Talk:Lombard Street riot

Help?

Does anyone recall what's at the former location of Second African American Presbyterian Church now? I'd like to get rid of the redlink.

Smith's Hall should probably either get it's own article or redirect to an abolitionist article.

I don't know that Young Men's Vigilant Association is linking to the best choice either. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For the chruch location, check out: http://www.history.pcusa.org/finding/phs%2033.xml --evrik ^(talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page discrepancy...

This article gives the date of the riot as 1842 but the main page gives 1852. Can someone correct either, please? Shir-El too 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the third infobox quote about the main page reference near the top of this page, it was fixed during that exposure. But it appeared on the main page again (correctly dated as 1842) on the August 1st anniversary in 2013. I misunderstood firstly the main page and then this article that seemed [to me] to state that slavery was abolished in the British West Indies on August 1, 1842. I had a vague uneasiness about the date, confirmed when I found elsewhere that "slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire ... coming into effect on 1 August 1834." I thus propose to clarify that this riot occurred during a parade to commemorate the anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies (or perhaps commemorate the eighth anniversary, as it wasn't long afterwards). Any thoughts? ChrisJBenson (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

While a "commemoration" is not necessarily on the day of an event. (Christmas "... is an annual commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ..."), I've clarified and cited that it was the eighth anniversary. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I know it was my own misunderstanding. I thought such a clarification would help, as I don't consider myself the dullest knife in the drawer. Your edit was perfect. Thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC) (whose PhD in sums took many summers).

"attacked by a mob of Irish Catholics."

Three times, an IP has changed "As the paraders neared Mother Bethel Church, they were attacked by a mob of Irish Catholics.", removing "of Irish Catholics" twice and the third time removing the source added in answer to the complaint.

• In the first instance, the IP editor removed the phrase with no explanation.
• The second time], the phrase was removed with the explanation "actually, there is no source. surely you need one to state that a group of people of was a 'mob' that 'attacked'..."
• In the third edit, the source was removed (the text was not changed), with the explanation "sorry, but that's nowhere near a good enough source. you'll have to find something like that from a proper book or newspaper of record."

Peculiar that the rest of the article repeatedly refers to Irish Catholics and the recurring tensions between Irish Catholics and Protestants leading to this clash that started as the marchers neared Mother Bethel Church and led to the destruction of the Second African American Presbyterian Church. Another seemingly random link is the see also to Philadelphia Nativist Riots.

Lots of seemingly unrelated material in this article, if the IP editor is correct.

Let's see what we have. The source removed (Gregory, Kia. December 7, 2005, Philadelphia Weekly. "Monumental Achievement". Accessed April 30, 2008.) is repeatedly cited throughout the article. Is it a "proper" book? Well, it's not a book. Is it, um, proper? Well, it's apparently proper enough for the rest of the article. Is it a "newspaper of record"? No, it's not government authorized (it's in the U.S.). That said, it's a reliable source for the material presented.

What else do we have? How about Robert Purvis? What does he have to do with this? "The Irish rioters headed west toward the home of prominent and outspoken African American leader Robert Purvis at 9th and Lombard. Purvis sat on the steps of his home armed and ready. Ultimately, his home was spared from the inferno by the intervention of a Catholic priest."[1] Note: the mob of Irish immigrants was blocked by a Catholic priest. (Again, is the Historical Society of Pennsylvania a "proper book or newspaper of record"? No, but it is certainly a reliable source for the material presented.) Read the whole thing: "Irish immigrants", "Irish mob", "The Irish were challenged by the Nativists' religious and racial bigotry", "Irish rioters", "Catholic priest", etc.

We certainly have more material to add here, covering the mob's attacks on firemen spraying water on the fires, attacking police attempting to disperse the crowd, etc.[2]

So why the bland "angry mob of whites" in the PHMC marker? Simple. "Irish Catholics" being called out as one of the "bad guys" -- even 170 years ago in one of numerous racial/ethic incidents -- is not palatable politically. It is, however, verifiable.

Anyone with a day to burn at the archives could easily expand this article to several times its present size. Failing substantive discussion to the contrary, I will add the sources I've just cited for the disputed text in a day or two.

(For a "proper book", I would refer you to The Philadelphia Negro, though anyone disputing that the mobs -- as outlined in all of the sources -- were Irish Catholics will probably want to challenge DuBois on some ground or another. Newspapers from the time are obviously problematic. Yes, some research would likely turn up newspapers covering the riots, the local papers of the times would likely point the finger at whomever wasn't part of their readership.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As there was no discussion to the contrary (though the IP came back to further trim the text without explanation), I have restored the text, citing Philadelphia Weekly, the Historical Society of Philadelphia and PBS. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to distress you so. I personally couldn't care any less if it was Irish Catholics, Czech Protestants, or Jamaican Rastafarians. All you need to do is find a source that supports your statement. Simple. And for all the bluster above, you still haven't done that. So I'm gonna click undo again, and wait until you can fix it up. 212.7.212.106 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what portion of the well-sourced section bothers you so much. Though you complain about "Irish Catholic" being included and seem to not want anything to do with the reliable sources supporting this. I have re-worded and expanded the section closely following the sources. If you have any further complaints, you will need to explain what you feel is not adequately sourced. Additionally, please use edit summaries. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You still, haven't provided a reliable source. You've just found something that someone has submitted to a website. That won't do I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.212.106 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You removed two sources: PBS and the Historical Society of Philadelphia. Neither one is "something someone submitted to a website". Please substantiate your claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now added several more reliable sources, all confirming an Irish or Irish Catholic mob. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets talk Irish Mob

“As the paraders neared Mother Bethel Church, they were attacked by an Irish mob.[1][6][7][8][5]”

1 ^ a b c Gregory, Kia. December 7, 2005, Philadelphia Weekly. "[1]". Accessed April 30, 2008. 5 ^ a b Runcie, John. Pennsylvania History, April 1972, Penn State University Press. "'Hunting the Nigs' in Philadelphia: The Race Riot of August 1834". 39.2, pp 187-218. 6 ^ a b Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, Preservation News "Years of Growth and Challenge, 1830-1880". 7 ^ a b pbs.org, "Africans in America - Part IV: Judgement Day - Pennsylvania Hall ". Accessed 15 August 2012. 8 ^ a b Historical Society of Philadelphia, "Lombard Street Riots". Accessed 15 August 2012.

we need discussion about these sources. So below is a critical discussion of these sources cited above in reference to an Irish Mob attacking the African American march on August 1st, 1842. this article is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which because it appears that the inclusion of "Irish" and "Irish Catholic" is constructed upon not one single primary source, instead, it is mostly in reference to the work of Runcie (1972). Below you will find discussion of the Runcie article and the other citations. P.Mothoin (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source 5, Runcie, John 1972. This article does not consider the 1842 Lombard Street Riots in question. It does not mention Mother Bethel Church either. It is about a different riot, in a different part of the city, in a different decade (1834). In addition, his study of primary arrest records, Runcie (1972) is only able to produce 4 Irish sounding surnames out of 60 arrests (Runcie 1972:194). With only 4 Irish sounding surnames, he concludes that the mob was Irish. He does not quantify any of his ethnic data from the arrest, nor does he provide a count or ratio of the total amount of Irish verses Anglo-Saxon or German sounding names found in the 60 arrest he investigated. Furthermore, he admits that non-Irish sounding names are also included in the list of 60 arrests, however ignores this avenue of potential research. In addition, first hand witness statements (from an Englishman) about this 1834 riot do not mention an Irish mob (Brothers 1840:197-99). Surely, an Englishman who witnessed this riot first hand would know an Irish mob if he ever saw one. Instead, Runcie cites another Englishman by the name of Edward Adby who was not present to witness the riots firsthand himself. Instead, Adby is interested in producing a compelling book about his travels in the United States. Instead of citing a firshand account like Brothers (1840) above, Runcie cites Adby, who passes along second or third hand rumors from unknown individuals and sources that the mob was “Irish laborers” and some “class of mechanics”of which I assume he means apprentice Native born Americans. In addition, Brothers clearly states that along with poor white workers, public officers, merchants, and traders were also involved in the 1834 riot (Brothers 1840:198). Moreover, Runcie must rely upon the 1833 and 1835 city directories to ‘Hunt the Micks’ down, because no city directory exists for the important 1834 riot year (Runcie 1972: 192). He admits that many Anglo-Saxon names (he uses John Brown as example) are too common in city directories, so he decides instead only focus on tracking down Irish sounding names. This is a fatal error in this study, as his work is now clearly biases and appears to be more witch hunt than scholarship. To make matters worse, the author proposes to base his research upon the 1835 “Enumeration of Tax” book that only considers taxable persons over the age of 21, even though contemporary accounts of this riot indicate that the mob consisted of “lads from 17 to 20 years old… (Runcie 1972:193)”. P.Mothoin (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In conclusion, Runcie’s work is not about the 1842 Lombard Street riot, it is about a different riot altogether, in a different part of the city, from almost a decade prior (1834). I believe that these riots are being mixed up on this wiki page, and mis-representing the role of Irish in the Lombard Riot. So why is Runcie cited as evidence that the mob at “near Mother Bethel Church” during the 1842 Lombard Riot was wholly Irish? Also, Runcie’s conclusions are flawed because he claims that 1834 mob was Irish based upon his reporting of 4 surnames (reported out of 60 arrest) within the primary documents that he used in the study. Runcie also ignores and excludes from further research “several” Anglo-Saxon surnames found in the arrest records “because of the popularity” (Runcie 1972: 192-3). Even after all these flaws in the research, Runcie fails to consider that Scotch-Irish, African Americans, and both Protestant and Catholic Irish people often share similar or identical surnames. Even with these obvious flaws in his surname analysis, Runcie still insist that the mob was Irish Catholic (Runcie 1972:198) based upon 4 Irish sounding surnames out of the 60 arrest records he surveyed in this study. In addition, Runcie is unable to produce a single firsthand account from this 1834 riot that describes the mob as either wholly or even partially Irish. P.Mothoin (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source 6, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia cites Runcie’s work (see above). This is a tertiary source AT BEST. This Preservation Alliance (no date) manuscript cites the 1972 Runcie article (described in detail above) as the sole evidence of Irish involvement in the 1842 Lombard Street Riot. Runcie’s (1972) study is about a different riot, in a different decade (1834), in a different part of the city. This is not evidence that the Lombard Street mob was Irish nor should it be considered a reliable source. P.Mothoin (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source 7, pbs.org “Pennsylvania Hall” (Accessed 12-26-12). There is no mention of any Irish Mobs at this source. No mention of Irish involvement at either the Lombard Street Riot (1842) or the Pennsylvania Hall riot (previous decade 1838). The Pennsylvania Hall Riot was not part of the 1842 Lombard Street Riots in question. This is not a reliable citation for the Irish involvement in the Lombard Street Riot. P.Mothoin (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source 8, philaplace.org, Lombard Street Riots. This web blog does not cite any reliable historical content as to the Irish involvement in the Lombard Street Riot. Instead, it paraphrases the general thesis of the 1972 Runcie article, and in an unethically manner, does not give proper credit or citation to Runcie’s article or thesis. The web blog does however provide two hot-linked web pages near the bottom of the page (one link broken 12-26-12), and as of 12-26-12, neither of which provides any evidence of a wholly or partially Irish Catholic mob during the Lombard Street Riot. This is not a reliable citation for the Irish involvement in the Lombard Street Riot. The website itself ( philaplace.org ) is funded by the Historical Society of Philadelphia. This is a local group and they do not have regulatory authority to review projects or make decisions on state sponsored history projects like the installation of the historic marker sign at the corner of Sixth and Lombard streets. It does not have an author on this particular webpage, but list 10 interns in the “Research and Writing” department. So not only does this webpage paraphrase the questionable work of Runcie (1972, described above in detail), it was very likely produced by an intern with unknown background and historical training. P.Mothoin (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source 9, Pennsylvania Freeman, n. 14. July 18, 1844. "The Riots”. In addition to the above sources that are being used as evidence on this wiki page for singular Irish involvement in the Lombard Street Riot, the leading abolitionists’ newspaper in the city, the Pennsylvania Freeman, denied claims that Philadelphia riots in general principally involved the Irish and stated such in very clear terms: “…the jury, conducted the investigation with manifest partiality. They neglected and refused, as we are assured, to examine persons who could give them information, but who were either Catholics or of foreign birth… This presentment was followed by a charge …riots proceeded principally from foreigners, an assertion which we believe untrue in reference to Philadelphia, and which if true, was peculiarly inappropriate to the occasion. “ ("The Riots," Pennsylvania Freeman, n. 14. 18 July, 1844 (http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/953.htm) P.Mothoin (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source 11. Lyons, Sioban. March 2008. "Philadelphia photos - Street shots and architecture. Finally, I present the very clear evidence of the March 2005 decision of the Pennsylvania Historical and Cultural Commission (PHCC) in choosing the language of the historical marker sign placed at the corner of Sixth and Lombard streets. The sign DOES NOT indicate that the 1842 Lombard Street riot was perpetrated by Irish, instead it reads “Lombard Street Riot — Here on August 1842 an angry mob of whites attacked a parade celebrating Jamaican Emancipation Day. A riot ensued. African Americans were beaten and their homes looted. The rioting lasted for 3 days. A local church and abolition meeting place were destroyed by fire.” The PHCC are the legal reviewers of all public works projects that involve federal and state monies in the state of PA. This project involved these monies so it came under PHCC review. After a rigorous review process, PHCC concluded, as does everybody who honestly evaluates these sources, that this WAS NOT an exclusively Irish mob. P.Mothoin (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Brothers, T. 1840 The United States of North America as they are: not as they are generally described; being a cure for radicalism. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans.

After reviewing these sources closely, I hope you come to the same decision that the professionals at PHCC and I have come to, and remove all references of Irish Catholic mob. P.Mothoin (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For openers, this discussion needs to fit the parameters of Wikipedia. We do not discuss whether or not sources are "correct" or "right". We do not pretend to know the truth. Rather, we determine if sources are reliable and report what they say. If reliable sources say the Moon is made of green cheese, we say the Moon is made of green cheese. Discussions here about possible shortcomings of various authors' methodology are not productive.

Setting the scene for this discussion, we have your edit which adds significant material not found in any of the sources cited discussing oppression faced by Irish Catholics. This oppression, though real, would appear to be off topic, given your claim that the riot did not involve Irish Catholics. In any case, it is not supported by any reliable sources discussing this riot.

Your edit claims that Pennsylvania Freeman, n. 14. July 18, 1844. "The Riots" "refers to 1844 anti-Catholic riots, not Lombard Street". This is incorrect. While the main topic of the source is the "anti-Catholic riots" (the Philadelphia Nativist Riots), the article does discuss the 1842 Lombard Street riot. Additionally, it gives some indication of why the arrests in this instance would not have included many Irish, "The Mayor and police being called on to suppress the riot, instead of arresting the rioters arrested those who were attacked." That is to say, the African-American victims were arrested, not the rioters.

Having addressed the incorrect assertion that one source was not about the topic at hand, we are told that Runcie is not discussing this riot. At the moment I do not have access to the source in question. (I'll be certain to re-check it when I do.) That said, we are told, at great length, how Runcie is wrong about this riot. I cannot address a criticism I do not understand. Was Runcie not discussing this riot or was he wrong in his conclusions about this riot. It cannot be both. If you are saying his conclusions about the 1834 riot are flawed, that is wholly immaterial here. (Side note: Our article on the 1834 riot, Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia), does not (at the moment) mention Runcie's conclusions.) If your claim is simply that Runcie is wrong, we are not here to determine the truth, we hare here to summarize what reliable sources have to say. Runcie is cited here writing for Pennsylvania History, Penn State University Press. This is, from my chair, a reliable source for the material presented.

Next you assert that the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia is mistaken in its research for citing Runcie. This is not a valid argument. Either the Preservation Alliance is a reliable source or it is not. Whether or not it is "correct" is not up for discussion here. It is, however, remarkable that the Preservation Alliance would cite a source that does not discuss the topic they are discussing. This is getting a bit hard to fathom.

You pick at the pbs.org cite, but do not clearly mention the true problem here: This source does not (that I can find) mention the 1842 riot. I have removed it.

Your complaints about the philaplace.org cite are problematic.

• "{It is a) web blog[sic]." The website is produced by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. I see no indication that it is a blog.
• You dislike their cites for various reasons, say that it unethically makes use of Runcie without citing same and mention the one cited link is broken. (The broken cite may or may not be a reliable source and may or may not cite Runcie.) In any case, your assessments of their research (and your unsupported claim that they have been unethical) are immaterial. If the source is a reliable source, we certainly can cite it.
• "...neither of which provides any evidence of a wholly or partially Irish Catholic mob" As you have just told us one of the links is broken, i am intrigued by your statement that it did not provide the key to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Again, if the source is a reliable source, its sources are immaterial here. "They were attacked on Fourth Street by an Irish mob that beat many of the marchers and looted black homes in the area. The marchers retaliated in self-defense, further enraging the Irish mob."
• "(T)he Historical Society of Philadelphia...is a local group and they do not have regulatory authority to review projects or make decisions on state sponsored history projects". This is the Historical Society of Pennsylvania we are citing. Established in 1824, they are funded by NEH, Pew and a few others you may have heard of. I await discussion that is "local organization" is not a reliable source for historical events in Philadelphia 18 years after their founding.
• "(I)t was very likely produced by an intern with unknown background and historical training." This is a publication of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Your assumptions about its authorship are immaterial.

In discussing Pennsylvania Freeman, you cite their coverage of "the Riots". The section you are quoting from this 1844 source starts, "In May last,...". It is discussing a May 1844 riot at that point.

Your argument re the PHCC marker is an argument from absence. No, the marker does not state that the mob was Irish Catholic. This does not mean the mob was not Irish Catholic. The marker does not mention the rioters were wearing clothes. Should we add that the rioters were naked? You state "After a rigorous review process, PHCC concluded, as does everybody who honestly evaluates these sources, that this WAS NOT an exclusively Irish mob." We do not have evidence of this. We do not have evidence that they specifically excluded an "exclusively Irish mob". Rather, we have numerous sources that do point to an Irish Catholic mob, with the PHCC not saying anything one way or the other.

Lastly, you mention -- but do not discuss -- "Brothers, T. 1840 The United States of North America as they are: not as they are generally described; being a cure for radicalism". I do not see the relevance of an 1840 text in discussion of an 1842 riot. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• ":For openers, this discussion needs to fit the parameters of Wikipedia. We do not discuss whether or not sources are "correct" or "right". We do not pretend to know the truth. Rather, we determine if sources are reliable and report what they say. If reliable sources say the Moon is made of green cheese, we say the Moon is made of green cheese. Discussions here about possible shortcomings of various authors' methodology are not productive."

If you do not have access to Runcie, then why do you cite this article as proof that it was "an Irish Catholic Mob"? Runcie does not discuss the Lomabard Street Riot. Runcie is all about another riot in another a previous decade (1834). If we cannot discuss if your citation of Runcie is "correct" or "right", then Wiki is a dictatorship, and not a community Wiki project. So I made changes and I ask you again; Why is Runcie 1972 cited as proof that the "Irish Catholic Mob" rioted at the Lombard Street riot? We will take these one at a time. P.Mothoin (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not citing Runcie right now. (The article did cite it, I may have added it when I had access to it.) At the moment, I do not have access to this article. When I return to my office after break, I will check it when I have a chance. It is curious, though, that two other sources you have claimed did not discuss this riot plainly did. I would encourage you to carefully review the Runcie source to ensure you have not made the same error a third time.

We do not examine whether or not sources are "correct" or "right". Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. While it is amusing to compare having a core policy (actually, we have three) to being a "dictatorship", the point is moot. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith here. Above you said "It is curious, though, that two other sources you have claimed did not discuss this riot plainly did." I am at a loss here. At beginning of section "Lets talk Irish Mob", I am clear that I'm working on the 5 citations above that were used to support “As the paraders neared Mother Bethel Church, they were attacked by an Irish mob." So far, two of these citations (Runcie and PBS) did not support this claim and they have been removed.

I said "Source 7, pbs.org “Pennsylvania Hall” (Accessed 12-26-12). There is no mention of any Irish Mobs at this source. No mention of Irish involvement at either the Lombard Street Riot (1842) or the Pennsylvania Hall riot (previous decade 1838)."

You said "You pick at the pbs.org cite, but do not clearly mention the true problem here: This source does not (that I can find) mention the 1842 riot. I have removed it."

I am not sure what you mean by "pick at", so I am confused over this statement. Please explain if this is some Wiki slang. I think our statements show we are are in agreement here, correct? The PBS citations does not mention of Irish involvement at Lombard Street Riot. As we previously discussed, the Runcie article also does not support the statement “As the paraders neared Mother Bethel Church, they were attacked by an Irish Catholic mob". If you follow above, so far two citations that I found in this article DO NOT SUPPORT that statement “As the paraders neared Mother Bethel Church, they were attacked by an Irish mob". So again, I assume good faith here so let us remain civil.

Now I do remember one citation that I originally thought was only about the 1844 Nativist riots, however it did also mention a 1842 riot but not specifically the Lombard Street Riot by name (Pennsylvania Freeman, n. 14. July 18, 1844. "The Riots"). However, this had nothing to do with the statement “As the paraders neared Mother Bethel Church, they were attacked by an Irish Catholic mob" we are discussing here in the "Lets talk Irish Mob" section of this Talk page.P.Mothoin (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase

You seem to be disputing that the mob was Irish. The current version of the article gives four sources for this:

• Gregory, Kia. December 7, 2005, "Monumental Achievement" Philadelphia Weekly. "An Irish mob attacked the marchers near Mother Bethel Church."
• Historical Society of Pennsylvania, "Lombard Street Riots". "They were attacked on Fourth Street by an Irish mob that beat many of the marchers and looted black homes in the area. The marchers retaliated in self-defense, further enraging the Irish mob."
• Contosta, Nicole. University City Review, 11 July 2012, "The Lombard Street Riot: an often-ignored chapter in Philadelphia's history". "Mobs of Irish Catholics attacked the marchers."
• The Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, "YEARS OF GROWTH AND CHALLENGE, 1830-1880". "When the marchers reached Fourth and Shippen (Bainbridge) Streets, a mob of angry white (primarily Irish) dissidents set upon them. The riot spread into a nearby black neighborhood where numerous homes were ransacked and several individuals were brutally assaulted. The mob torched Smith's Hall on Lombard Street, the building that had served as an abolitionist headquarters in the absence of Pennsylvania Hall, and then burned nearby Second African Presbyterian Church on St. Mary's Street near 6th Street."

I am wholly satisfied that reliable sources unequivocally state that the mob was Irish. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Lombard Street Riot — Here on August 1842 an angry mob of whites attacked a parade celebrating Jamaican Emancipation Day."

Can someone more in the know determine if this is correct? "Lombard Street Riot — Here on August 1842 an angry mob of whites attacked a parade celebrating Jamaican Emancipation Day." should it be "in"?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion "in" would be better English, but the article is quoting a cited source (you have to scroll down, or search for "6th and Lombard"), and the source says "on", so we should follow that. JohnCD (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. That's odd. With all of the vetting and the review process to check the facts (and, often, to "soften" the language), I have trouble thinking a goof like that would slip through, especially since it would make more sense to mention the specific date (which, AFAIK, is not disputed) and including the day would eliminate the error.

So far, I've found a dozen or so websites giving the same version we have, but they all seem to come from our article or the source we are citing. I don't get over that way very often, but I'll try to snap a photo the next time I do. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've found two instances of photos of the physical sign[3] that confirm that it reads, "On August 1, 1842..." While this resolves the odd grammar issue (and I've corrected it in the article), the text now conflicts the the source. The photo is in a forum, which we typically do not cite. I'll try to get a photo of the sign the next time I'm nearby. It will likely suck, but uploading it to commons would seem to allow us to cite it, in case anyone trying to cause problems decides to argue the technicality. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammar is a technicality and the dropping of information makes it a proof. Do a search: "on October 2015"--you will see the possibilities.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lombard Street riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/monumental_achievement-38403194.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516095507/http://www.ushistory.org/philadelphia/timeline/1842.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/philadelphia/timeline/1842.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lombard Street riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510060256/http://phillyhistory.org/blog/archive/2006/07/26/the-calm-after-the-storm.aspx to http://phillyhistory.org/blog/archive/2006/07/26/the-calm-after-the-storm.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509071240/http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/953.htm to http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/953.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)