Talk:Great Fire of London/Archive 1

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A modern city? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cause of fire 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pepys a neighbour?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright violation? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Destruction section

message: 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)
replies: text: Have removed the implication that it was not a cathedral Bluewave 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The chapel was St Pauls Church, NOT cathedral 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  For Discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks good. Colin4C 08:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite alert

message: 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)
thread_title:  Predictions and Weasel Words and Unverifiable Facts - Oh My! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Major rewrite ready to go live

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Amount of deaths recorded 

message: #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?
#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?
#Would :Image:Old St. Paul's Cathedral after the fire - Project Gutenberg eText 16531.jpg be better as an "after" image of the Cathedral?
#Can we get a better-quality image of Charles II?
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A few minor comments

message: 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  
is apparently preferred to 
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)
is preferred to
Neither sentence is a gem, but "deliberately setting fires" is redundant and silly. Why add "deliberately" back?
* 3) 
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 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 
"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Recent copy-edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: Whoops. Fixed. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollar? 

message: 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)
thread_title: extra link?

message: 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)
thread_title: Note re. wording

message: 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)
thread_title: Hansen

message: 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? --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Spangineerws (háblame) 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote source

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Possible Vandalism

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unlikely...

message: thumb|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)
thread_title: image

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How about something like Second Severn Crossing#Controversies? Daniel 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cool. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The size of the panorama

message: 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)
thread_title: Esperanto translation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Teeth

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: [ Bishzilla rise from deeps, chuckle appreciatively, stuff little article defenders in pocket.] Mighty 'zilla capabilities unlimited!  bishzilla ROARR!! 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflagration 2

message: 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:  and looks quite different, especially the headline. Can the caption be adjusted to make this apparent? Omassey (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: London Gazette image

message: From the Billingsgate article:
The ward includes Pudding LaneDerived the name from the butchers in Eastcheap "having their scalding house for hogs there; and their puddings with other filth being conveyed thence down to their dung boats in the Thames"  (Stow)., where in 1666, the Great Fire of London began'Book 2, Ch. 7: Billingsgate Ward', A New History of London: Including Westminster and Southwark (1773), pp. 551-53 accessed: 21 May 2007. A sign was erected upon the house in which it began:
Can we or should we address the issues raised by this plaque?--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Billingsgate plaque

message: 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)
thread_title: Golden Boy

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for that! Bluewave (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: London, England

message: 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)
thread_title: Additional link suggestion

message: Were state archives lost? What was the reaction on the continent?--Revery (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: State archives were then basically held in Westminster which was not affected by the fire.  David Underdown (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Archives and reaction in Europe

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit request from 90.208.116.29, 11 May 2010

message: 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)
thread_title: Recording of deaths of "poor and middle-class" people

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "See Also" links 

message: "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)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The other conspiracy theory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014 

message: * Fascimile and transcript of London Gazette report on the Fire, September 1666
Spuddha (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015 

message: 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)
thread_title: Doctor Who

message: >"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  William Taswell 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of destructed houses. 

message: this is wrong you need to involve the great fire of dylan
Blazecross90 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits by Dilidor 

message: 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. »Pepys,Samuel(1996). The Great Fire of London. London: Phoenix Paperback. p. 15.   ORANSIGLOT (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Aurato (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: Already done — Train2104 (t • c) 17:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2017 

message: Fix categories. Change  to . Change  to . Add . 185.59.158.22 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Izno (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: 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)
replies: text: Corrected, but "pending review" —107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks User:Redactyll —2606:A000:1126:28D:6024:292F:BF55:5BD0 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with this picture?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Influence of the Great Fire of London is actually still alive in Australia !!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture