Talk:Spitalfields/Archive 1

Cut from article
"Spitalfields is named after Mary Spital who ran the hospital and the fields that surrounded the area." Anonymously added, no citation given, and I doubt it's true: "spital" is presumably a variant on "hospital". -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * There were two distinct phases of development, and the current name (while the one that tends to label it in the literature) is itself a conflation.
 * The Priory of Canons, and Hospital for poor bretheren, of the Order of St Austin, was founded by Walter Brune, citizen of London, and his wife Roesia. Walter, archdeacon of London laid the first stone on July 18th (old money) 1197. - includes the deed of foundation - in church Latin! By 13th C it was in some dilapidation and was refounded as The New Hospital of our Lady without Bishopgate, in 1235. I think the original buildings were quite small, and it was expanded on the refoundation. (our Lady == Mary, hence Mary Spital). The article states that ruins were found in 1723, around Norton Folgate. At the dissolution, the hospital was found to contain 180 beds for sick persons & travellers. |See for locations. The land appears to have been divided after the dissolution, but the need for a hospital remained, and St Bethlem was also a large local mad hospital, originally around Liverpool St station, see  for quite a good history.
 * see also
 * Old Artillery Ground
 * |C19th history (copyright)
 * |market (copyright)
 * In medieval times, much of the land around the area were used for 'artillery grounds' - actually, the practice of bow and arrow, that was required by every citizen. Also, I think I have maps showing tentergrounds - areas for the drying of cloth, after dying.
 * FYI a large part of this article is now at

1690 map Kbthompson 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In short, the statement that I challenged was, indeed, false. - Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost laughable, actually ... but who am I to criticise. The name given to it here is also wrong, because it's a conflation of two distinct phases in its history - but then again, it appears to be the name used if you're not looking at older 'original texts', i.e. in modern MOLAS reports, and suchlike - so, who would I be to argue with that ...

I can't really say what the article was like when you challenged it, it's improved a lot since then, but there does seem to be a long way to go. Hopefully, that can be done by moving forward on evidence. Colin4c and I, had a go at Hoxton & Shoreditch recently, and it is awefully time consuming to slug it out, paragraph by paragraph. It helps to have criticism, but it also helps if that isn't just negative, but helps to move the effort forward. Cheers Jmabel, sorry you had to wait a year to be proved right. 22:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Spitalfields
I have tried to rescue the article from stubbiness by expanding it a little and providing sub-sections. A lot more work is needed though! I am surprised that such a famous area has such a small amount of space devoted to it in the wikipedia. Colin4C 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Colin, there is a lovely story about Charles II, who appreciating the expense of importing raw silk, decided to plant Mulberry Trees (in the area now Victoria Pk), thinking that it was from these trees that silk was harvested. Not only did he not realise that silk worms created the silk, but they were the wrong mulberry trees - ones that silk worms wouldn't touch.Kbthompson 10:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh! Colin4C 11:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, added a nice quote on 1832 conditions, slightly amended things here and there, wikified in a few places. If you disagree, please feel free to do what you'd do anyway. All the best. Kbthompson 11:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Oh - and I amended Irish immigrants -> weavers, they were no more immigrants (at that time) that someone from Lancashire; just reviled because they were Irish. Kbthompson 11:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation of sources
This article has a lot of good information and some very useful external links - but there are very few references to reliable and verifiable sources which are identified and linked to the points being made. Consequently it's difficult to know which are covered by the external sources and which are not.

Verifiability is a basic and core policy of wikipedia. The general unreferenced tag has been added to the article because of the lack of cited sources for specific points. This can be removed as soon as the bulk have been cited.

I also indicated against specific individuals that citation was required to indicate the level of sourcing required. These have been removed. If citations for these individuals are not provided then policy dictates that the reference to the individuals should also be removed. Would you like to revert the deletion - or add the citation - or would you like me to revert their deletion? Cosmopolitancats 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For further reference, please note the official guideline Wikipedia:Citing sourcesand WP:CITE#HOW Cosmopolitancats 11:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for lecture Cosmo. We other wikipedia editors are so naturally dumb, that we need busybodies like you to tell us about wikipedia guidelines. By the way, your otiose notice has ruined the format of this article, leaving a vast blank space at the beginning. Colin4C 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite the right place for the notice, but quite proper to draw attention to the lack of references in order to encourage improvement in the article. Be civil please. Tyrenius 00:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Format
Could people please stop wrecking the format of this article: like leaving a vast blank space at the beginning. If anyone does so again I will revert it. Colin4C 11:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No blank space. Tyrenius 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jet accessories?
what are jet accessories? I'm guessing blown glass jewelery. Fix it so ppl don't have to guess. I googled Jet accessory to no avail, unless the Roman lady was into power tools or jet skis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.89.72 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, what are "jet accessories"? Unless someone can come up with something, it should be deleted. Tmangray (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that neither of you two are female or have a girlfriend. 'Jet accessories' denotes jewellery (beads etc) made from Jet (lignite). Nothing to do with fighter planes! Colin4C (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable people associated with Spitalfields
Does John Strype count? I presume he lived on what is now Strype Lane which is East of Petticoat Lane and north of Wentworth Street. I think it would qualify under the opening definition of Spitalfields, but I don't know where today's southern boundary would lie.

To me, the article would be aided if a knowledgeable person could describe what bounds the area under question.

Thank you, (fotoguzzi) 131.252.212.132 (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm very concerned that 'notable residents' addresses are identifiable such as samantha morton 'on the corner of...." etc should these not be removed?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.199.39 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide please!
That's exactly why I came to this page, and exactly what I did NOT find here! Please add - Martha (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. GrindtXX (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Spitalfields Junction
I have just removed this sentence from the lede:

"The heart of Spitalfields is generally considered as Spitalfields Junction, which is busiest on a Sunday due to the local markets."

I have never previously heard of Spitalfields Junction, and I've lived within 200 yards of it for over 25 years. I've googled it, and it appears to be a neologism which exists only on Foursquare. If it's worth mentioning at all, it should be much further down in the article, under Modern Spitalfields. Personally, I don't think it merits even that. GrindtXX (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)