Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Friday (1910)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2018 [1].

---

Black Friday (1910)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the Black Friday of 1910, rather than the modern shopping frenzy. It was a suffragette demonstration in which 300 women marched to the Houses of Parliament where they were met with violence, some of it sexual, by the Metropolitan police and bystanders. This article has been overhauled recently and any further constructive comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary comment: Please check the caption on the Votes for Women cartoon image. "Offing"? More detailed assessment to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops- many thanks Brian! - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

This is a very interesting and high quality article on an important topic. I have the following comments:

• Why did the suffragettes not complain about police brutality?
  • It's not made clear why Pankhurst had the policy of non-reporting, just that it wasn't what they did. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • OK. Presumably it was done to appeal to the conservative side of politics. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• To what extent did the Conciliation Bill offer suffrage? ("introduce a measure of female suffrage" is a bit unclear)
  • The actual conditions are a little cumbersome to include in the lead, so they are in footnote H - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'd suggest moving this up to this sentence though. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I've added that the Bill would have added a million women to the vote, which seems to be a good part to add, without the extensive rules of how to be in that million. I hope that's ok. - SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Why were different police drafted to handle this demonstration?
  • It was never fully explained by the authorities. I've added a line that says no-one knows, but probably an administrative decision. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Why did the attacks continue for six hours? Were the suffragettes continuing their protest, or had they been trapped? (or both?)
  • I'll check on this point (I don't remember seeing an explanation, but that may have been me) - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've found nothing in the literature that explains the length of time they kept up the attacks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    • OK. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• "there would be facilities for a Conciliation Bill to be put to parliament." - is 'facilities' the right word here? (given that the problem was a lack of dedicated parliamentary time)
  • I'll check on this - I think it was the language they used at the time, but no problems in re-drafting it to avoid antiquated language. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Tweaked. (It was Asquith who used the term, but I think it probably confuses things here). - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Have there been any commemorations of this event? Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not that I know of, but I'll search specifically for this and report back. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Only one vigil on the night of the 100th anniversary - now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nick. There are a couple of things for me to check on, and I should have that done shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Nick-D: all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed, but please see the suggestion above. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Nick. I've added something to address your point, which covers most parts, but without excessive detail. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from SN54129

• Nice article, as always expected. The immediate thing that jumps out is the duplicate image, in the lead and the reaction section—any particular strategy with this? You've got plenty of good images already (and possibly, where they came from?); I think the one that's bordered by the newspaper headline would look good up here?
  • Yep: newspaper cover moved up to the top. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Couple of other things; " The conciliation committee were"—I immediately think, obviously, collective noun = "was" (as opposed to "members of the committee were..."). Does this depend on it being the committee itself or its members though. Also, I can see some (extraneous?) commas which seem to break up the flow of the sentence unnecessarily ("The rising levels of violence by the police, was not raised or complained about", "Asquith called a general election, and said that parliament") Ironically I also note a couple of places where I thought a comma would fit better :) but perhaps its style rather than necessity. Bloody interesting piece though.Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • BrEng commonly treats collective nouns as plural (and grammatically neither is considered 'better' than the other), so I think its OK here. I'll have another look over the commas. It's been through a bit of a heavy trim just pre-FAC, so there possibly are some errors that I'll look into once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Always a moment of supreme enjoyment...having my lingua franca explained to me :p  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I knew as soon as I posted it that it looked a bit stuffy! - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Notwithstanding stuffiness, I'd just like to emphasise my support for this article's promotion. I understand the concerns expressed below, but I do not see the sources used as being particularly egregious, lightweight or outdated; as long as the coverage is sufficiently broad and in-depth, there is no requirement to give every source equal weight. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks SN54129 - your thoughts are very welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I'm reading carefully, this being my first detailed look at the revised and improved text. Here are a few comments on the lead and first few sections:

Lead:

• Metropolitan police → Metropolitan Police
• "well-supported" - delete hyphen
• "Asquith refused to grant further parliamentary time for it to be discussed." Suggest: "Asquith refused to grant it further parliamentary time."
• "Asquith called a general election" – for clarity, I'd insert "another" before "general".
• "The demonstrations led to a change in tactics by the WSPU, because many of their members were unwilling to expose themselves to similar violence again; the organisation moved further towards direct action, such as stone throwing and window breaking, which gave the women a chance to escape before encountering the police." I'm not sure that "change in tactics" is the right wording. It was more a resumption and extension of the militant tactics pursued before the truce – as evidenced in your own later text in paras 3 and 4 of the "Women's Social and Political Union" section. I'm also unsure about "which gave the women a chance to escape..." etc, which motivation isn't mentioned in your text and ought to be referenced somewhere.
  • Added in the body, under the existing reference - it should have been mentioned there in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• The main text mentions a change of tactics on the part of the police, which is not mentioned in the lead.

Women's Social and Political Union

• The blockquote seems a little on the long side (170 words), going beyond the function of emphasising the text. You might consider a trim.
• You describe Herbert Gladstone as "the Liberal Home Secretary". You don't add a party label to Asquith when you describe him earlier in the section as the Prime Minister - probably just "the Home Secretary" would suffice.

Political situation

• Give date of the January 1910 general election, as you do in the lead
• A hung parliament eliminates, rather than reduces, a government's majority (as Mrs May learned to her discomfort last year).
• "Asquith took power" – retained power, I think, as he was already in office
• "they accepted it was an important step and called a truce in militant actions in support". A bit clumsily worded, I think. Suggest "as an important step", followed by a comma, and replace "actions in support" with "activity".
• For the benefit of those unversed in British parliamentary procedures, it might be useful to add the words "and it would therefore fail" after "but no further parliamentary time would be allocated to it".
• "Grey" not mentioned previously in the text, only in a footnote, so should be properly introduced.

More to come soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian: these are now all covered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

18 November

• "On 18 November 1910 Asquith called a general election..." Although the reasons for this don't impinge on your topic, a few words of explanation would be helpful, e.g. "On 18 November 1910, in an attempt to resolve the parliamentary impasse arising from the House of Lords veto on Commons legislation, Asquith called a general election. He said that..." etc. – or you may devise a briefer insertion.
• "the first groups of men..." – who were these "men"? Were they just bystanders? Calling them "the first groups" makes it sound as though they were organised. Perhaps delete the words "the first"?
• Six hours is a mighty long time. What were the demonstrators actually doing all this time, apart from being beaten up? Was it a passive demonstration, or did they make attempts to enter the parliament buildings? I think a little fleshing out of detail would help to form a better picture of what was going on.
  • There is very detail about what happened, aside from the reports from the women about their individual treatment. I've clarified that they were trying to get into parliament fr that time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not an expert on wheelchair mechanics, so I'm a little bemused by the policeman who "stole the valves from the wheels". What can this mean? Do wheels have stealable valves?
  • I suspect it's rather like bike tyres (or at least bike tyres from a century ago!) I've added a link - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Reaction

• On 19 November 1910, newspapers reported on the events." I would add: "of the previous day".
• "an attempt was made by the police to suppress publication" – "the police" is rather too general here. Perhaps "the police authorities"? Also in the following sentence, "he" and "they" require clearer definition.
• "When members of the Conciliation committee..." earlier "conciliation committee"
• "they demanded a public inquiry, which was rejected." Who rejected it?

Assessment

• "Emmeline blamed the maltreatment Clarke received at the two November demonstrations" – I'd insert "her death on" after "blamed"

Primarily these are small points I would have suggested at the peer review, had I got there. The only significant issue, I believe, is the "six hours" matter that I raise above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian; all covered per your suggestions. Thanks for your thoughts, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: My specific points have been adequately answered. I believe that, overall, the article has benefitted from the searching analysis it has received at this FAC, and as it stands meets the FAC criteria. If new sources are found that provide significant fresh details or interpretation, the text can be adjusted as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Brian, for all your suggestions and advice here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, those that are not should not

I thought these were OK? Can you point out the ones that are not? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:The_Daily_Mirror,_19_November_1910,_front_page_(cleaned).png: UK tag requires that you outline in the image description steps taken to try to ascertain authorship.

Photographer identified (inc date of death); tag changed - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Same with File:A_policeman_tries_to_seize_a_banner_from_a_suffragette_on_Black_Friday.jpg.

Explanation added - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Same with File:Elizabeth_Garrett_Anderson;_Emmeline_Pankhurst.jpg, which also needs a US PD tag and the source link of which appears to go to a different image

Explanation and tag added; link re-directed to correct image - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Suffragette_Banner_-_Museum_of_London.jpg: who is the author on which the life+70 tag is based?

Tag changed. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Same with File:Suffragettes,_Daily_Graphic,_14_February_1907.jpg

Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Votes_for_Women_-_1909_front_page.png

Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Pankhurst_at_the_Black_Friday_demonstration.jpg.

Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Technically same also with File:Flier_for_a_suffragette_demonstration.jpg, but that one I would argue is too simple for copyright protection

It probably is - the type is unexceptional and layout simplistic, but I've swapped the tags anyway, just for safety's sake. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Arrest_of_a_suffragette_on_Black_Friday1910-11-18_(22163159204).jpg: per the Flickr Commons tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Explanation added - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Nikkimaria: all the tags etc sorted (hopefully!), but if you answer the question on your first point I'd be much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

A very worthy topic.

• "a truce in militant actions" is a rather curious turn of phrase. There's "truce in militant activity" further down, too.
• I feel the final paragraph of "18 November" could have more details about what actually happened on the day; is that basically all of what is known? Did the police not tell a story about what had happened? You mention lots of journalists being present; did this not tell of more details? I see now that more is discussed in the sections following!
  • Aside from the stories of the individuals involved, there is very little information aside from 'the two sides struggled'. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• "the image may be that of either Ernestine Mills[59] or Ada Wright.[60][61]" Presumably you mean that the person displayed was either Mills or Wright, not that one of the two of them took the picture?
• "The committee's secretary, the journalist Henry Brailsford, and" Was Brailsford the secretary? If so, dashes might help!
• "she had witness against others" Witnessed?
• In one place, you refer to "stone throwing and window breaking" and in another to "stone throwing and window-breaking". I'd have thought it should be "stone-throwing and window-breaking".
• "The historian Elizabeth Crawford considers the events of Black Friday "was to fix the image of the relations" This is grammatically a little odd.
• "Sir Edward Troup" but " Sir Edward Grey" (twice)
• The lead feels very long for what is actually a relatively short article.

Hope that's useful. This reads very well. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Josh! Your suggestions taken on board here; please let me know if this is what you had in mind, or if there is anything else you think should be addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV

Lead image

Hi SchroCat, I see you've removed the higher quality image from the lead again. I think it should be restored to either File:Black Friday, London, 18 November 1910, suffragette attacked.jpg or File:Black Friday, attacked suffragette on the ground.jpg (the lead image since 2015). Swapping it for the Mirror front page means the quality of the image is reduced considerably, and the article isn't about the news coverage. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Although the article isn't about the news coverage, it was an important part of driving public opinion (both toward and away from the demonstrators), so I think we do need the front page in there somewhere. At the resolution the images are shown in the article, the difference between them is negligible, and I think the impact is greater showing it as, very literally, front page news. (It was also you who suggested it ;-) ) Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the Mirror front page being the lead in principle; it's the quality that's the problem. Is there any way to download a higher quality version of the Mirror image? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've put in a higher quality version, but it contains a stamp on the front that appears in all the historic copies of The Mirror from their archive. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The image reminds me of File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg: Ian Tomlinson and several police officers just after one of them (not in picture) pushed him over. We use that in the lead of Death of Ian Tomlinson, but not as it appeared on the front page of The Guardian.

Despite this being a women's protest, the image shows only two women: one on the ground and one (possibly) in the background. It shows around 17 men, at least six of whom are police officers. That tells a story: for example, that the men dragged her away from the other women. We lose that detail by using the Mirror image. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're losing Sarah: it's the same image, just with the additional impact of having The Mirror masthead above it. It's the same story being told in the two identical images. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

We lose the detail, as I said above. The Mirror images are just a mass of black. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be reading way too much into it "for example, that the men dragged her away from the other women"? There is nothing to back that up at all. What the Mirror version does is to reflect the reliable sources of it being a highly publicised front page matter. We have a whole section dedicated to the reaction, much of which is about the media. If you remember, there was a previous image of an old woman being tussled with by a policeman, which could also be happily put back in. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As I recall, she has written about it. What did she say happened? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The little old lady? I don't think she's ever been identified. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The woman in the lead image. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So, I'll go back to the suggestion of a large policeman wrestling with a little old lady. You seem to have missed that suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking about the woman in the lead image; the woman in the image in this section. She wrote or talked about the experience. You can take what happened directly from her. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, you seem to be talking past me on this. I've suggested an alternative image to get past this, as there is minimal difference between the two images, except for the additional impact of the newspaper headline. As to what someone has said, the reliable sources do not even agree on the identity of the woman in the photo. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I'm discussing: The Mirror (as I recall) identified the woman on the ground as Ada Wright. She identified herself as Ada Wright and wrote or discussed what happened to her. Every RS I have read about this (as I recall) names her as Ada Wright. Her name and statement should be in the article. Given how that image became a symbol of Black Friday, it should be the lead image, as it was from 2015 until you changed it recently. Of the various versions of that image, we should use the highest quality so that we can see the detail.

As for the National Archive saying it was Ernestine Mills, are they alone in that, or do any of the primary sources or reliable secondary sources say the same? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the Mirror do not identify her as Wright. I am not happy about dismissing the National Archives version, as they are fairly good at what they do (although I have not seen HO144/1106/200455, the document from the Home Office where the identification as Mills is made). I don't agree that the "detailed" version is better (as far as I can see, amorphous shapes are all facing perpendicular to the woman and may have nothing to do with her specific situation), and it loses the impact of showing it as front page news. I do not wish to continue this discussion: you are talking past me much of the time, and I am prepared for other reviewers to chip in to make comments as they see fit. Hopefully a consensus will develop out of the other attendees at this FAC, particularly as it was your suggestion to use this particular image in the first place! - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Where does the National Archive say anything about the Home Office? They say only "Possibly Mrs Ernestine Mills prone and Dr Herbert Mills in top hat". [2] Given that they don't even mention Ada Wright, that could be a simple mistake. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

[3] It could be a mistake, but as this very reliable source refers to Mills in more than one location, it seems an odd mistake to make. Either way, I'm happy for others to chip in to get some consensus from third parties. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've tracked down the source (the citation, not the book itself) for Ada Wright's statement. She was interviewed by Antonia Raeburn for her book The Militant Suffragettes, London: New English Library, 1973, pp. 170–171. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen this, so I should make clear that I'm assuming she interviewed Wright directly. I believe that she did interview suffragettes for the book, and that Wright's statement that she was the woman on the ground is in the book. I'm inferring from that that Raeburn spoke to Wright. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Now I see that the Raeburn book with Ada Wright's statement is quoted by Caroline Morrell, a source you've cited a lot, so you would already have known about it. (I wish you had said; it would have saved me time.) SarahSV ^(talk) 23:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have not had time to check. Most of my limited Wiki time this evening has been spent emailing you documents or discussing the lead image here, even though you seem not to be taking on board some of the things I'm saying. Try and work with me, rather than against me please. I'm off to bed, having been going round in circles here and not actually achieving anything. - SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• It matters very, very little when making the decision about the lead image, and whether or not Wright thought that image was of her or not. Again, I am happy to let others chip in with their thoughts on the selection. - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It matters for two reasons not related to which image is in the lead: (1) we should name the woman in this famous image, assuming it has been established; and (2) her statement describing what happened to her belongs in the article.

Re: the lead image. For background, the higher quality image was added to the article in January 2015. You added a rewrite in one edit on 18 April 2018, which removed the image and added the Mirror one to the "Reaction" section. I restored the higher quality image on 20 April and placed it in the lead. You removed it again on 31 May and moved up the Mirror image instead. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Im always wary of people attaching their names to a famous image or event some time after it occurred. Either way, the reliable sources show two names and we should reflect that. I would not be happy to see something like the National Archives ignored on an interview of someone claiming that it's them.

I am very aware of the history of the use of the image in this article, but I'm at a loss as to why it matters. A consensus of reviewers here will suffice. -SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: your point about being "wary of people attaching their names to a famous image or event some time after it occurred", Sylvia Pankhurst names the woman as Ada Wright in The Suffragette Movement (1931), which you use as a source, and says she saw her. Describing Black Friday, she writes (p. 343):

I saw Ada Wright knocked down a dozen times in succession. A tall man with a silk hat fought to protect her as she lay on the ground, but a group of policemen thrust him away, seized her again, hurled her into the crowd and felled her again as she turned. Later I saw her lying against the wall of the House of Lords, with a group of anxious women kneeling around her.

SarahSV ^(talk) 05:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Which of these six times is the photograph of, do we know? On the assumption that's what it's of, of course. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, sorry, I don't understand the question. Pankhurst says that she witnessed the attack on Wright. The implication is that she saw the tall man in the silk hat try to help. That's the man in the photograph. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

At present, the text reads: "the image may be of either Ernestine Mills or Ada Wright." The weight of evidence in the sources clearly points to Wright rather than Mills, so at the very least I'd be inclined to reverse the name order, and perhaps prioritise Wright's claim a little more emphatically, e.g. "the image is likely that of Ada Wright,<references> or possibly Ernestine Mills.<ref>" Perhaps add a short footnote explaining that Wright identified herself in a 1973 interview? Brianboulton (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We can certainly do the first half of your suggestion, but the second half (as it stands) is a problem: Wright died in 1939, and the details of when the interview was, or who it was to, remains a mystery. We can fudge something to say that she claimed it, but without too much additional information. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It might not remain a mystery if we had the chance to do the research, but this article was rushed from a sandbox rewrite (with no notification to page watchers that it was taking place) straight to peer review, and presumably it would have been straight to FAC had I not raised objections on talk. There are other problems with the article, but anyone wanting to review it seriously needs time to send off for the sources, and some will take weeks to arrive. I don't understand why this had to be rushed to FAC over an objection.

I added a selection of the sources identifying the woman as Wright to Ernestine Mills, but you've removed them to a footnote and edit-warred to keep them there. Here is the section as I wrote it (I would normally not even mention the photograph in that article until I knew more; I wrote that section only as a compromise). Please see the discussion at Talk:Ernestine Mills. Georgiana Solomon identified her as Wright in a letter to Churchill in December 1910. Sylvia Pankhurst identified her as Wright. That is significant because the National Archives description page is claiming that the man in the silk hat might be Mills's husband, Dr. Herbert Mills. But Herbert Mills was the Pankhurst family doctor. Sylvia would surely have recognized him had he been the man in the photograph, or he would at least have mentioned it to her.

I've emailed the National Archives to ask why someone has added to their catalogue description of the image that it is "possibly" Mills (because that page appears to be the only source that says this), so we have to wait for their reply. Again, all this should be sorted out on the talk page, not during an FAC.

I object to the removal of the high-quality image from the lead. We see detail in it that you can't see as clearly or at all with the image as it appeared in the Mirror, including detail that sources discuss (e.g. the smiling boy); also that the policeman appears to have removed just one glove, which may suggest that he had hit her with it, and that the crowd around her is almost entirely men, which is significant. Someone appears to have dragged her away from the other women. You don't see that in the Mirror image. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

1. No notes are needed to page watchers (not that anyone can identify them) as they are notified by the opening of the PR/FAC by the addition of the templates to the talk page.

2. This article – in approximately this form – since mid-April. How long do you suggest we wait for you before doing anything?

3. (Re: edit warring on the Mills article: You Boldly added sources, I moved them, you reverted: you are equally culpable of edit warring on that article as I am. As I pointed out on the talk page, discussions abut the potential identification in an image belong in a footnote, not in the main text.

4. The specific identity of the person in the image is of minor academic interest compared to the remainder of the article, and there is no reason why this process should be held up for you to undertake Original Research.

5. Regardless of that, I have included (in footnote M) several of the sources that identify Wright. I have not included the synthesis of Pankhurst "surely" recognising Dr Mills.

6. I have already said that I am happy to keep the decision of the image to other reviewers, rather than the opinion of one person over another. Personally I think you are reading an awful lot into the static image (Someone appears to have dragged her away? Really?) and none of what you suggest is backed up by the sources. I also think the fact it was front page news in one of Britain's widest circulating daily newspapers gives it much more impact than minor details when seen at 300px wide on the page. Either way, let other reviewers chip in with their thoughts and suggestions, and let's not forget, despite your objection, it was you who originally suggested it. – SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You added a sandbox rewrite in one edit on 18 April 2018 (with the edit summary "a ttweak or two..."), and later asked that the sandbox be deleted. That means page watchers knew nothing about it until it was done.

You took it to peer review the next day, then presumably intended to take it straight to FAC. I objected on Talk:Black Friday (1910), for several reasons, including because you had copied a paragraph word-for-word from text Brian wrote at another article (diff). You responded that you would not edit the article again.

On 28 May you said you had changed your mind and would be nominating it for FAC shortly. You asked me to make any further comments immediately. I told you I didn't have time and wouldn't be able to support it (discussion). Had I known about the rewrite when you started it, as is the case with most editing on Wikipedia, I'd have had time to order the sources. But instead everything is done in a rush, so the only people able to review it are people without access to sources. That's a big problem.

As for the image, it has been in the article since 2015. You removed it during the rewrite, and when I saw that, I restored it. So it seems to me that you need consensus to remove it, not the other way round. It doesn't make sense that the high-quality image is in Ernestine Mills and Ada Wright (one of whom had nothing to do with this), but in the article about the event itself we have an inkblot. Regarding your claim that the woman's name is "of minor academic interest", I strongly disagree that the identity of the woman being attacked doesn't matter. The point is that it's an UNDUE violation to pretend that the sources disagree. One source (anonymously written and citing no source) says it was "possibly" Mills. All other sources say it was Wright. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I really have no idea how you think me adding a PR and FAC template onto the talk page isn't going to alert page watchers, but never mind.

Thank you for potted history: it means sweet fanny Adams (particularly to me, as I know what steps I took and when), but the main point is that it is here for those who wish to review this in good faith are free to do so.

It's not true to say only those with access to sources can review this, and I've lost count of the number I have sent though to you, when you have requested them directly or through the resource exchange.

I have had to ask you before to work play nice, and work with me, not against me. If you could do that, life would be much more constructive for everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The "sandbox-to-FA pipeline" bypasses the normal collaborative process. Reviewers are probably not familiar with the issues, and no one has had time to access the sources (I mean books, not newspaper articles). If the article is promoted, it becomes even harder to change anything. The PR and FAC templates alert page watchers when it's too late. Please take that point. There's no point in having your work reviewed exclusively by people who don't have the sources in front of them. Yet that is what this speed causes. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry it doesn't fall into the way you do things, but it is not uncommon, and I have never heard anyone complain about it before. I will certainly not change the way I do things on the basis of one comment. As I have already pointed out, I have emailed though a large number of sources to you (more than anyone has ever asked before) and I have done so because I want the articles I work on to be the best they can be. I disagree that this method by-passes a collaborative process: both PR and FAC are collaborative processes and those who wish to review this in good faith are free to do so. – SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the question of the lead image and the related text re Wright/Mills. I think the present adjusted text and footnote is acceptable, unless incontrovertible evidence emerges that either confirms Wright absolutely or rejects Mills entirely, at which point further adjustments can be made. As to the choice of image, I'm always inclined to go for the best quality available, but I can see the force of the argument for including the DM masthead even if the image is inferior. Is it possible, I wonder, to create a fresh image by combining the better quality photograph with the masthead? Is it legal? If so, I doubt that it's beyond the skills of our techies to create it, which could provide a pleasing solution. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• It would look something like this, although I wasn't sure what you all considered the best image. Even so, you get the...picture  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose from SarahSV

Oppose mainly per 1b and 1c. Also 1e, 2a, 2b and 4. I apologize for how long this has taken, but I was waiting for sources. I still don't have everything, so this will have to do. In any event, I hope the following is helpful. Please post any replies after my post rather than inside it.

Summary: The article is not well-organized. It isn't comprehensive; there is too much missing to list. The key issue about Churchill and the arrests is barely examined; most of what he said about this is missing. The issue isn't mentioned in the lead. The primary and secondary sources on Churchill are not explored. That he apparently contradicted himself is not mentioned. The article includes that he threatened to sue Christabel Pankhurst for libel (and The Times, which is not mentioned), but doesn't tell us what she said. We hear very little from the women who were attacked. Those who are quoted aren't named; some of the names are known. There's only a passing mention of the Battle of Downing Street and its aftermath a few days later, but the events are closely connected; the WSPU wanted a public inquiry into all the events of 18, 22 and 23 November. There is no historiography section. The article uses some secondary sources outside the academic literature, but it's not clear why. The primary sources are underused or not used at all; the Brailsford–Murray report is surprisingly underused. The article should rely on the most authoritative source (primary or peer-reviewed secondary) for each point. It doesn't do that.

To follow are examples of the problems; more major issues at the top:

1. Organization: It needs shorter sections and descriptive headings so that the reader can navigate their way through it. The background section is far too long and contains a lot of irrelevant material. Several paragraphs throughout the article are too long. The article is around 3,700 words, including the lead. Of that, around 1,150 are background. The day itself is under 600; of that only around 230 are on the key events. (These figures are from copy-pasting and include captions, etc.) The background needs to be reduced. The day itself, and particularly the key events, increased. More witness statements from the women. More from Brailsford–Murray in its own section. More about Churchill in its own section. Not clear what the Assessment section is.
2. Churchill: A key issue is whether Churchill ordered that there should be few arrests and understood the implications of that. One problem is that the article doesn't explain that the WSPU wanted arrests and why, so there's no context. The issue needs its own section, and the primary and secondary literature should be mined, including the Churchill literature. The issue is not mentioned in the lead (which violates WP:LEAD). There is one short paragraph about it in the Reaction section (from "The WSPU leadership were convinced "). That Churchill may have contradicted himself is not mentioned. We're not told what Christabel Pankhurst said to trigger talk of a lawsuit, and The Times, which published it, isn't cited or mentioned. It doesn't mention Churchill's general dislike of the suffragettes and women generally; e.g. "Nothing would induce me to vote for giving women the franchise. I am not going to be henpecked into a question of such importance" (in Sylvia Pankhurst, The Suffragette Movement).
   When I objected to the heavy reliance on Rosen 1974, the source was replaced without the text changing (or barely), apart from the article's conclusion about Churchill and the violence. It said: "Rosen considers that Churchill had not given any orders to the police to manhandle the demonstrators." On 11 June this became: "June Purvis, in her biography of Emmeline Pankhurst states that the police were acting under directions from Churchill to refrain from making arrests."
   But all points of view need to be explored. Tell us who said what, and what the scholarly consensus is on whether he gave the police instructions. The Churchill statements I'm aware of (arguably inconsistent):
   On 22 November he wrote to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner: "I am hearing from every quarter that my strongly expressed wishes conveyed to you on Wed evening & repeated on Fri morning that the suffragettes were not to be allowed to exhaust themselves, but were to be arrested forthwith upon any defiance of the law, were not observed by the police on Friday last, with the result that very regrettable scenes occurred" (Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill, vol 2, part 3, p. 1457, cited in several sources; I haven't seen this myself).
   He made a statement on 1 March 1911 about the Brailsford–Murray report (part of that statement is in the article), and again on 8 March. On 10 March, he said "No fresh instructions, verbal or written, were issued to the police on or before 18th November." He also discussed how "the women work themselves into a high state of hysteria, expose themselves to rough horseplay at the hands of an unsympathetic crowd, and finally collapse from the exhaustion of their own exertions." He said he had intended that the police should "have these women removed from the scene of disorder as soon as was lawfully possible", but "[t]he directions which I gave were not fully understood or carried out on the 18th of November." Also, "no one is responsible but the disorderly women themselves" for the "disagreeable scenes"; he called the WSPU a "copious fountain of mendacity". But then on 11 March, he said: "No orders, verbal or written, emanating directly or indirectly from me were given to the police".
3. Brailsford–Murray and witness statements: Very little use is made of this key primary source, which needs its own section. The article should include what the report said about the police, as well as more witness statements. The short citation, "Conciliation Committee for Woman Suffrage 1911", is sometimes cited alone and sometimes as "quoted in", and quoted in different secondary sources, some of which have been swapped for others. Does that mean the full report hasn't been seen? If it has, it's better to cite it directly and use more of it. Brailsford is described as a journalist and secretary of the conciliation committee; more needs to be said about him. (Minor writing issue: where it says "The memorandum summarised their finding", it isn't clear what is meant. The article later says "the memorandum prepared by Murray and Brailsford". Also, in the long citation, the committee shouldn't be named as both author and publisher.)
   The failure to include women's voices is a major issue in suffragette historiography, and this article includes very little from the women who were attacked. Several names are known but aren't in the article. One woman is quoted but not named ("I can grip you wherever I like to-day"). Several women talked about being dragged out of the crowd and pulled down side streets. There is a large blockquote from Sylvia Pankhurst, but it's about another event; the only other blockquote is from Churchill. More eyewitness accounts should be included in the 18 November section (which should be split into subsections), and in a new Brailsford section.
4. Conciliation Bill: This is not clear. When did the truce (the "pause in militant activity") begin? What was the conciliation committee (say something about who was on it). Why was it called a "conciliation" bill? What did it propose? What is a first and second reading? The lead mentions interviews by the conciliation committee without saying what it was. Note that Churchill voted against the Bill. "They further decided that if no additional parliamentary time was given over to the Conciliation Bill, Christabel Pankhurst would lead a delegation to Parliament." When did the WSPU decide this? Say something about the meetings they were holding during this period.
5. Sources in general: The article should use the most authoritative primary and scholarly sources for each point. The aim is to present as accurate an account as we can, but the article seems to present material simply because secondary sources have done so, even when it makes little sense.
   The primary sources are not used when they ought to be. For example (these are only examples), why not use Brailsford–Murray for "29 of the statements also included details of ... indecency", and Emmeline Pankhurst for her belief about her sister's death? Although the newspapers of the period have to be used with caution, a few more original reports from The Times would be appropriate. It's cited only three times (an article and a letter).
   Morrell 1981 (based on her BA thesis) seems to have been followed very closely in places. It's appropriate to use her for Black Friday, but she's used for other issues too. The article relies on sources outside the academic secondary literature, but there's no reason to; it would be better to stick to academic historians. Lucinda Hawksley, a travel writer, was added as a source during the FAC when Rosen was removed. (I've glanced at the book and it does look interesting; sometimes she cites sources, but often not.) The article ends by quoting Crawford, describing her as an historian, but Crawford describes herself as an independent researcher and bookseller. Why use a 1953 History Today article? The ODNB (a tertiary source) is not the best source for this. The addition and repeated restoration of Bearman during the FAC was troubling, especially when he was removed a few days later anyway.
6. Historiography: There is no historiography section. The article should explain what the key primary sources are. There is no attempt to offer a contextualized history. What effect did the scenes of sexual assault have on women? Gillian Thomas writes (A Position to Command Respect: Women and the Eleventh Britannica): "What Black Friday and scores of less notable demonstrations, showed to educated women ... was that neither class nor education could protect the woman who ventured into the public domain." This change in women's consciousness about male attitudes toward them should be explored.
   The article should do more to examine how the narrative changed once the primary and early secondary sources were revised. For example, Rosen 1974 wrote of the sexual violence:

   [T]he great majority of the women who took part in militant demonstrations were in their twenties and thirties. By attempting to rush through or past police lines, these women were bringing themselves repeatedly into abrupt physical contact with the police. That the police found in the youthful femininity of many of their assailants an invitation to licence, does not seem, all in all, completely surprising.

   We should discuss on talk whether to include comments like that, depending on secondary sources, in a section about the attitudes of the early sources. The newspapers made light of these attacks, and the early secondary literature reflected those attitudes. Some of this is explored in the article but not much. The article (not counting sources) doesn't contain the words feminist, feminism, sexist, sexism, misogynist, misogyny, masculinist, or gender. (This isn't about Black Friday, but it's worth reading June Purvis's paper, "Gendering the Historiography of the Suffragette Movement in Edwardian Britain: some reflections".)
7. Lead: The biggest issue is not mentioning the Churchill allegation. It should explain or link "women's suffrage". Explain "a measure of women's suffrage in national elections". What is "a cross-party conciliation committee"? If first and second readings would be too much to explain in the lead, does it need to be there? Re: "the suffrage movement supported the legislation": in public, but the WSPU didn't like it, so that sentence should be rewritten a little. Re: "Lines of police and crowds of male bystanders met three hundred female protestors outside the Houses of Parliament; the women were attacked for the next six hours." That makes no sense if the lead doesn't explain about Churchill and the lack of arrests. For six hours, the government and police allowed the area around the House of Commons to be in chaos for no reason?
   Re: the sexual assault: "Many women complained about the sexual nature of the assaults ..."; it would be better to leave it there. The issue with the damage to breasts was that women believed such damage caused breast cancer (that's according to a couple of sources; it needs to be checked.) If it can be well-sourced, it should be explained in the article, but in the absence of that explanation in the lead, the mention of it is jarring. Re: "Police arrested 4 men and 115 women, although the following day all charges were dropped": not explained. No mention of the events following Black Friday; the calls for a public inquiry referred to all the events, not only Black Friday. "The violence may have caused the subsequent deaths of two suffragettes." It was three deaths, not two, and the sentence needs in-text attribution ("in the view of the WSPU" or similar).
8. Lead image. The woman is Ada Wright, according to the primary and scholarly literature. The mention of Ernestine Mills should be removed from the footnote. The suffragettes, Wright herself, and scholarly sources say the woman was Ada Wright. That it might be Ernestine Mills was added to this article because one webpage on the National Archives site suggested that name—in square brackets, unsourced—as a possibility. Several people contacted the National Archives about this; they've already edited the entry and I hope will soon remove it. But that page was never an RS for the name. The words in square brackets are not part of the source material that the catalogue description is based on.
   Re: "the police authorities made an attempt to suppress publication". The Mirror discusses, the day after Black Friday, their contact with police; that should be cited. Kelly is cited alongside Hiley, but Hiley is her source. Hiley doesn't cite a source, so he's not a good source for this. And he doesn't say, as the article does, "When they found out that the paper had nearly completed its run, they tried to purchase all 750,000 copies." He says that the newspaper sold 750,000 the next day, and that the police first tried to stop publication, then buy up early copies. I wouldn't include this unless I could find a good primary source.
9. Constance Lytton: She is mentioned twice as though she's different people. In the "Women's Social and Political Union" section: "Constance Lytton wrote that 'the word went round that we were to conceal as best we might, our various injuries.'" In the "Political situation" section: "a cross-party conciliation committee of pro-women's suffrage MPs was formed under the chairmanship of Lord Lytton, the brother of the suffragette Lady Constance Bulwer-Lytton." Re: the quote from her: "It was no part of our policy to get the police into trouble." The sentence cites Morrell, but Morrell's explanation isn't included. Without that, it raises the question why not. But if it's explained, it becomes even longer. Not clear why it's included; it's not about Black Friday.
10. Quoting: There's some quoting of ordinary words instead of summarizing: van Wingerden, "the differing accounts of the event of that day"; Smith, "it appeared to witnesses as well as the victims that the police had intentionally attempted"; and Morrell, "almost unanimously refrained from any mention of police brutality". Re: Purvis, "cast to the ground" and "treated with exceptional brutality by burly policeman", it seems pointless to have Purvis repeat this in quotes at the end of the Reaction section when she's summarizing the Brailsford report. There is too much quoting of Sylvia Pankhurst. A blockquote in Background, two quotes at the start of the next paragraph, another at the end of the same paragraph, another in the second paragraph of 18 November, again in the third paragraph of 18 November (there it is justified).
11. Deaths: "Mary Clarke, Emmeline Pankhurst's younger sister, was present at ... Black Friday ...". Was she? Sylvia Pankhurst indicated otherwise; Morrell does too. Emmeline Pankhurst said Clarke was present, so why not cite her directly rather than via Atkinson? But any doubt needs to be included. There's no mention of Ellen Pitfield, whose death Sylvia Pankhurst appeared to blame on Black Friday. These claims may be tenuous, but Pitfield's death no more so than the others (attributed to the WSPU or Sylvia Pankhurst).
12. Assessment section: It isn't clear what this is meant to be. It repeats some of the Brailsford report (the deaths) in the first paragraph. The second paragraph describes the immediate impact on the WSPU. What was the long-term effect of Black Friday?
13. Hume, p. 71: "it was kept to a relatively small number to make the bill as acceptable as possible to Conservative MPs". The article should include Liberal and Labour concerns too, as Hume and others do.
14. There is no need for two images of Emmeline Pankhurst and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson.
15. Punctuation. Re: "According to the historian Caroline Morrell, from 1905 'The basic pattern ...'". As discussed elsewhere, punctuation, preferably a colon, is needed after "from 1905" in this and similar examples.
16. There's a formatting issue on mobile in the Notes section caused by the indents at note h (the numbers). It's producing a lot of white space on mobile.

Again, please add any responses below. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah well, an FAC over three times longer than the article...

1. Organization: People have different ways of splitting articles and there are no set rules. Your opinion on sectioning appears to be different to mine. I'm relatively happy with the sections as they are, but will consider some of your suggestions.

"shorter sections and descriptive headings": I disagree – what we have is descriptive enough and the sections break at logical places.

"background section is far too long and contains a lot of irrelevant material" and "The background needs to be reduced": I disagree – as I've explained elsewhere on the page – the information is in line with WP:FACR 1b ("it ... places the subject in context") Without that context, readers will be confused at why certain things happened.

"The day itself, and particularly the key events, increased": Details of the "key events" are extremely limited and we include them all. Outside the women's reports of what happened to them specifically, what other "key events" do you see as being missing? I have suggested elsewhere on this page to move many of the Murray/Brailsford quotes into this section, which would beef it up (a suggestion that went unanswered), but it seems like you want to have them in their own section, which would be too stubby.

"More witness statements from the women": How many? I agree we could include more, but as this is an encyclopaedia article – a summary of events rather than a full book, and I'm wary of turning this int a quote farm. Do you have a feeling of how many more quotes or words should be added? (The ones chosen so far are representative of others in M/B, which means we will probably be doubling or tripling up in terms of type of report)

"More from Brailsford–Murray in its own section": I'll mull over B/M in its own section. It sits well within the Reaction section at present, but that's not to say it wouldn't work separately. Now split off

"Several paragraphs throughout the article are too long". I don't necessarily agree, but please provide examples.

2. Churchill
3. Brailsford–Murray and witness statements:

"needs its own section" As I've already said above, I don't necessarily agree, but I'll mull it over Striking the duplicate point

"Does that mean the full report hasn't been seen?" Yes it has.

As it's a primary source we have to be careful how we use it, and I think its use here is safely within the WP:PRIMARY policy

"Several women talked about being dragged out of the crowd and pulled down side streets": so do we.

"18 November section ... split into subsections" No need.

"One woman is quoted but not named": that's because the report and all other sources give her name as "Elizabeth Freeman", for which we have no article (and I don't normally add in names is they are unlinked or of only passing mention. However, if we agree that the report and all subsequent sources have mis-spelt her name, then you'll see I've now added Elisabeth Freeman's name.

"Brailsford ... more needs to be said about him"; no, it doesn't. We introduce who he is and provide a link to his article, where there is a much more complete description.

"in the long citation, the committee shouldn't be named as both author and publisher": this was how it was described on the copy I read.

"The failure to include women's voices is a major issue in suffragette historiography, and this article includes very little from the women who were attacked": this is an encyclopaedia article. We cover all the sources and have quoted a representative sample where appropriate. I have already said further up that we can consider adding some more quotations, even if they duplicate some of the points already raised.

4. Conciliation Bill:

"When did the truce (the "pause in militant activity") begin?": Now added

"What was the conciliation committee (say something about who was on it)": We already say what the party breakdown was, but we don't need to go further than that – the Conciliation Bills article should have more, but doesn't

"Why was it called a "conciliation" bill?" I could make an intelligent guess, as could most people, but I don't remember seeing anything in the sources that specifically says why.

"What did it propose?": We already say this

"What is a first and second reading?": these are already linked

"Note that Churchill voted against the Bill": added

5. Sources in general
6. Historiography: Do you have any sources that deal specifically with the historiography of this event (aside from the brief mention in Thomas)? SYNTH is something I avoid in articles, and without sources we shouldn't be attempting to cover the ground.
7. Lead:

"It should explain or link 'women's suffrage"': the last link of the opening sentence goes to Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom.

"a measure of women's suffrage in national elections": Asquith said there would be some votes for women, but provided no further details – the sentence is clear enough as it stands.

What is "a cross-party conciliation committee"? Tweaked

"'all charges were dropped': not explained": as this is the lead, we are summarising, not regurgitating all.

Re: the sexual assault: I disagree. "sexual nature" is not 'could possibly cause cancer': it's grabbing of genitalia. The major sources do not refer to cancer, and it doesn't appear in their comments as reported by Murray/Brailsford.

8. Lead image. Are we still on this?

We have boosted the name of Wright so that it is the only one in the body. We refer to the tentative identification of Mills in a footnote, reflecting what a reliable source says. When the NA remove mention from their site, we can remove mention the footnote.

Re: Suppression of publication. As I've said elsewhere, this goes back to Ada Wright's claim. There is no reference in her statement to any source from which she heard the information. Removed, however.

9. Constance Lytton: Tweaked the second reference to CL. Morrell's unreferenced explanation is that "Christabel Pankhurst apparently did not want..."; I'm not happy having an explanation based on an unsourced statement that contains the word "apparently". That CL said those words is not in dispute, but her own memoirs do not clarify the point. "it's not about Black Friday": seriously? It's about the WSPU policy towards injuries suffered at the hands of the police, a policy that was revered on Black Friday.
10. Quoting
11. Deaths
12. Assessment section. I think it's fairly self-evident what it was, but I've tweaked the title, if that is where the confusion lies
13. Hume. Tweaked.
14. Two images. Too minor to quibble over – done
15. Punctuation. And as has been explained elsewhere, there is more than one way to introduce a quote
16. Formatting issue. Take it up with WMF – it's automated and, as it's formatted properly in the article, is something they will have to deal with. My mobile shows no white space, either in mobile view or desktop view.

This is a partial response only. There are other points I'm working on which I hope to post later. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of FAC

Off topic

Ian Rose and Laser brain, can I ask you please to look at what's happening here and consider archiving this? It's another sandbox-to-FAC article. It was rewritten in a sandbox in April (without alerting page watchers that it was being rewritten), added in one edit to the article, immediately taken to peer review, and presumably would have gone straight to FAC had I not objected on talk. When I objected to some of the edits, SchroCat said he had changed his mind about working on it. On 28 May he announced that it was going to FAC after all. This has left no time for other editors to get hold of the books via inter-library loan. Now, very contentious edits are being made during the FAC (see Talk:Black Friday (1910)#Problems for more details), and BRD is being ignored. These issues should have been resolved on talk before the nomination. I'm minded to add the NPOV template; I've held off only because it's something I do very rarely. But this feels like a misuse of FAC to gain control of content, content that can't be reviewed thoroughly because of the speed from rewrite to nomination. If the article is promoted, it will be pretty much impossible to change. SarahSV (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Oh for crying out loud. The article has been there since APRIL to allow people to comment or edit, and guess what: nobody did. Not even you. If you have a problem with what you call "sandbox-to-FAC articles", then open an RfC and get the process looked into. As far as I am aware there is no policy or guideline against this, nor have I ever heard anyone complain about it until you raised it today. There are no contentious edits being made, apart from you trying to delete a reliable source. I would be glad for the co-ords to look at this nom: it is uncontentious (or a the least it was until you tried to derail it). The only person trying to "gain control" Sarah, is you. You have been obstructive on this in both the PR (where you refused to use the process, but were obstructive on the talk page), and you have been equally obstructive here. I do not now how many times I have requested that you work with me rather than against me, and I have gone out of my way to dig out sources and send them over to you when requested, but my pleas have consistently fallen on deaf ears. - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Sigh. Butting in, in a big way having watched this play out since seeing the edits to Mud March last night. Writing about the history of women's fight to simply be able to vote is difficult and it's really not helpful to see a man tell a woman to "work with me" and to see the word "obstruction" used multiple times. That's the elephant in the room here and needs to be pointed out. Clearly Sarah is interested in the topic and is knowledgeable; in the spirit of collegiality and collaboration, she should be welcomed and her scheduled accommodated. In my view this and Mud March should be joint noms, but that's just me hoping for a better world. In terms of minor points: I looked at this a few weeks ago when I noted it on mentioned on Sarah's talk page and wondered why the lead image was a blur of black; 2., in March I linked this article that I found to the discussion on Mud March - the first para discusses the woman in the image. I'm not sure why these points have become so contentious, but my suggestion, if anyone is interested, would be for everyone to step back for a day or so and to take a few deep breaths. I agree, that no good can come at this point and archiving isn't the worst decision. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "it's really not helpful to see a man tell a woman to "work with me" and to see the word "obstruction" used multiple times". Oh good grief... One of us is here is 'gender-blind'. Victoria, this is nothing to do with my gender or Sarah's gender, it's to do with 'playing nice' with others and trying to end up with a quality article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC) This idea of "playing nice" is patronizing (and means I have to do what you want), as was the comment about the "little old lady". There is a lot of misogyny in the primary and secondary sources. You have to know how to spot it, and know how to handle those sources and their language. The people in the privileged position always believe they are "blind" to race and gender; that's part of the problem. If your aim is a high-quality article and not a gold star, why the rush? SarahSV (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "Playing nice is patronizing"? Sorry, but that's nonsense. You have not come across at any point during the writing or review processes as being collegiate or co-operative: that's why you have been asked so many times not to be so confrontational. As to the "privileged position", are you saying that only women should work on suffragette articles? I'm not sure what you're saying otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC) As a neutral bystander, who is so shy that the post above is filled with typos, and yet felt compelled to speak out, the tone isn't good and continues to degrade. Speak of the edits not editor, and all that, would be a very good rule to follow at this point. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Victoria, I agree entirely that the comments should be about edits, not editors: I am being called patronizing on no basis at all, and by being in a "privileged position" (which appears solely to be because I am male) I am "part of the problem". How much more personal and misguided can these comments get. It isn't the FAC that should be archived here, just one sub-section of it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC) I agree about discussing edits, not editors. But I would like to post this analogy for SchroCat in the hope it might prompt a lightbulb moment. Imagine this were an article about the civil-rights movement or Black Lives Matter. A white editor inserts a rewrite; ignores objections from a black editor; tells the black editor to "play nice"; removes an image that clearly shows a black activist on the ground surrounded by white cops and other white people (rather than a blob that doesn't show the background figures); adds at least one source that black historians regard as racist and problematic; refers to a black figure in an image using a racial slur (insert "girl" or "boy" for "little old lady"); follows the black editor to an article about a black activist to revert related edits there; and reverts the black editor's removal of the racist source. When another black editor arrives, they're told they ought to be "race blind" like the white editor. SarahSV (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC) I am afraid your comments are way off the mark here. I suggest you read WP:AGF and try not to cast every move made by someone you are in disagreement with is inherently bad. Your mischaracterisation of the situation here is shockingly bad and woefully misguided. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC) The disgraceful behaviour seen at this FAC, by persons who should really know better, is depressing to witness. Why is it being hijacked by a lot of virtue signalling, "sexist claptrap", to coin a phrase from elsewhere. Are we really now at a stage in society where unless you fit the race/gender/sexuality profile of the subject you're writing about, you're not qualified to even speak about it. No wonder people are leaving in droves. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Reiterating what I wrote below: telling a female reviewer that she's obstructionist, to "work with me", to "play nice", and now "disgraceful behaviour", "hijacked" "virtue signalling, "sexist claptrap" is ironic given the article topic. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC) You can reiterate all you want. Being female doesn't negate you from criticism, whether that criticism comes from either a male or a female. This type of oppressive behaviour doesn't wash with me. Treat everyone as equals is how I like to play it. CassiantoTalk 13:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• • • • I think, hopefully, that everyone has had their say on the process issue, though the temptation is always to try and get an extra word in. Would it be possible to get back to reviewing this article? The particular issues I'd like an opinion on are

• Does my suggestion that we "doctor" the lead image in the way described above meet objections?
• Does the present text fairly reflect the sources, in relation to Wright v. Mills?
• Are there other issues of problematic text which need consideration?

I really think we ought to try and move on. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Brian - concentrating on the article is the most constructive path. In answer to your questions,

• I don't have a problem (although I'm not adept enough to do it myself, and I am happy to ask the graphics lab to do what they can
• I think so, but let's see what others say
• There are one or two things that have been raised on the talk page, rather than here, that probably need sorting, but these are limited and can easily be overcome.

If there are any other things that people wish to raise about the article (rather than the process), I am very happy to deal with it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I actually agree with Carabinieri that this is an important discussion to be had, and they are never comfortable. In terms of the two points that were raised, this article clearly identifies Wright as the woman in the photograph, and Frank Meeres, p. 43, reiterates Wright's own words. I'm in favor of the image that's not so dark. I might be able to lighten the image from the Mirror, but suspect it's dark because of the ink smudging, in which case it's better to use the original photograph. Will look into it later, and I intend to open my own section with review once I've read through. I'm on my way to an appointment and might not get back for a few days. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton and Victoriaearle: I demonstrated the new image above...but I guess it got lost in the adjacent brouha...using the lightest image with the masthead as an example. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the mock up Serial Number (which I missed). I think that could be the best way round it - the higher quality image, but still retaining the impact of it being (literally) front page news. I will see if there are any dissenters in the next 24 hours or so before I request the graphics lab to do what they can. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Serial Number 54129 and Brianboulton:, There have been no objections to the suggestion, so I've requested this at the graphics lab. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How to proceed

I'll try butting in as well. I don't want to stop the previous discussion. I think it might be helpful, but I don't know if I have anything substantive to add to it. I just want to raise the question of how to best proceed. I don't think we necessarily need a policy for dealing with the "sandbox-FAC pipeline" in general. We just need to figure out what to do in this instance. As far as I understand it, as of yet, you have no actual objections to this article, Sarah (other than the image question, which I think can be resolved). You just need to time to review the sources to be able to form an opinion. Is that right? I really don't see any harm in giving Sarah that time. Do you have a rough estimate on how long it would take you? I would suggest asking that this FAC not be closed until Sarah has had the time. The oldest FAC open right now is from March, so it doesn't seem unreasonable for this one to stay open long enough for Sarah to do her research. The article could certainly profit from that. Most reviews (mine included) tend to be fairly superficial, mainly because reviewers aren't knowledgeable about the subject matter and haven't read the sources. If Sarah is willing to go through the sources and gives this a more in-depth review, isn't that worth the wait?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Carabinieri, thanks for the response. I do have objections, and I'd like the article to be open for editing so that they can be fixed in the normal way, with discussions on talk. FAC is for articles that are nearly ready.

This is an important article about the history of first-wave feminism, written from a male or masculinist perspective. Several of the sources are red flags. Bearman is notorious (see Talk:Black Friday (1910)#Problems). Rosen is a problem (published in 1974; see this article), and there are other issues. I started discussing the problems in April when I saw the rewrite and found plagiarism (from another WP article). The discussion stopped only because SchroCat withdrew. Five weeks later, he announced he was taking it to FAC after all.

Now instead of fixing the article, am I supposed to post here with suggestions? Am I expected to spend the summer doing this because someone else has decided this is the timetable? Even if I were willing to do it, the books will take weeks to arrive, then have to be read or re-read, and an infobox RfC alone will take 30 days. This is not what FAC is meant to be. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There wasn't plagiarism, there was an editing oversight in the draft stage. Again, please see WP:AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• The way to proceed is to let the article ontinue on its path through FAC. I'm seeing a concerning number of red flags in the comments you are making Sarah - ticking them off the list at Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Statements. You have said that I should not be writing this because I am a man (seriously?) and because you don't get to determine the timetable. You do not get to give your seal of approval to every article just because it is your area of interest. There are other editors beside yourself interested in this area who are more than capable of providing balanced, high-quality content. I'm going to stop interacting on these tangential attempts to disrupt the process. This is a community review process: either join in by reviewing it properly or move on. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• And I assume there will be a source review at some point? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There certainly will need to be a source review, as in all FACs, perhaps sooner rather than later here, and perhaps by more than one reviewer. I've noted Sarah's concern with Bearman in particular; I don't have access to it but if the abstract is accurate I can understand how it would be controversial. Its reliability/appropriateness needs community vetting along with the other sources employed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• I can't make strong promises,but I will give a little time to a source review tomorrow...! Axylus.arisbe (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • • Ian I spent some time yesterday reading Bearman - the one that's on Jstor - and some of the other sources. I have loads of academic experience in source reviews and will gladly take this on. I do intend to do a full and fair article review but decided to wait until the dust settles a bit. In the meantime, I'll begin with gathering sources. Victoriaearle (tk) 02:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Victoria, given your approach so far, I think it better that someone with a more neutral stance take on the review. - SchroCat (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Schro, you've quite reasonably asked several editors to AGF here, I think it applies all round. I doubt it will all come down to one review(er) in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
          • You're probably right Ian, although my stock of AGF has run low, given both on and off-wiki shenanigans that have been going on. Thanks for the reminder tho. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oh I guess there's value in 2 pairs of eyes. No need to pick among volunteers. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • SchroCat, if you have sources yu could send by email, that would expedite things considerably.... Axylus.arisbe (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure. Drop me an email with details and I'll ping them back. Same goes for anyone else who wants the full sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain: Whoever... I have been busier than expected, but expect a breather next week. I will not be able to do anything until either Monday or Tuesday but may have considerable time then. Sorry Axylus.arisbe (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Carabinieri

Great article. I've made a few changes, but feel free to revert if you don't agree.

• "The police also changed their tactics, and in future demonstrations they tried not to arrest too soon or too late." Shouldn't this be "at" or "during future demonstrations"?
• I feel like the long Sylvia Pankhurst quote in the background section might be a bit excessive. I think it can be trimmed and parts of it paraphrased without losing any information. I can make a suggestion, if you agree.
• "Public opinion turned against the tactics and, according to Morrell, the government capitalised on the shifting public feeling to introduce stronger measures" What kinds of measures? This sounds fairly vague.

• It's the force-feeding referred to in the next sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand how a budget is a way to circumvent the House of Lords if the Lords are in a position to reject it.

• I've done some rephrasing here, for the sake of clarity. Please check that I haven't mucked things up. More explanation is contained in the footnotes which could, I suppose, be incorporated into the text. But it's a bit off-topic and I think it better that the footnotes remain as footnotes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian - that looks good. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that the lead group and the first group in the Nov 18 section are one and the same. Is that right?

• It's not 100% clear from the sources, and it's possible that the elderly women in the first group were overtaken by a younger group - or they may have stayed in order. Either way, the sources don't make it too clear! - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Previous demonstrations at the Houses of Parliament had been policed by the local A Division, who understood the nature of the demonstrations and had managed to overcome the WSPU tactics without undue levels of violence" Undue seems like a rather subjective POV word. In any case, doesn't that contradict the background section?

• I've added the name of the historian who states this. It doesn't contradict the background section, as A division policed Parliament, whereas the suffragettes were in action across the UK. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Groups approaching Parliament Square were met at the Westminster Abbey entrance to the square by groups of men, who manhandled the women" I'm assuming this is not referring to the police. Maybe this could be made clearer.

• Perhaps "men" could be "bystanders"? Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Bystanders it is - thanks Brian. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• "4 men and 115 women were arrested on 18 November" Were those men part of the demonstration or onlookers who took part in the violence against the women?

• I check - I think all pro-suffrage, but I'll make sure. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• I can't find any reference to the 'side' of these men, but I'll go over the newspaper sources to see if they can provide any information. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it make more sense to place the image of the flier somewhere earlier in the article?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly, but we are image-heavy further up the article, so there would be too much overlap and/or text sandwiching going on. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Carabinieri. I need to address your penultimate point, but will be back shortly; all the others are done, unless otherwise said above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Lingzhi

• I have been truly impressed by this article. Excellent. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Axylus.arisbe/Lingzhi - I am most grategul. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

I'm sure everyone involved here will appreciate that our job as coordinators is to be maddeningly fair, and operate based on consensus on the nomination page unless there is some astonishing disruption. I have no position on the sandbox-to-FAC strategy, although I've observed it succeed and fail spectacularly in different cases. Opposes based on WIAFA (including stability) are actionable and that's a potential reason to archive a nomination if that's the consensus among reviewers. We've occasionally and reluctantly archived a handful of nominations in the past because the reviewer–nominator interactions got disruptive on their own, but that scenario serves no one. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Off topic

Laser brain, every time this issue is raised at WT:FAC, people agree, including the coordinators, that reviewers willing to oppose should be supported (and clearly I'm opposing); that FAC shouldn't be used to get unprepared nominations in shape; and that "archive early, archive often" is a good principle. But again in practice this fails. The article obviously fails 1e ("it is not subject to ongoing edit wars"). The nominator is edit-warring here and at related articles, over related content. Victoria has added a DS template to one of them, and I'm considering posting DS alerts. The nominator is adding contentious material during the FAC itself and edit warring to retain it. I shouldn't have to keep reverting and actually add the NPOV tag for it to be obvious that the article isn't stable. SarahSV (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Laser brain, I wrote the above without having seen the latest comments. This is really unacceptable. Please archive this. SarahSV (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure we're saying different things. I'm just now getting to looking at the actual nomination—I was just responding to your request that I consider archiving the nomination for behavioral or procedural reasons. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC) This comment feels like either a threat or a promise. I can continue in this atmosphere, am half way through the article, have some concerns, but given the reverting of copyedits will have to write up quite a lot and that will take time. I shouldn't have to continue in the face of bullying, nor should my opinion be dismissed. What that will achieve is that the coords will be the position of having to read a false consensus, which is not ideal. I'm taking some time off. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Good grief! A threat? This is absurd. I said "please think very carefully" because if a comment was made insinuating filth like I'm some sort of sexist arsehole for wanting to write an article about a woman, then my relationship with Sarah, which has always been very good, would suffer. I'm out, I won't be getting involved in this any further. CassiantoTalk 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I'm just going to throw this out here - but the irony of being told to "I have had to ask you before to work play nice, and work with me, not against me." on an article about feminist history is a bit withering. I'm pretty sure that the male editors here won't see it as patronizing, but ... yes, it is. It's just a step above being told to "run along to the kitchen because the men are going to talk about important matters". Most women get told to "play nice" and "work with me" a lot, and it gets very very very very old. Sarah pointed out she found it patronizing. So... instead of not doing it again, everyone piles in to say that she's wrong. So she's wrong because the men know how SHE feels? REALLY??? Please stop and see how politely nasty that is... someone says that they feel slighted/patronized and the person who made them feel that way tells the original person they are wrong. Cass rightly gets upset when he is told to play nice about his editing, SchroCat gets upset with being told to play nice (i.e. be civil) about his editing, but you both feel it's okay to tell Sarah to play nice?? Ugh. I hope that many of the editors here can stop and think here about what they are saying. I'm not involved in this article, and *I* bristled at the "pat the little lady on the head" tone that I clearly felt from the tone of the discussion. Yes, I'm offended. And, yes, I'm annoyed enough that I'm not caring if you think I'm mad, because .. yeah, I'm mad. It's freaking madening to see two editors (SchroCat and Cass) who get all up in arms whenever the civility police to come call them to account ... turn around and expect perfect civility from female editors. "Play nice", indeed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Oh, FFS. This is not about a man making a comment to a woman, this is about someone being mightily fucked off with an obstructive editor who has trouble with someone editing an article on the basis of their gender. I have made similar comments ("play nice", or similar) to other editors who have been obstructive or shown OWN tendencies; I have not bothered, cared or known the sex of the people I've said it to before. The "pat the little lady on the head" tone? Rubbish. I treat all editors the same – yes, normally not brilliantly, but all equally. Fuck me, I've been compared to a misogynist and a racist, and you're offended, Ealdgyth? I guess my compass may differ on what is offensive to yours. What a joke: "Wikipedia, the article anyone can edit, unless they are a man editing a suffragette article". I don't give a flying toss what gender ANY editor is, but I do expect them to treat article development seriously and to play nice (i.e., be a flaming adult with something of a collegiate and co-operative attitude, not an obstructive pain). FFS, I see the Gender Gap being driven wider with this attitude, and the thought of AGF seems to have escaped you Ealdgyth, and a few others too. Well done for creating more heat than light with a lack of AGF that has been a constant during this review process. Ian Rose, Laser brain, I will confirm that I want this review to continue, despite everything else, as the subject, and the article, deserve better treatment than the rather shoddy approach some people are exhibiting. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Is there anyone around who is prepared to actually provide a review on the article, rather than just snipe? - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC) To be very clear: I brought it up. I pointed out the irony of the situation, plus issues, here and this comment. I did not, nor would I ever under any circumstances say that a man cannot write about a woman. That's just bullshit. Furthermore, I intend to review in the same manner that I review every article I've ever reviewed. To suggest otherwise is a gross assumption of bad faith. Ealdgyth nailed it. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC) The "irony" is that I've been accused of misogyny and compared to a racist, and I'm the bad person here? I have made the same comments to obstructive and disruptive editors before and not known, cared or noticed the gender of the person making them. I don't care what sex they are, but if someone can make a good faith review on this article it would make a pleasant change. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC) To be clear, on the internet, no one knows that I am a dog, but it seems to me that we have three self-identified female editors making similar comments, and a bunch of (apparently) male editors dismissing it. On this topic, of all topics. Please, SchroCat. Umbrage is not the correct response here. Have some respect for the people you are talking to. Just listen and reflect, and check your privilege. At some point, someone needs to mention discretionary sanctions because this is getting ridiculous. (And for those editors not following the discussion, for what it is worth, the National Archive has revised its catalogue entry of the woman in the photograph. Discussion at Talk:Ernestine Mills.) 213.205.198.235 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC) No, IP, umbrage and anger are the right answer here. I've been compared to a misogynist and a racist, and I'm supposed to respect the people that have dived into the gutter to cast those aspersions? Discretionary sanctions? It should funny an IP knows about these, and probably no coincidence that DS tags have been applied to two articles I am working on (although there seems to be confusion about whether this is for Gender Gap or Gamergate), neither of which I have any knowledge of, or interest in. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I may be an IP but I am not an idiot: I am quite capable of reading the pages linked to from banners on talk pages, or indeed reading the sources and contacting the National Archive. This is not about what you mean. I doubt anyone thinks you are sexist (or racist, and that was just an analogy to help you see what they are saying). It is about how you are coming across. Please listen without responding, take a break, and come back to this later. Please. It will be better for everyone if you do. There is no rush. If you are in the UK this weekend, you might want to consider this: https://www.processions.co.uk/attend-processions/ 213.205.198.235 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC) And I'm supposed to be the patronising one? "I doubt anyone thinks you are sexist (or racist", Balls. If that's the case, then why the fuck was the analogy raised if not to blacken or bully? The duplicity and underhand tactics are quite sickening. I am working to try and improve a topic in which I believe and am interested, and all I have got for doing this is insults, bullying and attacks BECAUSE IM A FUCKING MAN! Fuck me, what a twisted way to treat editors trying to deal with this subject. IP, I have no idea who you are, but look at today's front page. It's The biography of Emily Davison. I re-wrote it in the same way I re-wrote this (the supposedly controversial "sandbox-to-FAC" route), I took it through PR and FAC, and no-one said I shouldn't write it because I'm a man. These double standards are utter nonsense, and people saying I don't understand sources, or that I'm purveying sexist claptrap are, baldly, spouting fucking nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC) There are editors here who believe that being "gender blind" (and presumably "race blind") is a good thing. It isn't. That kind of blindness is the result of privilege. It's the men and the whites, the people in the privileged, default groups, who can afford it. If we were writing an article about black history, and black editors complained about racism, would we really tell them to "play nice" and insist on ploughing on? This article should not be written from a "gender blind" perspective. The primary sources about the suffragettes were deeply misogynist. They're so bad they make you gasp (and it wasn't that long ago!). The first secondary sources were sexist too. Why does this article rely on authors who have been criticized as sexist by feminist historians? Why the heavy reliance on an author from 1974 to support contentious points? One of the problematic sources was added during the FAC, and now there's revert-warring to retain it. These discussions about suffragette historiography are difficult, and they need to be thrashed out calmly on the talk page. It will take time, because we need to read the sources, be familiar with the issues, and agree on neutrality and on which details matter. This just isn't an appropriate topic for a quick rewrite-to-FAC nomination. SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Is there anyone who is prepared to provide a quality review? Sarah, try AGF. Claiming "quick rewrite-to-FAC nomination" is untrue. Try being collegiate and co-operative with people who are trying to improve the article, rather than being the road-block to article development here based on little more than the gender of the person whose undertaken the re-write. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC) The pressure-cooker atmosphere of FAC is not conducive to patient, careful, collegiate and co-operative article development. This is not the way to do it. If you don't want to listen, fine, that is your choice. 213.205.198.235 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC) IP, I've been through FAC I don't know how many times (20? 25?) and I don't find a pressure cooker when people are responding positively and in good faith. Sadly there are several editors who are not acting either in good faith, or positively. If they did, then I'd be able to deal with their comments appropriately, rather than try and defend myself on the basis of my gender. The stupidity of the situation is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Despite his/her username, I have to agree with pretty much everything IP wrote. Might I suggest a 48-hour moratorium on editing anything related to this article for anyone involved in this discussion? Right now, this isn't getting anywhere. The only hope I have for this discussion is that heads could be cooler two days from now. --Carabinieri (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC) That's your opinion, Carabinieri—and I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but if any editors provide a good faith review of the article, I will deal with their comments and edit the article appropriately. My thoughts towards anyone acting in good faith in providing a constructive review remains unchanged: they are warmly welcome. To those who are obstructive on flimsy and facile grounds, I will ignore or respond appropriately, particularly if they decide to sink to the gutter, as some have done. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Crawford

As I did with the article I wrote on Emily Davison, I asked Elizabeth Crawford and Professor June Purvis for their thoughts on the article. Elizabeth Crawford has replied saying that it is "that looks a very thoroughly researched piece of work – and it all looks fine to me". She had some input into the photograph, and thinks the source used by Raeburn probably comes from her papers in the Suffragette Fellowship Collection at the Museum of London. I have emailed the person at the MoL to ask if she can help.
If Professor Purvis is good enough to reply, I will also pass on their thoughts on the article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just to be clear, so far as I know, Crawford did not review this article. SchroCat, do you have her permission to name and quote her? SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC) That's odd: I thought she would have mentioned it to you when you contacted her (and I believe you posted a link to the comment) - indeed I thought she said she had, but I'm tired and my memory must be playing me false. This has little to do with the article or review, and is shouldn't be stuck in the middle of this over-long page. Do you have any substantive points about the article? - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC) I don't know what you mean about linking to a comment. It's a simple question: did she give consent to be quoted and named, and did she review the article? If not, I hope you'll strike your post. As for whether I have other points to make, yes, I intend to post more, but as I said earlier, it takes time to gather sources. SarahSV (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry, let me clarify: when you emailed her, sending a link to the comment I made above, I thought she explained what she had done by way of a review. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC) I can't see the point of playing games. If I contact sources, I don't repeat what they say on WP without their permission. So I'm asking you whether you obtained permission and whether it was a review. I won't keep asking, because it's pointless, but I wish you would just answer it. SarahSV (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Again, I think she explained what she did in the email she sent you. I'm not the one playing games Sarah: you sent her a link to my comment in 9 June, so why are you raising it now, and why here. I can't see the point in playing games either, do please either review this, or don't. – SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Victoria

I think in terms of rubrics, so am following Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. These are broad-brush general comments:

• 1. a., (prose): It can be tightened a little and there's some repetition throughout, but not anything that can't be taken care of fairly easily. My experience is that it's always best to get another pair of eyes on the prose to find issues. I did make a few copyedits to tighten (reverted, but that's fine); generally something along that line should be continued throughout the article. I don't have tons of time today, but this sentence jumps out at me as needing to be split: "The question of women's suffrage was divisive within Cabinet, and the bill was discussed at three separate meetings[33] before, at a Cabinet meeting on 23 June, Asquith stated that he would allow it to pass to the second reading stage, but no further parliamentary time would be allocated to it and it would therefore fail.[34]"
• 1. b., (comprehensive) - yes & no. The background is very comprehensive, slightly too long for my taste because I want to get to the action, whereas the "18 November" section is less than 600 words of a 3200 word article. Also, there seems to have been some continuing actions/arrests throughout the next seven days until 25. Nov. Is any of that worth a mention? Adding: striking the previous sentence, the issue is now moved to structure. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• 1. c., (well-researched) - the rule of thumb for women's studies (now known as gender studies) is to go to the most recent scholarly material. It's a new discipline (and one this article falls squarely into), in that study wasn't available in universities until the mid- to late-seventies, departments generally cropping up in the eighties. It's taken a generation to "grow" scholars, so to speak, so it's best to lean on scholarly sources published in this century instead the last. As an aside, that's true in general in the humanities, not only in terms of gender studies, but highlighted in this topic because the scholarship wasn't really fully established until the nineties or later. Generally when writing about literature or art, I tend to go the most recent scholarship. This has the added benefit of allowing the scholar to bake in all the primary sources. Every discipline has a *the* expert or two or maybe three, and it's best to research, identify, and then lean on their work. Added to that, every discipline has a pioneer whose work is generally very well-respected. Bearman wasn't great (aside from showing an obvious bias) because he's not a subject expert (his other publications have to do with folk music); Rosen pre-dates the prevailing scholarship. I'm not familiar with the History Today website, so can't speak to whether it's high quality or low; the best thing to do is take a look at their bibliographies (they will be leaning on the same sources) and determine accordingly. The same applies to websites, i.e BBC - obviously RS but there are better academic sources available. The amount of primary sources seems ok to me. One comment re primary sources: I have access to the New York Times archives, so if anyone is interested in how these events were covered in the US I'd be happy to take a dig - but not at all actionable or necessary.
• 1. d., (neutral) - I have a few niggles: I'm curious about note m: "Morrell, when writing in 1981, observes that the only reference she found to the suppression of the photograph was in Antonia Raeburn's 1973 book, The Militant Suffragettes.[70] The image was also published in Votes for Women,[47] The Manchester Guardian[71] and the Daily Express.[72]" Morrell is an early author in the field and would be supplanted by now, I'd assume. Kelly, published in 2004 doesn't raise the issue. Kelly is an academic, Morrell's book a senior thesis in 1979 see here, it is might best better to defer to the more recent scholarship. Right now, it does appear to throw doubt on Raeburn's assertion (she's a pioneer and relies on the women's own voices). That's a book I might order and take a look at; the same with Morrell. Finally, there needs to be a better balance between the background and the events of the day.
• 1. e., (stable) - better than last week.
• 2. a., (lead/style) - lead should be concise. I trimmed some detail from the lead i.,e this, which was restored. It seemed better to summarize it, ("the women reported groping"), plus "complained" about having breasts twisted isn't maybe quite the right word. Regardless, these details aren't in the "18 November" section. Re MoS, very nit-picky but MOS:NUM tells us to write out numbers between 0 and 9; I fixed one of these and it was reverted. It's massively nit-picky but technically we should adhere to MOS.
• 2. b., (appropriate structure) - background could do with a trim and more emphasis on the day, the week, etc. Adding: The demonstrations lasted a week until the government was dissolved, suggest restructuring. Also, "Assessment" suggests analysis, critical analysis, etc, but the section is about the two deaths that occurred within two months of Black Friday, the second para is about evolving tactics that would fit better in a "Reaction" section, the third is about a 2010 event. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• 2. c., (consistent citations) - very fancy, very nice
• 3. (media) - if the pastiche is allowable, that's a good compromise. If available, it would be nice to focus more on the day in terms of images, but I don't know what's available. Adding: still no image of Rosa May Billinghurst yet an image such of this, perhaps taken on the day is extremely evocative. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• 4. (length) - same as above. Suggest trimming "Background" and focussing more on the event itself; otherwise fine.

I'm exhausted and removing this from my watchlist now. Note that these are comments only, neither a support or an oppose, but simply my general impression according to our criteria. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Adding: Two weeks later, I'm still seeing issues with 1.,a (prose); 1., b. (comprehensive); 1., c. (well researched); 2.,b (structure). Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a brief note on the numbers question: MOS also tells us: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". Therefore, "Police arrested 4 men and 115 women" is correct.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed: I forgot that rule first time round (and even managed to erroneously put it back in after one edit)! I don't particularly like the rule, but there are only so many times I care to bend the MoS. – SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Victoria. In response to the 'broad-brush general comments', here are some 'broad-brush general responses' to explain. The upshot is that yes, I will go over the background section to see what could be trimmed from that, without loss of historical context, and look at the prose to tighten where necessary. In more detail:

I will have another look at what could be trimmed from the background (although there has already been considerable cutting from the first draft. This is one of those events that came about because the twists of history that lead up to it are all important, and all those strands had something to do with it (the increasing aggression shown towards WSPU demonstrations in the preceding years; the budget problems/battle with the Lords faced by the government; the conciliation movement within parliament): all these factors go towards why the march took place. That said, I will go through it again and see what can be trimmed further.

Morrell's book isn't her university thesis, but it is based on her thesis. Much of her research was at the Fawcett Library, which has moved from where she (and I when a lowly undergraduate, for that matter), researched and is now the Women's Library at the LSE. The book is referenced throughout and carries a good bibliography. It chimes with much of the more recent histories.

In terms of the photo suppression, Kelly cites her mentions to Hiley. Despite being published in History Today, there are no references or a bibliography to support what he's written. He is described at the end of the article in HT as "Nicholas Hiley is a freelance writer and teacher". I'm not sure Morrell's statement throws doubt on Raeburn's assertion, but it does put a question mark over Wright's claim (In all the other sources I've read, most link the claim to Raeburn, or to another source that circles back to Raeburn. None of the sources have pointed to police or home office primary source records, and The Mirror (either at the time, or subsequently) makes no mention of such an attempt being made). You would also have thought it would have been raised in either Pankhurst's (1931) or Fawcett's (1912 and 1921) histories, but they don't refer to it. Wright's is the only claim on which this is based, and one does have to wonder how she found out about the behind-the-scenes machinations of government or police, if there is no earlier record of the fact. While I wouldn't be comfortable putting any of this into the article, I am comfortable citing Morrell's research: we are not saying Wright is wrong on the point, but it does need to be acknowledged that all sources of the story lead back to her.

You are right that the lead should be concise, but it also has to tell the story (as that is all some people will read); including some details of what the women went through is, I think, key to that (the information is included in the "Reaction" section).

Images. A surprising problem given this was in 1910, in that although there are some great images on web searches, getting them back to a free status is a bit of a struggle and I can't see many of them published in the press to give us the 'first published' date. Conversely, there are some newspaper images which may be great, but whose quality is too low to use. If anyone can find some more images (particularly of the violence), then that would be great. In terms of the main image, the current one is the combination of both newspaper headline and higher-quality photograph.

Thanks again Victoria, and I'll go through the background again to see if I can trim. I hope you are better soon. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

:I ordered Caroline Morrell's book from the library last week because I was curious about it, picked it up today, and before sending it right back, took a look at the last page, where in my experience a good summary should be. This is what she writes:

Thirdly, the suffragettes were stepping out of their accustomed role as ladies. They were no longer behaving quietly and submissively but were taking part in a militant and noisy campaign defying male authority.

There's two more pages in this vein; I won't write it all out. It's this analysis, a vein of which runs through the subsequent secondary sources, written since the 1990s, which I don't see in the article. Why did it happen? Because they were defying the social order.

Re the bachkchanneling remark: I found it offensive because a., I was very ill and found a post on my page that seemed to ask me to do something; b., the "unless you've gotten them from Sarah" (paraphrased) insinuates a situation that doesn't exist and c., suggests I can't do this. The third might be true. I know I did a crappy job, but I tried and I think there's material missing. For that reason I could oppose, but I'm choosing not to. I'm choosing instead to walk away from the project. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think the reasons behind the motivation of suffragettes to demonstrate does not belong in this article, as it's slightly too tangential. In the WSPU article, or the one of Women's suffrage, yes, of course, but not this one. (Morrell is the only source that writes about the motivation in connection with this event and does so in one paragraph; others deal with it in the general context of the movement as a whole).

I am sorry that you took my offer to email sources to you in the wrong way. It was a good faith offer to make things easier for you, and I am sorry you did not see it in that light. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Victoriaearle, can you elucidate on what grounds you are opposing please. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an example only: the 3rd para in the section "Women's Social and Political Union" (beyond the long block quote), describes a June 1909 incident ending with a footnote cited to Morrell, page 17. On page 17 of 'Black Friday' and Violence against Women in the Suffragette movement Morrell discusses a 1906 incident, writing: "On 23 October [1906], the opening day of the autumn session of Parliament, the WSPU organized their second deputation to Westminster, again carefully planned in advance. On failing to obtain a promise from the Prime Minister that female suffrage would be considered before the end of the session women went before the lobby and began to make speeches. Ten were arrested and imprisoned in the Second Division" she has a superscript footnote here. The footnote reads in full, "Under the Home Office rules then applying, prisoners convicted of offenses considered to be motivated by political rather than criminal reasons could be placed in the First Division. They were allowed to wear their own clothes, receive visitors and have unrestricted access to reading and writing material. Prisoners convicted of criminal offenses were placed in the 2nd or 3rd Divisions where they were subject to the normal prison regime". (Morrell, 1981, p. 17). Victoriaearle (tk) 12:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you've read this wrong, as far as I can tell. The paragraph describes the events of the June 1909 incident. The three sentences are supported by citations 10 (van Wingerden 1999, p. 123.), 11 (Atkinson 2018, 2709–2722.) and 12 (Pankhurst 2013, 6011.) The information in the footnote, which is about the grading by Division in prisons, is supported by the Morrell citation. Morrell is not being used to support the 1909 information.

Could you please let me know the other examples on which you are basing your oppose? - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1., it appears that Morrell is being used to support the 1909 incident; 2., the footnote we use is almost identical to Morrell's footnote; 3., Wingerden does not discuss the 1909 incident on page 123. I'm stopping now. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1. No, Morrell is only being used to support the information in the footnote, not the 1909 events, which are supported with the other three citations. 2. Not too closely. Morrell writes "They were allowed to wear their own clothes, receive visitors and have unrestricted access to reading and writing materials"; we have "They had unrestricted access to reading and writing materials, could wear their own clothes and receive visitors". I'll tweak slightly to move it even further away, but it's not really oppose worthy. 3. Quite right, mea culpa: I've tweaked to the right pages.

Could you please let me know the other examples on which you are basing your oppose? - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Where does "Women arrested for window breaking began a hunger strike to be treated as First Division prisoners" come from? Also, we shouldn't copy Morrell's structure, i.e, this footnote, the other re Raeburn. I can't find anything in Morrell to cite the image was published elsewhere. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Victoriaearle,

Thanks for your additional clarification. I've tried to deal with it as best I can both in comments here, and by edits to the article. If there is anything I've not dealt with, or that you need further work on, could you please address your responses below this (or interspersed within my comments), as it's getting too involved in the above for me to see what are actionable points that need dealing with (it's my problem in getting lost in the comments/responses, not yours, so if you could clarify, that would be great).

In terms of the points in your last edit (per this edit), my responses and associated edits are:

• "better to defer to the more recent scholarship": I think we do, unless you can provide examples that are better than the sources used. If you say there is "more recent scholarship", can you provide examples of what you consider to be better than that used?
• "background could do with a trim and more emphasis on the day, the week, etc.": I disagree with the trimming the background section, and wonder if you could indicate what you think could/should be cut. My rationale in the re-write was to cover two areas:

• A very brief summary of where the suffrage movement was at that point (two main organisations, one of which one—the WSPU—had split from the other. This new organisation was grabbing headlines for their militant action and seeing an increasing level of violence from the police over time as a result.
• The second area covers the highly eventful few years of politics where the suffrage argument was partly put on the back burner by the realpolitik of the time (an anti-suffrage PM; the troubles with the HoL and the budget which led to the dissolution of Parliament while the Conciliation Bill was progressing). Without this crucial information, readers will not understand what happened. We deal with it as briefly as can be, while retaining enough detail to get the information across.

You refer to "more emphasis on the day, the week, etc", one possible change I see that could be made is to move the reports of the women's treatment from the Murray/Brailsford report up from the current section into this one. It would beef up this one, although leave the next a bit slim, and need some considerable tweaking of the text. Would that work for you?

• Image of Rosa May Billinghurst: I agree. I've added an image of her from Commons, and will look at replacing it with the one you suggest once I've looked at the copyright position. Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• "Women arrested for window breaking...": additional citation added to strengthen.
• You've added that "Two weeks later, I'm still seeing issues with 1.,a (prose); 1., b. (comprehensive); 1., c. (well researched); 2.,b (structure): under #Supporting and opposing in the FAC procedure, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" (emphasis in the original). I am happy to deal with specific points, but the 'blanket' comments are wide of the mark:

• prose: please give examples. Some of the best writers and reviewers on WP have looked over this and have supported; like me, however, they are only human, and may have missed things, but without examples, it's difficult to judge;
• comprehensive: please provide details. The only thing I can see you think I may have missed your comments in the above is the motivation for the demonstrators. (I think it belongs elsewhere, partly on the basis it is not covered in the reliable sources, but I would welcome any sources that relate to this specific incident – I may well be mis-remembering the research I have done).
• well researched: this is well-researched. If you think otherwise, please can you can provide examples of what you think should be used;
• Structure is broadly appropriate, unless you can point to specific examples of what you think is wrong.

Again, please let me know if there is anything I've missed from your comment further up, or if you have anything else to add. – SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Billingshurst, see

Some details in Constance Lytton's memoir, see here, pages 310 to 317, that are useful, i.e that Churchill replaced Gladstone in February 1910, that her brother chaired the conciliation committee, the full text of the Conciliation Bill, & details we are missing re passing locally and acceptable to the suffrage movement, the names, professions and women who went to speak to Asquith on November 18, etc. To be clear: I am not actively searching for sources (this popped out when as I was searching on an entirely separate topic as did the link yesterday that led to the image of Billinghurst), because I don't believe that's the reviewer's job.

In terms of your comment that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" (emphasis in the original)", Ian Rose, Laser brain or Sarastro1 will disregard my comments if not sufficient. Not only here, but on other FACs, if opposing, I prefer to avoid a line-by-line laundry list of "do this, and then this and then this", particularly when structure and sourcing is involved because the prose shouldn't be polished until the end. Depending on how quickly the nominator works, it's best to take the time to do the work outside of the glare of FAC. If you, and the coords, want a line-by-line list, I might be able to provide it in a week or two, but it would take a lot of work. In the meantime, I'm sticking with general points per our criteria. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your further comment. I had seen the Lytton memoir, but as a primary source it does need to be treated carefully (although much of what she says can, of course, be backed up by secondary sources). In terms of the points you raise from it:

• Churchill replacing Gladstone is too tangential to include in this, as is the fact her brother chaired the committee (although I will add that to the article, as it's less clear) now added;
• I've read the text of the bill elsewhere, but that shouldn't be here, and if we make full use of it, it should be in the Conciliation Bills article. We already have the key clauses of the bill in the article;
• we already include the names and professions of many of those that went to see Asquith.

All this has been considered before, but as a primary source, we do have to be careful (note, for example her vagueness on the number of people she says were "charged at the police court the next day"(316); she says 150-160 while the exact number was 119. She also neglects to say that all charges were dropped).

Victoria, I am happy to consider any actionable points people raise, and I do take into account general ones too and action where possible, but your comments are just too broad to take anything from, and where you have been specific in any of your comments here, I have either actioned them or explained why I think it would be best if we didn't. If you do decide to produce more points, I will, of course, deal with those too. – SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What brought me here was the edit warring I noticed on Mud March (suffragists) and as far as I know I've never interacted with SchroCat before making a couple of comments on the talk page there in March. What I avoid is being pulled into the weeds, lengthy non-constructive back-and-forth and for lack of a better word, wikilawering. I represent the reader, so in no particular order, here is a sample of a few things that jar:

• The first sentence of the second para in the lead is awkward
  • It reads clearly to me, but I'll have a look in the morning when I'm less tired. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think it's fine, but I've tweaked it anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• I find mention of breast twisting in the lead quite offensive and, again, for lack of a better word, unnecessarily titillating.
  • I'm sure the women who reported it later found the act more offensive than the words, but this isn't here for titillation, but to give examples of just how they were maltreated. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• As a reader I wonder why I'm reading about the WSPU in 1903 (and as a Wikipedia editor I wonder why the block quote and structure we use in the second para is an almost exact mirror of Morrell's structure, also found in the long footnote in the third para)
  • I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I'll have a look in the morning when I'm less tired. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've said above, we have a very brief summary of where the suffrage movement was at that point, with the WSPU receiving an increasing level of violence from the police over time This is in line with WP:FACR 1b ("it ... places the subject in context":
  • Victoriaearle, I know you said this was going to be your final comment, but I wonder if you could clarify what you mean when you say "I wonder why the block quote and structure we use in the second para is an almost exact mirror of Morrell's structure, also found in the long footnote in the third para". It looks to me like you are commenting on the fact that we and Morrell use the same quote? And are you also commenting on the fact that Morrell puts the information about A Division prisoners in a footnote as we do? Both are explainable, but I wonder if you could clarify that is what you mean. – SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

*The image of the woman being force-fed, that shows up in the 1903-1909 section is offensive and emblematic of the type of imagery seen then: crazy woman, in a straight jacket, tied to chair, being fed - for her own good.

• • ? An interesting opinion. I see a group of people essentially torturing a woman tied to a chair. As this is from Sylvia Pankhurst's book, given as an example of force-feeding, I'm not sure it would have been meant or seen as 'crazy woman'. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

... and so on. I thought about bolding the specific suggestions I've made throughout, i.e a specific sentence that is overly long and should be split, issues with structure, small issues such as proper referencing for edited collections of primary material, etc, but that would be obnoxious. I'm finished making comments. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for these additional comments. I have had an over-long day at work, and I'm too fogged to deal with them all properly, but I will look again tomorrow, and at the other points you say are above but that have not been dealt with. I disagree that there is any wikilawyering going on: I'm trying to get solid, actionable points to deal with, which is how reviews work best. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• I've found the over-long sentence and cut that, but I can't see where you refer to "proper referencing for edited collections of primary material". I am afraid I can't see the "issues in structure", which you will have to breakdown a little more if I am to do anything. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, to repeat - there are times when I'm not able to respond quickly. I'll get back to this in a few days if/when I can, but in the meantime will point at the Purvis' Emmeline Pankhurst, page 150, and note 230. I have the book next to my bed, but here's a handy link to the note: handy link. And I've supplied a handy link to page 150. This is an enormous amount of work, btw. Also, worth noting is that Purvis points to Earp, an author I suggested was worth taking a look at a few weeks ago. I'm deeply disappointed at the degree at which my suggestions have been brushed aside. This needs to be said for the coords, those who have happily supported, and because I'm just downright disgusted and as Ealdgyth wrote, pissed off. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Victoria, I have not brushed aside your suggestions: they have all been carefully considered and adopted when appropriate; for several of over-broad comments I have asked for clarification and specific points continually. These requests and some questions I have made to you have also gone unanswered: that also needs to be said for the co-ords. You may be pissed off: I am monumentally fucked off. – SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review x 2

While this detailed sources review takes place off-stage, to be revealed here I assume at a later date, I have carried out a general MoS check on links, formats etc, There is nothing amiss in these respects; formats are consistent, all links are working. I will defer any substantive comment on sources until the ongoing review is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've done all I'm able, disengaged, and, thus, moved my comments to the talk page. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have done what I can with the suggestions given in the review, but without further details to back up general statements, many of which are inaccurate, there is nothing else needed. I look forward to the review from Lingzhi/Axylus.arisbe. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This is community I'd like to be part of and feel welcomed in, but there are times when it's impossible for me to edit. I refuse to discuss personal circumstances, nor am I required to, the self-imposed restrictions I follow, but suffice to say there is no deadline is my mantra these days. I got exhausted, tried to keep up with the questions/replies, was unable, and decided it's best to step away. I've never sat across a table and shared a beer with a fellow Wikipedian, but sometimes we should be reminded that there's a person behind the computer screen who has feelings and might even have a brain, is capable of finding material and doesn't appreciate being accused of back channeling, nor badgering, nor accusations like these. Getting things right, quality, these are things that interest me; breaking inter-personal relationships and cutting into limited family time, not. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • "Back channelling"? So asking if you would like me to forward you sources to aid the review is now something bad? I've not badgered you Victoria, and I am sorry if you got that impression: I posted to ask of you could clarify some points in your review, which, I am afraid to say, was unfocused, vague and incorrect: it is entirely appropriate that I ask you to clarify things that are unclear in a review - it's the only way people can understand things. After you posted onto this page saying you were going to disengage, I asked if you were going to do any work clarifying the points, but I certainly did not "badger" you at all. You are not the only person who is interested in quality, which is why I have spent considerable time on this article to ensure it is in the best state it can be, using the highest-quality and most appropriate sources. Perhaps you should also try to remember that 'there's a person behind the computer screen who has feelings and might even have a brain [and] is capable of finding material' - it is something that cuts both ways, you know. As I've said above, I look forward to the review from Lingzhi/Axylus.arisbe for any further suggestions to improve the article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Your offer was given as an example of back channeling, not badgering. "Back channeling" means that you took a public discussion to a "back channel". In this instance, you spread a discussion from this central page to an individual editor's talk page. Some editors would likely consider that a friendly and personal gesture, but others don't appreciate it, and prefer to keep everything in one place, so that everyone knows what's been said to whom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks WhatamIdoing. I knew the example was about back channelling, but making an open offer to provide sources directly to someone who has said they are going to undertake a source review? I had already said on this page that I would send them, but there has been so much noise on the page that it was too easy to get lost in the background, thus the direct reminder of what was available. It's certainly not an action for which people should be berated: there has been a dearth of AGF in this review (yes, from me too), and helpful gestures shouldn't be used against people. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
        • On another reading of what Victoria wrote, she seems to suggest that I accused her of back channelling, which I don't agree with either. It is a shame that this effort to make someone's efforts easier (in the same way I provided Sarah with sources whenever she asked) has been taken so badly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, it really is a shame that things have turned out so badly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• While awaiting further suggestions, I would just say:

• I am very grateful to Victoria for the time and trouble she has taken over this sources review. I accept fully that her over-riding concern is that the article meets the most exacting of quality standards, an aim which I'm equally sure that SchroCat shares. He has been generous in sharing his sources with enquirers, and has responded to earlier sources criticisms by replacing certain dubious sources (Rosen, Bearman) with better ones.
• If I understand Victoria, her main outstanding concern is that the article might not be based on "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and may be lacking in specifically "scholarly" sources. Note the word in the 1c criterion is "representative", not "exhaustive". Victoria doesn't say which essential works she thinks are missing from the present rather copious list of books, but suggests that "more is available" if time is allowed to search for it. Unless specific works which give additional insights into the topic can be identified specifically, this is, I'm afraid, too open-ended. In subjects like this there is always more material, and more still will be written. We can never reach a stage where we can say that absolutely everything has been covered, however much time we allow. This is of course true of many of our articles.
• An earlier concern, expressed I think by Sarah, was that once an article receives its bronze star it becomes difficult to change it. My own experiences indicate that this tends to be so if the new material added is trivial, unsourced or contentious. But most of the articles that I brought through the FAC process between 2008 and 2015 have been substantially altered, updated, and improved, without controversy as new material has become available. There's no reason why that shouldn't be the case here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• I could approach sources in two different ways: one would be to generate statistics showing how many cites are from academic sources etc., and another would be to go looking for additional sources.... Since we seem to be focusing on "adequate coverage" etc., I have spent a couple hours doing the latter. My initial thoughts (yes a couple hours only qualifies as "initial") are that Schrocat is largely correct in saying this event seems to be woefully under-covered. Wikipedia herein fills an important gap, especially for the general public, who don't have a couple hours to look fruitlessly for info... Stepping back and looking at the big picture, I am not convinced that there is any value that can be added, nor any detrimental material removed, by Opposing this FAC. I just don't see any major facts being omitted, nor any major omissions or errors being committed. [I did see that perhaps first division criminals were not political prisoners per se but were those convicted of minor offenses and thus that status was equated with political protest in suffragette's minds... reasons for breaking windows included the desire to be arrested which would reduce opportunity for injury, plus desire to involve insurance companies....]. But those are tweaks. If anyone wants me to do stats I will, but after searching for sources and finding precious little, I stand by my Support. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Many thanks Axylus.arisbe /Lingzhi. Your second review here is very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Like Brian Boulton, above, I have read particularly carefully through the revised text of this article, and I find it admirable. I honestly don't understand why it has provoked such unusual dissent from a reviewer, and as far as I am concerned it meets all the FAC criteria handsomely. Happy to add my support for an excellent article. – Tim riley talk 16:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. This, and your comments at the PR, are much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Brief comments, Outriggr

• I don't understand the use of "reportedly" in the lede. It happened, right? (Another "dilutive" phrase; see comments on passive voice below.)

Struck - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• The demonstration led to a change in approach: many members of the WSPU were unwilling to risk similar violence, so they resumed direct action—I'm not sure what constitutes direct action, but I read this as "they tried a new approach by resuming [x]"—which doesn't make sense—is something like "employed a new form of direct action" appropriate?

No, it wasn't a new form. I've tweaked so it reads "so they resumed their previous forms of direct action—such as stone-throwing and window-breaking" - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• he was so concerned about the potential impact of the image that an attempt was made by the police authorities—very very passive construction if the fact is uncontested (and really, what does it have to do with uncontested, but that's the message a reader receives with passive constructions—a dilution of impact, if you will). There is quite often a use of passive voice where the police are involved, which has the effect on me of diluting the importance of their actions and could be mistaken for a point-of-view bias. Other examples: "She had her wheelchair pushed into a side road by police", "to say that she had been assaulted by the police", "Three hundred women were met outside the Houses of Parliament by lines of police", "3,000 police were involved in preventing" (not passive, but a dilutive phrase), "Following the violence used by the police on that occasion", "women attempting to enter parliament were beaten by police". I mean some are fine, I've not included the one in the first paragraph—and I agree it's not always about the police—but there is too much passive voice which has the effect of diluting the apparently factual actions of the police. Edit: another similar sentence: "There were two deaths of suffragettes that have been attributed to the treatment they received on Black Friday."

All tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• "another woman reported that a policeman grasped her thigh, "I demanded...—this creates a run-on sentence with the quote

Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• who campaigned from an invalid tricycle—I'm not 100% up on preferred modern terminology (which is to say, the terminology that a community itself prefers) but "invalid tricycle" rings those bells. And it's just a weird phrase—would "who used a special tricycle" work?

It was the term she used for it: I've just gone with "wheelchair" now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have an image of her invalid tricycle? It may be a form of wheelchair, something like a bath chair, and see this image from around the same period. But some invalid tricycles were essentially early self-propelled invalid carriages, e.g. [4] The Disabled Drivers Asociation was the "Invalid Tricycle Association" when it was founded in 1948. 213.205.198.245 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa May Billinghurst (39633766971).jpg, File:Rosa May Billinghurst (24849570088).jpg from this category. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) File:Rosa May Billinghurst demonstaring.jpg is one: it's a wheelchair (having now seen it), so we've got the right wording on place now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(Apologies for random changes of IP) With its levers and gears and steering, arguably that is a handcycle. Hats off to Rosa May Billinghurst. 213.205.240.140 (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Regards, Outriggr (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Outriggr. All tweaked, per your suggestions, except where I've said otherwise above. Should you have any further comments, I look forward to hearing them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support A very few issues, just below. I won't pretend to know the period as well as do the nominator and many of the reviewers (and I have no opinion on certain discussions above) but here's my bit:

• "H. H. Asquith, leader of the Liberal Party, " I might say "Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party".
• "The Liberal government of 1905" I might insert "elected in".
• "for the new year to obtain a new mandate for the legislation." I would cut "new" before "mandate", or change to "fresh".

Reads very well and otherwise seems from my perspective to meet the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Wehwalt; your input is much appreciated. All three of your suggestions now adopted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Recognising that the FAC has proved controversial, I've tried to focus specifically on the criteria. Under these, and having read it through four times, I think it clearly passes. It is very well-written, is properly structured and cited, is stable, aside from the ongoing FAC developments, and seems of an appropriate length and focus. The issue, which would also appear to be the main concern above, is whether it's a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Gender studies is not my area, although the government of Asquith is a speciality, but it seems to me that the sources being used are comprehensive, representative and include many recent works. I'm therefore pleased to Support it. As a personal observation, having also read this FAC through more than once, it is sad that it has become acrimonious. The nominator, and some of the commentators above, are very well-versed in the history and the relevant literature. That could have been the basis for what this place does best, a productive collaboration. It's a great pity that's not how it's played out. KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks KJP1 for your thoughts on the article. I also heartily agree with your closing lines, and I am sad how this has turned out (for which I am partly responsible, obviously). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

I have a couple of things to say.

• You do not, ever, ask female colleagues "to be nice".
• It seems to me that Sarah and Victoria are writing from a position of decades of consideration of the core underlying issues.
• Over these years, they have accumulated a solid grasp for the validity of the major sources.
• I don't get that feel from the nominator.
• If a fact is challenged on the basis of poor sourcing, it is not sufficient to leave the claim unchanged and simply swap the book reference.
• Some of the nominator's behaviours here have been appalling, especially this morning when he seemingly took out frustration with Sarah upon Victoria.[5]. The rhetorical question posed should be seriously considered by the nominator (hint: the answer is not to ban women from wikipedia).
• Earlier the nominator seemingly told Victoria not to bother with a source review, presumably because he had somebody less informed and sympathetic in mind.
• There is no consensus for promotion here, and it should have been withdrawn about three weeks ago. Instead we got [6], another disaster in waiting. I note that that article's talk page was rev deleted today.
• Its no wonder very few opposes are registered at FAC anymore; at the very least I want to register a procedural Oppose. St. Caurgula (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC) (the editor formally known as Ceoil)
• Ceoil, There has been a lack of good faith in too many comments on this page, and I am disappointed that you have continued in that vein. I am also disappointed with some of the errrs in your comments, including my grasp of the sources (Much of my undergraduate studies were at what was the Fawcett library), and your claim I "told Victoria not to bother with a source review, presumably because he had somebody less informed and sympathetic in mind". Untrue on both counts: at no point did I tell anyone not to do a review, and at no time have I asked anyone on or off wiki to undertake a source review. While it is laudable that you are coming to the defence of a Wiki-friend and colleague, I am sure the co-ords will consider on what basis you have registered your oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You most certainly told Victoria not to bother with a source review. Anyhow, It doesn't matter to me if you are *disappointed* or not. My opinions are based on what I have seen, in totality, around these groups of articles, over the last six odd months, and its not impressive. Anyhow, I have clearly articulated my views, and want no more of this. Gold star for this? Dont care. These issues crop again with Mud March? Worried. ps "coming to the defence" is cheap; frustrating even given what I had in my inbox about "crazy women" (not you). I'll leave it to the delegates to tease out the several layers of irony at play here. St. Caurgula (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil, I am sorry that you wish to continue in this vein. I have always considered you a good Wiki-colleague, but I am afraid you are in error on many points of fact here.

I am also worried about other suffrage articles - I have struck my comments of wishing to proceed at Mud March and will not be bothering with any other suffrage articles in the future. The bullying and off-Wiki shenanigans I have seen and been subjected to recently are not want I ever want to deal with, and they have seriously tainted my desire to edit.

My comment about "coming to the defence" was not meant to be cheap or snide, and I meant what I said when I said it was laudable: people should come to the defence of their Wiki-colleagues and friends - I believe that most sincerely. (Just ask Cassianto how many times I have stepped up at ANI to speak on his behalf - and he is just one example). All the best - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I had thought of you as a wiki friend also, but see the diffs above and your response now. Guilt tripping opponents for having a POV? I am not ten years old. St. Caurgula (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid you have lost me, but that's perhaps for the best. Keep well. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ian Rose, Laser brain, could you please close this nomination. The suffrage movement is one I specialised in as an undergraduate, and have held a deep-rooted interest and belief in ever since. I have a descendent of the Pankhursts as a close friend (who I will be seeing this evening, ironically), and I have met and discussed matters with several academics and interested parties in the field. This article is beginning to be as contentious as its subject matter, and any enjoyment I had when I first began to research about this event (about 2 years ago), has been battered out of me a long time ago. There is one editor here who should be deeply ashamed of themselves, and who has set out, from an entirely sexist frame of mind, to ensure it fails. Unfortunately their attritional, uncollegiate and negative tactics have won out and they can get whatever kick they want out of that. The article is FA-worthy according to any measure we have, and I take comfort that a subject about which I care deeply has an excellent article to represent it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think this would be a very unsatisfactory outcome. Rather, the main antagonists here should sit back, take a deep breath and remember this is a Wikipedia article, for God's sake, not a fight to the death. We have strong personalities at odds here, who probabaly have separate cause to regret some of the things that have been said. But playing the blame game is pointless when we should be concentrating on getting the best possible article out of the process. Is it not possible, even at this late stage, to look at the outstanding issues objectively and attempt to resolve them? This means putting aside the animosities that have festered here but, per St. Caurgula, none of us are ten years old. Quiet, calm deliberation, etc. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If Schrocat wants to bollock me for interfering and/or ignoring him, then I will take that on the chin. But @FAC coordinators: , If you could please turn a temporary blind eye to the above request, while we sort this out, that would be appreciated. It's always gutting to see editors whom one respects disagreeing, particularly so vehemently, but I think on the whole the differences appear procedural in nature rather than in terms of content. Perhaps if we focus on that, we might make something else out of this after all? It is, as I think everyone agrees, clearly a topic that should be on the front page this year. Much of the disagreements also appear to be have been based on misunderstandings in language and tone, or misconceptions; we don't have the nuance of tone on the web that would stop things like this going snafu in the first place, let alone getting worse. If the discursive points are distilled into a form of words that can be agreed on, it is surely impossible that we could not then iron out the differences. Just my tuppence, of course. It would be a tragedy (writ-small) for all the work—both in writing and reviewing—that this FAC has already consumed to be wasted. Come on. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • • • lame lame lame. AllOpposes should put facts on the table. Fac coords should look at facts not empty words. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect Brian, Sarah's rationales for opposing are material and actionable. The toys had left the pram before I asked for closure. Ling are you living on planet earth. I mean really.[7] The ganging up and hand waving here is enough to swear off the process. For god sake. St. Caurgula (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Brian, the rewrite has had very little time outside peer-review/FAC. It was developed in a sandbox from 25 March to 18 April and added to the article on 18 April in one edit (edit summary: "a ttweak or two..."). The next day, it was sent to peer review, where Tim declared it "thorough". I noticed the rewrite on 20 April and found that several sentences had been copied from an early version of Mud March (suffragists) written by you. I objected on talk; SchroCat closed the peer review and said he wouldn't be editing the article again. If he had carried on working with me at that point, we could perhaps have developed something. But then on 25 May he announced that he'd be taking it to FAC after all, so that month was wasted, and here we are. Getting hold of all the sources can take ages, never mind reading them, so I don't know how reviewers are able to judge so quickly that it's comprehensive.

The problem with these sandbox rewrites is that they create an emotional mismatch between the rewriter and page watchers. There's none of the usual evolution, where "stewardship" is gradually transferred to the editor earning it by putting in the most work. From the rewriter's perspective, he's been working on the content for weeks and has indeed earned stewardship. But to the page watchers, someone has arrived out of the blue, inserted a rewrite in one edit, and thereafter seems to want complete control. I think we should discuss developing some guidance about it because it has affected several articles.

The bottom line is that the article could be better organized, more comprehensive, and better sourced. But achieving that will take time, and FAC is supposed to be a final review. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. FAC Coordinators should actually READ the arguments and replies, and evaluate the merits.They do not. They say oh goodness. Someone put up a wall of text Oppose. Read it? No way! Facts are irrelevant. ARCHIVE FAIL. What we need guidance on is fac coords need to evaluate arguments instead of just closing unread when someone uses the wall of text Oppose method. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If an oppose followed by a lot of text was a surefire way to get a nom archived then this would been closed some time ago. There's a difference between a nom that receives a good deal of comprehensive support for promotion as well as comprehensive opposes, and one that receives comprehensive opposes against a sole voice of support on prose (assuming of course I've understood correctly exactly what this alludes to). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(The withdrawal was to reduce the heat and noise, not increase it. Apologies to Ian and Andy for stepping on their toes with implementing the close: this was only ever going to go downhill at an accelerated pace if left open.) – SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to be pointy about this and revert your adding the archiving template (though technically it should use the "withdrawn" parameter), because I respect nominator's withdrawal requests, even if I sometimes like to let them sleep on it; given you're clearly serious about it, it would've come to the same thing in the end. There is a bit more to closing a nom though, and I'll deal with that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.