Talk:Black Friday (1910)/Archive 1

The aftermath of Black Friday - contradictory text
"The actions of the police were greatly criticised" vs. "violent physical abuse [...] was generally supported by the British population, who at the time were relatively opposed to women's franchise" - obviously contradictory text. This needs fixed, both statements can't be correct, surely. (NB I removed some unsigned bits of text relating to the deletion of the 1912 article from the talk page, they don't seem to have any relevance to anything now.) Double Happiness (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not well versed, but it strikes me as rather vaguely worded. Did they support the Suffragettes, or the assaults on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.46.210 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Black Friday (1912) listed for deletion
Black Friday (1912) has been listed for deletion here. Tamino 19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Funky title
The accompanying article is one of either
 * 9 7 that have as title "Black Friday" ...
 * 5 2 that have as title "Black Saturday" ... or
 * 1 that have as title "Black Monday" ...

... (in each case) disambiguated by a parenthesized year. Since this is in contrast to all the other days of the week, that style probably is unneeded and reflects either ignorance of the acceptability of Dab-page entries like
 * Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001 attacks

or something like a lack of persistence in weighing possible titles. I have not investigated them individually; instead, i suggest review, of each article, by one or more editors with prior interest in its corresponding topic, with an eye to finding a title that either avoids the "Black ...day" or disambiguates it with something more evocative than a year. Years are good tools for helping users who happen to have seen a brief reference to "Black Friday" and have at least rough idea of the year involved, but giving priority to that case in titling the article, rather than letting the Dab page handle that job, is almost always an impediment to most users seeking the article. Almost certainly, most of the 15 10 should be renamed. --Jerzy•t 06:18 & 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
I have removed a short paragraph that states two were killed, 200 arrested. While this is in the source Dora Marsden and Early Modernism: Gender, Individualism, Science by Bruce Clarke, I do not think this is sufficient. I have three reasons for this: We know the number arrested was 119 from contemporary newspaper accounts. Bruce Clarke cites the novel "Suffragette Sally" in his work, which to my mind makes him suspect as a reliable source, especially given the passage he quotes. Thirdly, and most importantly, deaths would have been remarked upon at the time, and extensively since.

The remaining citation was to a wordpress blog. I have removed the citation, but left the material as not inherently unlikely. Sources should, nonetheless, be found as soon as possible.

I have added a citation to the Times of the following day, which provides some information about the event.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Some background to the idea that deaths were consequent upon Black Friday can be found here. Clearly RS stating the facts would be useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Black Friday (1910). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070422221735/http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk:80/politics/g9/ to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/politics/g9/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

First sentence
I wrote House of Commons because (a) most readers will not understand the significance of Palace of Westminster and (b) it means we have 2 x parliament in one sentence. SarahSV (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've tweaked to the Houses of Parliament, which should cover it. I've taken out the reference to the "Women's Parliament", as that was going on at Caxton Hall, rather than the demonstration. It is also something that brings confusion, rather than clarity to the lead. – SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's better. I've added the famous image of the woman apparently being attacked to the lead. I know that this causes the problem of repetition below, but given that the day was named after the violence, an image of that (or what appears to be that) seems most appropriate. SarahSV (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me think on that one – I'm not a fan of duplicate images without an excellent reason. Would File:A policeman tries to seize a banner from a suffragette on Black Friday.jpg work as lead for you? - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have a realistic alternative. The day was named Black Friday because of the violence, and we have one image of what appears to be that violence, an image the police tried to hide. Pulling a banner from someone doesn't quite cut it. We could use the Daily Mirror front page in the lead and find something else for Reaction. SarahSV (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mud March writing
I've only skimmed this so far, but I recognize some of Brian's writing from Mud March (suffragists), copied word for word. The text around "After repeated parliamentary rebuffs"; see. What does Abrams 2003 say about the split in 1888? SarahSV (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not much. Pretty much what we say here, with no relevant additional detail. – SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I asked during Mud March what the split was and didn't get a response, or perhaps I meant to ask but didn't. That needs to be rewritten, and preferably sourced to someone who explains what happened. That's assuming it needs to be there at all. I find the article a little top heavy. Too much to wade through before we get to the day itself. SarahSV (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Abrahams is a reliable source, so we can use it here appropriately (Elizabeth Crawford also refers to the split, but with little detail).
 * It's not too heavy, IMO. We give the context of where the suffrage movement was heading and how it got there, and give sufficient background to the rising levels of tension and violence they were faced with. – SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Abrams 2003 is an RS, but not a good source, and the text was copied word-for-word from elsewhere on WP without attribution. (Is anything else in the article copied?) This degree of background isn't really relevant to this article. It means that, in a 3853-word article, we have 1,782 words of preamble. SarahSV (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not entirely copied, but re-phrased along the way; and yes, Abrahams is reliable and good. Yes, the background is relevant to understand the changes in approach and tactics of both sides, and the rising levels of violence. Either way, it's not "preamble", it's "background", which is rather different. – SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Writing from memory, Abrahms is a quick overview, not a high-quality source. If you're thinking of taking this to FAC, it will have to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ...". Given the large scholarly literature, those are the sources the article should rely on (plus careful use of primary sources).


 * I'm concerned about the copying, and not sure what you mean about something being rephrased. The text I'm referring to was word-for-word the same, so what I asked is whether there's anything else copied in the article (and if so, where is it?) SarahSV (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, Abrams is an entirely acceptable source for the article, even if this goes to FAC.
 * Sarah, I do not want to fall out over this article, but you have a copy of this and you have a copy of the Mud March. If you wish to compare the two, please feel free. – SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Brian in Mud March: After repeated parliamentary rebuffs, the lack of success was leading some members to advocate stronger, more militant methods. As early as 1888 the NSWS's Central Committee had split between "moderates" such as Fawcett and those such as Emmeline Pankhurst who argued for a more robust approach.[16] This division was formalised in 1903, when Pankhurst and her followers left the NUWSS to form the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), with the motto "Deeds, not words".[17][18] The press coined the term "suffragettes" to distinguish the militants from the constitutionally-minded "suffragists" of the NUWSS. The suffix "-ette" was originally used in the Daily Mail to belittle the militants by implying that they were not genuine suffragists, but the label was subsequently adopted by the militants as a badge of honour.[15]


 * SchroCat in Black Friday: After repeated parliamentary rebuffs, the lack of success led some members to advocate stronger, more militant methods. As early as 1888 the NSWS's Central Committee had split between "moderates" such as Fawcett and those such as Emmeline Pankhurst who argued for a more robust approach.[7] This division was formalised in 1903, when Pankhurst and her followers, including her daughter Christabel, left the NUWSS to form the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), although there was some overlap in the membership of the organisations.[8][9] In 1906 the Daily Mail journalist, Charles E. Hands, coined the name suffragettes to belittle them, but they adopted the label as a badge of honour.[10][11]
 * Well done. Two and a half sentences. I don't get your point Sarah, but I am getting slightly annoyed at the sniping here: I do not find your approach to be terribly constructive, as it seems to be less about article development and more about being picky over trivial points. – SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's neither sniping nor trivial. Copying without attribution is plagiarism and a copyright violation; see Copying within Wikipedia. Ideally, if you copy text from another article, you say so in the edit summary; that page explains how to do it via a talk-page template. But really it shouldn't happen in an article that might become an FA, so my question is whether there's anything else like this in the article; if there is, you need to remove/rewrite it. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have already said, you have a copy of this and you have a copy of the Mud March. If you wish to compare the two, feel free. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're saying I have to go through this article to find whether you've copied from elsewhere; you won't tell me? SarahSV (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. I find your approach abrasive and uncollegiate. If you can't 'play nice' with others, don't expect to get much back in return. – SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

1888 split
Re: the 1888 split, June Purvis describes it in Emmeline Pankhurst: A Biography, p. 29. It's misleading as written in this article, and I can't see what it has to do with Black Friday. SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the beginning of the split between suffragist and suffragette, so it's fairly key, and it's not misleading given what Crawford and Abrams both say. – SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We're experiencing a re-run of Mud March. To get something to FA, you're expected to be thoroughly familiar with the literature, so there's no need to pick up a bit here and there from sources that Brian used, and copying his words. The Mud March article had a lot of issues, and the issue of the split there (there had been a split, so the WPSU weren't invited) isn't really applicable here. SarahSV (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am entirely familiar with the literature, and the only re-run we are likely to see here is that someone who has worked on an article is likely to walk away because of a rather obstructive and confrontational approach. As you can see from the history of the Mud March, I had little to do with the writing (I did research and copy editing), so to try and compare the two is a false step to take. – SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Having slept on this, I see little chance of this turning into a constructive thread. It's all yours to do with what you want. I will withdraw the PR, take this off my watchlist and leave it to you. – SchroCat (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Problems
The recent sandbox rewrite has several problems that need to be fixed (slowly and calmly by editors who have access to the sources), but it has suddenly been taken to FAC, where contentious edits are being added and BRD ignored.

Bearman, lead image
C. J. Bearman is a highly contentious source. He was not an academic. He left school when he was 16, went back to education when he was in his 50s and completed a PhD about folk music. He did not hold an academic position, and his articles on the suffragettes were criticized by historians as misogynist amd poorly researched. Using him as a source ignores the problems in the historiography of feminism and the suffragette movement of the use of sexist sources. We wouldn't use equivalent sources in articles about the civil-rights movement.

I also object to the removal of the high-quality image. This article isn't about the Mirror or the news coverage. The Mirror did not take the photograph and they were not the only newspaper to publish it. There's no reason to focus on them, and the quality is very poor.

There are lots of other issues, but I'll start with these. SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please address the Bearman issue. SarahSV (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * June Purvis's piece in the Guardian explains the issue, . Then there's the piece in the Telegraph that compares the suffragettes to Al-Qaeda. Bearman's theories are fringe and not suitable for an article that would be showcased on the main page. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * and, as the editors who added and restored this source, please respond. SarahSV (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty irrelevant to me when the author started his academic career, it's not like that kind of scrutiny here is usually done. The article was released in the peer-reviewed Historical Research. Is there a reason (i.e. another source) to believe they made a mistake in accepting this article? Calling the source "sexist" seems unsubstantiated. The statement that was reverted simply stated a critical view of the suffragette narrative and attributed it to Christopher Bearman in-line. It's expected that featured articles would have reasonable critical views of the topic. --Pudeo (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * We are using Bearman to support three facts. One is also covered by Morrell, one I know to be true (and could probably fudge enough material by way of a support, although I would be in danger of SYNTH), and one probably true, but there are no other sources I can find that go anywhere near dealing with the lack of police powers to censor the press. There are no theories attached to this use, which is limited and careful. I am sorry you don't like him or his stance, but his "theories" are not being showcased or highlighted. - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
One other issue is that that all these articles about the suffragettes need infoboxes. I've held off on suggesting this because the author of this rewrite dislikes them. But I don't want to keep censoring myself. If you look at equivalent articles on the civil-rights movement (e.g. Selma to Montgomery marches and Bloody Tuesday (1964)), the infoboxes give a quick overview of dates, locations, lead figures, and connected events. We need that here. SarahSV (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. This doesn't need an IB. It's managed for years without one, and nothing has changed to justify inclusion. As to what other articles have or don't have, please see WP:OSE. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, so I'm going to consider creating one and, if necessary (assuming I can create one that's worth adding), holding an RfC about it. I particularly like the box at Selma to Montgomery marches. There you see at a glance related events and lead people. This article offers none of that, so the context is lost. All the suffragette-event articles need these boxes so that readers can be led through them by the links. SarahSV (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will certainly consider one (despite what you have mistakenly claimed, I do not dislike them, I just know they should be used with more care than they are). If this one is pointless, I will remove it. I will say I have low expectations for something that is more likely to confuse or over-simplify than a lead that will provide better information, and with the context and nuance that an IB eschews. I wonder why it is only now that you think it suitable to press for an IB; it does come across as a rather pointed (and POINTy) suggestion at this particular point in time. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've always liked infoboxes, and I add them to most of the articles I work on. When I work with you, I don't suggest them because I know you don't like them. Even when I created Women's Sunday in March, I didn't add a box because you had been working on Mud March (suffragists), and so I wanted to make Women's Sunday welcoming for you, although in my view both need boxes.


 * But given what's happening here, I don't want to censor myself anymore. SarahSV (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you could post a proposed one here, given it is possibly contentious and there is no consensus to include one at this stage, that would be the least disruptive route to take. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When you don't want something, you say there is no consensus for it and I should first post on talk. But you think it's okay to remove (twice) the clearer image that has been here since 2015, over my objections, and to add a misogynist source that I object to. SarahSV (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Art work
Has anyone considered adding some of the art work the women created? For example this nice poster? Victoriaearle (tk) 00:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It would look good in the background section. SarahSV (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to use one of the Artists' Suffrage League's posters but the article is already fairly image heavy. I've stuck it on my page for now. It's not terribly important, but worth thinking about. I have to go offline for a day or so. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That is what our article on the Artists' Suffrage League says, yes.
 * Wasnt this poster by Duncan Grant? - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Women's Tax Resistance League used a nautical logo too, a sideways reference at John Hampden's refusal to pay ship money. 213.205.198.235 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Protesters or protestors?
The article uses both. I prefer the former. This is an interesting take on usage. --John (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting article. I'm not sure I've encountered protestor or, more accurately, I haven't noticed it. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing content
I've leaving a note here to summarize what I wrote elsewhere about content I believe should be added.

Length and balance
The article (permalink) is 3,644 words.
 * Lead: 387 words
 * Background: 1,140, consisting of
 * Women's Social and Political Union: 541
 * Political situation: 599
 * 18 November: 587
 * Following days: 209
 * Reaction: 929, consisting of
 * Subsection with no heading: 490
 * Murray and Brailsford report: 439
 * Impact: 392

Ignoring the lead, this means the Background section is 35 percent of the article (1,140 of 3,257). The women's experience of the violence is 237 words in the 18 November section (one paragraph starting "Groups approaching"); 102 words in the Reaction section (one paragraph starting "On 3 March Georgiana Solomon"); and 192 words in "Murray and Brailsford report" (a blockquote, but not quoting the women, and a paragraph starting "A woman, who gave her name as Miss H"). I think more of that material should be added (see below). SarahSV (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Churchill
This needs its own section. The issue is whether Churchill ordered the police not to make arrests, and whether he contradicted himself in his responses about it. The suffragettes argued that the police had been ordered not to make arrrests; see Votes for Women, 25 November 1910, p. 117. (Explain in the Background section how, from 1905, the suffragettes would commit technical violations of the law—a dry spit, a light slap of a police officer's face—to force an arrest; see, for example, Emmeline Pankhurst, My Own Story, p. 99, about her arrest outside the Commons in June 1908, where she had to slap the officer twice before she was arrested. Also see User:Victoriaearle/sandbox and below.) The argument is that it could not be an accident that the government had allowed scores of women to be assaulted for six hours outside the Commons, making it difficult for everyone arriving and leaving and causing problems for traffic. The article hardly explores this point, and doesn't mention it in the lead.

Some of Churchill's letters or statements:


 * On 22 November 1910 he wrote to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner: "I am hearing from every quarter that my strongly expressed wishes conveyed to you on Wed evening & repeated on Fri morning that the suffragettes were not to be allowed to exhaust themselves, but were to be arrested forthwith upon any defiance of the law, were not observed by the police on Friday last, with the result that very regrettable scenes occurred." See Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill, vol 2, part 3, p. 1457.
 * On 1 March 1911 he made a statement about the Brailsford–Murray report (part of that statement is in the article)
 * Another statement on 8 March.
 * On 10 March, he said "No fresh instructions, verbal or written, were issued to the police on or before 18th November." He also discussed how "the women work themselves into a high state of hysteria, expose themselves to rough horseplay at the hands of an unsympathetic crowd, and finally collapse from the exhaustion of their own exertions." He said he had intended that the police should "have these women removed from the scene of disorder as soon as was lawfully possible", but "[t]he directions which I gave were not fully understood or carried out on the 18th of November." Also, "no one is responsible but the disorderly women themselves" for the "disagreeable scenes"; he called the WSPU a "copious fountain of mendacity".
 * On 11 March, he said: "No orders, verbal or written, emanating directly or indirectly from me were given to the police".
 * Also see Christabel Pankhurst's statement about it. That he threatened to sue her is in the article, but not what she said; the article also doesn't say that he wanted to sue The Times, and doesn't cite The Times article.
 * There are several secondary sources that discuss this (e.g. Rosen 1974, Purvis 2002, Purvis 2018).

Churchill's attitude generally to the suffragettes:


 * "Nothing would induce me to vote for giving women the franchise. I am not going to be henpecked into a question of such importance." See Sylvia Pankhurst, The Suffragette Movement.
 * In 1899 (11 years before Black Friday), Churchill said he was "the most uncompromising enemy" of votes for women. See Richard Toye, "Churchill, women and the politics of gender" in Rethinking Right-Wing Women: Gender and the Conservative Party, 1880s to the Present, p. 123, citing "Comedy of Manners", Daily Mail, 4 July 1899.

Will add more below. SarahSV (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Women's statements
The women who were attacked aren't given much prominence. This was a feature of the early history of the suffragettes, so I would like to see the women's accounts used more in a section about the attacks (a sub-section of "18 November") and in the section about the Brailsford–Murray report. What did the women say happened? How did it make them feel (a) about the campaign; (b) about men? What did it make women in general feel about men? There are sources who discuss this, but it's not in the article.

The article contains two blockquotes, one from Sylvia Pankhurst about another event, and one from Churchill about the Brailsford–Murray report. No blockquotes from the women who were attacked. No witness statements at all from the women who were attacked in the "18 November" section (the attacks are covered in one paragraph beginning "Groups approaching"). There are some under "Murray and Brailsford report" (that heading was only added recently), but very few. The name of the American suffragette, Elisabeth Freeman, was added after I left a note about the lack of names, but we don't discuss what she wrote about it (see her letter to Women's Journal).

For example, there are statements about police pushing their fingers up women's noses, rubbing women's faces against the railings, grabbing them by their throats and pushing their heads back as far as they could, throwing women toward the traffic (one said a vehicle drove over her dress, and another vehicle allegedly grazed a woman's head), and police forcing women to walk along with their skirts held high. One woman said she was called a prostitute and was made to walk with her skirt held over her head. Several discuss their thumbs being pushed back (one nurse's thumb was said to have been dislocated), arms twisted up the back, arms pinched, breasts twisted, attempts to lift the women off the ground by placing knees between their legs. There were women who needed help getting dressed for several days after the attacks because of their injuries.

Very little of this is in the article. There is more in the Brailsford report than is in the article, but there are also more sources than the Brailsford report. SarahSV (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Delegation, names
The delegation and march should have its own section. Not all the names of the notable women involved (women attacked or present as part of the delegation) have been included. We don't mention the banners they carried or what the banners said. Atkinson 2018 says that the prime minister's private secretary agreed to see three delegates, but then didn't. That's not in the article; is it regarded as wrong? Morell 1981 is used instead. Are there primary sources that could settle the matter? We don't mention MPs bringing mats for the delegates to stand on.

Delegates (Raeburn 1973; Atkinson 2018): Emmeline Pankhurst, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, Louisa Garrett Anderson, Hertha Ayrton, Hilda Brackenbury, Elizabeth Clarke Wolstenholme Elmy, Dorinda Neligan, Anne Cobden-Sanderson, Sophia Duleep Singh and Georgiana Solomon. The article currently mentions only Pankhurst, the Garrett Andersons, Ayrton and Singh.

Press response
One paragraph discusses the media response ("Reaction"), based entirely on Morrell 1981, as well as one sentence in the previous paragraph. I would like to see it expanded to say more about the press mockery of the suffragettes, and press support fpr the police, citing newspapers directly. Did any newspapers support the suffragettes? The article doesn't say. Which secondary sources since 1981 have discussed the press coverage? SarahSV (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Transfiguring Sword
Notes from Jorgensen-Earp's analysis of events leading up to the day & of the day itself, found here in my sandbox. It's free to anyone to use, copy over, etc. Page numbers are marked, areas of close paraphrasing are marked, and in some instances I resorted to quotes. The link to the g-book version is here. It's also available, in full, on Project Muse. I have the entire chapter; if anyone wishes a copy I'll send it on via email. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ada Wright
The article should name Ada Wright in the lead-image caption and remove "after a policeman hit her". We should remove from the article and footnote the doubt that it was her. We should also include some of her statement and find out where it was published originally. Antonia Raeburn (The Militant Suffragettes, 1973, pp. 154–155) quotes her as follows (with original punctuation, including the ellipsis):

"When we reached Parliament Square, plain-clothes men mingling with the crowd kicked us, and added to the horror and anguish of the day by dragging some of our women down side streets. There were many attempts of indecent assault.

The police rode at us with shire horses, so I caught hold of the reins of one of the horses and would not let go. A policeman grabbed my arm and twisted it round and round until I felt the bone almost breaking and I sank to the pavement, helpless. A contingent of the United States Navy was in London at the time, and they lined up outside Westminster Abbey and watched the proceedings. I was continually tripped up by the police and thrown to the ground in the sight of the American sailors. Each time I got up, and once more made a show of advancing to the House of Commons only to be thrown to the ground once again ...

As I leaned against the railings after one of these episodes, a sense of the humiliation I was undergoing came over me. I wondered what my relations would think of me if they were to see me. When night came, I was mercifully arrested. After a long proceeding in the police station, we were bailed out and I returned to where I was staying at one o'clock in the morning. As I lay down, tired and exhausted, I said to myself with a shudder: 'What a sordid day!'

The next morning I found I had been photographed lying on the ground where I had been flung, and the photograph occupied the front page of the Daily Mirror. As soon as this became known to the Government, an order to have the picture suppressed was sent to the office of the newspaper, but they could not suppress the copies which had been sold. There were headlines: BLACK FRIDAY."

SarahSV (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Misc

 * Note the letter to The Times from Robert Cecil, 24 March 1911 (signed 14 March), written after he had interviewed ten of the women and read over 100 witness statements. He refers to a statement by Churchill that the protesters would have been dispersed by a baton charge had they been men. He writes:

"In conclusion, may I ask whether anyone thinks that if the deputation had consisted of unarmed men of the same character their demand for an inquiry would have been refused? Who can doubt that the Home Secretary and the other Ministers would have tumbled over one another in their eagerness to grant anything that was asked? Are we, then, to take it as officially admitted that in this country there is one law for male electors and another for voteless women?"

- SarahSV (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC) (Based on this edit; signature added into the archive by SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC))
 * Add coordinates and a map: the women marched from Clement's Inn (the WSPU offices) and Caxton Hall, 10 Caxton Street; continued up Victoria Street; and the attacks began in Parliament Square.

Mary Clarke and Henria Williams
It's a while since I researched this in detail, and I can't at present be bothered to go and look it all up again, but Brailsford and the WSPU were clearly mischievous in attributing the deaths of Mrs Clarke and Miss Williams to the events of 18 November. As far as we know, Mrs Clarke wasn't even present on 18 November. Sylvia Pankhurst wrote in The Suffragette Movement (1931) that Mrs Clarke, already in frail health, was very ill the night before, was urged by her colleagues in the Brighton WSPU not to attend and promised them that she would not engage in fighting with the police but would 'take the easier course of arrest for window-breaking.' She certainly wasn't jailed for any action on 18 November. Instead she was jailed for breaking a window at Canon Row police station the following Tuesday, 22 November, because the police wouldn't let her in to see her sister Emmeline, who'd been arrested in connection with the mass attack on Downing Street earlier in the day. She was sentenced at Bow Street next morning to one month in Holloway and, according to Sylvia, telegraphed her friends in Brighton to report this and say she was 'happy to pay the price of victory'. She chose to hunger-strike during her sentence, was released on 23 December, attended a WSPU welcome luncheon that day, addressed a Brighton WSPU meeting that evening and returned to her brother's house in London, where she died of a brain haemorrhage after lunch on Christmas Day. The prison sentence, her voluntary hunger-strike and the resultant force-feeding may well have accelerated her death, but have nothing to do with actions by the police on 18 November.

In regard to Henria Williams, she wrote a letter to Dr Murray on 27 December reporting that the police handled her roughly on 18 November, but then the police had to defend Parliament from hundreds of demonstrators who wanted to swarm in there and make trouble. Miss Williams, though evidently feeling sore for several days afterwards, was on fighting form by 22 November, when she punched Asquith in the face as he left Parliament through the Members' Entrance to board a taxi in New Palace Yard. Once Asquith's minders bundled him into the taxi, Miss Williams then put her fist clean through the vehicle's window. While some recent accounts have quoted favourably her remarks to the local Upminster press that she only had a brief 'conversation' with Asquith, national and international press reports from the day are pretty clear that she did in fact punch Asquith in the face, and then punched the taxi. (All honour to her, but these are not the actions of a poor weak thing who can barely rise from her bed.) She wasn't arrested. The police just let her go. Special Branch officers were present, and they would have recognised her and probably been aware of her medical condition (since the Essex police certainly knew about it). What then happened, in December, was that Miss Williams' maid gave notice, and Miss Williams became very anxious as to how she would manage without a maidservant -- she may have felt that she could not hire a replacement due to her local notoriety, or she may simply have been upset at the prospect of having to hire someone she didn't know. She was also distressed at the thought of what would happen when she refused to pay her taxes in the spring. Anyone who knows anything about anxiety, or heart disease, can see the problem here. She had had two reported heart attacks in the previous 18 months, and she died of a heart attack on the night of 1-2 January 1911. The inquest found that her participation in 'militant demonstrations' was 'not congenial' to someone in her state of health, but her death cannot be directly ascribed to any action by the police on 18 November and it was dishonest on Brailsford's part to pretend otherwise. (Brailsford had a criminal conviction for attempting to obtain a passport in a false name for a fellow journalist to travel to Russia, so he wasn't the most reliable type person you'd ever come across.)

https://upminsterhistory.net/2014/11/28/upminsters-tragic-link-to-black-friday/

https://lewissuffragecollection.omeka.net/items/show/1318

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH19101123.2.7&e=---en--20--1--txt-txIN1

Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)