Talk:St Scholastica Day riot

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Scholastica Day 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/20091215225140/http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decAC/Top_ten_astonishing_facts_occw.htm to http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decAC/Top_ten_astonishing_facts_occw.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Date? And judges?

This may be a stupid question, but I am going to ask it anyway. Do we know for sure that this riot took place on the date that we would call 10 February 1355? And not say 10 February 1354 or 1353?

Lots of sources, particularly popular sources, mention 1355, although usually without much sourcing.

But there are also many sources that seem to indicate the riot took place in 1354 – given the Old Style year started on Lady Day on 25 March, that might mean February at the end of 1354/5 (i.e. the start of 1355 in modern parlance) or perhaps more likely February at the end of 1353/4 (i.e. the start of 1354 in modern parlance) – and even some that mention February 1353.

• The annals of Anthony Wood puts it under the heading "An Dom 1354 / 28 Ed III".[1] Now, Edward III conveniently became king on 25 January 1327, so each of his regnal years is roughly the same as the modern calendar year, year 1 of his reign ran from 25 January 1327 to 24 January 1328 (see Regnal years of English monarchs) And so "28 Ed III" should be January 1354 to January 1355. If this event took place in February in that regnal year, that suggests 1353/4 (i.e. February 1354) rather than 1354/5 (i.e. February 1355).
• Walker gives different dates again, 27 Ed III and 1343.[2]
• Oxford Historical Society, Volume 19, p.373 says 1353/4.[3]
• Moore says 1354.[4]
• Rashdall says 1353/4, and also calls it the "Slaughter of 1354".[5]

At the very least, there is some dispute in the sources. Why is that? Is this just an Old Style/New Style thing? Is there really a debate in the scholarly sources? Do any of them address the dating? Perhaps the competing claims have been considered and there is something in the more modern sources that definitely comes down on 1355? Or is that just an assumption everyone is making without checking the original documetns? Do the original letters and charters and commissions and so on still exist? What do they say?

Secondly, I was wondering if could we name the judges commissioned to hear and decide ("oyez et terminer") and found a list in Wood p.355, which says they were Richard de Stafford (probably Richard Stafford, 1st Baron Stafford of Clifton, Henry Green (possibly our Henry Green (English judge) as there are other sources mentioning "Hugh Green CJ"), Robert de Thorpe (probably Robert Thorpe (Lord Chancellor)), William de Notton, and Hugh de Sadelingstones (possibly a Newcastle coal merchant). Probably too much detail for the article, so I'll leave that here. Theramin (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Modern histories give the dates as we have them here;

2. As you say, a little too much information, and I'd be loathe to link to other articles unless we are sure they are the same people. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Havac/Havoc

In the Dispute section, it is stated that townspeople cried "Havac! Havoc! Smyt fast, give gode knocks!". I can't access the cited sources, but it seems very unlikely to me that any source would say both "havac" and "havoc", and more likely that the first word contains a typo. I've therefore changed it to "Havoc! Havoc!" instead. If a source says otherwise, let me know. Lennart97 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Lennart97, an earlier version of the Morris source available here does indeed say "Havac! Havoc!". Other sources give other spellings entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for your reply! That's interesting. This book says "Havock, Havock". Maybe the problem is that it was, as this article says at least, a pretty new word at the time, so recordings of it differ. But even then it's unlikely that the townspeople would have cried the word one way first, and then another way. In any case, given that various sources have different spellings so there's not one correct answer, would you agree that it makes the most sense to write it in the article as "Havoc! Havoc!"? Lennart97 (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest expanding the note already present to discuss the variance in spelling. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense! Done. Lennart97 (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Parker reference

I’ve tweaked the Parker reference in two ways. Firstly, there is absolutely no need to include the excessively long subtitle in the reference (this is common practice here and in general publications, so I don’t know why I was reverted). Secondly, I removed the publisher name because no publisher is shown. This was reverted, despite there being no no publisher name. While the Internet Archive shows ‘Oxford’, this refers to the location not publisher. Both WorldCat (here) and the Bodlian Library’s SOLO catalogue (here) guess at it being James Parker, which is more likely, but there is no evidence of this being entirely correct either. 213.205.194.243 (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@213.205.194.243: Hi, so it was me who added and reverted. On the publisher: my apologies, I misread the WorldCat entry, and you are quite right that no publisher is given. As for the subtitle, I strongly disagree with removing it, as I explained on your talk page, on the basis of consistency: this article also gives other long subtitles, as in:

• The Beauties of England and Wales; or, Delineations, Topographical, Historical and Descriptive, of each County;
• The Historical Handbook and Guide to Oxford: Embracing a Succinct History of the University and City from the Year 912; and
• Oxford During the Last Century: Being Two Series of Papers Published in The Oxford Chronicle & Berks & Bucks Gazette During the Year 1859.

Either all should be trimmed, or none, but trimming one makes little sense to me. (I'm not going to revert back unless some sort of agreement is reached to do so, but I would not that per the generally accepted practice of WP:BRD you shouldn't have re-reverted to your old version without discussing first.) Arguably WP:BRD kicks in only now as yours was the only full-scale reversion of an edit, so I've struck that bit. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 12:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC), edited 13:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My rational is that none of the others was so ridiculously long as the Parker reference (although arguably, you could add the third of those refs into the same category as Parker). 213.205.194.243 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from. Perhaps we could agree on removing the subtitle from that third one as well? YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn’t object to that, if it levels it up slightly.

p.s. thanks for coming here (and to my tp) to discuss this, and thanks very much for striking the BRD part. I’ve seen too many people use BRD as a weapon (particularly against IPs) as a way of getting their own way. Your approach has been exemplary, and I thank you for it. Cheers - the editor formerly known as SchroCat. 213.205.194.243 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries at all, and thanks for discussing; I'll make that change in the morning unless someone beats or has beaten me to it (I eventually noticed one of my edits changed the wrong ref, and if I can do that when fully awake...). I had a sneaking suspicion it might be you—I thought the article must have been expanded because it contained a lot more (v interesting) material from when I'd previously read it; I then dug into the history to see when. Obv WP:OUTING prohibited me from saying that! YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 00:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)