Talk:East End of London

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)