A fact from Peel Park, Salford appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,032 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Peel Park in England was the first of three public parks to be opened for the people of Manchester and Salford in 1846?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
as it is. The refs don't actually say that - n.2 says "possibly", & n3 is clearly only dealing with Manchester. And Hyde Park & Richmond Park, though owned by the Crown, had been always been open to the public, let alone French, Ancient Roman etc parks. Adding "created for that purpose" would help some, but I think the claim needs to be much more restricted. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead for reference 2 does say "possibly" but if you read the actual entry for Peel Park further down the page it says "considered to be". As for reference say 3 it does say "possibly the first park in the world" but I don't see how you can construe that as only dealing with Manchester. There were a number of other parks beforehand such as the Royal parks in London but there were restricted to the aristocracy and in no way "public". In fact the working classes were actively excluded - I have a reference for a letter in The Times thast says just that, which I could add to make things clearer. I would suspect that the French parks would have similar exclusions, at least until the revolution when it was probably a free-for-all. I'm happy to restrict the wording to "possibly" as there are two references that say that, but I don't have another reference that would support more restrictive wording. Maybe if I can find a reference for some ancient Roman parks I could add a caveat. I have added a third reference to back up the claim as well so it's definitely verifiable - if somewhat provocative, which is no bad thing :)Richerman (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the letter now - what do you think? Richerman (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That only makes it worse - the letter clearly says that a) Victoria Park and "the suburban parks", which would include Richmond Park and Bushy Park, are fully open to to the public, and that Hyde Park had been so until a few days before. How long these instructions lasted who knows. You certainly can't justify "...the lower classes were generally excluded from them" from this letter! That still leaves the rest of the world. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the difficulty here and I've tried to come up with some alternative wording myself, but there are no references to support the alternative hook. I think that what they are getting at is that it was the first park in the world to be officially dedicated for public use, which is similar to what you're saying, except that they are talking about the world rather than just the UK. However, none of the sources say that, so It can't be verified. How about ...thatPeel Park(pictured) in Salford, Greater Manchester, England is claimed to be the world's first public park? That's a verifiable fact taken from the article Richerman (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search on the fatal phrase shows claims for Birkinhead (opened 1847) and Victoria Park (opened 1845) just on the first page. Given both your sources are non-specialized web-pages with COI issues, and give no further sources, I don't really think they are enough to justify the claim for main page - a claim has to have a good degree of plausibility to go there, and Salford's only does if qualified per my ALT. If you can turn up a proper academic source, that might be different. But I think "purpose-built" would need to be there - I can't believe the French Revolution did not open many parks in many countries. Victoria Park would seem to have Peel Park beaten by a year, and was relandscaped for the purpose, but remained owned by the Crown, so "publically-owned" also needs to be included. Google Scholar only has an academic ref claiming Yellowstone (1872) - a rather different sense of "park". Books has 2 further American claims, including New York, which shows how unreliable such claims usually are. The commonest claim on the web is that for Birkinhead, which seems clearly wrong! See also The Arboretum, Derby, donated to the town in 1840: "The Arboretum was the world's first public park, and the model for Central Park in New York City. This was presumably not purpose-created, but otherwise has Peel Park well beaten, see here too. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You just beat me to it (twice in fact). I think what they mean is that it was the first publically owned park whereas the others were privately owned or royal parks where the landowner allowed the public to use them and could segregate the upper and lower classes. It seems that the Queen was asked to make Victoria park public, work started in 1845 and it was never officially opened, so the date it became public is difficult to pin down. I'll change the article to reflect this as it's a fascinating bit of social history anyway. Richerman (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you seem somehat obsessed by the class distinction aspect, and you have to deal with Derby, which was publically owned. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obsessed? I hadn't thought about it until I read the Times letter but it then became clear how important the idea of a public park was. At that time people certainly were obsessed with class but it's something we tend to forget about now. However, the idea of "well dressed mwchanics" being turfed out of a park reserved for the aristocracy does make you think. I've given up on the idea of "the first public park" anyway as it's not really provable and the references aren't good enough. In fact it looks as if it wasn't even the first in the UK if the date for Derby is right - and there's no reason to think it isn't. Richerman (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ok - but there were large groups between the aristocracy, who mostly had their own parks to walk in, and the mechanicals. Are you going to address Birkinhead's pretensions? I think it has developed nicely anyway; latest DYK ALT ticked. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never let it be said I don't know how to give in gracefully, my latest additions mention the middle classes too - I think that includes everyone now :) If anyone looks at the dates they'll realise that Birkenhead's claim is a load of bollocks so I don't think I need to point it out. Who would have thought a walk in the park would be so controversial? Thanks for your help in getting things straight. Richerman (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as it is. The refs don't actually say that - n.2 says "possibly", & n3 is clearly only dealing with Manchester. And Hyde Park & Richmond Park, though owned by the Crown, had been always been open to the public, let alone French, Ancient Roman etc parks. Adding "created for that purpose" would help some, but I think the claim needs to be much more restricted. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
