Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spaghetti House siege/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 January 2019 [1].

Spaghetti House siege[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Spaghetti House siege was an interesting hostage situation of the mid 1970s. It marked the first use in the UK of technology to create a live surveillance feed, and the first use of a forensic psychologist who advised the police on their negotiating strategy. The men all claimed that they were acting for political reasons; the police and courts did not believe them, and said it was purely a criminal act. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

The name sounds like a good candidate for 1 April! A few things.

  • three black males entered the Spaghetti House. Presumably the Knightsbridge location? Also suggest this sentence start a new paragraph.
  • It strikes me that rather than divide the action, with the armed entry separated from what staff did in reaction, you might put them together and postpone the robbers's CVs until their individual actions are written of, perhaps make that the final paragraph of the section.
  • "Davies informed police that he was a captain in the BLF;[13][c] a subsequent message said that they were members of the Black Liberation Army, a Black Panther splinter group.[14]" perhaps, if Mr Davies was the source of the subsequent communication, change the semicolon to a comma and add immediately thereafter "and in" or "but in".
  • "Only the request for a radio was granted to them.[6][15]" consider cutting "to them"
  • "but his offer turned down.[1] " I suppose a "was" is missing here before "turned"
  • "one of the hostages was released was a sign of good faith." no doubt the second "was" has a surplus "w".
  • "to kill the hostages.[20][19] " just checking reference order.
  • "One was threaded through the wall alongside a hot water pipe; the second way was through a vent, after acid was dripped onto it using an eyedropper, in order to make a small hole. " I imagine the "it" refers to the vent, but it might be taken to refer to the camera.
  • Do we know the result of the re-trial?
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. All your comments addressed per your suggestions. Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if anything else springs to mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt – I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • We have, respectively, "Anne Mchardy" and "Anne McHardy", though I imagine it's the same person
  • The "Real-life Crimes" journal source should be listed with journal articles rather than news articles

In general the sources seem well chosen, are of the required standards of quality and reliability and entirely appropriate to the subject and, apart from the minor points noted, are consistently formatted and presented. A couple of spot-checks produced no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian! Your points both addressed. Cheers, - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_spaghetti_house_siege.gif: the "unique historic image" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the subject, is significant. Is anything more known about the provenance of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for picking up on the review. I've swapped over the tag to something (hopefully) more appropriate. The image appears a few times on the internet, but not with any indication as to the first publication. I've searched around to see where it could have come from, but without success (although I don't have access to every news source that would have been operating at the time). I've updated the FUR to show the searches I've done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Suggest expanding the purpose of use, and I wonder if there's a mistake in the minimal use section? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD[edit]

The police used technology as a live surveillance technique, and had audio and visual facilities which monitored the actions and conversations of the gunmen. Is there a missing word? As it stands it doesn't make sense. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this; what do you think? I think it's a bit clearer now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked again, just to clarify a little more. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • In the mid-1970s, the managers of the London-based Spaghetti House restaurant chain would close the various branches and meet at the company's Knightsbridge branch. – Based on the "in the mid-1970s" and the following, I assume regularly, each Sunday? Would be good to specify.
  • making it look like he was selling the information to the newspapers – which information? I do not fully understand.
  • In 1976 Horace Ové, a Trinidadian-born writer and filmmaker, wrote the play A Hole in Babylon, which was later broadcast on the BBC's Play for Today series. – What precisely is the link to the Spaghetti House siege?
  • A fictionalised account, The Siege of Babylon, was written by Farrukh Dhondy in 1978. – As above.
  • Otherwise a very good read, thank you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Jens, nice spots: I've tweaked them accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments and your support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Mitchell[edit]

Another interesting subject! I love these bits of British history you keep picking up! I have a few books that might be relevant; I'll see if they contain anything useful. Some other general comments from reading through:

  • We could perhaps use "police officers" rather than policemen? The Met certainly had female officers in the 70s, and "officer" is more formal
  • Is it worth naming the unit the specialist firearms teams belonged to (which at the time would have been D11 I believe), and maybe something very brief about British police officers not normally carrying guns (Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom exists to link to if desired)?
    • Now added; I've dropped it in the footnote, much as the Embassy siege article does. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there something they wanted the radio for in particular, or were they just worried about missing The Archers?
  • Introduce and link Robert Mark on first mention
    • I thought I had, but I see it was via a footnote, so added into the body too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cite Mark's opinion that the perpetrators were common criminals but I wonder if including the blockquote from him isn't biasing the article against their claim to have been acting out of political motivation (you and I and Commissioner Mark might have our own opinions, but the article should let the reader draw their own conclusion). Is there any evidence in support of their claims?
    • Good point. I like Mark's quote as the official line, so I'll see if I can find a counter claim to balance it out; if not, I'll trim his down to balance it that way. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a separate quote about their motivations by someone who knew them, which should give an indication that they were "activists" in some sense. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the Italian consul general get involved, and do we need Mark's opinion of his actions?
    • I can't find a reason (outside the obvious inference that the hostages were all Italian (or of Italian extraction)), but I'll keep looking. I've taken out Mark's opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's a lynching party." You need a reference right next to a quote
  • Maybe mention the 1980 Iranian Embassy siege (not to shoehorn my own FA in!); although that's more famous for its messy ending, the police used much the same tactics up until the point that a hostage was shot.
    • Yep - used Waddington for that, and his quotes too - they tie up the three parts rather nicely. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a nice quote in Waddington that you might want to use; he brings this and the Balcombe Street siege together and says the British police's "reputation for restraint received dramatic vindication by the way in which two highly publicised sieges were handled by the Metropolitan Police", and "if there was any criticism of the police it was that they showed excessive disinclination to resort to force in such circumstances"
    Waddington, P. A. J. (1991). The Strong Arm of the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 18. ISBN 0198273592.
  • Waldren's Armed Police: Police Use of Firearms Since 1945 (2007) contains a section on the siege, including accounts from police officers who were involved, and claims (as he's wont to do, being the former head of the Met's firearms unit) that it justified the need for specialist armed police units. Happy to send you the relevant pages if you shoot me an email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Harry, both for the review and for sending through the Waldren and Waddington information. I've dealt with your comments in these edits. Please let me know if there are any further tweaks left, or if you spot any more points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent work. I'm more than satisfied that my comments have been addressed and the article is in outstanding shape. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Harry - I'm much obliged to you for your help here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1[edit]

As Harry says, another fascinating piece of only vaguely-remembered history, very well told. Just a few comments.

Attempted robbery
  • "the managers of the London-based Spaghetti House restaurant chain would close the various branches every Sunday night and meet at the company's Knightsbridge branch" - isn't this actually Saturday night? The robbery starts at 1.30 a.m. on Sunday, which suggests the managers had gathered, and the takings collected, the previous night, i.e. Saturday? I think this would also have made commercial sense. Even though the pre-1994 Sunday trading laws didn't cover restaurants (I think?), Saturday was most likely the busiest night of the week.
Siege
  • Pump action shotguns - don't think this needs capitalisation.
  • "Initially the police considered that the siege was a terrorist incident, but were then dismissive of the potential political element, and insisted throughout that it was only ever a criminal action" - don't have the sources, but this reads slightly oddly to me. As there wasn't actually a political aspect to the robbery, at least in the "official" view, perhaps, "Initially the police considered that the siege may have been a terrorist incident, but were subsequently dismissive of any political motivation, and insisted that it was only ever a criminal action"?
  • "Lord Pitt, the former chairman of the Greater London Council who was also West Indian-born, also attempted to negotiate with the men" - not sure what the first "also" is doing here?
  • "Two cameras were used to observe what happened" - for clarity, perhaps, "Two cameras were used to observe what was happening in the basement storeroom"?
  • "shot himself in the stomach with a .22 rim-fire revolver"- should rimfire be hyphenated? It isn't in the main article.
  • The OED has both, but the hyphenated seems a little older than the non, so I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "were cornered in a London flat, leading to a six-day siege by police" - for ease of recognition, I wonder if you might mention Balcombe Street explicitly, e.g. "were cornered in a London flat in Balcombe Street (, Marylebone)....", or just "in Balcombe Street"?
  • "the use of the Special Air Service to assault the building" - does one assault a building? "storm the building"?

See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks KJP1, All your suggestions adopted. I'm not sure "storm" is better than "assault", but I've gone with it for now, and will mull it over. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely fine - it's a matter of preference, nothing more. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Not sure why the Daily Mail and the Daily Express but The Times and The Guardian. The latter form seems to me clearly preferable.
  • "While on remand, Davies went on hunger strike." The reader might wonder – well this one does – when he stopped his strike.
    • I've not found any information on this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When asked how they pled" – did what? I think you mean pleaded.
  • I assume because you haven't mentioned it that we don't know when the three criminals were released and what happened to them after that.
    • There is very little information, aside that they all died after their lengthy prison sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and obiter dicta

  • Mervyn Griffith-Jones – if you get hold of Bernard Levin's The Pendulum Years you will find the most breathtakingly obscene index entry about this hapless lawyer, but that's entirely irrelevant.

That's all from me. Minor points. A clear and well documented account of an incident I remember well, and I look forward to supporting. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, your suggestions taken on board where I can, but there is only limited information on the fate of the men. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine. I didn't imagine you'd have omitted those points if the information were available, but as it's an FAC I thought I ought to ask. Happy to support promotion to FA. The article is a v. good read, evidently comprehensive, neutral and – though there are only two illustrations – as well illustrated as possible, one feels, given WP rules. Sourcing looks impressive: a wide range of book references as well as press articles. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks Tim, for your comments and support: all are gratefully received. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Great article, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 400 police officers were involved, including dog-handlers and the deployment of D11, the Metropolitan Police's marksmen isn't grammatical, should say ... and D11... was deployed
  • after acid was dripped onto the vent — I assume the vent was metal, perhaps this should be stated, also the type of acid if known
  • Davies, Dick and Munroe died after being released from prison—I don't understand this. Immediately? Within a year? Within ten years?
    • Many thanks Jim - much appreciated. I've tweaked per your suggestions. The type of acid isn't identified, so I've skipped that, and I've added a little more onto the deaths. That's about all the information I have found on them (from reliable sources, that is). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Jim - I am very much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

I'm recusing from this one, though I don't think I need to do a full review and I'm not about to oppose or anything! My only minor concerns relate to setting this into a wider context and I wonder do we really address the race side enough? This is told very much from a "the police are right" viewpoint which will reflect the sources, I would imagine. But if the three men were black liberation organisations BEFORE the robbery, and they claimed a political agenda (which the police dismissed but it doesn't make them right) I think we maybe need to go into this a little more. Especially as the note that Davies wrote kind of gets dropped in with no further comment.

Similarly, if race is somehow an issue in here (which I think it almost certainly is, one way or another) do we need some context? Race riots, and that kind of thing? Racism in general?

I also noticed, doing a search on JSTOR that a few books mention this which we don't appear to be using (unless I'm blind, which is possible). I can't access the books unfortunately (I've only got partial access through my old university) but they do seem to be setting this event into the context of race and racial politics. All of which makes me wonder do we need to address this a little more in the article? Sarastro (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure we follow a "police are right" line (although we make it clear that they thought they were); we show what Davies et al were thinking too - hopefully in a balanced way. I've had a look at the JSTOR hits (not at the books just yet), and seen that two of the refs are from a book published since the article was written, which is good news: I'll go through them tomorrow and see if these are just en passant mentions, or something more concrete. If there is enough there, we can add a line or two about the state of race relations in Britain in the mid-70s. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro1, There are some bits that we can use to give a line or two on race relations of the time, but - more importantly - there is a good description of the motives for the robbery (ie what the men said the money was going to be used for). I'll add this shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, a little re-working to provide a background section (with some other bits moved up) and additional info on the social background. How does this read to you? - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good and covers exactly the kind of thing I was thinking. I have no further concerns; I haven't done a full review, but I'm happy that this meets 1b, 1c and 1d. Sarastro (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. That's great news. Thanks for picking up on those - it's nice we've managed to pick up some new sources in there too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ian, and thanks to all who commented. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2019 (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/Spaghetti_House_siege/archive1&oldid=881188352"