Talk:Dick Turpin

Criminality
Saying that he turned into a criminal simply because he was exposed to his father's smuggling operations as a child is like saying a person turned into a rapist because they saw some body shop lifting as a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.7.137 (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, Someone who witnessed shoplifting would probably end up a shoplifter themselves, or would try to steal cars and other things. For one to be a rapist, they need to be brought up in a very unstable environment where the parents were either violent or allowed the child to witness violence through media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Huguenot?
Was Turpin of Huguenot descent? Turpin seems to have been a prominent Huguenot surname (and we are in the right period), and is certainly French (unless there is coincidentally a separate English etymology? ... but Turpin as a surname seems to be infrequent in England). --Mais oui! 08:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Black Bess
Is largely fictional, I think. Would be good if someone could either source the section, or remark that it is likely to be apocryphal. ElectricRay 08:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also how is it bizarre that a thief would steal a finer horse than the one he possesses? Seems to me a pretty normal thing for a thief to do.Quadzilla99 09:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the point is that the horse was notable. Like stealing a Rolls Royce to use as a getaway car. Rich Farmbrough, 09:32 17  October 2006 (GMT).
 * The bizarre part is the claim that Black Bess completed a 200-mile ride in one night. In endurance riding, the records for a 100-mile distance are 10-12 hours.  And that is with modern bred horses, under careful veterinary care.  Over 50 years of the Tevis Cup endurance ride, the average speed of the winners is 7.3 mi/hr (11.75 km/hr) -- this story has Black Bess running all night at 20-25 mi/hr (32-40 km/hr) -- an unbelievable speed.  Secretariat holds the world record at 37.5 mi/hr (60.375 km/hr), and that's for just a 1.5 mile sprint. 206.55.187.37 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Black Bess was fictional, along with Turpins friend Tom King. Both were invented by the author William Harrison Ainsworth in Rookwood, who brought Turpin to light in the 18th century and created much of the legend. Even the ride to York from London was a fiction. I reality the dude was a thug, even shooting his partner, Tom King (the real one) in cold blood. scope_creep 19:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tone
While the article is a cracking good read, it lacks encyclopedic tone. Rich Farmbrough, 09:25 17 October 2006 (GMT).

I read in 'Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits by Rosemary Ellen Guiley ISN 0-8160-4086-9 that Black Bess did not belong to Dick Turpin but to another highwayman, William Nevison. Page 386-387.

Gunfight
"By all accounts the ensuing gun fight was hellish and chaotic" How long did it take to load a gun in those days? Rich Farmbrough, 09:30 17 October 2006 (GMT). Most of a minute depending upon how good the person was. For this reason most guns were double barreled and violent men might carry at least two. 145.253.108.22 15:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Age at marriage
If Turpin was born on 21 September 1706 then he would have turned 22 on 22 September 1727 but this article says he was 21 when he married in 1728. Something not right here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.12.252.11 (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC). 165.12.252.11 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Baxter de Wahl P.S: I had to change "formally" as in "Thomas Rowden (formally a metal-worker, now outlawed)" to "formerly" as it's the correct usage. Regards, Baxter


 * Maybe his age was worked out from an incorrect birth date. There’s plenty of evidence that he was baptised on 25 September 1705, which is not inconsistent with a birth date of 21 September 1705, but is certainly inconsistent with any birth in 1706. --  JackofOz (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i find this very intersing yh but it odes not make sense yh no hard fellings ok it is good but a liitle boring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.246.37 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture
These popular culture sections appear to be trivia magnets. Does anyone here seriously believe that "The name Dick Turpin appears in Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. It is the name of Newton Pulsifer's car, so named in the hopes that someday someone would ask him why."

is either a useful or worthy addition to this article? BTW, I've removed it twice now. If the consensus is that rubbish like that is to be included then I'll just take this article off my watchlist and it can degenerate into the same kind of mess that so many other articles find themselves in without me. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please carry on the good work of removing such pointless material. Regards Motmit (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete that section IMO. Its useless, irrelevant, and makes the article look even more of a mess than it is now. Parrot of Doom 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Right
I've just ordered this, so if nobody minds I'm going to start making significant changes to this article. Parrot of Doom 21:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At last! --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I really enjoyed working on Mary Toft, so I'm keen to return to a subject that I know won't be constantly fiddled with. Besides which, I want to buy a mask and cape, and ride a horse through the night. Parrot of Doom 23:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

St George's Church, York
Just a note to say that the current Roman Catholic church linked in the article was built in 1849-50. Its C of E predecessor was on the other side of the road, next to where the churchard is now. It was suppressed in the C16 and the parish united with St Denys's. It continued to be used for a period, but was in ruins by 1644. Some walls were apparently still standing in 1736, but there was no church as such - when Turpin was (or wasn't, as the case may be) buried in the churchyard. Information from --GuillaumeTell 16:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the main source used tells a similar tale - and also that of all the stones in that graveyard, none predate 'Turpin's' stone. I think its probably safe to generalise the location a little, I'll do that now. Parrot of Doom 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the grave and linked it from the image. Does your book give the name of the church, and does it say anything about Turpin's 'grave'? Parrot of Doom 17:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My book says that the church was St George, Fishergate (street names have changed somewhat since the C16 and it was on what is now George Street). It says "The churchyard, situated between George Street and Piccadilly near Fishergate postern tower [on the city walls], was converted into a public garden in 1924.  It had continued in use into the nineteenth century, and 31 former headstones remain, now flat on the ground... [snip irrelevant material] ... The yard's most famous occupant is Dick Turpin, buried there in 1739 (an entry in the register of St Denys regarding his burial has been cut out).  The present memorial stone is, however, rumoured to be in the wrong place."
 * As a matter of interest, I live in a flat next to St Denys's church, and the graveyard of St George's is about 2 minutes walk from here, so if there's anything else that you want to know, just ask. --GuillaumeTell 01:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll investigate more and reword slightly. Parrot of Doom 09:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Who was Dyde?
There is no likely entry on the CCEDB, but William Dyde has an entry on Venn as a Cambridge student

Dyde, William Adm. sizar at QUEENS', 28 Jun., 1686. Of London. Matric. 1686 ;B.A. 1689/90 ;M.A. 1693 .Fellow, 1690-8. Ord. deacon (London) 24 Sep., 1692.

British history gives him as rector of Great Parndon (Harlow) from 1705 to 1754. Essex record office (SEAX) has documents relating to him.

Hope that helps. Motmit (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably him, but the article would likely read just as well if it just mentioned "a Reverend". I don't think he's that important a character in the story. Parrot of Doom 14:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

References section
An attempt to bring the references section in line with the guidelines at MOS:APPENDIX was reverted in favour of the present style (with subheaders and miniscule text). The rationale for this was "too cluttered, former style much better", which I don't consider to be anything more than a personal judgement call. The MoS-conformant layout should be restored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those guidelines support the use of semicolons more than they do your preference of using level 2 headings, and say nothing about the use of the refbegin template, which is something I have used in many of the FACs and GAs I've worked on. There is no "conformant" way of presenting such information, as can be seen here. Parrot of Doom 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of semicolons there, only of the preference for the use of level 2 headings. A semicolon creates a dt, not a header, and so wouldn't appear to be supported by any of the literature. As for the comment about text size, that's my mistake; I support the use of refbegin, but for some reason thought that the present text had been further reduced in size. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you ought to read the 'guidelines more closely. What they say is this: "Some articles divide this type of information into two or more separate sections; others combine it into a single section. How to best organize and title the results when the footnotes are separate from the works cited proper is mostly unresolved." Seems clear enough to me. The advantage of using a semicolon instead of section 2 headers is that the headings don't then clutter up the list of contents. Now, havent't you got something better to worry about elsewhere? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Mostly unresolved" sounds like "feel free to discuss it", which is what's being done here. And as a matter of fact I've been quite productive today, notwithstanding being told off for daring to want a minor change to an article. Sigh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why fix something that isn't broken? MoS isn't written in stone, it's just a broad guideline. The way the formatting is set out here is perfectly readable, perfectly accessible and perfectly "uncluttered". It's also unfortunate with your accusation against PoD about it being his "personal judgement call". You don't seem to realise that your insistence on total compliance with MoS is also a personal judgement call on your part. As has been mentioned previously, this article went through FAC without this being a problem, yet suddenly you find it to be a problem. That sounds like a personal opinion to me. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As Malleus has pointed out, the format is fine with MOS, which is only a guideline anyway. That aside, common sense should have the final say, and since Chris Cunningham's suggested changes ends up cluttering the contents box for no good reason the article should stay as it is. user:Nev1 15:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A few issues
I realise I may be in danger of getting into an edit war, however there are a few disputed issues arising, some of them may be trivial, but cumulatively they are problematic.

1. I don't know about other countries, but in Britain the word "cock" is fairly common slang for "penis", so saying that Turpin "shot another man's cock in the street" is exposing the article to unnecessary sniggers, not what we want in an FA. Another Wikipedian who tried to change this but was reverted seems to agree with me. Is there any distinction between "cock" and "cockerel", except that one avoids a double entendre?

2. "Higler" is a very obscure word I have never come across before. On Wikipedia it is a redirect to "peddler". It may be what contemporary sources use, but we are not obliged to copy this outside of direct quotes, otherwise this article could end up using a lot of archaic words and spellings.

3. It may well be that the earlier highwayman is sometimes known as both John Nevison or William Nevison. However his own article calls him John Nevison, so this should be followed in other articles in the absence of some good reason to the contrary. If you disagree take it up at that article not this one.

4. We have a category "English highwaymen" which is a subcategory of "English criminals" and "Highwaymen", so why are we not using it?

5. He is far more commonly known as "Dick Turpin" than "Richard Turpin", so why the longer version of the hatnote? PatGallacher (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1, another word for penis is Dick, so perhaps we should rename the article "Richard Turpin, bird-shooter". No.  He shot a cock.  If you find that embarrassing then so be it, but I don't, and I'm not interested in pandering to mock indignation.  2, Higler may be obscure but they were called higlers then, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be called higlers now.  I don't recall seeing any highwaymen around recently, perhaps we should also rename Richard Turpin as a "mugger"?  3, the source I used calls him William Nevison, so that's what we'll use here, regardless of what the poor-quality John Nevison says. Parrot of Doom 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, with regard to the first point, I would agree with PatGallacher. Why not simply change it to read that he shot another man's rooster? I'm got no problems with using the term cock myself, but given the context I think the clarity would be welcome. The Celestial City (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because rooster isn't a word that Turpin and his contemporaries would ever have used? Parrot of Doom 16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm British myself, so obviously I prefer using British English terminology on UK-related articles where possible, but in Britain today the term "rooster" is very well-established; there is an English band called Rooster, for example. Clearly, that sentence as it is now is a complete innuendo, so it would make sense to rework it; just because this article is about an eighteenth-century highwayman, it doesn't need to be written in eighteenth-century English. The Celestial City (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion is surreal. Have you ever heard the term "rooster fighting"? No? I didn't think so. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because cockfight is the established term for the "blood sport between two roosters (cocks or rasmus'), held in a ring called a cockpit." The Celestial City (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, but I think we've invented a new definition for "cock fighting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.196.2 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cockerel is good British English and is not ambiguous. --Dweller (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my response above. I have no problems with the word cock as referring to the bird, but it is clearly problematic in the specific context in which it appears. The Celestial City (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it is. The article is well written, and is factual at all times.  You really think someone would read that section and think "wtf, he shot a man's penis?"  I think you need to credit our readers with a little more intelligence. Parrot of Doom 22:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to say is that while many readers will understand the proper meaning of the sentence (though I'm not sure how widely the term "cock" for the bird is used in the US), most readers would find the double entendre of how Turpin "shot another man's cock in the street" quite amusing; this doesn't mean they have low intellegence, only that they have a healthy sense of humour. The Celestial City (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I may come back on some of these issues later, but in the meantime I have edited on those issues where there has been no reply to me or some other Wikipedians agree with me. Rooster is American English and not appropriate in this context. PatGallacher (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am with the Parrot here. Cock is perfectly respectable British English for a cockerel. If Americans have a problem with that too bad, and the same goes for Dick Turpin.--Charles (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And I have reverted them, again, to the version of the article that has stood largely untouched for many months. The version that passed through FAC without comment.  That you choose to make comparisons with slang words for a penis is not something I have any interest in, especially as contemporary sources also use cock (which has a great many other meanings I might add).  Also, the category "English Highwaymen" is something that you created only today, and which has only one other occupant.  Its a ridiculous position, and not something that I will stand for. Parrot of Doom 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * cock seems kind of archaic. how about he shot a "bird"? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not likely to have been a budgerigar is it? Cock is not archaic in Britain. The obvious implication is that this was a gaming dispute over cock fighting, even if the references do not say it.--Charles (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many public houses in the UK named The Cock Inn or The Old Cock - always good for a bit of innuendo.--Charles (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the poor chap whose cock was shot to one side for the moment. However either "English highwaymen" is a legitimate category or it isn't, it is beside the point how recently it was created or how many other articles are in it, I expect a few more will be added given time. No justification has been put forward for the longer form of the hatnote. It is beside the point whether an article was stable or in what form it passed FAC, some people may be falling into ownership of articles, see WP:OWN. PatGallacher (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the category English criminals it has several well-established sub-categories for e.g. English rapists, English pirates, even English people convicted of actual bodily harm, so why not English highwaymen? PatGallacher (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "some people may be falling into ownership of articles, see WP:OWN" - And some people might be talking out of their arse. Parrot of Doom 08:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Deer thieves
I think that there should be a greater explanation about stealing deer in this article. I am sure that most users know that deer are wild animals and as such cannot be stole like cattle or horses. I am assuming that stealing deer meant killing deer for food. I also know that the wild game of England, etc. was strictly off limits for the commoner. I think that a sentence or two explaining this would be most helpful. Dincher (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a similar reaction when I read the article. Wouldn't "poaching" be a more appropriate term to use? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Crime literature
I deleted this text:


 * "The speeches of the condemned, biographies of criminals, and trial literature, were popular genres during the late 17th and early 18th centuries; written for a mass audience and a precursor to the modern novel, they were "produced on a scale which beggars comparison with any period before or since".[86] Such literature functioned as news and a "forum in which anxieties about crime, punishment, sin, salvation, the workings of providence and social and moral transgression generally could be expressed and negotiated."[87]"

My rationale was that this text strays from the topic by providing background that should, at best, be provided in a note rather than in the main article text. User:Parrot of Doom reverted my deletion and so I am raising the issue here. If it is felt that it is important to provide this background material, I would propose putting it into a note. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify... my problem here is that the text in question makes sense to have in a book about Dick Turpin but seems incongruous in an encyclopedia article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It exists to help explain why Turpin, and not his contemporaries (of whom there were many), is well known today. Were it not for Bayes's document, nobody would have heard of the fellow, and I think it therefore appropriate to mention what context Bayes's document existed in.  Parrot of Doom 17:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Value of rewards?
I find the sentence that ends "the reward to £50 (about £6,900 as of 2012)" to be fairly misleading, on a number of counts. Firstly, the cited references and CPI data actually only extend as far forward as 2010, so claiming that this is "as of 2012" simply isn't justified. Secondly, and more importantly, the actual figure itself is very misleading. Sure, if you put £50 into a bank account in 1733 (had such a thing existed) and that interest just kept pace with inflation, that investment would today be worth something a little less than $7,000, but that doesn't at all give the reader a real picture of how much £50 was worth in 1733. In 1733 the average annual wage was about £14 (same source as currently presented). So the sum offered was actually equivalent to about three and a half years' wages for most people. Average UK wages today are about £24,000, so a better illustration of the value of the reward would be something in the region of £85-86,000. Of course, this is original research and interpretation, so not really fit for inclusion here. However, I think it would be much more sensible and informative to present the information as something along the lines of "... reward to £50. Average wages at the time were approximately £14 a year." That provides the reader proper context without performing any dubious OR calculations. Anybody care to comment? Thanks.  Pyrop e  14:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm absolutely not knowledgeable on this matter and your comment sounds fair to me, however, I'd wait until more people weigh in before making changes, as I know these valuations have proved contentious previously. Parrot of Doom 18:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to ask User:Fifelfoo about this. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that Pyrope makes a good point; I never use the inflation template any more as often average earnings or GDP for capital projects is a better indicator. Measuring Worth gives a value of £82,700, which I think gives a better idea of the real value of £50 in 1733. Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well unless anyone else wants to chip in I'll have a go at straightening things out this evening.  Pyrop e  18:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
I just recommended this article to my students - thanks for writing such a good article on this topic! Wadewitz (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Hopefully this article will continue to dispel the myth that is Tom King. Parrot of Doom 20:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At least until it's vandalised again. When will Wikipedia learn. Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't think it'll ever learn. Parrot of Doom 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How did Turpin die?
The Execution section first says he threw himself off the gallows and died within five minutes, and then that he was left hanging until late afternoon. Does this mean they hanged an already dead Turpin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.141.217.179 (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it means he had the noose round his neck when jumping off. It might be useful to clarify this.Charles (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

which Charlton?
The § Essex gang says in the fourth paragraph
 * On 11 January 1735 the gang raided the Charlton home of a Mr. Saunders.

"Charlton" is not linked, unlike other placenames in the article. I looked it up and found out why: Charlton is a disambiguation page, listing seventeen places in England called Charlton— and that's not counting compounds like Charlton-on-Otmoor or Charlton Musgrove. If anyone can work out which Charlton is referred to here and link appropriately, it would be good. --Thnidu (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is Charlton "in Kent", which is Charlton, London as the town became part of London having previously been part of the county of Kent. Based on this source. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Article ownership
Does User:Parrot of Doom own this article? The response made to a warning on his Talk Page was this. This looks like it infringes the policy on civility. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't about ownership, it's about your disruptive edits, Parrot has explained politely on the articles history why that is not needed, you and another Ip won't accept it and are now edit warring, I admit that reply was uncalled for but that's the way Parrot is-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  13:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder why PoD is given so much leeway in his repeated incivilities? He has, with good reason, been accused of article ownership on many occasions, see the talk page and extensive archives for Guy Fawkes Night for example. His behaviour here is far from an isolated case. Unfortunately he has, by means that are opaque given his general level of unpleasant language and tendency to make personal attacks of the crudest sort, amassed a cabal of 'cronies' who defend his behaviour - because "that's the way Parrot is", to quote yourself - on all occasions. He attempted to delete this whole discussion, which is certainly against Wikipedia norms, presumably because yet another accusation of article ownership reflected badly on himself. Urselius (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A number of editors see these changes as simple improvements. I don't see how "personal preference" constitutes "edit warring" or "disruption." This is all about ownership. And it's disappointing to see you defending a reply that is both disgusting and a breach of policy. Can we discuss the changes, please? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Two IPs and a user is not a number of editors, you could have discussed this politely after being reverted once but no you had to keep at it. What are you trying to do to the article and why?-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  14:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a number of editors. We're all trying to improve the article. There are generally accepted MoS rules on punctuation at wikipedia, and links in image captions are common useful additions. None of these changes is contentious. And now you're lecturing about "politeness"? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Turpin's handwriting was in fact not recognized by his former schoolteacher but rather by his former schoolmate, who had taught his fellow student to write.
The citation given in the article is Sharpe, James (2005), The Myth of the English Highwayman, London: Profile Books, ISBN 1-86197-418-3 and here you can see, if you search the book at Googlebooks for 'handwriting' something that clarifies the article, which has slightly misleading or at least unclear phrasing that makes it sound like Smith was his former schoolteacher. The cited book says: "Smith, in fact, had taught Turpin, at that point his younger schoolmate, how to write while he was a school." https://books.google.co.th/books?id=5u8Libdf_CoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:1861974183&hl=th&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwishOb6y4DvAhXlyzgGHamhBfsQ6wEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=handwriting&f=false Arctic Gazelle (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article currently says this:
 * "Rivernall may not have wanted to pay the charge for the letter, or he may have wished to distance himself from Turpin's affairs, and so the letter was moved to the post office at Saffron Walden where James Smith, who had taught Turpin how to write while the latter was at school, recognised the handwriting."
 * and this:
 * "Among the seven witnesses called to testify were Thomas Creasy, and James Smith, the man who had recognised Turpin's handwriting."
 * So what's the problem exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By saying, "while the latter was at school", rather than, say, "while the pair were at school together", the article misleads the reader into thinking that Smith was a schoolteacher when he taught Turpin how to read. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. I'd have to agree that it's not clear who Smith was. The phrase "while the latter was at school" suggests that Smith was neither a teacher nor a schoolmate. We need to go back to the source which is "Sharpe 2005, pp. 19–21". The online version that I've found, here, which provides a preview of these pages, says that Turpin was a "younger school mate". So I've added this detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Grave stone
I have found a grave stone saying Richard Turpin highwayman can't remember dates i found this 45 years ago 2A00:23C4:E795:BA00:E4AB:8973:FBCA:C70D (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can remember where it was? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Somebody made a grave mistake? https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2017/research/turpin-headstone-sharpe/ --2A02:908:898:9780:AF26:AE07:3827:8B1F (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

more literature
You should include mention of the lengthy and unusual tales of Dick Turpin "The Blue Dwarf" by journalist and writer Percy B. St.John, written ~1870s and published as a Penny Dreadful in 1884 in 37 weekly episodes, each 12 pages and accompanied by a striking illustration.

(Percy is a distant relative of mine.) Stjohn1970 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Two charges of horse theft
He was found guilty on two charges of horse theft and therefore sentenced to death? Sounds harsh and unreasonable to today's folks. --2A02:908:898:9780:AF26:AE07:3827:8B1F (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Possibly misleading statement
I suspect the statement "Although some of his contemporaries became the subject of chapbooks, names such as James Hind, Claude Duval and William Nevison, are not nearly as well-known today as the legend of Dick Turpin" should be reworded. To me it implies to the reader that the three named were contemporaries of Dick Turpin who operated as highwaymen at the same time as him. Yet none of them lived in the eighteenth century. Hind was executed in 1652, Duval was executed in 1670 and Nevison was executed in the 1680s. In other words they were all dead long before Turpin was born in 1705, and were famous highwaymen about 50-80 years before Turpin became an outlaw. Thus I think perhaps it might be better to say something like that "Although some highwaymen of the seventeenth century..." Dunarc (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I have gone ahead and made the change, though am happy if anyone who can think of a better form of words wants to further edit. Dunarc (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)