Talk:Great Fire of London/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Buckets and Engines

The last line of the Events section has been altered to read: "Buckets were of no use, from the confined state of the streets." I'm not sure if this is subtle vandalism, or someone who thinks fire engines would be an anachronism in 1666 London. Anybody have any comments? Roddyp 22:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Do the fires of 798, 982, and 1666 have names? Anyone know? --Koyaanis Qatsi

1666 is just known as The Great Fire of London, the others...? Why are Pudding Lane and Monument in quotes? -- User:Robert Brook

I imagine each was called "The Great Fire" - until the next one. It's much like the Great Plague - a puny affair compared to those of the 14th century, but it's still the most recent, and therefore "Great". User:David Parker

I seem to remember that fish porters from Billingsgate used to race up and down the Monument with crates of fish on their heads, but I haven't been able to track down the circumstances of this. Mintguy 14:23, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I edited Charles II of England for James II who is the proper Stuart King at the time. Sparky 07:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And yet the king for whom the baking was being done was Charles II. Go figure. -- Someone else 07:21, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No I erred. Sorry

---

I removed some really excessive, unnecessary linking. One sentence ended, I'm not making this up, "managed to escape the burning building, along with his family, by climbing out through an upstairs window." Every vocabulary word in a sentence shouldn't be linked in this manner. Tempshill 05:36, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"but incredibly only 9–16 people are known to have died."

I've read accounts that 6 deaths were "recorded." Recorded by the government? Given that the fire originated in the King's Baker's house, there could be an effect of information control. Does anyone know the origin and context of the "recorded data"? 1-2 hundred thousand were left homeless. Most of those people had to have left or died. It was not helped at all in the context of the 17th century, including Cromwell (who's head watched london burn from pole outside Westminster), and Three Dutch Wars that left England bankrupt and defeated. (viz. [1] [2])

I have never edited a page before so I'm not going to change the text. I prefer discussion. ~Rotsujin

---

'In 1666 London burned like rotten sticks.' - what the hell? perhaps this quote(?) needs some explanation...? [User:Musschrott|musschrott] - Mar 19 2005

Part of a children's rhyme for remembering dates of events in UK history. EdC 13:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

on the subject of recorded death

The reporting of deaths in London at the time was one of the jobs of the Parish Clerks, who published official statistics (of debatable but fairly good accuracy) every week in Bills of Mortality.

Now, this dispute over recorded deaths in the Great Fire of London is essentially semantic. Because London burned, and everyone in it ran away, the parish clerks of the City could not go around and check who was alive and who dead in the parishes because they would have been fried, not that there would be anyone around to count of course, because everyone had to flee. Furthermore, had the parish clerks been magically flame-resistant, they would not have been able to publish the data they collected, because Parish Clerks Hall burned down on the evening of Sunday 3rd September. Moreover, the heat of the fire was sufficiently intense that cremation of bodies was entirely possible, so they might not have found anyone anyway.

The Bills of Mortality were not printed for three weeks, until late September 1666 and when they were, no mention was made of the fire, only of 10 people who met their death through various accidents unaccounted for under the usual headings of TB, cancer, plagues, old age, etc. The fact that this figure probably bears no relation to the real number of people who perished in the fire does not detract from the fact that, inasmuch as there was any official figure at all, this was it.

Hope that helps to clear it up.

And whoever wrote that James II was the king at the time really needs to do more reading and less writing.

A modern city?

The article states that "...today's London is a modern city..." How can a city with so many 100+ year old homes and buildings, that still relies on mass transit, be considered modern? All of the top attractions in London (Big Ben, Westminster Abbey...) seem to be very old. London's tallest building is merely 50 stories tall; not very modern. Should this statement be removed? Rmisiak 04:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by "Still relies on Mass transit", surely the hallmark of a modern city is an advanced public transport infrastructure? Westminster Abbey is very old, that is true, but Big Ben isn't, nor is Tower Bridge, nor are the Kensington Musea. In fact, out of the top attractions, only the Abbey, St. Paul's Cathedral, and The Tower have any real age, you could say Buckingham Palace is reasonably old too. All European cities have old buildings, such as churches and castles that attract visitors, are you saying that by that measure there are no modern european cities? Also, a city's modernity has little to do with what foreign tourists come to see, you could say theat LA is not a modern city, because tourists go there for the Beaches, which are older than any of the London Attractions.PRB 08:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Cause of fire

I read in a history book that the fire was started because a boy tried to steal some bread and the baker turned around with a shovel of coal for fuel. The coals were burning as the baker was putting them in and he turned around too quickly and scattered the coals and started the fire. This just a theory however. Should we include that in the article?

If you've got a quotable source, maybe. Without, it feels like speculation. Roddyp 22:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)sls

Pepys a neighbour?

The article makes it sound like Pepys lived virtually next door to the baker. He actually lived in Seething Lane which must be a good 500 yards away and, in a city that was only a square mile in size, I wouldn't describe them as neighbours. Also, Pepys's house survived the fire intact! Bluewave 13:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Having written this, I thought I'd check my copy of Pepys: I find that he was not "awakened by the fire at 1AM" at all! He says "Some of our maids sitting up late last night....Jane called us up, about 3 in the morning, to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City." Bluewave 16:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

It appears that this entire article has been plagiarised from this source:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11401/11401.txt

which is a copy of an article in a journal written in 1827. Most of this article is paraphrased, but a lot of it is still word-for-word copy. We need to find out if this is a violation of copyright, and if it is, then we need to rewrite this article.

First, let me agree, if the article includes word for word copies of material, it should be cited.

But the Project Gutenberg's goal is to make available important works whose copyright has expired. Copying that kind of material is not a copyright violation, merely bad scholarship. -- Geo Swan 19:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Destruction section

I have been trying to improve this section. There was a bit that attributed long term benefits to the fire, including "Most of London's public structures, the regularity and beauty of the streets, and the great salubrity and extreme cleanliness of a large part of the city of London are due to this." At first sight this looks complete nonsense: a lot of the public structures are much later; the streets aren't regular (they are still based on the pre-fire pattern); "salubrity and cleanliness" are debatable (I vote against) but in any case don't seem to owe much to the fire. Hence, I've left this bit out! Bluewave 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Map

How about a map of which areas were burnt by the fire, preferably on a map of London as it was at the time, but it could also be interesting to see the same area on a modern map to get an idea of the scale of the area involved. 83.201.152.180

The chapel was St Pauls Church, NOT cathedral

I am changing the beginning of the article to read St. Paul's Church as opposed to St. Paul's Cathedral. At the time of the Great Fire (my history teacher informs me) St. Paul's was not a cathedral.

Jrothwell 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything to support this (other than your history teacher, presumably). St Paul's website (http://www.stpauls.co.uk) says "A Cathedral dedicated to St Paul has overlooked the City of London since 604AD, a constant reminder to this great commercial centre of the importance of the spiritual side of life...The current Cathedral – the fourth to occupy this site..."

I am changing it back until you come up with a better source than an unnamed history teacher. Bluewave 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Later in the article, it actually states that St. Paul's Cathedral was then St. Paul's Church. I don't know if this is verifiable, so I'll not change it until I find a concrete source. Thanks for your help. --Jrothwell 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See Cathedral. A cathedral is literally 'the seat of a bishop'. St Paul's was the seat of the Bishop of London and headquarters of the Diocese of London since the 7th century AD Colin4C 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Have removed the implication that it was not a cathedral Bluewave 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For Discussion

The following edit moved here from Great Plague of London for comment and discussion. Sources and accuracy of the statement?WBardwin 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Plague cases died out with the arrival of winter, 1665. Although it is widely thought that the Fire of Lodon 1666 effectively stopped the plague outbreak, probably due to the destruction of London rats and their plague-carrying fleas, this seems unlikely since the fire was confined mainly to the wealthy business and residential districts and left the rat-infested slums untouched.

It might also be worth noting that the Black Death page discusses multiple research sources which collectively suggest that rats and fleas may not have been the disease vector for the plague at all. Nasajin 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite alert

Hi, fire devotees. I know I haven't been visible at this article, but the fact is I'm planning a major rewrite of it, which has its sights set on WP:FAC. My work-in-progress can be viewed here. I feel a little embarrassed about doing this in a sandbox, rather than by editing the existing article gradually and collaboratively, but the fact is the present article is kind of uncited. It's hard for me to use the facts in it without knowing where they come from, as I want to do a well-sourced article—from books—with inline cites wherever needed. (Though it's not supposed to have as many footnotes as it's got right now, that's an intermediate stage. They'll be pared down to a reasonable number.) Also, my worksheet is at the fragile stage where I'm still moving the sections around all the time, hoping that some lucky arrangement will make them jell into a good structure—something I could hardly do in article space. Some sections are barely begun, while a few are reasonably complete (like "17th-century firefighting"). Anyway, I hope nobody minds my doing it like this. It's not that I don't want to collaborate—I do—and I'd love for you all to hammer it into shape eventually, when it's ready for it. As soon as I think it is, I plan on pasting it in. If people don't think it's an improvement on what's there now, all you have to do is revert (seriously), and I'll retire in dudgeon (just kidding). OK, I thought I should let you know, even though I'm the slowest worker on the wiki and it may be a while before you next hear from me. Comments, cries of protest, etc. welcome. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC).
P.S., hello, WBardwin! What on earth is that about the fire leaving the slums intact? They weren't left intact. They went up in flames, please see my draft. However, as for the fire putting an end to the plague, I don't believe a word of it. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

Looks good. Colin4C 08:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

the great fire of london

the great fire of london was not good.

Doh! - Homer Simpson junior

Predictions and Weasel Words and Unverifiable Facts - Oh My!

Just a brief note that the section on Predictions suffers from a rather credulous tone, and includes the weasel word "many". As it reads now, it somehow legitmizes the claims of Nostradamus et. al. by relating them in much the same way that an article on Hurricane Katrina might discuss the foreshadowings. The difference, of course, is science. I don't personally think that the section should be eliminated, but perhaps retoned to make clear that the first two paragraph's worth of these "predictions" were "predictions" in much the same sense that a properly folded American $20 bill "predicts" the events of 9/11. The last paragraph could definitely stand to gain from some source citing, but compared to the new age woo-woo which precedes it, is inoffensive. --70.108.140.252 12:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite ready to go live

Hey, 70.108.140.252 and others. My sandbox version is ready to go live, please see section heading "Major rewrite alert" above. Here it is. As I said back in September, I've started from scratch, mainly because I needed to work from sources, and there basically weren't any. I've only kept the first sentence (more or less), really. There's no woo-woo and there is a sourced discussion of the effect of the Fire on the waning of the Plague, and of the number of deaths. There wasn't much in the way of comment to my announcement back in September, I have to say (but Colin4C liked it, thanks, Colin). Anyway, I've sort of changed my mind about pasting in my version. That doesn't seem to be the GDFL-correct thing to do, considering how much I've actually edited it. I'm thinking of moving it over the present article instead and merging the histories. This would mean that everybody who has edited either version is credited in the history, and all existing versions can be accessed. If you're interested in the Great Fire, could you please let me know:

• Are there any objections to a History merge?
• Do you like my version, can you see yourself contributing to it, adding any aspect you think I haven't done justice to, and so on? Of course all versions of the present article would be available through the History, in case there are things in there that you think should be added. (I have to say I agree with 70.108.140.252 about objections to the woo-woo stuff, though.) I know the ending is kind of curtailed, both because my patience ran out, and because I realized how horribly long it was becoming... and because I have some plans for a full-scale separate article on the rebuilding of London after the fire. The last section is going to need expanding before this baby is FACable, and I hope that fresh eyes will see other things, too. Anyway, I'll wait for comments for a day or two before I do anything at all. The reason I ask so many questions instead of just going ahead is that a History merge is quite a business to undo, or so I'm told (I've never done either a merge or an unmerge before).

Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it doesn't look like anybody minds or cares, so here goes: replacing article with my sandbox version and merging the histories. Fire in de hole! Bishonen | talk 22:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

Just to say again that you have done a very good job on this, Bishonen. As for the Aftermath, maybe we could tack on some of the more usable/useful portions from the old version, as an interim measure, before you or A.N.Other provide us with a possibly definitive account. Just thinking that the users of wikipedia would benefit from some info on Monsieur Hubert and the Monument etc. Colin4C 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. Yeah, I know it's cut off too short at the end. I have plans (provided Giano will help) for a full-scale "aftermath" article, to be summarized in a paragraph at the end of this one. Hmmm [/me checks out the ending of the old version.] OK, good call about Hubert, I've added it. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Amount of deaths recorded

On BBC 2 on QI last night (27/10/06), Stephen Fry said that only 5 people died. 2 of those people were trying to reclaim possessions from their homes, and I can't remember the reasons for the other deaths. Should the introduction to this article be updated? --rjcuk 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Not really. Please refer to the headings "Major rewrite alert" and "Major rewrite ready to go live" (immediately above), and you'll see that the new version of the article I propose to post (here it is again, please see what you think) contains among other things a sourced discussion of current disagreements among historians about the number of deaths. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

A few minor comments

1. Our article on London Bridge implies that the houses on the bridge were destroyed in 1632 and had not been restored by 1666 (it could be wrong, of course). Did they really burn again 34 years later?
2. How did the fire get out of the city walls? It was held within the city boundaries from roughly Moorgate to Newgate. If it was the strong easterly wind, why was the area west of Cripplegate not consumed?
3. Would Image:Old St. Paul's Cathedral after the fire - Project Gutenberg eText 16531.jpg be better as an "after" image of the Cathedral?
4. Can we get a better-quality image of Charles II?
5. On the plans, is Smithfield the large white area left of centre? Should it be labelled? And shouldn't "Bankside" be labelled "Southwark"? Why is St Dunstan-in-the-East labelled? Bishop's Gate or Bishopsgate? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(I numbered the questions for ease of reference.)

1. According to my sources, lots of people were living on the bridge in 1666, and according to Pepys, friends of his were, so I guess our London Bridge article must have it at least partly wrong.
2. Search me. I've been thinking maybe that part of the wall was defunct, but I don't have any source that focuses on it. Of course a good tall firefront would have any trouble sending sparks and burning flakes over a 5-metre wall (check out the page Firestorm).
3. Hmm. It looks so whole there, though—it hardly illustrates the claims in the text that the cathedral was a ruin, that the lead roof had melted (and cascaded down the street—you know, I don't more than half believe anything Evelyn says, after that—lively imagination, clearly), that the stones had exploded like grenades. It must have been drawn from its pretty side. The upside is that you see better what the building looked like. I think the one in the article now is more evocative, as well as more ruinous, thereby presumably more realistic. But change it if you like.
4. Better..? It doesn't have to be really high technical quality, with the thumbnail being so small, does it? It's a great portrait, IMO. Very expressive, unlike the various oils of a doll-like Chuck in his coronation robes. I'm glad to have one where he's not sitting on a throne, as he's actually very active in the narrative, going down to Pudding Lane and stuff.
5. Bunchofgrapes? I know the answer to the St Dunstan-in-the-East one, it's my fault: I had a piece about how the boys at Westminster School, including William Taswell, were marched to that church by their headmaster, and saved it by their efforts, but it burned down the next day. Then I removed the story—the page is so long anyway, I've removed lots of stuff— and forgot to mention it to BoG. In other words, I guess that label needs to go, sorry, BoG. Nice catch, ALoan. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC). [edit conflict, arghhh--after i reformatted the questions--Colin, i had to move your reply to down below, i hope you don't mind.]

OK, I've uploaded a new map - Smithfield is labeled, St Dunstan in the East is gone, both Southwark and its neighborhood of Bankside are labeled and it is now Bishopsgate". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. I have only just realised that Pepys said he watched from Bankside, hence the reason for the annotation. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(Question 2.) Burning cinders were carried by the easterly wind right over the city walls, thus creating new centres of fire. Besides, at its peak the fire was approaching the ferocity of an unstoppable fire-storm (as seen during the bombing of Cologne in WW2) . The most dramatic thing it did after it had breached the wall was to the west was to leap over the Fleet River into Whitefriars. I think Pepys notes (from the safety of the South Bank) how great streams of fire were arching high up into the air - an awesome sight.Colin4C 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. On 1, I got the impression from London Bridge that perhaps the northern end of the bridge had not been redeveloped after 1632, but that article could easily be wrong. On 2, I understand how the fire escaped near Newgate and Ludgate - my question is really why it didn't escape elsewhere. On 3, the current image just looks a bit, um, "foxed" (fold lines, holes). Similarly, the image in 4 is nice enough, but seems a bit faded or overexposed down the right side. I'll leave BoG to deal with 5 :) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you note the location of Pudding Lane and then posit a strong easterly wind plus the presence of highly inflammable material all along the river-front, then the westward spread of the fire makes sense. Also, though it is not depicted on the maps in the article I think the Fire DID breach Cripplegate to the north and set St Giles's [?] church, at least, alight, on the other side of the wall. I've got a book about it somewhere....

What Pepys said on the evening of the 2nd: "we to a little ale-house on the Bankside...and saw the fire grow...in a most horrid malicious bloody flame, not like the fine flame of an ordinary fire...we saw the fire as only one entire arch of fire from this to the other side the bridge, and in a bow up the hill for an arch of about a mile long" A fire storm? Colin4C 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Shopping malls and consumer goods

I think it is misleading to apply the 20th century term "shopping mall" to the Royal Exchange. Addison, writing 50 years later, described it as "an Emporium for the whole earth", but that is not the same as a shopping mall. Surely it was basically an indoor market, wasn't it? Similarly, the reference to "consumer goods shops in Cheapside" conjures up very 20th century image. Surely, the whole idea of "shops" was totally different in the pre-industrial era and there was no concept of consumer goods. Bluewave 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure there was a concept of consumer goods! (Not indeed a term "consumer goods", but I'm sure you'll agree we're not to be limited to 17th-century terminology for discussing the 17th century.) Consumer goods were just starting to become an important cultural factor--maybe not much of an economic factor yet, I don't know, the upper class was so small--anyway, 18th-century consumerism and its growth with the growth of the middle class is a whole scholarly field. 1666 is admittedly at the very beginning of the "long 18th century", but still, being at the beginning makes it all the more interesting for later developments. I don't know what to call the Cheapside shops if not shops--they were shops.

I agree about "mall", I guess, though I'm pretty sure I've seen the term used about the shopping part of the Royal Exchange. But it does jar. The trouble is I don't quite know what else to call it. It wasn't the kind of shopping I'd associate with the word "market"--it was clothes, luxury goods, trinkets, it was aimed at the women of the upper classes. Persons of quality coming in from the country for "the season" (another novelty), to enjoy London, including its shops. I'd like to think of a third term, other than "mall" or "market". Any ideas? Bishonen | talk 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

Recent copy-edits

The recent copy-edits to the lead, some by me, have largely been reverted by two editors. I'm not going to touch the article again, but for the record: the article is good, but please get someone—whom you respect enough not to revert—to copy-edit the article. It needs it.

Some examples:

• 1) The passive-voice

  Flight from London and settlement elsewhere were strongly encouraged by Charles II, who feared a London rebellion amongst the dispossessed refugees

is apparently preferred to

Charles II strongly encouraged residents to flee London and settle elsewhere; he feared a rebellion among the dispossessed London refugees.

on the basis that "it's about the flight and the refugees, not about Charles"—yet you refer to his actions or thoughts twice. Come on!

• 2)

Order in the streets broke down as rumours arose of suspicious foreigners deliberately setting fires.

is preferred to

There was disorder in the streets as rumours arose of suspicious foreigners seen setting fires.

Neither sentence is a gem, but "deliberately setting fires" is redundant and silly. Why add "deliberately" back?

• 3)

  The fears of the homeless focused on the French and Dutch, England's enemies in the ongoing Second Anglo-Dutch War; these substantial immigrant groups became victims of lynchings and street violence.

Whose fears? It is possible to read this two ways. If the fears belong to someone not specified, then the homeless are the "French and Dutch" "substantial immigrant groups", and the homeless were lynched. If the homeless had the fear, then someone else was lynched.

What does it mean for "fears to focus"? Do groups get lynched, or do members of the group? Reducing the sentence makes the problem clearer: "the group was a victim of lynching". How about "The homeless directed their fears at the French and Dutch..."?

• 4) My use of the contrasts "however" and "finally" (as in, "However, coordinated firefighting efforts were finally underway") was removed as "POV" and "unencyclopedic", while before my edit the article contained:

the Tower of London garrison used gunpowder to create ruthlessly effective firebreaks

The article is curently full of these loose "editorial" words, much worse than my trivial use of the word "finally" to convey that the firefighting was overdue, as just mentioned earlier in the paragraph. ("critically delayed"—oops, guys, better remove "critically"!)

• 5) Another reversion was back to

Various schemes for rebuilding the City were proposed, some of them very radical. In the event, London was reconstructed on essentially the same medieval street plan which still exists today.

"In the event" is incorrect and leads the reader to expect the stock phrase "In the event that". The better alternative, edited by ALoan, was reverted.

I'm not a professional, but it is very frustrating to spend half an hour trying improve three paragraphs and having it all changed back to poorer prose. F*** it. –Outriggr § 02:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you read the edit summaries explaining the reversions of your efforts. Half an hour? ..to think Bishonen and BunchofGrapes knocked this page out in 10 minutes - you are slow! Giano 08:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What? I read and responded to all the edit summaries, and most of my point was that they aren't sound, and make no sense to me. –Outriggr § 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I apologized to Bishonen on my talk page for my rhetoric above. I also apologize to anyone else that was bothered by it.

I believe that small improvements should be accepted as small improvements, even if seemingly "trivial"; of course my changes were open to argument, but having most substantive changes reverted, on unclear grounds, felt like "trolling" and "territorialism" to me. Thus my reaction. Regarding the ostensive writing issues, I will say: encyclopedia writing is abundant in non-specific and awkward sentence subjects (Researchers..., Other [generic noun]s have..., Flight from London and resettlement elsewhere...), and passive voice. When a sentence can be rearranged to avoid these, with no resulting stiltedness, it's an opportunity not to ignore. When a sentence can be construed two ways, it should be fixed. When a word is redundant or implied, remove it.

Nevertheless, it was hardly productive of me to rant about it. When I wrote "F*** it", it was short for "what's the point of all this". If you consider my original motivation, I think you will only find that it was to try to contribute in some small way. I didn't sit down to review three paragraphs of this featured article candidate so that I could write a rant when my edits were reverted. I thought they might be accepted in the spirit in which they were offered. This wiki stuff is tough.

Sincerely, –Outriggr § 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Text with prose issues identified, and suggestions

Following Tony's practice, I'll stick to "London in the 1660s." Notes omitted.

• "By the 1660s, London was by a huge margin the largest city in Britain, estimated at 300,000 inhabitants—10% of the population of the entire country—which made it the third largest metropolis of the Western world, surpassed only by Constantinople and Paris."

  Flabby. "By the 1660s, London was the largest city in Britain, housing roughly 300,000 people, a tenth of England's population, and it was the third largest city in the world, following Constantinople and Paris."

  By "country," does the article mean England, England and Wales, or what would become the United Kingdom under Anne? It seems like there's a lot of nuance here that would be lost to people not familiar with British history.

• "Compared to these two capitals, London was architecturally a poor relation, a "wooden, northern, and inartificial congestion of Houses," as John Evelyn called it in 1659. By "inartificial", Evelyn meant unplanned and makeshift, the result of organic growth and unregulated urban sprawl."

  Flabby. "A poor relation" is a little too informal for my taste, and you spend an sentence explaining "inartificial" when you could trim the quotation and simply state that London was an unplanned, makeshift sprawl.

  The next sentence about London's extramural (that word, beside being redundant in this sentence, could also be confusing to some readers) growth seems like it could be trimmed: "London, a Roman settlement for seven centuries, had become overcrowded within its defensive wall, and had pushed beyond the wall to incorporate Shoreditch, Holborn, and Southwark, and even the nominally independent city of Westminster." By the way, are you speaking of the City of Westminster or its district? It's not clear.

• The rest is okay until we get to "17th-century firefightng": "Fires were common in the crowded wood-built city with its open fireplaces, candles, ovens, and stores of combustibles. There was no police or fire department to call, but London's local militia, known as the Trained Bands, was at least in principle available for general emergencies, and watching for fire was one of the jobs of the watch, a thousand watchmen or "bellmen" who patrolled the streets at night."

  Flabby. "Fires were common in the crowded, wood-built city with its open fireplaces, candles, ovens, and stores of combustibles, but there was no organization meant speficially to response to emergencies. Aside from the local militia, the Trained Bands, who in principle were available for general emergencies, watching for fire was one of the jobs of the thousand watchmen, known as "bellmen," who patrolled the streets at night."

• Pudding Lane is not explained in the text.

If you don't like what I've suggested, that's fine. I've tried to avoid simple stylistic differences and stick to what I think are major issues.--Monocrat 18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Where you see "flab", I see richly textured and nuanced prose. For example, I am not convinced that London was "the third largest city in the world" - there is a world outside Western Europe. And Pudding Lane is mentioned in the lead section, immediately above the one you reviewed - are you asking for it to be linked again? Your country (England? GB? UK?) point is a good one, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pudding Lane is indeed mentioned in the lead, but it doesn't seem to be explained within the context of the fire in the first section. (We've covered quite a lot of ground, so some repetition is perhaps worthwhile.) You're right about "the world." I mistakenly cut the "Western." Sorry. :) In any case, I'm usually a fan of rich texture, nuance and repetition as a literary device in my arguments and writing, but it seems to me that this article takes them a little far.--Monocrat 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A few other things, from "Deaths and destruction" and "Aftermath:"

1. This, "been disrupted to the point of non-existence," strikes me as needing a rewording.
2. "These markets were for buying and selling; there was no question of distributing emergency aid." Question: So people had to pay for the bread brought in by the King? Can we just say so? Or have I misread the text?
3. The sentence starting with "Hanson also maintains that" seems unweildly, but I'm at a loss how to address it.
4. Would it be advisable to start a new paragraph with the sentence "The fire, fed not merely by wood..." I think it would lend some visual balance to that section. My eyes at least would prefer it. (This is not a sticking point.)
5. I'd like a citation for the poor not having teeth, and for the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of "Aftermath," in particular for the claim of a redesigned London rivalling Paris in Baroque magnificence.
6. I've spotted a few sentences elsewhere that could use some work, but I think this is enough for now.--Monocrat 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My feelings about those:

1. Possibly, although I actually rather like the forcefulness of the statement. It's quirky and eye-catching to me, rather than disruptive.
2. These are markets. They cannot be aid stations. Therefore, it would be wrong to think that aid could get to the people via these tiny markets, as the English king did not/could not commandeer private businesses (hence the inability to remodel London until all rightful owners are found, rightly bought out, etc., later). The English monarch was never absolute.
3. Meh. I think it's fine.
4. Really? Honestly? It's pretty famous. Sugar began to be refined from cane around 1620. It was a rare commodity until mercantilism got going, but by the 1660's it was getting somewhat common. You get refined sugar, and you get toothlessness. The rich got artificial teeth, and the poor got gums. This is one of those "common knowledge" bits. (I tell my own students that, if you can find something from 3 or more sources, it's a fact that is simply well established. Poor dentition among the urban poor of London 1666 is a well established fact.)

Geogre 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If changes are not made to the text, so be it. I really am only trying to help the article improve. Responding out of order: 1) If "poor dentition among the urban poor of London 1666 is a well established fact," then there should have no problem finding a source and putting it in the article. I have the article's word to go by, and that is not sufficient, either by your criterion or Wikipedia's. 2) "Quirky" does not strike me as encyclopedic. "Clear" and "concise" do. How "eye-catching" is effectively different from "distracting," I'm not sure. 3) I understand that the English king was limited, but not all readers--in a world of rapid responders, FEMA checkcards, and the Red Cross--will. The last part of that quotation is entirely unnecessary.--Monocrat 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not intending to be antagonistic. 1. Sure, but it's just not necessary, and we ask whether overburdened notes are better than uncited, unsuspicious statements. 2. It does me, and I do not think that it an antonym of clear and concise. Readability is a compromise between easily decoded (expected) structures and intriguing/interesting (unexpected) structures. It's possible to zero in on any usage and call it too predictable or too unpredictable. In place, I think this is a leavening sentence structure. You don't. De gustibus non disputandem est, as the man said. 3. Perhaps there can be expansion, but there was no lack of clarity in the original. Could there be, "Because these were privately owned markets and the royal authority did not extend to abridging property rights?" I'm sure there could be. I don't think it's unclear, though, especially because there is material before and after indicating that the king had to be very seriously motivated to override the mayor's authority even in the case of a fire and the need to create breaks (described in the Monday section and the Tuesday section). It's true that it isn't spelled out explicitly with reference to property rights, but I don't think there's anything obscure here. (Then again, as I've stated, this is my field.) Geogre 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Geogre: We're agreed that we don't want to fight. :) To that end, I think we've said all that needs to be said. To summarize: I think my requests for citations for the teeth statement and for those relating to the King's proclamations and the Duke's offer of the Life Guard are valid, nor would the three overburden the article. (In any case, the burden is already on the article, as I can--but won't--remove uncited material at will.) I very much agree that there is no disputing taste (even though there really is). Nevertheless, I have deemed specific, significant elements of prose as objectionable and tried to constructively (if brusquely) assist with them. I disagree with you and ALoan, and I suppose we will have to leave it at that.I'm sure we all have other things to do than continue this. As the FAC stands, my objection will likely be overruled.--Monocrat 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not fully convinced. This is definitely a higher register than is typical for a Wikipedia article, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some issues:

• "pushed outwards beyond the wall into squalid extramural slums"—"beyond the wall" implies "extramural", doesn't it?
• "dominated and politically controlled by the trading and manufacturing classes"—what does "dominated" mean here?
• "The decisive creation of firebreaks by blowing up houses with gunpowder finally began to take effect on Wednesday, 4 September." Not sure why we need to hide who was doing the action ("take effect"?).
• "the fact that"—Strunk and White hate this one =). Same thing with "in many cases".
• "At the same time as order in the streets was breaking down, especially at the gates, and the fire was raging unchecked, Monday also marked the beginning of organized action." Doesn't flow to me, but I might be missing something. In my mind, should be, "Even as order in the streets was breaking down, especially at the gates, and the fire was raging unchecked, Monday also marked the beginning of organized action." Or, "At the same time as order in the streets was breaking down, especially at the gates, and the fire was raging unchecked, organized action began."
• "During the Tuesday"—Can't remember ever seeing this construction before; is "On Tuesday" too simple or what?
• "On Tuesday evening, the wind dropped."—seems unnecessarily dramatic to me, and doesn't tie into the following paragraph at all.

Feel free to disagree, but if you do please explain. Thanks! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, wow, I came to comment on what a wonderful article I just found, and people are arguing over the prose? It looked marvellous to me. I am uncomfortable with the idea of trimming quotations on the grounds that the attached explanation is flabby (this is the suggestion with Evelyn, yes?) and replacing them with paraphrases. I'd far rather the original plus any necessary gloss. Telsa (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hollar?

Did Wenceslas Hollar really create that panorama when he was 9 years old? Isn't it by Claus Visscher? Chick Bowen 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Fixed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

extra link?

Would it be possible to directly link the page to the search "1666 london" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhippocampe (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note re. wording

Re. "This reasoning has recently been challenged on the ground that poor and middle-class people were not recorded anywhere..." in the intro, perhaps the words in bold should be reworded. I don't have any specific suggestions, but perhaps even just saying "this reasoning has been challenged by modern scholars on the ground...". 211.28.226.29 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Given that this is today's featured article, shouldn't it have been temporarily locked? The vandals are having a field day...

Certainly not. The selection of the daily featured article is crucial: anyone not already a Wikipedia addict may base a substantial part of their judgment on its appearance and content, so it should be a model, and this means not just proof that we can be as good as Encyclopædia Britannica, but a demonstration that, because we're open source, we're better. To lock would be to turn this from a model Wikipedia article to something less than a Wikipedia article. There have been dozens of works of vandalism here today, most of them replacing the entire article with a single sentence. Examine the history page, and you'll see every single one has been reverted within a few seconds.

I'm sure I've seen a "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled" message on featured articles before now. The reason I made this post was that I kept getting redirected to some random movie every time I clicked on the featured article link, it was starting to get annoying.

Hansen

How reliable is The Dreadful Judgement: The True Story of the Great Fire of London? Secondary deaths from lynching or hunger really don't count - otherwise the death toll becomes negative as the fire killed remaining plague rats and flees cutting the number of deaths there would otherwise have been. (The last plague death was in fact a few years later in Rotherhithe). This is a fire which travelled 1 mile or 2 km in three days - most people can travel a little faster than that. --Henrygb 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote source

The quote, "But the fire overtakes us faster then we can do it" was recently changed to "But the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it." Could someone with access to the source verify that this change is correct? --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could say both are correct. It's from Pepys, and I originally quoted it exactly, with "then". But somebody changed it to "than", which could be seen as modernized spelling. It's probably clearer to the reader in modernized form. As far as I remember, it doesn't come up with the other Pepys quotes, and both original spelling (well, not original, as Pepys wrote a kind of shorthand, but your basic 17th-century spelling) and modernized spelling have their proponents. I figure we might as well leave it modernized. Or indeed, change it back... whatever. I don't see it as a problem. Bishonen | talk 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Wasn't the source published recently though? I'd think that we would want to stick with whatever their editorial decision was. But eh, not a big deal. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pogroms

Why is there no mention of the progroms that ensued as a result of Jew not sucumbing to the plague etc? Chavatshimshon 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, only a modest number of Jews remained in England at the time, as most were expelled by the time of the outbreak of the Thirty Years War. See discussion of Jewish harrassment and persecution in Black Death. WBardwin 07:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, W! What do you think, do you like it? Bishonen | talk 22:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Indeed.

It's not germane to an article on the Fire, you know. However, Oliver Cromwell had taken a "moderate" position of tolerance toward Jews. This did not sit well universally with other Puritans, but he was very definite about it. The actual effect of such nominal tolerance is hard to measure. There may not have been very many Jews, and certainly not so many as to have had a pogrom over. The mob could go amok over the thought of Jews, of course, and rumors of Jews, as it did with Catholics and rumors of Catholics, but that's just the mob. I have never heard of Jews getting blame during the Fire. Geogre 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish riots in London following Great Fire - unheard of. Targets of abuse tended to be French (at the time likely to have been predominately Catholic - the Hugenot element came mainly 1682 onwards post revocation Edict of Nantes) and Dutch. Cromwell did allow Jews to resettle in England, allowing them land for a synagogue and cemetery in the East End. The original question above is more germane to an article on the Great Plague of previous year, and the medieval plagues before it.Cloptonson (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

Under the section, "Fire hazards in the City", the following sentence appears to be vandalism: "The City was the biggest little whore town in texas." However, when attempting to edit the sentence, the editing page shows a correct statement. Someone with more Wikipedia experience should to address this. Ifruit 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attentiveness. What that means is that someone had already rolled back the vandalism between the time you loaded the page and the time you went to edit. It's a good thing. Geogre 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect figures!!

"It is estimated that over 100 billion people died in this tragic fire" 100 Billion people?!?! consierding only 80,000 lived in the city and that the whole world doesn't even have this! lol

Oh, all is well, the article is now called Weekend at Bernie's, so no worries. :-) Thanks for your concern, but this is simply what happens to articles on the Main Page. On the upside, vandalism is even easier to revert than to perpetrate. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

100 billion? I guess it ain't called the "great fire" for nothing :oP --87.112.31.15 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Figures II

London in the 1660s: 80,000 people = 1/6th pre-plague population (implying 400,000 remaining.)Aftermath: 80,000 people = 1/4 of population. Not a desparately important point but these figures don't add up.217.154.66.11 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A very important point, it seems to me. 80,000 is described as 1/4 of the population (implying a population of 320,000) just after the population is described as half a million. (otherwise a fantastic article!). Dast 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, 80,000 is given as the population of the City of London — the central district — today's financial district — not for the whole of London. Please see the second sentence in the introduction, and click on the wikilinked City of London. There's a reference given for the figure of 80,000 (Tinniswood, pp. 4 and 101), so please don't change it to the population of the entirety of London. I'm changing it back.

I tried to explain these distinctions in the article, but I guess they remain confusing. Can anybody think of a better way to make them clear? Bishonen | talk 11:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

No. Honestly, you either get it or you don't. The article on the City even explains how it came to be. Even in 1666, the City wasn't the city. Although in 1666 the population of "London" wasn't dwarfing the population of "the City," it was still a great, big pile of people who did not live within the walls. Geogre 14:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely...

As a ringer I find this statement somewhat implausible:

Public-spirited citizens would be alerted to a dangerous house fire by muffled peals on the church bells,

First off I've always been told that the "alarm" signal was ringing "back-rounds" i.e. ringing the bells in turn from lowest to highest (instead of highest to lowest, the normal "default") - unfortunately I have no sources for this. Second, muffles (a leather pad which fastens on to the clapper) take a reasonable amount of time to fit - not ideal when you are trying to raise the alarm. David Underdown 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The fire burned for days, I don't think these leather doowhackies could possibly have taken more than a day to put on JayKeaton 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

image

The Great Fire of London, with Ludgate and Old St. Paul's, oil on canvas, ca. 1670

A gift for the editors of this article:

Thank you! That's great. I've put it into the Tuesday section. Anybody got any better ideas? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

12/07/2012 - Note to eds, the painting at the top right of the feature article is not "unknown painter" but in fact by Lieve Verschuier. However, I'm not allowed to edit the piece. Would be nice if Wikipedia were as open as its claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.181.95 (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

conflagration

I really don't think that "conflagration" should be the word of choice for this page. Conflagration also means a great war or a fight, but I really don't think it is the most suitable word here. I don't think that using the word fire instead would "dumb down" the page, rather it would make it more accessible and more descriptive. I think the word "conflagration" was used mainly because it sounds "smart", as it does not otherwise fit the tone of the writing in this article or even match it's subject name, The Great Fire of London. The word "conflagration" seems mainly there to confuse or make people thing "that must be another word for a big fire". While I'm all for increasing vocabularies, it simply does not fit the tone of this article and seems to mainly throw people off before they even get past the first sentence JayKeaton 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the OED conflagration means only

1. The burning up of (anything) in a destructive fire, consumption by a blazing fire. Obs[elete]
2. A great and destructive fire; the burning or blazing of a large extent or mass of combustible, e.g. of a town, a forest, etc.
3. transf[erative] Severe inflammation Obs[elete]

no mention of a war/fight connotation (although I can see the possibility of transference, as in the fever example given above). So it seems to me to be the perfect word to use for this sort of fire. It's useful to use a synonym a few times virtually every sentence contains the word "fire", which whilst unavoidable to some extent does get a little wearing. David Underdown 12:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for my dictionary (I had never heard "conflagration" used to mean a war) but David Underdown beat me to it! With regard to the choice of words, it seems to me that people will have read the title and understood that the article is about a fire, so the first sentence needs to expand on that a bit, rather than simply restating "fire". "Fire" is very general and is often used to describe something small and controlled, whereas "conflagration" has the meanings of "great and destructive". I therefore think that it fits the requirement very well. I believe it is an improvement on "fire", or even "big fire". With regard to non-English-speakers (who were mentioned in the original edit), "conflagration" actually works quite well for Romance languages.Bluewave 12:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Online OED access has its uses... David Underdown 12:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above two comments. Conflagration is a useful synonyn and avoids the repetitive use of the word fire. Natalie West 12:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's purpose is to be a useful "synonym" and avoid the repetitive use of the word fire, then perhaps it should be used a little later on in the article rather than the top, that way it could serve its purpose and not put people off or confuse them from the get go? It can be like a special little synonym surprise to break up the word "Fire" used throughout the article, rather than just starting off with the word conflagration then only using "Fire" for the rest JayKeaton 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with Natalie (or at least to be more pedantic than her) but I don't think conflagration is just a synonym for fire. Conflagration is much more specific: David's online OED (confirmed by my trusty Concise version) tells us that it means a "great and destructive fire". To me (and I assume to others!), it also carries a connection with "flagrant" (implying glaring and notorious). I believe the word very concisely conveys exactly the shade of meaning that is needed. By the way, I didn't write it and I don't think I've got a particular ax(e) to grind but it just seems a great word for this sentence. Bluewave 13:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I like both holocaust and conflagration, they are good solid descriptive English words, and I would vote that they stay in the article. This is particularly true as the source, Hanson, used the word holocaust. (Sigh) ----- it seems to me that the internet has led to, among other things, the "dumbing" down of English vocabulary. Words of one syllable are faster to type and even easier to "text" abbreviate, and so............ WBardwin 20:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound like I'm arguing and being picky here, but the word "holocaust" may not necessarily be the best choice here. I am a college student, and when I read this article the word through me off completely because I have always thought of "holocaust" as referring to the genocide of Jews in Nazi-occupied territory before and during World War II. In fact, I have never even heard that word used to refer to anything else. I don't want to sound like I'm doing a personal attack here, but are you sure that usage isn't obsolete? 72.26.65.61 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The size of the panorama

Gulp... it's not a panorama anymore, after this edit ! :-( I guess User:Meowist has a really small window. I'm no good with this stuff. Does anybody know how to code this so that is looks reasonable on all screens? I'm going to revert while I await suggestions, I'm afraid. Having a scrollable panorama is surely better than having a tiny strip in the middle of the page, that could represent pretty much any early modern city as seen from outer space... and actually, nobody else has complained of the look of the panorama, as far as I know, since the article became Featured, many months ago. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

I've seen a form of scroll-box be used before. I'll have a poke around. Cheers, Daniel 11:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something like Second Severn Crossing#Controversies? Daniel 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented this scroll-style, and readily await the input of Meowist and Bishonen, amongst others. Just throwing some ideas around, hopefully we can find something that works :) Daniel 10:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

Esperanto translation

Hi Bishonen, this message was actually supposed to be on your talk page, but I don't have an account here and thus couldn't edit it. Just wanted to let you know that I translated this fascinating article into Esperanto (see eo:Granda incendio de Londono). Thank you so much, it was quite a stimulating challenge to render your brilliant prose in the "Internacia Lingvo". The translation, hopefully, should promote fastly to featured status and remain on our main page for a week or so. Keep up the great work ! Thomas Guibal, Sep 15th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.139.60.170 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Teeth

What was the cause of the poor dental condition of the London poor in this period? Not sugar, presumably, as the triangular trade did not really kick off until later. Gritty flour in the bread, perhaps? -- !! ?? 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Malnutrition may also have been a significant factor, plus poor understanding of oral hygiene which became more enlightened in more recent centuries than the 17th.Cloptonson (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

which calendar is being used? please make this clearer than "New Style"!

The article starts "The Great Fire of London was a major conflagration that swept through the central parts of London, England, from Sunday, 2 September to Wednesday, 5 September, 1666" with a note to the effect that "dates are given according to the New Style". Now the linked article tells us that "New Style" can mean two entirely different things: either that the year is numbered to start on January 1 rather than March whatever (but this shouldn't matter in this case, because everyone will agree that September 1666 is indeed part of 1666), or that the Gregorian calendar is being used rather than the Julian calendar. But 2 September, 1666 of the Gregorian calendar (Julian day 2329799) was a Thursday: only in the Julian calendar is 2 September a Sunday (Julian day 2329809). So I'm confused.

This page explicitly states that the Great Fire of London started on Julian day number 2329809, and though it may not be particularly well informed I am inclined to believe it. That would fit with the days of the week. If this is the correct version, then the footnote should be amended to specify that dates are given in the Julian calendar. Otherwise, the days of the week should be fixed. In any case, the calendar used should be made clearer. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The article on New Style dates says (correctly!) "When recording British history it is usual to use the dates recorded at the time of the event with the year adjusted to the start on the 1 January." That is what has been done in this article. At the time, 2 September 1666 was a Sunday (Pepys noted "Lord's Day" at the beginning of his diary entry, for example). I think it would be immensely confusing if we tried to recast all the dates and days of the week into the Gregorian calendar. Bluewave (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The article on New Style is immensely confusing and seems to say that "New Style" also means that the Gregorian calendar is being used, because both changes (calendar and start of the year) were made simultaneously in 1752. Maybe that's wrong, I don't know, but even if it is, it must be a common confusion or misconception — cf. the article on Isaac Newton for example (which gives his dates of birth and death in Gregorian and Julian calendar) and particularly the first footnote — so the term "New Style" should best be avoided altogether. Why insist upon it?

I'm not advocating the use of the Gregorian calendar: the Julian calendar is fine for English history before 1752. What I am advocating is an explicit statement of which calendar is being used rather than a confusing "New Style"/"Old Style" label. Why did you revert my modification to the footnote? It is pointless to specify that years are counted from January 1 ("New Style") rather than March 25 ("Old Style") because September is past March 25 anyway: the year would be 1666 whether in "New Style" or in "Old Style", so why would we care to mention this? On the other hand, the fact that the Julian calendar is used is unclear and should be made explicit. Why did you remove the mention?

I tend to think the article on the Glorious Revolution (which gives some dates in both Julian and Gregorian calendar and otherwise makes it clear which calendar is being used even when it uses the confusing "New Style" term) is the model to follow. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

London, or London, England

There is a disagreement as to if we should say "London" or "London, England" in the opening sentence. This edit[3] calls it an "Americanism", I have not been to America and it does not seem odd to me. There are many many cities called London, so I figure we should say which one.

Perhaps there is something cultural I am missing? _(1 == 2)^Until 22:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some major cities that don't require qualification by stating their country. We don't need to say "Paris, France" or "New York, USA". London is in the same category. "London, England" sounds very strange to anyone from England. Bluewave (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you were able to disagree with me in such a respectful manner. I wish it could be said that all Wikipedians respected civility. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am on the conservative European side here: no Americanisms in articles on "our" events. I am inclined to consider hypothetical readers who do not know which London this is about, once they have reached the words "medieval" and "Roman City Wall" in the second sentence, unlikely to know what "England" is. (But perhaps that's why we need the England link???) I would think it much more likely that we are dealing with a reflex of American readers here, who just feel that a naked city name sounds wrong. Of course, should this be a matter of American tastes vs. British tastes, then the British have a home field advantage and win automatically. (Think of it this way: when you go to Paris, you want to see people carrying baguettes.)

The logical solution seems to be to define the "London" that we are talking about without resorting to an Americanism. I have replaced the battleground "London" / "London, England" by "England's capital London". I consider this slightly better, but others may disagree. Perhaps someone has a better idea how to drop an inconspicuous "England" without getting rid of "London" altogether? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We should never underestimate the level of ignorance in our readers, many of whom are hopefully third world children. I think we should always include country location in any article concerning people or places and find it extraordinary that anyone would want to remove such information. We aren't saying London is in England what we are saying is that The Great Fire of London occurred in England, I think its inclusion is a no-brainer. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying you cannoy identify that in this instance by London, one means the "real one" - it is the way in which it is done, London, England - Rome, Italy sounds laughable to European ears and vey much a pure Americansim. The present test seems a good comporomise to me. Giano (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Americanism Schamericanism! The first time you use an acronymn, you must expand it. The first time you use a city, you must expand it. The first instance of London, must be London, England. Otherwise, you sound like a chauvinist (or like the old 1911). If I were writing for publication even in a regional publication, I would need to locate the city in print. In a hypertext setting, it's even more proper. The same would be true of Little Chough, England, even though no one is likely to think there is more than one of them. First instance: expand. After, do not. Everyone is so ready to get their hackles up that no one is paying attention to a good style sheet. Geogre (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

no problem with the location, it is the way in which it is located - "Rome, Italy" is an Americanism, unsuited to a European page - by all means say "New York, America" (for the benefeit of us poor European who may never have heard of it, but European cities, towns and villages are always "in" and in the case of a major European city (London is quite well known) then if you must - as is currently in the page - the capital of England - London. I know you just don't get it but "Madrid, Spain" sounds completely wrong to us, and instantly an Americanism. Personally, I am always quite happy to trust the blue link - what's the name of the medical condition where people start not to beleive the labels on cans of food? Giano (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, expand it with whatever prepositions you choose, but expand it on the first usage. Of course everyone would know New York or Atlanta, or Reno, but one still expands on the first use. "New York, United States" (not "America") would look curious to any and all, but to simply say "New York" is something even natives would reject, as there is a state, too, and so "New York, New York" or "New York City" is a minimum, and the first usage would have to be that. (N.b. city/state is an expansion, as no other nation has state names that can be confused with the 50 in the US. Hence, "Birmingham, Alabama" is an expanded reference to the same degree as "London, England"; "Alabama" is a division of the US in the same way that "England" is a division of the UK.) Geogre (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, the same George, not quite. Giano (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's moot now because we seem to have found consensus, but since Geogre doesn't seem to know it, WP:ENGVAR has a rule on this: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." In other words: not the variety that some of the people here are familiar with, but the one some of the others here are familiar with. "London, England" would be about as wrong here as would be "It is 1,063 ft (325 m) high" in the article on the Eiffel Tower. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right Hans, it can only be a matter of time though before I have to describe myself as a resident of "Italy, Europe" lest anyone should begin to think I have defected to Italy, Texas. Giano (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone was offended by the claim that London was the capital of England and removed it. Therefore I changed it to read that the fire was one of the major events in the history of England. It would be great if someone could contribute a reference for this claim, in case it provokes a fact tag. Of course, Britain instead of England should be fine, too. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1666 is pre Acts of Union 1707 so london was definetly not the capital of britian at the time.Geni 09:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that what I said was ambiguous. What I meant was: If someone finds a reliable source saying that "The Great Fire of London was one of the great disasters in British history", then this should make the "London, England" crowd sufficiently happy, and so the sentence should be changed and the reference added. I hope that you don't mind referring to pre-union English history as British history, if it can be sourced. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflagration 2

I suppose nobody doubts that the present anti-conflagration IP edit warrior, who reverts without discussion and has been warned by David, is the same as previous anti-conflagration IP edit warriors. Bishzilla has therefore blocked the person with extra deathray (=48 hours) as a repeat offender. Per David's suggestion, she'll show them Great Fire if necessary. Bishonen | talk 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

Besides arguing sense with the editor, one can argue style. "The Great Fire of London was a fire" is a tautology. Geogre (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the exact capabilities of Bishzilla, but I think automatically redirecting all access from that IP address to an appropriate version of Wikipedia would be even better. What's the purpose of the deconflagrated expurgated version if nobody forces its target audience to actually use it? :o) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[ Bishzilla rise from deeps, chuckle appreciatively, stuff little article defenders in pocket.] Mighty 'zilla capabilities unlimited! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

London Gazette image

The typography in the London Gazette scan at en:Image:London-gazette.gif looks to me like a 19th- or early 20th-century reprint. The original is reproduced on the official London Gazette page as a TIFF: [4] and looks quite different, especially the headline. Can the caption be adjusted to make this apparent? Omassey (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to be sure - these editions are not currently available on the main gazette website. Unfortunatley it looks like the original source info for the image used here has been lost when it was transferred to Commons. David Underdown (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The London Gazette site now has all issues on-line including issue 85 for the 3 September 1666 to 10 September 1666. It can be found here which shows that image in question is different from the original. I have made a note of this on the image description page. --DavidCane (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Billingsgate plaque

From the Billingsgate article:

The ward includes Pudding Lane, where in 1666, the Great Fire of London began. A sign was erected upon the house in which it began:

Here, by the permission of Heaven, hell broke loose upon this protestant city, from the malicious hearts of barbarous Papists, by the hand of their agent Hubert, who confessed, and on the ruins of this place declared the fact, for which he was hanged, viz. That here began the dreadful fire, which is described and perpetuated on and by the neighbouring pillar, erected Anno 1680, in the mayoralty of Sir Patience Ward, knight.

Can we or should we address the issues raised by this plaque?--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hubert's "confession" and hanging is alredy mentioned in the "Aftermath" section of this article. It might be worth mentioning the fact that the plaque is still there I suppose. David Underdown (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It might or might not be worth mentioning it only in an "Aftermath" section, by noting Pope's lines: the monument, according to him, "Raises its head and lies." I.e. protest at the "lie" goes pretty far back, and the monument was a mixed, ambivalent item from the start. People seem to have liked the landmark and hated its intolerance simultaneously. Geogre (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. There is already a link to Monument to the Great Fire of London, and all the business about the lie is there, including Pope's lines. It would be nice if our link system worked better, but this article's not to blame for readers not clicking. Geogre (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Golden Boy

I wonder if anyone knows any more about the Golden Boy of Pye Corner? Reading the article made me wonder when it was put there, who by, whether it had another more formal name, whether it represents a story about the putting out of the fire, where the explicit connection of the fire with Gluttony comes from. Any one with more info? Millichip (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked the obstinate "conflagration" --> "fire" vandal for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

London, England

Just wanted to say that this edit seems to be a nice way of wording things. It does need to be made clear which of the many Londons is being referred to but the "London, England" way of saying it does seem clumsy. "the English city of London" seems to work very well. Chillum 19:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Bluewave (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional link suggestion

Is this appropriate as another 'External Link'?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20081211.shtml

cheers, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.88.37 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Archives and reaction in Europe

Were state archives lost? What was the reaction on the continent?--Revery (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

State archives were then basically held in Westminster which was not affected by the fire. David Underdown (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually some were probably in the Rolls Chapel but this was I think also just outside the fire zone. David Underdown (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.208.116.29, 11 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I am studying at the University of Combria and would like to edit the page, because i believe that i have some information of which has been missed out.

90.208.116.29 (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to say what you want to change, as we will do the edit for you. You cannot edit the semi-protected page yourself until you create an account and make more than 10 edits and is more than four days old. Any additions that you request to make to the article will need to have a reference to prove it, as per WP:CITE. Please make another edit request with what you want to change or add to the article as well as the references that you have to prove it. More information on references can be found in the rules and policies at WP:CITE. Thank you and I hope you understand!. Chevymontecarlo. 17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Recording of deaths of "poor and middle-class" people

Respectfully I take issue with this sentence regarding the fire's death toll: "This reasoning has recently been challenged on the grounds that the deaths of poor and middle-class people were not recorded anywhere, ..."

I'm currently transcribing London parish registers from around the time of the fire, and they record everyone who was buried in a parish, irrespective of class: from archbishops and merchants to parish orphans and anonymous bodies found in the street.

If it was actually asserted by a historian or other expert that the deaths of the not-so-well-off were unrecorded, could the article author please give the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phthia (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• But the point that's trying to be made is that there may well have been casualties who were effectively cremated - there was nothing to bury, so in this particular unusual instance, normal processes broke down. Details of who made the claims, and what precisely is meant is given in the "Deaths and destruction" section of the article - the opening is intended to summarise the article, and it is not normal to place citations in this section, unless a direct quote is used. David Underdown (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• I don't get a bit your saying please make a children version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.212.210 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• How many of the parish records were lost in the fire? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note - This article is what Wikipaedia should be, accurate, concise and elegantly written with contribution undertaken in a civilised and thoughtful manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.85.254 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"See Also" links

Not to sound like I'm whining or anything, but since there are links in the "See Also" section to articles for other cities' "Great Fires", shouldn't there be a link to the article for the Great Chicago Fire? Not to insult anybody's intellegence here, as I don't know how many other people involved in this discussion know much about the Great Chicago Fire, but it destroyed nearly the entire city (with the exception of a single water tower), and Chicago's MLS soccer team is named after it (the Chicago Fire), so it definitely is important. 75.149.84.30 (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There really shouldn't. The Pittsburgh and Toronto fires were added to the See also section just a couple of days ago — not a good idea, in my view, and I have removed them. Please take a look at List of historic fires, section "City fires", and you'll see how long our See also section could become, once people started adding major city fires on the "if those, then why not this one" principle! Overlong See also sections are far less useful than short, pithy ones. The very first thing that happens on our article page, before the lede begins, is that it links to the List of historic fires. That, and not this article about the London fire, is the go-to place for people interested in Wikipedia's quite impressive coverage of historic fires. The list links, naturally, to the Pittsburgh, Toronto and Chicago fires. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

I agree, the link at the top of the article to other "great fires" should be sufficient. Including other "great fires" in the see also section would be problematic because how would one decide what is appropriate. None at all seems to be the best option. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In edit mode (or, for an IP, in "view source" mode), there's a slightly exasperated commented-out request right at the top of the See also section, begging people not to add their favourite city fires to it. Bishonen | talk 04:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Disambiguation

"Great Fire" currently redirects here, which seems more than a little Anglocentric. I'd move that "Great Fire" leads to list of historic fires instead. This fire is on that list, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.193 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Referencing

This article requires more footnotes, especially for direct quotes, per FA Criteria 1c. I recall reading in the FA nomination that this is based mainly on a single source, but the statement regarding such a reliance does not seem to be in the article. Note that such a method does not allow the use of page numbers to better follow WP:V — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Citation needed" for 'Samuel Pepys, looking back on the events, wrote in his diary on 7 September 1666: "People do all the world over cry out of the simplicity [the stupidity] of my Lord Mayor in general; and more particularly in this business of the fire, laying it all upon him."'. Where could that quote possibly have come from? It's a mystery that I doubt anybody would be able to solve without a footnote. Oh wait, there is one: "17. ^ All quotes from and details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary entry for the day referred to." Still, it's a bit obscure, this Pepys bloke and his diary - it could be any one of the obscure diarists named Samuel Pepys. "I recall reading in the FA nomination that this is based mainly on a single source" - maybe you should try re-reading the nomination and the article and then take it FAR if you still don't like the citation style. Yomangani^talk 10:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I wrote the FA version, as well as the two-line FAC nomination, and the article definitely was not based "mainly on a single source". In case you go check your recollection against the FAC page, Crisco, you might also be interested in the lively discussion there of how much (or little) inline citing Pepys' diary needs. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

• Right, I misremembered the bit about Pepys' diary.

That being said, numerous uncited statements are made about things which are not related to the diary. The whole second half of #London in the 1660s (not its subsections), for example. Further paragraphs, such as the one that starts "The crucial factor which frustrated firefighting efforts was the narrowness of the streets." do not indicate a source at all.

Others, such as the source for "as it does facilitate a conflagration, so does it also hinder the remedy" ... "the covetousness of the citizens and connivancy [that is, the corruption] of Magistrates" should be at the end of the statement supported to better show that it covers the whole quote. Quotes such as "all Cities and Towns whatsoever shall without any contradiction receive the said distressed persons and permit them the free exercise of their manual trades." appear to be completely unreferenced.

These are basic issues which would hold the article back at FAC, because it doesn't meet the criteria as generally understood by editors. I agree with SandyGeorgia and Piotr's statements at the original FAC back in 2006. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes 6 and 54 cover much of your complaint. The section heading "Failures in fighting the fire" was introduced here without a corresponding transfer of the referencing which is why "The crucial factor which frustrated firefighting efforts was the narrowness of the streets" is no longer obviously sourced, but that should be trivial to correct; presumably Tinniswood 1-11 covers it. Personally I think the most heinous transgression of the article is the use of cquote. Yomangani^talk 14:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough. That being said, WP:INTEXT does say quotes need an in-line citation after the sentence with the quote. The current format, although admittedly easier to read in code, is (in my opinion) less than logical for reviewing, especially as new material can be inserted willy-nilly. The FA criteria do not force a particular style, but I don't know how well this style would do in a new FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it would do well at all but that says more about FAC than the quality of this article. WP:INTEXT (added here in the midst of the panic surrounding l'affaire Grace Sherwood) says the quote needs an in-text attribution in addition to the inline citation, which seems to assume the presence of an inline citation as read rather than insisting on one be added to an in-text attribution (aside from which there are inline citations in this article, just not in the form of superscript links at the end of every sentence). Inline cites don't prevent the willy-nilly addition of new material either - they just makes it look like it's supported by the next cite tag. Yomangani^talk 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

i have a refrence to add to this page. it is an article on the national archives about the great fire of london that will add to this articles reliability refrence Rydino53 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)rydino53

The other conspiracy theory

Everyone knows the story of how Wren had just presented his new plans to the City Fathers, who voted to reject them on budget grounds. Supposedly, a few of them privately approved the plans, and organized the fire as a pretext to re-develop the site of the ruined buildings. Perhaps a mention of this theory could be added to the various others. Valetude (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard this story. It sounds more like contemporary gossip circulated by Wren's enemies. Whatever, it would need a reliable source before being included in the article.  Giano  16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have also never heard this story. Although Wren did propose rebuilding Old St Paul's before the fire, nobody aiming to destroy St Paul's would have started a fire at Pudding Lane, which is at the opposite end of the City and against the prevailing winds—it was only a string of extraordinary circumstances that led to the fire spreading westwards as far as St Paul's and Pye Corner. Plus, Wren's was only one of many suggestions for the reconstruction and it wasn't at all obvious that his would be the scheme chosen. In any event, it was a singularly unsuccessful conspiracy given that both of Wren's pet schemes (for a rationalisation of the City's street layout, and the rebuilding of St Paul's as a basilica), were rejected. – iridescent 2 10:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014

As pointed out in the "talk page", the painting in the upper right hand corner is not from an unknown artist, but is by Lieve Verschuier, "The Great Fire of London, 1666." Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest.

Thanks!

130.76.64.121 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The current image used in the article does not appear to be the one you are talking about. From what I can tell the Verschuier one you mention is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verschuier-fire.jpg and looks very different from what is currently being used in the intro. The other image described as being by an unknown artist that another IP has attributed to Verschuier earlier in the talk page seems to be http://collections.britishart.yale.edu/vufind/Record/1667417 this one. That presumably reliable source says its by an unknown artist as well Cannolis (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

• Fascimile and transcript of London Gazette report on the Fire, September 1666

Spuddha (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
• You have to actually tell us what you want to do with that link. Where do you want it added? Do you want to use it as a reference somewhere? Please be specific with your request. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Someone needs to add to the main page, in the "In Culture" section, the following info: In the Doctor Who story The Visitation, it is revealed that the Great Fire Of London was caused by a conflict with an alien. ClintJCL (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

William Taswell

>"Leaving school, young William Taswell stood on Westminster Stairs a mile away and watched as the flames crept round the cathedral and the burning scaffolding ignited the timbered roof beams. Within half an hour, the lead roof was melting, and the books and papers in the crypt caught with a roar. "The stones of Paul's flew like grenados, the melting lead running down the streets in a stream, and the very pavements glowing with fiery redness, so as no horse, nor man, was able to tread on them", reported Evelyn in his diary."

That's a lot of detail to see from a mile away. Are we sure he wasn't closer? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Risssa: Thanks, the first sentence only was from Taswell's perspective, but I've now expanded this and removed the second sentence which was unattributed.----Pontificalibus 07:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of destructed houses.

In the article there are two different information about destructed houses: 13,200 and 13,500. Can anybody check which one is correct?--Saliner (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

this is wrong you need to involve the great fire of dylan Blazecross90 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have a serious request for a change, state it. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC).

Recent edits by Dilidor

The recent edits by user:Dilidor seem to me to have made the article worse, not better. They seem to have an obsession about split infinitives but then don't seem to understand what the term means. Also they have swapped lots of clauses around in sentences to make the wording very pedestrian and added lots of unnecessary words such as "that" everywhere. Changing further to farther seems to be an unnecessary Americanism that doesn't belong in a British English article. Looking at User talk:Dilidor it would seem that they have a history of doing this to British English articles and have been asked not to do it - especially to featured articles. Was the English in this article article really so bad when it passed FA? Richerman (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

Please add the following quotation from Samuel Pepys'account [Development of the Fire - Tuesday - End of paragraph]:"In a letter to Sir William Coventry, Pepys wrote he « saw how horribly the sky looks, all on a fire in the night, was [sic] enough to put us out of our wits ; and, indeed, it was extremely dreadful, for it looks just as if it was at us, and the whole heaven on fire. » ORANSIGLOT (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Aurato (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2017

Would you please add the following paragraph in : Aftermath, following "Abroad in the Netherlands, the Great Fire of London was seen as a divine retribution for Holmes's Bonfire, the burning by the English of a Dutch town during the Second Anglo-Dutch War.[60]":

On October 5th Marc Antonio Giustinian, Venetian Ambassador in France, reported to the Doge and the Senate that Louis XIV announced that he would not « have any rejoicings about it, being such a deplorable accident involving injury to so many unhappy people » [61] . He offered the Queen, Catherine of Braganza, to send food and whatever goods might be of aid in alleviating the plight of Londoners. Yet the King made no secret that he regarded « the fire of London as a stroke of good fortune for him » as it reduced the risk of French ships crossing the Channel and the North Sea being taken or sunk by the English fleet.

[61] : Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 35, 1666-1668, ed. Allen B Hinds (London, 1935), pp. 80-97. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol35/pp80-97 --ORANSIGLOT (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC) ORANSIGLOT (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Already done — Train2104 (t • c) 17:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Fix categories. Change Category:1666 events to Category:1666 fires. Change Category:History of London to Category:17th century in London. Add Category:History of the City of London. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

The caption in: 'A panorama of the City of London in 1616 by Claes Visscher', states "...much would be destroyed in an earlier fire in 1632" (emphasis added). Huh? —107.15.157.44 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done Corrected, but "pending review" —107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC) --P.s: I realize that "earlier" is not incorrect in the global article context, but confusion can arise from ambiguity in the local caption context.

 Done Thanks User:Redactyll —2606:A000:1126:28D:6024:292F:BF55:5BD0 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Influence of the Great Fire of London is actually still alive in Australia !!!

The building codes for most cities in Australia specifies that the wall of a building that is not rated as fire resistant for that coded area may not be closer than 90cm (3 feet) from the property boundary. That is, buildings may not be closer than 1.8m (6 feet) apart. My friend the constitutional lawyer says that this, like much of Australian legislation, is based on British law, and that this particular requirement stems from the Great Fire. It was inserted into British Law, never changed (as there was no good reason to change it), and passed into Australian Law.

Assuming that this is true (and I sincerely believe it to be so), there is an obvious problem how one would "prove" it.I certainly can't. So I'm simply leaving this comment here in Talk. 58.164.89.114 (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

The novel 'Old St. Paul's' by the Victorian fiction-writer Harrison Ainsworth gives a most vivid account of the fire. Perhaps other historical novels, poems, plays, films and TV programmes might be listed in a new section 'In Popular Culture'. Valetude (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless these 'historical novels' give reliable sources for their descriptions of the Great Fire, there seems little point mentioning them. Mostly such novels take great liberties at the expense of accuracy.  Giano  16:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)