Jump to content

Talk:Sydney Riot of 1879

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSydney Riot of 1879 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 8, 2006.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
June 7, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
January 3, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
October 6, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 17, 2005.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Sydney Riot of 1879 was one of international cricket's earliest riots?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 8, 2013, February 8, 2018, February 8, 2019, February 8, 2021, February 8, 2022, February 8, 2023, and February 8, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Misc

[edit]

Could you let us know who the Ulyett and Emmet you refer to in the opening paragraph are? Cricket Neophyte, Japan

They are two of the great English professional cricketers of this era. See the Cricinfo pages on George Ulyett and Tom Emmett. If you're interested in cricket, you might like to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. Does anyone have a reference for Banjo Patterson being in the crowd? jguk 09:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Banjo Patterson talked about his role in the riot in a radio presentation later collected in Songs of the Pen: Complete Works 1901-1941. I found the excerpt in Bat & Pad: Writings on Australian Cricket 1804 - 2001. --Roisterer 13:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there more info about his recollections in Bat & Pad: Writings on Australian Cricket 1804 - 2001 that could go in the article? jguk 13:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Patterson was born on 17/2/1864, making him not quite 15 at the time of the riot. —Moondyne 13:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who is Hornby? --Aaron McDaid 21:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See A N Hornby. He was a leading English cricketer of the time, who went on to captain England. I thought he was linked to in the article, but if not, feel free to add more links to him, jguk 22:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are several typos in the letter from Lord Harris--"tha the objection", "tow minutes' time", "their on cry", "ANd", "tha the game we love", "shoudl receive". If these were in the primary source then they should be marked as such. silsor 18:12, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, these are down to my own inability to type:) jguk 20:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

bad umpiring decisions and betting continue to scandalise the sport

[edit]

I have a bit of a problem with the sentence: Nearly one hundred and thirty years later, bad umpiring decisions and betting continue to scandalise the sport.. It reads like a a POV and is probably too strong. I think the article would be better without the sentence. Umpiring - good and bad is an integral part of the game. But that's just my POV! —Moondyne 09:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fred Spofforth's view

[edit]

In Richard Cashman's biography of Fred Spofforth - The "Demon" Spofforth (p99), he quotes Spofforth's own recollection of that day in Sydney as follows (Spofforth admittedly didn't play but presumably was at the ground):

Then the crowd could stand it no longer and rushed on to the field, refusing to budge until the umpire was removed. I have no wish to dwell on this painful occurrence, but I should like to point out that the feeling aroused was almost entirely due to the spirit of the rivalry between the Colonies ... The umpiure was Victorian, and the party spirit in the crowd was too strong, "Let an Englishman stand umpire," they cried; "we don't mind any of them. We won't have a Victorian." There was not the slightest animosity against Lord Harris or any of his team; the whole disturbance was based on the fact that the offender was a Victorian. But Lord Harris stood by his umpire; and as a result, the match had to be abandoned till the following day.

This is interesting because it conflicts directly with Lord Harriss' letter. Interest in Intercolonial matches (ie NSW v Victoria) at the time was so strong that they often drew larger numbers than matches against visiting Englishmen. This also reflected in a general rivalry between the two colonies as described by Spofforth. —Moondyne 14:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding this to the article. Please tweak the article some more! jguk 19:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

[edit]

Sorry to put a dampener on things, but around half of the article is straight quotes from published materials: should these be in Wikisource rather than quoted in extenso here? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I second this opinion. The long letters ought to be moved to wikisource, and replaced with tightly written summaries along with the wikisource link. —thames 21:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. A significant part of the whole issue is the actual text of the 2 letters. To quote summaries would really mean losing the essence of it entirely. Perhaps they should also be copied to Wikisource, but I feel the text should be quoted in extenso here (in the article). - —Moondyne 14:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having re-read the Lord Harris letter, I think almost all of it has to stay. It is a good account of Harris' view of the riot. I also note that Wisden chose to publish it in its entirety, despite its length. We could remove the following bit:

"I must here diverge to explain certain facts connected with the Colonies which are not known or understood at home. Contrary to our custom, it is here the exception to employ professional umpires. This I was not told until after the disturbance. As you know, we brought no umpire, and on arrival at Adelaide I asked the representatives of the Melbourne CC if they could recommend anyone to us whom we could take about with us throughout our tour. They mentioned this man Coulthard, a professional on their ground, whom they had constantly tried and found competent, and added that if we on trial also considered him competent, the MCC would be very glad to give him leave of absence so long as we wanted his services. I considered him on trial a good and trustworthy umpire, and arranged with the MCC that he should accompany us to NSW."

However, this does not save too much space and I'm inclined to keep it, jguk 15:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does the letter not contain any paragraphs? It is one hefty block of text!--Cyberjunkie 15:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, it doesn't, jguk 15:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

[edit]

Possibly it's getting a few too many sections (my fault). Any thoughts? - —Moondyne 13:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • We'll need to rejig it soon. I've just ordered "Lord Harris's Team in Australia 1878-79: The Diary of Vernon Royle" - so I'm looking forward to see what the Reverend had to say about it. I don't suppose you have a copy of Sport in Australia (ed. TF Jaques and GR Pavia, 1979). It's meant to have an article in it Cricket and Australian Nationalism in the Nineteenth Century by WF Mandle, which has a good account of it. Sport in Australia is over £100 on Amazon - so I'm loath to buy it myself, jguk 21:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure I've seen that book at my local library. I'll have a look. —Moondyne 00:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I seem to have made a mistake on the Vernon Royle book, I'm having to re-order it. I'll edit the page again once I have it.
I'm afraid we're going to have to lose the full text of the letters, though. We'll never get this through FAC if it remains. I don't know if you want to look at editing this first, Ian, but I'll have a look at it sometime soon if you don't beat me to it. Kind regards, jguk 20:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

just a thought

[edit]

Is this really particularly significant? -ChaosEmerald

Ah, yes. Read the 1st sentence. -- —Moondyne 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does the content of this qualify it as a FA? It is well written, but nowhere near as impressive as most other FA... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.109.133 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 February 2006

If you really expect anyone to debate or comment on your point of view, I suggest you open a WP account and sign your edits. -- —Moondyne 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Render Properly

[edit]

Hi All, On my browser (Firefox 1.0.7, Mac OS 10.4.3), section 3 doesn't render properly; the edit button is next to the picture. I am not a skilled enough editor yet to fix this. Cheers! Don 15:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language

[edit]

Are you sure this is in English? Perhaps we should begin a cricketish wiki for the dialect. --Ignignot 22:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What!? This easy to understand compared to most cricket related stuff... Sheesh...

Edmund Barton

[edit]

It is mentioned twice in the article that Edmund Barton went on to be the first Prime Minister of Australia, as well as a third time in the caption to his picture. Surely at least one of these is superfluous. I'd fix it myself, but I don't really know how (I'm new here). Fenneth 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've copyedited to remove one main text reference and tidy up the other. I'm leaving the picture caption, since it can be read in isolation to the text, so I don't think that's too repetitive. -dmmaus 22:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

I think that the title of this article Sydney Riot of 1879 is misleading. IMHO it conjures up pictures of public mayhem in Pitt Street or ransacking of Anthony Horderns, when in fact it was a pitch invasion at a cricket match in Moore Park. IMHO a title such as Sydney cricket riot of 1879 would be more appropriate.--Melburnian 11:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is - what was it referred to as, in reports of 1879/1880? If it was called the Sydney Riot then, it should stay that way now. Could say the same about the Cronulla Race Riots - no shortage of OS commentators saying it was only a civil disturbance, not a riot - but in the Aust context it's called a riot.Garrie 10:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comments/review of the article

[edit]

some thoughts on the article. can be used when taking it back to FA.

  • "The Sydney Riot of 1879 was one of the earliest riots at an international cricket match." - reference? if it was only one of the earliest, which was the earliest?
  • "It was alleged that gamblers in the New South Wales pavilion encouraged Gregory to make a stand so as to disrupt the game." - needs reference
  • "when it was reprinted by the colonial press." - i don't like the usage of the term, colonial press. can we change it to Australian press
  • "The response by the New South Wales Cricket Association further damaged relations." - what was the response and how did it damage the relation
  • was there any rule changes / impact from the event on cricket as it was played from 19th century onwards. If so, please add a sentence in the lead para
  • "England cricket tours to Australia had started in 1861,[1] and while successful, .." - how do you state it is succesful? if so, provide reference or else remove it as it can be considered POV
  • "The teams were sometimes strong, sometimes not so, because, whilst the promoters sought out the best cricketers, they still had to agree terms with them. Not only that, many could not afford the time for the 48-day or so long boat trip to Australia, the tour itself, and the 48-day trip back." - could do with some copyedit
  • "However, despite the titles, the main distinction between amateurs and professionals was social status: although amateurs did not get paid for playing, they did receive generous "expenses"." - needs reference
  • "on Friday February 7 at the Association Ground.[6]" - shouldn't there be a comma after friday
  • "bat. A N Hornby and Lucas started .." can we add a wikilink to Lucas
  • "Nevertheless, directly after the decision was made against Murdoch, an uproar started in the pavilion. No batsman came out to replace Murdoch, so Harris walked towards the pavilion and met the NSW captain, Gregory, at the pavilion gate, at which point Gregory asked Harris to change his umpire. Harris refused as the English team considered the decision a good one." - refernce required

i guess these need to be taken care when we get the article reviewed the next time around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimalkalyan (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 June 2007

Sept '09

[edit]
  • "However, despite the titles, the main distinction between amateurs and professionals was social status:" what titles?
  • "Hornby had given a chance during an innings but Lucas did not". an his innings?

–Moondyne 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well use our talk pages since nobody else is keeping up. Yup to teh second one. First one should be categorisation, rather than any Lord/Baron etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OKx3. –Moondyne 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sydney Riot of 1879. 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:

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) 14:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sydney Riot of 1879. 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:

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) 12:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney_Riot_of_1879&oldid=1205142618"