Talk:East End of London/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Page move

I presume this has been moved from East End to make way for a disambiguation page. If that's the case, I suggest East End of London as a better title here -- it will link naturally in text. -- Tarquin

[edit] Gordon riots

Can anyone explain why the Gordon Riots are labelled "racist" if they were against Roman Catholicism?

I believe the Gordon Riots to have been against a perceived more tolerant attitude in government towards Catholics, at the time. The consequences were mainly felt - on the streets - by Irish catholics, who were coming in numbers to London to escape poverty and obtain work. Why ask here? Kbthompson 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East End extent in time & space

The East End has always been one of the poorest areas of London While I agree the geographical boundaries have always been fuzzy; the term 'East End' itself seems to have been introduced in about 1888 (see "Fishman: East End 1888", an excellent source by a local academic & historian) It should also be noted that in tudor times many palaces and rich estates were located in the East End; it's decline as a political centre did not occur until the rising importance of the palace of Westminster, when the locus shifted west ward. Kbthompson 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the article to to make it clear in that the separate hamlets east of the tower did not join up into one big urban area until late 18th - early 19th century: "Stepney, Mile End and Bethnal Green, though still surrounded by fields, were distinctly urban communities by 1813, and the roads linking them to the City and each other ... were lined with long ribbons of terraced housing." (Inwood, A History of London, p 257). I can't find a definitive earliest use of the term, though; if Fishman's book has this info, it would be good to add it.--Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added a lengthy 'contemporary' quote at the beginning, I think (like Fishman) it says it all, however, others might want to bring it down to a sentence, and quote the reference.Kbthompson 13:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think its a good idea to put a massive quote in the intro section? Anyway, I was thinking that a general 'East End' Category might be conceptually useful. More useful than the unlovely 'Tower Hamlets' and 'Hackney' categories which relate to a post 1965 local gov re-organisation, which may appeal to town-hall bureaucrats but has hardly any resonance with the people who live in the East-End or who are interested in its history and traditions. Colin4C 13:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In my own defence, I did note that. I've now moved it into a separate section. I think it's a good quote, as it both notes the first use, and gives something of the flavour of what was intended by it. In this edit, I added copyhold, matchgirls strike and revised some of the text. I hope the changes meet with approval. Kbthompson 16:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the quote too, but I moved it before I read the talk page - I felt it fitted in nicely with the section on Location. I didn't realise it's placement was under discussion here, or I'd have mentioned it first. What do you think? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Practically, perfect in every way (... Mary Poppins) ... My resolution, was clumsy. I added geo Essex to the note about Newham and Redbridge. I'm thinking there's a point to be made also about the 'East End' today, being 'in the head', and extending with the diaspora as far as places like the Isle of Grain (in Kent) - where I stumbled upon an East End night (including cockney songs, eels, pies and the whole caboodle). Oh, and making a comparison with 'cockneys' who were essentially residents of the city Need also to note, in Medieval times, much of the land around the river was marsh; so Ratcliffe and Wapping were easier to get to by boat, than by the single dangerous road across the marsh. For the same reason North Woolwich was in Kent until about 1902! Kbthompson 18:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ratcliffe (literally Red Cliff) Highway was high above the marsh, and probably an old Roman road. It is on the plateau at the top of the eponymous red (sandstone) cliff, which sloped steeply down to the marsh. I have actually been privileged to see said red cliff when on an archaelogical excavation below it (opposite St George's church) back in 2002...But yes, otherwise: 'roll out the barrel'...Colin4C 19:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I knew of the 'red cliffe', but roman road, where did it go? The Ratcliffe Highway was much of the modern Cable St, I think. Surely, it just got into a corner of the river lee and thames, or even modern wapping - was there a roman port there? I've walked the 'wall' from tower bridge to canary wharf, much of this was created in the middle ages and maintained by the church - with windmills on! Modern wharehouse style appartment blocks sit across this now; but it can still be seen at places like Wapping steps. I thought much of the land behind was just marsh, but you're right about Ratcliffe Hw, maybe that was the sole road? Thinking about it, there is a very step drop down to the river from St George's in the East. Kbthompson 22:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Well Cable Street is parallel to the north, as for where our putative Roman road was heading, I'm not quite sure, but I guess it would be useful for a Roman coastal defence force along the north bank of the Thames: there was some suggestion that there was a Roman signal station where we were digging. But yes, the area to the south of the Highway was the primeval marsh, which was built up in the course of the centuries to its present extent. Also possibly of interest: Ratcliffe Highway was where Dr Jeckyll was returning from, (in the the guise of Mr Hyde) in an episode of the story of the same name and it seems that Oscar Wilde's Dorian Grey used to hang out in this same district. You just can't beat those East-End themed evenings! Colin4C 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Things for specific localities should go on the specific pages; Ratcliff itself looks very stubby at the moment, there's a lot more to say about the area - including some of your local colour. It would be appropriate here to give a flavour of the whole area in Roman times - perhaps some of the history of the tower (as it's not a part of the city of london). You appear to keep very odd hours! Kbthompson 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Have you seen the alternative Ratliffe article The Highway? Would be nice to edit this particular bizarrely amorphous entry, but I fear one might go mad in the process...Colin4C 12:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see what you mean. A lot of amorphous facts. In writing these articles, one really needs to have a clear story in mind, one that is 'encyclopedically' important. Much of what is there could have been abstracted from a Gazetter. Maybe the tactic for the moment is to incorporate both Cable Street and the Ratcliffe as sections into the Wapping page; create a 'Cable Street, Battle of' page if one doesn't exist - it must do ... as it stands at the moment, there's a lot of duplication between the various pages, and none of them tell a consistent tale about the development of the area. That's my pennyworth! Kbthompson 12:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do list ...

  • Referencing - well I referenced the bit I added, and most of the article is actually referenced to more narrow articles on the subject in wiki (where I would expect specific topics to be referenced properly).
  • Scope & reference - it does indeed ramble a bit, representing heteroglossia
  • Matchgirls strike, already covered and linked to main article.
  • Poplar rates (1921) :-I put in a short para - which requires work (I left the main date out, for instance); but it links to the requisite article. Which I think is a little deficient ... (it lacks reference to outdoor relief, which was one of the key reforms - no more workhouse).
  • West Ham, the initial 'scope' defines the East End as lying to the west of the River Lee; West Ham lies to the East, and was indeed in Essex until metro boro's reform sometime towards end of 19th century (or was it 1906?)
  • there are comparison figures for 18th century, 19th century and immediate post-war. The boroughs the fiqures are quoted for disappeared in 1965; so, I'm not sure what's called for here? Irish, Huguenot, Jewish and Bangladeshi immigration are covered in specific articles about their communities. There is some stuff about the number of synagogues required for the expanding community in Brit Hist on-line, but I don't think there's much enumeration otherwise. Kbthompson 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've now added more references, to other bits I didn't add ...
In particular to census data, this is now available by parliamentary constituency, and not greatly comparable with the figures presented. Kbthompson 17:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It is much improved already, but more to do. Expansion eastward isn't properly explained yet. At some stage the East End expanded from a "core" outside the walls of the City. The Metropolitan Building Act was a factor in pushing things eastward to West Ham and Canning Town and this should be mentioned. I've seen maps with Bromley station looking quite rural which would mean the full urbanisation of the area up to the Lee did not come until after the railways. Do you have anything that tracks the growth? MRSC • Talk 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
also note prevailing winds. Morwen - Talk 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I, never bought the prevailing winds, I think its a macguffin ... I've heard the theory before, but never from historians - you find me one historian, OK then two ... in the 19th century, the whole of London was covered in smoke, winds, or no winds (and you tell the prevailing wind theory to the people on Blackwall reach - they know it all comes from Siberia.
  • OK, expansion eastwards, that does need to explained, but I don't think we need to go as far as West Ham. Read the intro, read the Fishman book and the Parker book, and just about any book on the east end, and they define it as west of the lea. There are arguments about places like Southwark, but that's essentially a distant echo of the old 'are they cockneys' row.*There's some good books on East End radicals, like Rudolf Rocker, Krotopkin and shit should all rate a mention here; but again better in their own articles, with links. This article should focus on what makes the east end distinctive from (say) tower hamlets.
  • Thanks really are due to MRSC for tracking down the source of those statistics; reorganising what was there, and generally galvanising this page into action ... Actually, the figures for Bow are missing - so, not comparable with 1971, 1991 & 2001!
  • That 'Bluebird999' non-entity (ie it seems made up, not a login) blatted the German website over much of Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel, Spitalfields and various other places ... The pix are pretty, but unless the owner is prepared to load (one of) them under spitalfields, to illustrate the article, they have no place elsewhere. Kbthompson 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
But as Ripper is both an East-End legend (and contemporary tourist attraction) and is mentioned in the article, what is the objection to this external link? There is even a German film (Lulu?) which features the Ripper's sanguinary activities in this area. Pari passu the 'East-End' is a (legendary?) concept as much or more than an (ill)defined area of land. Colin4C 10:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't take it out, they are nice pix; most of them are around Spitalfields, so poss appropriate there; but I thought the En wiki guideline was that external links should be in English, and that it shouldn't be advertising - the site is self advertising for the photographer, who appears to have no specific link with the area.
I put up a load of links to galleries under Hoxton, but they were specifically galleries that had a profound impact on the area; I've added a link to flikr for LBH, as Finn specifically put up an area there for people to add their pix of Hackney.
I'd probably err for no as to linking to the german site; I think there is a line, and this is on the other side of it.Kbthompson 11:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. You nearly had me there: There was not a metropolitan borough of Bow, it was part of Poplar so the three metropolitan boroughs are a fair comparison with Tower Hamlets. see here MRSC • Talk 08:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, am I mistaking old parliamentary boundaries for geographical entities? It was late, I was, er ... stoopid ... yeah, that's probably it. (stoopid enough not to sign this, kb).

Also, this article now seems to be pretty firm on when the term East End came into use: was the term West End already in use by this stage? It was I suppose an analogous usage. Morwen - Talk 11:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think (which often means I am wrong), the term West End came into being in opposition to the term East End. (In the West End article, the canard about prevailing winds is repeated ... and in the disamb ...). A quick online search shows nothing for the etymology ... Dictionary of London (1918) doesn't acknowledge the term; it probably grew up with the use of the term in theatre.Kbthompson 11:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Google books is good for this (and is surely going to revolutionise OED's practise of finding earliest cites for things). I get 185 hits for books using the term "West End of London" published before 1850, and 139 hits for "East End of London" . There is a 1715 work: "The Englishman" which describes the "slums of the West End and East End of London", a 1790 work which talks of a "Chinese colony in the East End of London". Having said this, I don't think these paticular dates can be accurate. But there is certainly much usage of both in c. 19th works. Morwen - Talk 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Mills places West End as 'early' 19th Century (before East End which he descibes as coming into use in the 'late' 19th Century). Interestingly he says it is west of Charing Cross (I've never had that specific idea before). It includes Oxford Street, Regent Street, Mayfair and the parks. MRSC • Talk 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
In 16th and 17th century works (such as Shakespeare's Henry IV part 2) I have found references to 'the town's end', referring to suburbs such as Shoreditch as places where the destitute and/or mad would end as homeless beggars...The word 'suburb' itself in Shakespeare's time had a somewhat racy connotation as a place where gambling houses, theatres and brothels (plus bowling alleys....) would set up shop beyond the jurisdiction of the City Fathers. The old connotation of 'suburb' was more like what we would describe as 'inner city' than the modern bourgeois connotation. Colin4C 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the google books search, prior to 1880, it seems to bring up the phrase 'the east end of London', after you get refs to the 'East End' (capitals, and no qualifier). I think this is what Freeman and Palmer are on about. I wonder what it does for 'West End'? I wrote the promised para on radicals - it probably needs to be translated into english - and a bit on downstream developments. I tried looking up the Metropolitan Building Acts, and the only ones I found were actually related to construction to prevent fire - including the max volume a building could be to allow a fire to be put out! I think MRSC got me back, as it were ... I have no electrickery tomorrow, so shall be silent for a while (not sulking). Kbthompson 18:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is much richer for the recent additions. What I want to get some evidence for is when and why development moved eastward. Certainly after 1844 industry (and with it population) moved east of the Lee. Was it this pull eastward that caused the "filling in" of the East End or was it already fully urbanised at this point? MRSC • Talk 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I have seen it blamed on Jack the Ripper! His activities allegledly drawing attention to the conditions in the East End, especially the Jago resulting in slum clearance efforts and a displacement of population.Esthameian 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to worry, its in the maps! MRSC • Talk 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely our work here is not done? 8^) East Ham looks a good candidate for a rewrite! Some mention should be made here of early immigrant communities - chinese in Limehouse, asian and black sailors in Ratcliffe. All connected with the sea. Kbthompson 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please check, there was (may still be) separate entries for East and West Ham as County Boroughs (up to 1965)Esthameian 06:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Re the drang nach osten of the East-Ender and the search for lebensraum in Essex maybe mention should be made of Southend as representing the ultimate paradise for the local inhabitantsColin4C 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I am going to take another look when I have fresh eyes. It is coming along nicely now. :) MRSC • Talk 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal boundaries

Come to think of it, the City of London is a definite western boundary and the River Thames is a physical southern boundary. Should this go in the intro? MRSC • Talk 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the boundary of the City and the East-End marked by the 'Aldgate Pump' or somesuch???Colin4C 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
it was marked by Alegate itself (and the wall and ditch), which was taken down as an impediment to traffic at the end of the 18th century. Subsequent distances (milestones) to Essex, and the east, were measured from Aldgate pump; which itself has subsequently been moved. Kbthompson 11:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly London over the Border was an ecclesastical term, not administrative?

Prior to the formation of the LCC (London County Council) the area east of the city and west of the Lee/Lea (both spellings are used) was part of Middlesex and east of the Lee was Essex (with the exception of the anomalous North Woolwich). When the LCC was formed in the late 1800s, the boundary was the Lea (except, again, for North Woolwich) West Ham became a County Borough roughly equivalent to today's unitary authorities; i.e. a separate independant administrative body. East Ham followed suit in 1916 and the London boundary remained the Lea until the formation of the GLC when East and West Ham and North Woolwich were merged into Newham. A point to note is that the public records of both County Boroughs upto 1965 were sent to, and are held at Essex record office.

At one time one of the more optomistic local politicians campaigned for West Ham County Borough to become the County Town of Essex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.111.163 (talk • contribs)

I think that's mostly right and dealt with on County Borough of West Ham and County Borough of East Ham - if you can find a reference of the local politician story, then add it to West Ham. These people were extraordinarily proud of their new 'suburbs'; you can see that in the way they approached the creation of their town halls. East Ham used to have a magnificent assembly room at the town hall, that was torn down, because it was going to cost a few grand to repair the roof. Kbthompson 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Overall, this article is very well written, includes useful, fair-use images, and informative. The citations are sufficient, although there are still a few minor gaps where citations should be added (first part of history section, population, and today), but serious issues with citations. The one sentence that really does need a reference is, "With rising costs elsewhere in the capital, the East End has become a desirable place for business." -- but I won't hold up GA status for this statement. Other than that, looks good! Dr. Cash 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we need to decide whether to head for FA status, or bring the West End article up to a similar standard! Kbthompson 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added an external link to the Victoria County History of the area (although I think the version available at British History Online is out of copyright and directly quotable)Esthameian 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's already extensively referenced in the article. The Victoria County History online is in copyright, because the online version was created in 2002 - although some elements of the text version are out of copyright. Volume 11 is mainly 1960s, so remains in copyright for a few more years. It's best to paraphrase since here we are creating an article that introduces the important elements, and provide the background for readers to examine the full text if they're interested. Kbthompson 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • The lead does not adequately summarise the article.
  • References should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date if known.
  • Only full dates need linking.
  • Please provide citations for these statements:
    • "Parts of the London boroughs of Newham and Waltham Forest, formerly in an area of Essex known as London over the border, are sometimes considered to be in the East End. However, the River Lee is usually considered to be the eastern boundary of the East End and this definition would exclude the boroughs but place them in East London. The common extension of the term further east is probably due to the diaspora of East Enders who moved to suburban east London, in particular the new estates at Becontree and Harold Hill, or otherwise left London entirely."
    • "This led to a demand for 6d per hour (2.5p), and an end to casual labour in the docks."
    • "The building of the Royal Docks between 1880 and 1921 "
    • "Lansbury Estate in Poplar, which was built as a showpiece of the 1951 Festival of Britain."
    • "Brick Lane has been extensively regenerated and is famous, amongst other things, as London's curry capital"
    • "the hospital's clinical facilities are undergoing a £1.2 billion refurbishment and expansion."

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 09:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've converted that to a 'to-do' list, and began referencing items. I'll do the best I can. The problems I can see are:
  1. the text is already a summary of much more detailed articles (and where there isn't one, there should be!). Condensing it further, to provide an introduction will necessarily provide a 'fact sparse' text (if I can convey my meaning properly). Perhaps you can refer to an example that has passed the process.
  2. that first statement, you need a reference for, was actually the result of 'robust' discussion. I think the district would be defined in East End 1888, or Palmers' The East End - actually, there's probably a defn in there that agrees with the one that appears in the article.
  3. formatting the refs properly may take some time, as will removing the date links. These days, I'm of the opinion they shouldn't be, but I understood that the policy was a recommendation, not Gospel.
I hope that goes some way towards meeting your concerns. Kbthompson 15:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. For an example of an article composed of the summaries of subarticles, see Brazil.
  2. The statements need a reference. If they were derived from discussions amongst Wikipedia users, it is original research and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
  3. The issue of dates is part of the "overlinking" guideline. I will help delink the dates myself. Epbr123 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll take a deep breath and have a go at an intro tomorrow. I identified the source of the phrase London over the border, and showed that the boundary is contested in the footnote. I've clarified the diaspora section, and will justify the statements by reference to the Victoria History articles on West Ham and East Ham. Hopefully, I'll struggle to a justification without substantially changing the outcome of the previous discussions. Then move onto to standardising the references, probably section by section. Kbthompson 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've largely met your unreasonable demands 8^). I still need to go through the refs one more time (just for luck); review that intro, and tidy up the language, add refs from within the article. The page design could also do with a tweak to take care of the whitespace around the TOC. Please let me know if there are any more issues to be dealt with.
I must thank you for your constructive criticism, exercises like this can only improve articles. Kbthompson 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive criticism. It is very helpful. Kbthompson 22:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edits

I am working my way through and copy editing. I hope this is useful.

  • Unless UK and U.S. punctuation differs in this respect, "which" should generally be preceded by a comma, while "that" should not.
  • The punctuation in the footnotes has not been standardised and could use attention. I will try to look for it as I go, but it would be worth a systematic examination, since this article will be FA-class soon. -- Ssilvers 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In the beginning of the "History" section, you have 4 bullet points. I find these to be intriguing but insufficiently fleshed out. Unless they are each explained in greater detail later, I would suggest making them into a narrative paragraph (or two) with a few more sentences of explanation about how each of these factors contributed to the poverty of the area. This seems like an important enough point to require more clarification before proceeding and might even be worth a subheading like "Causes of poverty." -- Ssilvers 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, someone has already pointed out my propensity to overcommerise (sic). Unfortunately, I used to mark up scripts and my use of commas tends to reflect the way I read it! I appreciate you taking the time, and my inclination was that people would follow the links for further explanation. To some extent the bottom three are examined further in the text (below), but perhaps copyhold could do with further explanation, and the link made specific for the others in the lead for the section. Kbthompson 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who's ever had a hand in this article. Kbthompson (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg

Image:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

-fixed, it's pd-old (1867) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbthompson (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

Mainpage in 12 hours, and there are no publishers on citations (I hope they are all reliable sources, since it doesn't appear anyone reviewed for that at FAC). I also noticed WP:DASH issues throughout, example: Limehouse is also the scene of the Fu Manchu films - based on Sax Rohmer's novels. I haven't checked other issues: anyone around to begin cleanup before tomorrow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    • I believe I have fixed -dash problems. Kbthompson (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistent date formatting. Some of the sources say Date accessed: with a full, linked date; others say accessed with an unlinked, abbreviated date. Which is it? I was going to start ref cleanup, but don't know how regular editors want to address the inconsistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed dates. Kbthompson (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll try to go through publishers later. Kbthompson (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Throwing my hat into the ring, I find it very, very unlikely that Image:Sir Alf Garnett.JPG is correctly licensed. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You may be right, but the uploader claims to be the creator of the image, and released it GNU.
The articles now on the main page, so I'm not going to make any more changes - but I think I got most of the web publisher formats that SandyGeorgia mentioned. Kbthompson (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I erased an erroneous text

Text erased

Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin ... plot the October Revolution.


I erased these lines for :

1/ It is a well known fact that Stalin never travelled out of the Russian Empire. 2/ In 1906, nobody could "plot the 1917 October Revolution". 3/ Iskra was a newspaper, not a party. The wikipedia page about the Russian Social-Democratic Party tells that the 1903 meeting was in Belgium.

I do not know when and were Trotsky and Lenin have been in the London East End, but certainly it is possible to find it.

ttotto 23 February 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttotto (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll chase it up when things quieten down a little. The Encyclopaedia of Marxism describes "In 1903 the Second Congress of the party met in Belgium and England with this dispute comming to the forefront. After the congress the party split into the Bolshinstvo (Bolshevik -- majority party) and Menshinstvo (Menshevik -- minority party), with the Mensheviks believing in Stagism/Reformism, while the Bolsheviks demanded outright revolution." The original text probably lacked clarity and should be revised - and it looks like individual words should be ref'd! Kbthompson (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As for 'well known facts', see Joseph Stalin#Early years as a Marxist revolutionary, 1899–1917! - about Joseph Djugashvili's stay in Tower House, in Whitechapel. What's wrong with describing Iskra as a 'socialist' newspaper? We'll return to this. Kbthompson (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The text has been replaced, in a more carefully phrased form. Multiple references to the events available, including Russian (in English) sources. Kbthompson (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

I know it's not the 'done thing' for this kind of comment on a Talk page but I wanted to congratulate the editors on what is a truly stunning article. Dick G (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

{Blush} ... it was a collaborative effort and stands on the shoulders of the many more detailed wikipedia articles about the individual topics. Kbthompson (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Stalin in London: I maintain...

East End 260207

I maintain what I said some days ago.

Stalin could not be in Whitechapel in 1906, as he never left Russia (or the U.S.S.R.) before 1943, when he met Churchill and Roosevelt at the Tehran conference. In the years 1900, Stalin was almost unknown by Russian socialists. His activity was intermediate between banditry and revolutionary action in Baku, Azerbaijan. There are some evidences he was actually during this period an Okhrana agent. This part of his life is explained in the Wikipedia Stalin page.

I do not have the time to check for exact references, but it is possible to refer to the Trotsky memories (My life), or to Lenin writings. My sources are historians I read in the years eighty. I never read that Stalin was a delegate in any congress in western Europe. What is your source for this assumption ? (Stalin, then known as Joseph Djugashvili, stayed in Tower House, a hostel for itinerant workers near the London Hospital, for two weeks, paying sixpence a night for a cubicle. He was the delegate from Tbilisi.) This is something new.

Lenin wrote he met Stalin for the first time in 1917 in Petrograd. He called him the marvelous Georgian. This is during this period (the Kerensky government) that there was a plot for an October revolution.

In december 1905 Trotsky was arrested in Petrograd and spent the 1906 year in jail. He escaped in january 1907 and travelled once again to London.

This story is explained in the Wikipedia Trotsky page.

In My life Trotsky mention a party congress in London in 1907. He say he met Maxim Gorky and Rosa Luxemburg.

Trotsky told about Stalin in another book about his policy (Stalin) as a philistine, ignorant in foreign languages, and this is obviously what he was. He was not exactly a globe-trotter. He travelled out of Russia once to Tehran (1943), and once to Potsdam (1945).

Trotsky My Life, extracts: Trotsky My Life @ http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/index.htm

CHAPTER XVI 
MY SECOND FOREIGN EXILE: GERMAN SOCIALISM The party congress of 1907 held its meetings in a socialist church in London. It was a protracted,crowded, stormy, and chaotic congress. ... On one of the first days of the congress, I was stopped in the church vestibule by a tall, angular man with a round face and high cheek-bones, who wore a round hat. “I am your admirer,” he said, with an amiable chuckle. “Admirer?” I echoed in astonishment. It seemed that the compliment referred to my political pamphlets that had been written in prison. My interlocutor was Maxim Gorky, and this was the first time I ever saw him. ... At the London congress I renewed acquaintance with Rosa Luxemburg, whom I had known since 1904.


This page about the East End is great and should not be weakened with an erroneous statement.

I did not change the page. It has been changed many times today, and I suppose Kbthompson had a heavy work after my deletion.

Ttotto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttotto (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I did take your concern seriously, looked at reputable sources and added that info back only when I was sure that the text did not go beyond what was said in the references - a number of sources concurred. Particularly a number of Russian sites claimed:

1898-1900, Under the leadership of J. V. Stalin, V. Z. Ketskhoveli and A. G. Tsulukidze, a central leading group is formed within the Tiflis organization of the RSDLP, which passes from propaganda in study circles to mass political agitation. The group organizes the printing of manifestoes and their distribution among the workers, forms underground Social-Democratic circles, and leads the strikes and political struggle of the Tiflis proletariat.

and later

In 1907, On returning from the Fifth ("London") Congress of the RSDLP, J. V. Stalin visits Baku and Tiflis and delivers reports on the congress at meetings of the Social-Democratic organizations of Baku, Tiflis and a number of districts in Western Georgia.

In the cited reference in the article, it states

... Stalin, then Joseph Djugashvili, spent a fortnight there in a sixpence-a-night cubicle when he attended the Fifth Congress of the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party across the road in Whitechapel. Lenin, meanwhile, preferred to commute from Bloomsbury where he could also visit the British Museum. The congress, to which British intelligence turned a blind eye, consolidated the supremacy of the Bolshevik party and debated strategy for communist revolution in Russia. Stalin never wrote or spoke about his stay in London and most Russian witnesses to it were wiped out in his Great Terror.

I'm not trying to undertake original research. The original ref against the statement you removed made much the same case - but, as you pointed out was poorly worded and went beyond the strict facts. I think the point made in the article is really about the sheer quantity of notable radicals visiting the East End during that period and not specifically about Russian politics (or indeed, Stalin) - and I am very grateful for your corrections. Beyond that, the criteria for inclusion of material in wikipedia is for verifiability, not truth in a reliable source. As it stands the article meets that criteria, but when I have more time, I will revisit the issue - as personally I think the truth matters. I'm not sure how I can satisfy you though, as there are sources that say Stalin visited the 5th congress in London (in 1907); and, as you claim, contradictory sources that say he didn't leave Russia until the 1940s.
I'll certainly have a look at the Trotsky memoires, there's more material there that can expand on the 1907 congress. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello Kbthompson

thank you for your attention for my comments.

I understand this is not an article on the Russian revolutionaries, but this "Stalin in London" looks like an uchronia. I was so astonished I decided to register for the first time after many years of reading Wikipedia, and erased the lines ( waiting for a reaction ).

You say that there are contradictory sources about the travels of Stalin in this period. I am not surprised by a special Russian version, on this issue, as on many other.

Falsification of history was one of the specialities of the stalinist and neo-stalinist regimes, and you could find special Soviet versions of the generally admitted world history, until recently in the U.S.S.R. ( see the good old Novosti agency pamphlets of the seventies for instance).

This language <<Under the leadership of J. V. Stalin, etc./ ...leads the strikes and political struggle of the Tiflis proletariat. / The congress, to which British intelligence turned a blind eye, consolidated the supremacy of the Bolshevik party ...>> is a good example of the stalinist or neo-stalinist propaganda language.

This statement can be taken as a proof of the version I defend : << Stalin never wrote or spoke about his stay in London and most Russian witnesses to it were wiped out in his Great Terror.>>

I was just wondering why Stalin had not boasted about having been so close to the great Lenin so early, ten years before the October revolution, when he was merely a secondary leader during this event in 1917. What you found on this Russian site is a kind of response.

More probably, Stalin never wrote about this London travel, because he never went in London. (Occam's razor)

Of course, Trotsky was not a neutral observer, but you certainly can believe him when he says he was in London in 1907, and the congress was just a sort of chaos, nothing important.

Another strange issue is a Joseph Dzhugashvili traveling under his real name in England when he was theoretically on the lists of all the polices. The European countries polices were not less efficient than today, and a similar congress in the People House in Brussels had been previously forbidden. So, the "marvelous Georgian" was touring incognito in London ? Or, maybe as an agent ?

The usual Western university history says that Trotsky was the great man of the 1905 Petrograd soviet, and, from 1917 to 1924, the number two of the revolution; that Stalin became a real big leader during the civil war, after the Brest-Litosk treaty (1918). Maybe Russian non historian or nationalist sources do not agree with this story.


What are these Russian sites ? I had a look on [ http://www.stel.ru/stalin/Russia_in_World_War_1912-1916.htm] (example) This is a full Stalin fan club site, not a serious reference !

bye bye Ttotto

Here is another source placing Stalin in London[1]. The AHR is long running and sufficiently well-known to have a Wikipedia entry and appears to be less biased than Trotsky would be.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, for that. The source listed in the article is a British broadsheet newspaper. One of the reasons this is a reliable source is that they employ fact checkers. There are a number of sources that make the same claim - one said he was there, he did not speak, he did not contribute - you have to remember this is a fairly early stage in his career. Another did suggest that he was an agent of the secret police. I don't make this stuff up, yes one source might be mistaken and an aberration, or a plant - but a quick google shows up between 6-10 reliable websites showing the same information, and it shows up in google books too. (The latter being peer reviewed historical publications). All I can say is that his presence can be justified for inclusion in wikipedia - even if it is the subject of controversy. Kbthompson (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The references to that article are interesting: The first volume of Stalin's Collected Works dating from 1901 to 1907 includes twenty items in Georgian and only six in Russian, but four of these are unsigned collective editorials in Russian language periodicals, and the other two are his speeches at Stockholm, which were not published in Georgia at the time. The second volume contains eight articles in Georgian before the report on the London conference. The text of the article notes that on his return from London Stalin published his first work in Russian in Bakinskii proletarii - so, anyone got a first edition of Stalin's works that can settle this once and for all! Kbthompson (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added that ref to the article. That's a good reference; scholarly, peer reviewed journal. Probably as good as we'll get for a ref for his time in London. I've also noted that it doesn't appear in his memoires. I haven't added that the Georgian Mensheviks challenged his credentials - or the speculation that he may have been there as a police agent. Can we agree that this is now well referenced, and as near factual as we can achieve without actually being there? Kbthompson (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's certainly put to bed any idea that he wasn't there. Obviously the other points are more appropriate to the article on Stalin or one on the conference than to an article whose many subject isn't even political.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)