is there a special reason for the word "City" always being capitalized? Is it part of London's official name? Nothing urgent- I'm just curious. --Wafulz 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The "city of London" and "City of London" aren't the same thing. It's pretty crazy, but take a look at London, Greater London and especially City of London for the gory details. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Spangineer, for that clarification! It is really nice when people bother to explain some local naming detail that can make the reader really confused. I wonder if there is a good, non-intrusive way of working that fact into the text of the article itself? Maybe the introduction? All in all, an absolutely beautiful article, especially considering the grim story it has to tell. Big thanks to all who did this! --Ronja Addams-Moring 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I managed to miss the expression "the City proper—the area bounded by the City wall and the river Thames" - that makes it quite clear. --Ronja Addams-Moring 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote source

The quote, "But the fire overtakes us faster then we can do it" was recently changed to "But the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it." Could someone with access to the source verify that this change is correct? --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could say both are correct. It's from Pepys, and I originally quoted it exactly, with "then". But somebody changed it to "than", which could be seen as modernized spelling. It's probably clearer to the reader in modernized form. As far as I remember, it doesn't come up with the other Pepys quotes, and both original spelling (well, not original, as Pepys wrote a kind of shorthand, but your basic 17th-century spelling) and modernized spelling have their proponents. I figure we might as well leave it modernized. Or indeed, change it back... whatever. I don't see it as a problem. Bishonen | talk 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
Wasn't the source published recently though? I'd think that we would want to stick with whatever their editorial decision was. But eh, not a big deal. --Spangineerws (háblame) 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progroms

Why is there no mention of the progroms that ensued as a result of Jew not sucumbing to the plague etc? Chavatshimshon 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, only a modest number of Jews remained in England at the time, as most were expelled by the time of the outbreak of the Thirty Years War. See discussion of Jewish harrassment and persecution in Black Death. WBardwin 07:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, W! What do you think, do you like it? Bishonen | talk 22:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
Indeed.
It's not germane to an article on the Fire, you know. However, Oliver Cromwell had taken a "moderate" position of tolerance toward Jews. This did not sit well universally with other Puritans, but he was very definite about it. The actual effect of such nominal tolerance is hard to measure. There may not have been very many Jews, and certainly not so many as to have had a pogrom over. The mob could go amok over the thought of Jews, of course, and rumors of Jews, as it did with Catholics and rumors of Catholics, but that's just the mob. I have never heard of Jews getting blame during the Fire. Geogre 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] starberries

Can someone explain to me what "Roman starberries settlement" refers to? Jim Farmer jims-email@hotmail.com.

[edit] Possible Vandalism

Under the section, "Fire hazards in the City", the following sentence appears to be vandalism: "The City was the biggest little whore town in texas." However, when attempting to edit the sentence, the editing page shows a correct statement. Someone with more Wikipedia experience should to address this. Ifruit 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attentiveness. What that means is that someone had already rolled back the vandalism between the time you loaded the page and the time you went to edit. It's a good thing. Geogre 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect figures!!

"It is estimated that over 100 billion people died in this tragic fire" 100 Billion people?!?! consierding only 80,000 lived in the city and that the whole world doesn't even have this! lol

Oh, all is well, the article is now called Weekend at Bernie's, so no worries. :-) Thanks for your concern, but this is simply what happens to articles on the Main Page. On the upside, vandalism is even easier to revert than to perpetrate. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
100 billion? I guess it ain't called the "great fire" for nothing :oP --87.112.31.15 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Figures II

London in the 1660s: 80,000 people = 1/6th pre-plague population (implying 400,000 remaining.)Aftermath: 80,000 people = 1/4 of population. Not a desparately important point but these figures don't add up.217.154.66.11 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A very important point, it seems to me. 80,000 is described as 1/4 of the population (implying a population of 320,000) just after the population is described as half a million. (otherwise a fantastic article!). Dast 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, 80,000 is given as the population of the City of London — the central district — today's financial district — not for the whole of London. Please see the second sentence in the introduction, and click on the wikilinked City of London. There's a reference given for the figure of 80,000 (Tinniswood, pp. 4 and 101), so please don't change it to the population of the entirety of London. I'm changing it back.
I tried to explain these distinctions in the article, but I guess they remain confusing. Can anybody think of a better way to make them clear? Bishonen | talk 11:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC).
No. Honestly, you either get it or you don't. The article on the City even explains how it came to be. Even in 1666, the City wasn't the city. Although in 1666 the population of "London" wasn't dwarfing the population of "the City," it was still a great, big pile of people who did not live within the walls. Geogre 14:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unlikely...

As a ringer I find this statement somewhat implausible:

Public-spirited citizens would be alerted to a dangerous house fire by muffled peals on the church bells,

First off I've always been told that the "alarm" signal was ringing "back-rounds" i.e. ringing the bells in turn from lowest to highest (instead of highest to lowest, the normal "default") - unfortunately I have no sources for this. Second, muffles (a leather pad which fastens on to the clapper) take a reasonable amount of time to fit - not ideal when you are trying to raise the alarm. David Underdown 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The fire burned for days, I don't think these leather doowhackies could possibly have taken more than a day to put on JayKeaton 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

The Great Fire of London, with Ludgate and Old St. Paul's, oil on canvas, ca. 1670
The Great Fire of London, with Ludgate and Old St. Paul's, oil on canvas, ca. 1670

A gift for the editors of this article:

Thank you! That's great. I've put it into the Tuesday section. Anybody got any better ideas? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] conflagration

I really don't think that "conflagration" should be the word of choice for this page. Conflagration also means a great war or a fight, but I really don't think it is the most suitable word here. I don't think that using the word fire instead would "dumb down" the page, rather it would make it more accessible and more descriptive. I think the word "conflagration" was used mainly because it sounds "smart", as it does not otherwise fit the tone of the writing in this article or even match it's subject name, The Great Fire of London. The word "conflagration" seems mainly there to confuse or make people thing "that must be another word for a big fire". While I'm all for increasing vocabularies, it simply does not fit the tone of this article and seems to mainly throw people off before they even get past the first sentence JayKeaton 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the OED conflagration means only
  1. The burning up of (anything) in a destructive fire, consumption by a blazing fire. Obs[elete]
  2. A great and destructive fire; the burning or blazing of a large extent or mass of combustible, e.g. of a town, a forest, etc.
  3. transf[erative] Severe inflammation Obs[elete]
no mention of a war/fight connotation (although I can see the possibility of transference, as in the fever example given above). So it seems to me to be the perfect word to use for this sort of fire. It's useful to use a synonym a few times virtually every sentence contains the word "fire", which whilst unavoidable to some extent does get a little wearing. David Underdown 12:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for my dictionary (I had never heard "conflagration" used to mean a war) but David Underdown beat me to it! With regard to the choice of words, it seems to me that people will have read the title and understood that the article is about a fire, so the first sentence needs to expand on that a bit, rather than simply restating "fire". "Fire" is very general and is often used to describe something small and controlled, whereas "conflagration" has the meanings of "great and destructive". I therefore think that it fits the requirement very well. I believe it is an improvement on "fire", or even "big fire". With regard to non-English-speakers (who were mentioned in the original edit), "conflagration" actually works quite well for Romance languages.Bluewave 12:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Online OED access has its uses... David Underdown 12:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above two comments. Conflagration is a useful synonyn and avoids the repetitive use of the word fire. Natalie West 12:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's purpose is to be a useful "synonym" and avoid the repetitive use of the word fire, then perhaps it should be used a little later on in the article rather than the top, that way it could serve its purpose and not put people off or confuse them from the get go? It can be like a special little synonym surprise to break up the word "Fire" used throughout the article, rather than just starting off with the word conflagration then only using "Fire" for the rest JayKeaton 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree with Natalie (or at least to be more pedantic than her) but I don't think conflagration is just a synonym for fire. Conflagration is much more specific: David's online OED (confirmed by my trusty Concise version) tells us that it means a "great and destructive fire". To me (and I assume to others!), it also carries a connection with "flagrant" (implying glaring and notorious). I believe the word very concisely conveys exactly the shade of meaning that is needed. By the way, I didn't write it and I don't think I've got a particular ax(e) to grind but it just seems a great word for this sentence. Bluewave 13:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I like both holocaust and conflagration, they are good solid descriptive English words, and I would vote that they stay in the article. This is particularly true as the source, Hanson, used the word holocaust. (Sigh) ----- it seems to me that the internet has led to, among other things, the "dumbing" down of English vocabulary. Words of one syllable are faster to type and even easier to "text" abbreviate, and so............ WBardwin 20:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The size of the panorama

Gulp... it's not a panorama anymore, after this edit ! :-( I guess User:Meowist has a really small window. I'm no good with this stuff. Does anybody know how to code this so that is looks reasonable on all screens? I'm going to revert while I await suggestions, I'm afraid. Having a scrollable panorama is surely better than having a tiny strip in the middle of the page, that could represent pretty much any early modern city as seen from outer space... and actually, nobody else has complained of the look of the panorama, as far as I know, since the article became Featured, many months ago. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

I've seen a form of scroll-box be used before. I'll have a poke around. Cheers, Daniel 11:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
How about something like Second Severn Crossing#Controversies? Daniel 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented this scroll-style, and readily await the input of Meowist and Bishonen, amongst others. Just throwing some ideas around, hopefully we can find something that works :) Daniel 10:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Esperanto translation

Hi Bishonen, this message was actually supposed to be on your talk page, but I don't have an account here and thus couldn't edit it. Just wanted to let you know that I translated this fascinating article into Esperanto (see eo:Granda incendio de Londono). Thank you so much, it was quite a stimulating challenge to render your brilliant prose in the "Internacia Lingvo". The translation, hopefully, should promote fastly to featured status and remain on our main page for a week or so. Keep up the great work ! Thomas Guibal, Sep 15th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.139.60.170 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teeth

What was the cause of the poor dental condition of the London poor in this period? Not sugar, presumably, as the triangular trade did not really kick off until later. Gritty flour in the bread, perhaps? -- !! ?? 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] which calendar is being used? please make this clearer than "New Style"!

The article starts "The Great Fire of London was a major conflagration that swept through the central parts of London, England, from Sunday, 2 September to Wednesday, 5 September 1666" with a note to the effect that "dates are given according to the New Style". Now the linked article tells us that "New Style" can mean two entirely different things: either that the year is numbered to start on January 1 rather than March whatever (but this shouldn't matter in this case, because everyone will agree that September 1666 is indeed part of 1666), or that the Gregorian calendar is being used rather than the Julian calendar. But 2 September 1666 of the Gregorian calendar (Julian day 2329799) was a Thursday: only in the Julian calendar is 2 September a Sunday (Julian day 2329809). So I'm confused.

This page explicitly states that the Great Fire of London started on Julian day number 2329809, and though it may not be particularly well informed I am inclined to believe it. That would fit with the days of the week. If this is the correct version, then the footnote should be amended to specify that dates are given in the Julian calendar. Otherwise, the days of the week should be fixed. In any case, the calendar used should be made clearer. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The article on New Style dates says (correctly!) "When recording British history it is usual to use the dates recorded at the time of the event with the year adjusted to the start on the 1 January." That is what has been done in this article. At the time, 2 September 1666 was a Sunday (Pepys noted "Lord's Day" at the beginning of his diary entry, for example). I think it would be immensely confusing if we tried to recast all the dates and days of the week into the Gregorian calendar. Bluewave (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The article on New Style is immensely confusing and seems to say that "New Style" also means that the Gregorian calendar is being used, because both changes (calendar and start of the year) were made simultaneously in 1752. Maybe that's wrong, I don't know, but even if it is, it must be a common confusion or misconception — cf. the article on Isaac Newton for example (which gives his dates of birth and death in Gregorian and Julian calendar) and particularly the first footnote — so the term "New Style" should best be avoided altogether. Why insist upon it?
I'm not advocating the use of the Gregorian calendar: the Julian calendar is fine for English history before 1752. What I am advocating is an explicit statement of which calendar is being used rather than a confusing "New Style"/"Old Style" label. Why did you revert my modification to the footnote? It is pointless to specify that years are counted from January 1 ("New Style") rather than March 25 ("Old Style") because September is past March 25 anyway: the year would be 1666 whether in "New Style" or in "Old Style", so why would we care to mention this? On the other hand, the fact that the Julian calendar is used is unclear and should be made explicit. Why did you remove the mention?
I tend to think the article on the Glorious Revolution (which gives some dates in both Julian and Gregorian calendar and otherwise makes it clear which calendar is being used even when it uses the confusing "New Style" term) is the model to follow. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London, or London, England

There is a disagreement as to if we should say "London" or "London, England" in the opening sentence. This edit[1] calls it an "Americanism", I have not been to America and it does not seem odd to me. There are many many cities called London, so I figure we should say which one.

Perhaps there is something cultural I am missing? (1 == 2)Until 22:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some major cities that don't require qualification by stating their country. We don't need to say "Paris, France" or "New York, USA". London is in the same category. "London, England" sounds very strange to anyone from England. Bluewave (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you were able to disagree with me in such a respectful manner. I wish it could be said that all Wikipedians respected civility. (1 == 2)Until 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am on the conservative European side here: no Americanisms in articles on "our" events. I am inclined to consider hypothetical readers who do not know which London this is about, once they have reached the words "medieval" and "Roman City Wall" in the second sentence, unlikely to know what "England" is. (But perhaps that's why we need the England link???) I would think it much more likely that we are dealing with a reflex of American readers here, who just feel that a naked city name sounds wrong. Of course, should this be a matter of American tastes vs. British tastes, then the British have a home field advantage and win automatically. (Think of it this way: when you go to Paris, you want to see people carrying baguettes.)
The logical solution seems to be to define the "London" that we are talking about without resorting to an Americanism. I have replaced the battleground "London" / "London, England" by "England's capital London". I consider this slightly better, but others may disagree. Perhaps someone has a better idea how to drop an inconspicuous "England" without getting rid of "London" altogether? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We should never underestimate the level of ignorance in our readers, many of whom are hopefully third world children. I think we should always include country location in any article concerning people or places and find it extraordinary that anyone would want to remove such information. We aren't saying London is in England what we are saying is that The Great Fire of London occurred in England, I think its inclusion is a no-brainer. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No one is saying you cannoy identify that in this instance by London, one means the "real one" - it is the way in which it is done, London, England - Rome, Italy sounds laughable to European ears and vey much a pure Americansim. The present test seems a good comporomise to me. Giano (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Americanism Schamericanism! The first time you use an acronymn, you must expand it. The first time you use a city, you must expand it. The first instance of London, must be London, England. Otherwise, you sound like a chauvinist (or like the old 1911). If I were writing for publication even in a regional publication, I would need to locate the city in print. In a hypertext setting, it's even more proper. The same would be true of Little Chough, England, even though no one is likely to think there is more than one of them. First instance: expand. After, do not. Everyone is so ready to get their hackles up that no one is paying attention to a good style sheet. Geogre (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
no problem with the location, it is the way in which it is located - "Rome, Italy" is an Americanism, unsuited to a European page - by all means say "New York, America" (for the benefeit of us poor European who may never have heard of it, but European cities, towns and villages are always "in" and in the case of a major European city (London is quite well known) then if you must - as is currently in the page - the capital of England - London. I know you just don't get it but "Madrid, Spain" sounds completely wrong to us, and instantly an Americanism. Personally, I am always quite happy to trust the blue link - what's the name of the medical condition where people start not to beleive the labels on cans of food? Giano (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, expand it with whatever prepositions you choose, but expand it on the first usage. Of course everyone would know New York or Atlanta, or Reno, but one still expands on the first use. "New York, United States" (not "America") would look curious to any and all, but to simply say "New York" is something even natives would reject, as there is a state, too, and so "New York, New York" or "New York City" is a minimum, and the first usage would have to be that. (N.b. city/state is an expansion, as no other nation has state names that can be confused with the 50 in the US. Hence, "Birmingham, Alabama" is an expanded reference to the same degree as "London, England"; "Alabama" is a division of the US in the same way that "England" is a division of the UK.) Geogre (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, the same George, not quite. Giano (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's moot now because we seem to have found consensus, but since Geogre doesn't seem to know it, WP:ENGVAR has a rule on this: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." In other words: not the variety that some of the people here are familiar with, but the one some of the others here are familiar with. "London, England" would be about as wrong here as would be "It is 1,063 ft (325 m) high" in the article on the Eiffel Tower. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite right Hans, it can only be a matter of time though before I have to describe myself as a resident of "Italy, Europe" lest anyone should begin to think I have defected to Italy, Texas. Giano (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone was offended by the claim that London was the capital of England and removed it. Therefore I changed it to read that the fire was one of the major events in the history of England. It would be great if someone could contribute a reference for this claim, in case it provokes a fact tag. Of course, Britain instead of England should be fine, too. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1666 is pre Acts of Union 1707 so london was definetly not the capital of britian at the time.Geni 09:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I see that what I said was ambiguous. What I meant was: If someone finds a reliable source saying that "The Great Fire of London was one of the great disasters in British history", then this should make the "London, England" crowd sufficiently happy, and so the sentence should be changed and the reference added. I hope that you don't mind referring to pre-union English history as British history, if it can be sourced. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflagration 2

I suppose nobody doubts that the present anti-conflagration IP edit warrior, who reverts without discussion and has been warned by David, is the same as previous anti-conflagration IP edit warriors. Bishzilla has therefore blocked the person with extra deathray (=48 hours) as a repeat offender. Per David's suggestion, she'll show them Great Fire if necessary. Bishonen | talk 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

Besides arguing sense with the editor, one can argue style. "The Great Fire of London was a fire" is a tautology. Geogre (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure about the exact capabilities of Bishzilla, but I think automatically redirecting all access from that IP address to an appropriate version of Wikipedia would be even better. What's the purpose of the deconflagrated expurgated version if nobody forces its target audience to actually use it? :o) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[ Bishzilla rise from deeps, chuckle appreciatively, stuff little article defenders in pocket.] Mighty 'zilla capabilities unlimited! bishzilla ROARR!! 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC).