Talk:St Scholastica Day riot/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
[Untitled]
The article fails to explain what the actual argument behind beer was 70.21.200.27 (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The details
There are actually three sources referenced, but one is vague, and the other two disagree on the details.
- The Oxford source is brief and vague.
- Ward's claims the students insulted the quality of the beer, so the mayor (who also ran the establishment) to respond with insults, prompting their attack, which began when they hit him on the head with a tankard.
- Miller, who has the lengthiest account, said it was wine, not beer, and that they threw wine in his face, which is what led to a fight that the mayor lost.
The version favored by Sergei Gutnikov glosses over the subject of the argument, by generalizing from wine and beer to "drinks". This serves to cover up the fact that our best accounts disagree, so both need to be treated with a modicum of skepticism. Worse, he insists that the students "started a quarrel", which sounds like they intended to create a situation that would lead to violence. This is utterly unsupported by our sources. Instead, they agree that the students were unhappy customers who complained about the wares, whereas the mayor responded with insults directed at them. In other words, it was the mayor who jumped from "this drink sucks" to "you students suck", to colloquialize. This certainly does not justify violence, but it does make it aggravated as opposed to malicious.
My biggest concern is with the issue of who started the fight. One of our sources describes the fight beginning rather brutally, with them bouncing a heavy object bounced off his head, while the other has the them throwing only the liquid contents of that object, which is hardly the same thing. At this point, a fight ensued, but it's not at clear whether the students immediately followed up the initial action with violence, or whether the mayor retaliated to the humiliation with violence. If the mayor responded to a dousing with punches, this would be a very different situation than the two men cold-cocking him with the tankard and then immediately pummeling him.
It is not my goal to defend these students. For all we know, they intended a fight from the start and acted with malicious intent. Then again, for all we know, they didn't. Since we cannot speak with confidence, we should not take sides. Let's stick to what the sources actually say. For these reasons, I have reverted Sergei's changes. Sergei, if you disagree, please make a compelling case here instead of edit-warring. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not make an original research here - there are other places for it WP:OR. Wikipedia should only relate facts from the reliable sources, not to take sides. When sources disagree on facts, both sides should be presented while the article as a whole should remain neutral. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've added a more specific information to the article from the source (Miller). The other source, Ward, says about beer, and gives a different name to the student's victim but a webpage without references cannot be taken as secondary source, so should not be include it in the Wikipedia article WP:SOURCES. If a more reliable source is found with this information than it should be added with a proper reference. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your last round of changes was a big step backwards. Not only did you skip over the highly relevant fact that the taverner was also the mayor, but it's written in broken English. I suggest that you fix it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- You, and everyone, are welcome to fix English. But the fact that the taverner was the mayor is not supported by reliable sources. By the way, I did not skip this "higly relevant fact" - it was not mentioned in your version of text. If you find a reliable source for that fact, please add. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Honorable Dylan Flaherty, please do not add your own research, stick with the sources. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- You, and everyone, are welcome to fix English. But the fact that the taverner was the mayor is not supported by reliable sources. By the way, I did not skip this "higly relevant fact" - it was not mentioned in your version of text. If you find a reliable source for that fact, please add. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your last round of changes was a big step backwards. Not only did you skip over the highly relevant fact that the taverner was also the mayor, but it's written in broken English. I suggest that you fix it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)