Talk:Spitalfields/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Spitalfields. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Cut from article

"Spitalfields is named after Mary Spital who ran the hospital and the fields that surrounded the area." Anonymously added, no citation given, and I doubt it's true: "spital" is presumably a variant on "hospital". -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

There were two distinct phases of development, and the current name (while the one that tends to label it in the literature) is itself a conflation.

The Priory of Canons, and Hospital for poor bretheren, of the Order of St Austin, was founded by Walter Brune, citizen of London, and his wife Roesia. Walter, archdeacon of London laid the first stone on July 18th (old money) 1197. [1] - includes the deed of foundation - in church Latin! By 13th C it was in some dilapidation and was refounded as The New Hospital of our Lady without Bishopgate, in 1235. I think the original buildings were quite small, and it was expanded on the refoundation. (our Lady == Mary, hence Mary Spital). The article states that ruins were found in 1723, around Norton Folgate. At the dissolution, the hospital was found to contain 180 beds for sick persons & travellers. for locations. The land appears to have been divided after the dissolution, but the need for a hospital remained, and St Bethlem was also a large local mad hospital, originally around Liverpool St station, see [2] for quite a good history.

Spitalfields

I have tried to rescue the article from stubbiness by expanding it a little and providing sub-sections. A lot more work is needed though! I am surprised that such a famous area has such a small amount of space devoted to it in the wikipedia. Colin4C 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Colin, there is a lovely story about Charles II, who appreciating the expense of importing raw silk, decided to plant Mulberry Trees (in the area now Victoria Pk), thinking that it was from these trees that silk was harvested. Not only did he not realise that silk worms created the silk, but they were the wrong mulberry trees - ones that silk worms wouldn't touch.Kbthompson 10:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Doh! Colin4C 11:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, added a nice quote on 1832 conditions, slightly amended things here and there, wikified in a few places. If you disagree, please feel free to do what you'd do anyway. All the best. Kbthompson 11:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Oh - and I amended Irish immigrants -> weavers, they were no more immigrants (at that time) that someone from Lancashire; just reviled because they were Irish. Kbthompson 11:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass on Brick Lane, although the chief protoganist clearly lives in a large multistorey block, and there are more between Whitechapel Rd/East India Dk rd, than up by BL. The highest I know round there are about 5 storey, and then a half mile off the road. I think maybe the factory owner is on, or around Brick Lane.

Satanic Verses however, these are Indians and Pakistanis, and I think the one comment about east london is not very favourable. He's more of a north and west London man, I think there's a doubtful association with the area, but it's been so long, I may be wrong, as I so often am ... (User:hostage2fortune)Kbthompson 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, Oliver Twist? Where in the story does he visit Spitalfields? I might ask for chapter and verse on these literary associations Kbthompson 17:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Got me thinking...Sykes (plus dog) lived in Bethnal Green and one of Fagin's gang's dens was in Whitechapel. I guess Fagin and Oliver might have passed through Spitalfields on the way to see Sykes (plus dog).....Colin4C 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am right:

It was a chill, damp, windy night, when the Jew: buttoning his great-coat tight round his shrivelled body, and pulling the collar up over his ears so as completely to obscure the lower part of his face: emerged from his den. He paused on the step as the door was locked and chained behind him; and having listened while the boys made all secure, and until their retreating footsteps were no longer audible, slunk down the street as quickly as he could.

The house to which Oliver had been conveyed, was in the neighborhood of Whitechapel. The Jew stopped for an instant at the corner of the street; and, glancing suspiciously round, crossed the road, and struck off in the direction of the SPITALFIELDS.

The mud lay thick upon the stones, and a black mist hung over the streets; the rain fell sluggishly down, and everything felt cold and clammy to the touch. It seemed just the night when it befitted such a being as the Jew to be abroad. As he glided stealthily along, creeping beneath the shelter of the walls and doorways, the hideous old man seemed like some loathsome reptile, engendered in the slime and darkness through which he moved: crawling forth, by night, in search of some rich offal for a meal.

He kept on his course, through many winding and narrow ways, until he reached Bethnal Green; then, turning suddenly off to the left, he soon became involved in a maze of the mean and dirty streets which abound in that close and densely-populated quarter.

The Jew was evidently too familiar with the ground he traversed to be at all bewildered, either by the darkness of the night, or the intricacies of the way. He hurried through several alleys and streets, and at length turned into one, lighted only by a single lamp at the farther end. At the door of a house in this street, he knocked; having exchanged a few muttered words with the person who opened it, he walked upstairs.

A dog growled as he touched the handle of a room-door; and a man's voice demanded who was there.

'Only me, Bill; only me, my dear,' said the Jew looking in.

'Bring in your body then,' said Sikes. 'Lie down, you stupid brute! Don't you know the devil when he's got a great-coat on?' Colin4C 21:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, bang to rights. I forgot that sentence ... a bit tenuous, surely? 8^) Kbthompson 00:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the info in the article was not added by me, I hasten to add, but by one of those anonymous number people who flit unaccountably through the wikipedia, for reasons best known to themselves. However it's got me thinking that Bill Sykes lived in the same area as the London Burkers, which is interesting.Colin4C 11:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On third thoughts I think that the mere fact that Fagin presumably walked through Spitalfields from Whitechapel to Bethnal Green, without doing anything at all notable in the area, other than walk through it, is not really a good reason to retain the Oliver Twist reference in the article, therefore, if nobody minds, I will delete it...Colin4C 16:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation of sources

This article has a lot of good information and some very useful external links - but there are very few references to reliable and verifiable sources which are identified and linked to the points being made. Consequently it's difficult to know which are covered by the external sources and which are not.

Verifiability is a basic and core policy of wikipedia. The general unreferenced tag has been added to the article because of the lack of cited sources for specific points. This can be removed as soon as the bulk have been cited.

I also indicated against specific individuals that citation was required to indicate the level of sourcing required. These have been removed. If citations for these individuals are not provided then policy dictates that the reference to the individuals should also be removed. Would you like to revert the deletion - or add the citation - or would you like me to revert their deletion? Cosmopolitancats 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For further reference, please note the official guideline Wikipedia:Citing sourcesand WP:CITE#HOW Cosmopolitancats 11:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for lecture Cosmo. We other wikipedia editors are so naturally dumb, that we need busybodies like you to tell us about wikipedia guidelines. By the way, your otiose notice has ruined the format of this article, leaving a vast blank space at the beginning. Colin4C 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite the right place for the notice, but quite proper to draw attention to the lack of references in order to encourage improvement in the article. Be civil please. Tyrenius 00:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Format

Could people please stop wrecking the format of this article: like leaving a vast blank space at the beginning. If anyone does so again I will revert it. Colin4C 11:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No blank space. Tyrenius 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I have added 3 reference citations. Hopefully that is enough for the professional fault finders who flit through here but contribute nothing themselves and, I guess, know little and care less about Spitalfields Colin4C 13:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If not, I've given another ref to William Taylor's excellent book on modern Spitalfields. Taylor covers the whole 'redevelopment' angle, including a somewhat scathing analysis of the 'New Georgians'. Colin4C 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly remain civil. It is a requirement for material to be verified. You might like to put page numbers in the inline citations. Tyrenius 02:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have you changed my Harvard refs to footnotes? It is perfectly permissable to use the Harvard ref system on the wikipedia. Despite what you say there is no requirement to use footnotes and it is only common courtesy to continue to use the citation method of the first person to use references in an article, not to change them on a personal whim as you seem to have done. See Wikipedia:Citing sources:

How to cite sources Inline citations (references inserted into the text) may use one of the following THREE SYSTEMS [!!!]:

Embedded HTML links 
Harvard referencing 
Footnotes 
FOLLOW THE SYSTEM USED FOR AN ARTICLE'S EXISTING CITATIONS. DO NOT CHANGE FORMATS WITHOUT CHECKING FOR OBJECTIONS ON THE TALK PAGE. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor. 
When sources are mentioned within the body of an article, it is helpful to identify them clearly on first reference. For example, this would mean including the first name and surname, that is, the full name the person usually uses. Even better is to include some information about the person's relevant background, such as, "John Smith, a history professor at Yale University, writes that ..." 
If you are unclear as to which system or style to use, remember: the most important thing is to provide all the information one would need to identify and find the source. If necessary, put this information on the talk page, or in a comment on the main page, and ask others how to format it correctly for that article.

Colin4C 11:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

While I personally favour in-line refs, Col is quite right that the style for verification is quite wide, and essentially a matter of personal choice. I would still prefer Colin's citations to some of the in-line/on-line references I've seen lately. He uses and cites reliable sources, but has a justifiable fear of footnotes (which essentially decouple the reliability of the source from the text). However, I would urge Colin to just know you're right: "leave it, he's not worth it" and get back to doing something useful. NB That is surprisingly civil for Colin and around here we're just WP:Prickly, not WP:NOTCIVIL Kbthompson 11:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am quite willing to discuss the merits or demerits of different ref styles in an amicable style with anyone and may even change my mind if someone buys me enough drinks. All I wish to point out is that it is nowhere stated in the entire wikipedia that footnotes are to be preferred to Harvard refs and that the latter are not permissable. And can't we just talk like rational human beings rather than being 'civil'. (Editor ducks for cover as he awaits a barrage of pompous notices and stern admonitions from the heavy brigade...) Colin4C 12:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (user trapped in a university library 1994-97, with nothing to eat but books, therefore a bit eccentric)

I agree you are right about the referencing, although footnotes is the most widely used system. How about some page numbers? Tyrenius 01:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have now provided page number refs for the Thomas book (which is a comprehensive history of Spitalfields). Colin4C 09:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jet accessories?

what are jet accessories? I'm guessing blown glass jewelery. Fix it so ppl don't have to guess. I googled Jet accessory to no avail, unless the Roman lady was into power tools or jet skis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.89.72 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what are "jet accessories"? Unless someone can come up with something, it should be deleted. Tmangray (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that neither of you two are female or have a girlfriend. 'Jet accessories' denotes jewellery (beads etc) made from Jet (lignite). Nothing to do with fighter planes! Colin4C (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable people associated with Spitalfields

Does John Strype count? I presume he lived on what is now Strype Lane which is East of Petticoat Lane and north of Wentworth Street. I think it would qualify under the opening definition of Spitalfields, but I don't know where today's southern boundary would lie.

To me, the article would be aided if a knowledgeable person could describe what bounds the area under question.

Thank you, (fotoguzzi) 131.252.212.132 (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm very concerned that 'notable residents' addresses are identifiable such as samantha morton 'on the corner of...." etc should these not be removed?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.199.39 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide please!

That's exactly why I came to this page, and exactly what I did NOT find here! Please add - Martha (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. GrindtXX (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Spitalfields Junction

I have just removed this sentence from the lede:

"The heart of Spitalfields is generally considered as Spitalfields Junction, which is busiest on a Sunday due to the local markets."

I have never previously heard of Spitalfields Junction, and I've lived within 200 yards of it for over 25 years. I've googled it, and it appears to be a neologism which exists only on Foursquare. If it's worth mentioning at all, it should be much further down in the article, under Modern Spitalfields. Personally, I don't think it merits even that. GrindtXX (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)