Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dick Turpin/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [1].

Dick Turpin[edit]

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 19:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

More skullduggery. Most British folk have heard of Dick Turpin, and most would imagine him to be a charming rogue. The real man was very far from the Victorian myth. Handling stolen goods, robbery, thuggery, murder, and a swift hanging for the relatively innocuous crime of horse theft. Parrot of Doom 19:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dabs or dead external links—good.
  • Images have alt text that looks good. Consider adding the text of the fifth entry of the parish register to its alt—the caption says "see fifth entry", but those unable to see the image can't. ("Richardus Filius Johannis et Maria Turpin bapt. Sept. 21", from what I see.)
  • Ref dates are all ISO style—good.

--an odd name 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - A very interesting article on a odd character from English history. I couldn't see any major problems, although there was a slight prose issue with the lead: the section "from his prison cell, but the letter was apprehended by" - shouldn't have a "but" conjunction, instead it would read better as "from his prison cell, which was apprehended by". Also link the Earl of Suffolk mentioned briefly in the text. Otherwise a very nice article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. That was because it used to say the letter contained a plea for help, but with more sources I discovered that the contents of the letter aren't known, so I deleted the phrase. Thanks for spotting it :) Parrot of Doom 10:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An interesting read. There are prose issues; I've not had time to note them all, but here are those I picked up in the lead. I will try to return later.
    • "He then disappeared from public life..." I think you mean "public view"
    • The word "resurface" appears twice in close proximity. Better to use a synonym (reappear?) for second mention
    • "...one of whom he might have accidentally shot and killed during a skirmish with those trying to arrest him." etc. This episode needs a sharper summary. Who were "those trying to arrest him", and where did this happen?
    • "made enquiries as to how he made..." Awkward repetition, should be rephrased ("made enquiries as to the source of his money"?)
    • "but the letter" should be "when the letter" or similar, not "but"
    • There is something odd about "Although considered during his lifetime to be an unremarkable figure,..." I imagine this means that he wasn't a high-profile criminal in his day, rather than that a process of "consideration" took place in his lifetime. Rephrasing advised.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • See these changes. There isn't the space to expand upon exactly what happened when Malcolm King was shot as the story is by no means straightforward, so I've shortened that. The unremarkable figure bit...that's similarly difficult. During his last few years he was considered a notorious criminal, but once he was dead he became largely forgotten (unremarkable). Of course now the story of Dick Turpin is somewhat 'remarkable', but that's explained by the second half of the sentence. Many other criminals of this age could have been as memorable as Turpin, had they been written about by a famous Victorian author (who was also the source of the annoyingly persistent Tom King myth). Parrot of Doom 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Need to note that Oxford Dictionary of National biography links require a subscription . (It's only outside the UK, I know, but that kinda includes most of the rest of the world..) Same for JSTOR links.
  • I'd like to point out that the lead image is not a good idea to try on horseback, just as a public service announcement. (grins).
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support This is an entertaining and clearly written article. I really do love the 18th century. :) Here are my suggestions:
  • Turpin's true identity was revealed by a letter he wrote to his brother-in-law from his prison cell, which was apprehended by the authorities. - "who was apprehended" or "which was intercepted"?
  • The letter wasn't intercepted, his bro-in-law refused to pay for it, it went by default to the main post office, where Turpin's teacher recognised the handwriting. It was then apprehended by the local bod. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the word "apprehended" is used for letters, though - it is usually used for people. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "apprehended" probably isn't the right word, but as the letter came into the hands of the authorities serendipitously I don't think "intercepted" is the right word either. Changed it to "fell into the hands of". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turpin used his pistols to beat Lawrence's bare buttocks until they were badly bruised, and the gang beat him around the head with their pistols, emptied a kettle of water over his head, and forced him to sit on the fire while bare-buttocked. - This sounds silly.
  • It is the language that sounds silly (e.g. "forced him to sit on the fire while bare-buttocked") - we need to rewrite it. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just re-read it and now see what you mean, lol. Dick Turpin, scourge of the authorities, robbing people while bare-buttocked :) I've edited it Parrot of Doom 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if a little bit of background information on what kinds of crimes were given the death sentence in 18th-century England could be added to the article. People were executed for many "smaller" crimes, particularly theivery in the 18th century, than later. There was a dramatic change in the early 19th century regarding this issue. It might be worth pointing out to readers that Turpin lived in a really different time when it came to "justice".
  • I may be able to add something about the changes in the law making deer theft more serious. I've tried and failed to find something that tells us why horse theft was such a heinous crime. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have several books on crime in the 18th century - I'll look through them this weekend and see if I can find something. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. After looking through what I have, I think the one I want is The London Hanged, but I don't own that one. Off to the library. Awadewit (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops I forgot about this, will get on it tonight. Parrot of Doom 22:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I added a line about how deer theft was viewed. It wasn't a particularly serious offence as things went (compared to horse theft). Parrot of Doom 23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a single line stressing the penalty for horse theft. I'm not completely satisfied that the source offers the reader much by the way of why the offence was so serious. It almost certainly was because in the 16th century horses were owned mostly by the aristocracy. I'd like to add a better source that explains why it was still an offence in 1739 (it was repealed by Robert Peel's government in the 19th century), but I can't find much better right now. Hopefully you'll have more luck at the library. Parrot of Doom 23:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken a first stab - a general statement about property. Let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fiddled with it a bit and moved things around to improve the flow, but its a welcome addition and I thank thee kind sir. Parrot of Doom 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also suggest adding a sentence or two explaining that The Genuine History of the Life of Richard Turpin is part of a tradition of crime narratives and crime confessionals that were published during the 18th century in which the entire point was to publish a sensationalized story quickly.
  • I regret I've been unable to do this. I lack the sources which state explicitly that such practices were normal. Parrot of Doom 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken a first stab at this - the prose still needs some work, but let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good stuff, again I fiddled slightly but its a welcome additino. Parrot of Doom 15:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me, however you can reduce the width of a quote box if you like. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "edit" button is buried by text - it is three lines into the text and the quote box is overlapping the text. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little concerned here at the library. Every book about 18th-century crime that I have looked at so far has mentioned Turpin and there are lots of little details about him that are not included in the article. Everything I have run across so far falls into that category of "that would interesting to have in the article, but I'm not sure it is necessary" - judgment calls. I'm wondering, however, if the writers consulted any books about eighteenth-century crime, like Crime & Punishment in Eighteenth-Century England by Frank McLynn, The London Hanged by Peter Linebaugh or Tyburn's Martyrs by Andrea McKenzie? Awadewit (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of stuff that's been published about Turpin isn't true. Do you have any specific examples of what you think is missing? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - here are three:
  • A transcription of the ballad "Turpin's Appeal to the Judge"
  • A discussion of the lead image (which is, apparently reversed and cropped from the original), which shows Turpin is leaping over a turnpike, "the most advanced technological form of land transport then known" (Linebaugh 208). Linebaugh puts this depiction of the mythological Turpin in historical perspective.
  • Linebaugh would appear to be regurgitating many of the myths that are patently incorrect, and does not mention the source of the turnpike drawing. He also says that Turpin's activities were enabled by his payments to local innkeepers, etc, but this is almost certainly wrong - the rewards offered for Turpin's capture, and those of his comrades, were enormous, Turpin would never have been able to trust anyone with such monies on his head. Parrot of Doom 09:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm rather astonished by that comment. The image came from the Gutenberg version of Rookwood. Is the accusation that Gutenberg reversed and cropped the original? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image to which I'm referring is reproduced in Linebaugh on page 208, if you would like to see it. I would guess that the 19th-century publisher altered the image, not Gutenberg. We can, of course, contact the archive where Linebaugh got his original image and track down the details. Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect we could, but does it matter whether Turpin was jumping from right to left or right to left in an imagined illustration? It didn't happen anyway, Turpin didn't ride from London to York. I can see this might be a valid objection in the now unlikely event that the Rookwood article were ever presented at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not all that important - which is why I put that point in parentheses (the entire illustration has a person in it gazing at Turpin in astonishment, btw). What is important is that he is portrayed jumping a turnpike. Linebaugh views this point as so important that his chapter contains the illustration and he explains how this informs the myth of Turpin. Malleus, you're smart, don't make me repeat myself. Awadewit (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smart or not, I'm struggling with this, so I'll have to leave it to my arch-enemy, the dreaded Parrot of Doom. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linebaugh gives the source of the image as a collection from 1950. Unless we know for certain when the drawing was created, I don't think we can say much more. I don't know when the 'jumping a turnpike' thing came from, as Ainsworth merely borrowed the story of Turpin's flight from London to York from other sources (it was being enacted on stage in 1819) and embellished it with 'Black Bess'. Parrot of Doom 10:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, part of the myth of Turpin is that he was honest, in his own way and to his own class. This is important because the myth is partly about class tensions. So, for example, one source explains "One newspaper reported that the famous highwayman Dick Turpin and an accomplice, after fleeing a public house in Whitechapel upon the approach of a constable, paid their reckoning by Penny Post..." (McKenzie 98).
As I said above, the inclusion of any of this material is a judgment call. However, I am a bit concerned that I could so quickly find material. That is why I was wondering if books on 18th-century crime were consulted for this article. Awadewit (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd probably be best presenting a range of examples, as many of the 'truths' of Turpin are myth. Barlow (1973) is an astonishingly detailed look at the man, I'm almost certain it's the best source to use, as he quite convincingly dispels many of the myths surrounding the legend. He goes to great pains to study many of the newspaper reports, and (it seems to me) expertly manages separate the real reports, from those that were made up, or who assumed Turpin was the culprit in whatever crime was being reported. There's no contemporary images of Turpin so the turnpike one was selected as it most resembles the legend (unless someone has painted a 'stand and deliver' portrait that we could use), but I think the book it came from is given a pretty fair weighting. I very much doubt that there is any truth to Turpin's 'honesty', but possibly the article could use a few lines on how his activities were reported. I'll have a look and see what I can come up with. Parrot of Doom 09:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individual examples I gave above are much less important than the question I asked, which still hasn't been answered. Have histories of 18th-century crime been consulted for this article? Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because with regard to Turpin I've yet to see one that doesn't manage to confuse fact and fiction. The two main sources are detailed biographies - other works offer only a page or two about the man. Parrot of Doom 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, all of the sources I looked at are very careful to delineate the difference. I would suggest looking at the three sources I listed above as a start. Awadewit (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • McLynn claims that Turpin shot King, but he has no way of knowing this as contemporary accounts are by no means accurate on the matter - in fact some claimed that Bayes killed King. McLynn also makes the mistake of presuming that King was Tom King, but Turpin never associated with a Tom King, who is a fictional character. Linebaugh claims that Turpin married Hestor Palmer, which isn't true. He claims that Turpin stole cattle, but there is little evidence for this. Linebaugh also mentions Tom King as a real person, and makes no effort to separate Ainsworth's writings from reality. I'm unable to read McKenzie's book online. From what I've been able to read of the former two books, I'm unconvinced by any argument to include them here. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linebaugh is the foremost authority on 18th-century crime, but if you don't want to include his book, that's fine. I would suggest that you acquire McKenzie's book, as it is almost entirely about the myths and literature surrounding 18th-century criminals. One of the weaknesses of this article is that it focuses so much on sorting out the "truth", which of course is nearly impossible to do at this late date, and neglects the myth of Turpin. A thorough explanation of the myth of Turpin, why it developed, and what it signified in the culture at the time is important. You say above, for example, "I very much doubt that there is any truth to Turpin's 'honesty'", but that is not the point I was trying to make. As I stated above "Apparently, part of the myth of Turpin is that he was honest, in his own way and to his own class. This is important because the myth is partly about class tensions" (note my emphasis on the myth of Turpin). While it is important that this article attempt to untangle fact from fiction, I do think it is extremely important that it also explain the myth and its role in 18th- and 19th-century society. The more I look into the sources, the more I see that is available for this purpose. Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I can buy that. I'll have a look at what Sharpe says, as I think he summarises much of the myth in one chapter. My problem with the Linebaugh book is that it makes basic mistakes about Turpin that might confuse the reader were he to read them. He may be an authority on crime, but I don't believe he's an authority on Turpin. Parrot of Doom 20:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, have a read through again of the Modern View section, and let me know what you think. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an improvement - thanks. I am happy to support what I believe to be a well-written and comprehensive article. Awadewit (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review All the images have acceptable licenses. The sources of them are given and are verifiable. Graham Colm Talk 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read this article about a week ago but forgot to add my support with regard to criterion 1a. What a nasty bloke Turpin truly was, thanks for dispelling the myth. Graham Colm Talk 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something is off with the quote boxes on IE8, but I can't figure out what it is. They all appear to be formatted the same, but some of them are causing huge strangely placed white spaces. Can you get someone on IE8 to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the quote box template. Has that fixed the problem? (I use Firefox, don't have IE8 to check myself.) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, all set now: I've never seen that before, weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Sandy. I know the power of the Dark Side is hard to resist, but you should allow me to remove your mask, and bring you over to Firefox or Opera :) Parrot of Doom 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • And if I switch sides, what dumb guinea pig would be left to tell us how all the IE user see the page?  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dick_Turpin/archive1&oldid=1088118463"