 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 31, 2012 and January 31, 2024. |
The former version was under-referenced and made assertions that are part of the folklore of the 'battle', and referenced only a limited range of secondary sources, which in some cases are not supported by contemporary primary evidence (Cabinet Minutes; contemporary newspaper accounts by eye-witnesses). For example, it was asserted that 'English soldiers' were used exclusively; this is a potentially divisive issue in current Scottish politics. As yet, research has not found a mention of the 'English soldiers' being used earlier than an article in International Socialist in 1999 - the search of sources continues through.
The sequence of events was in error (especially in relation to the preliminary preparations on the 30th for the military intervention and the actual calling in of the military). The supposed involvement of Lloyd George was misleading - he was in Paris. The mythology of the 'battle' emphasises Churchill's supposed role in ordering the troops in, but the situation, as shown by the Cabinet minutes, was more complex, ignoring the Cabinet's decision to put troops on stand-by, and the legal role of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire.
I have tried to expand the description, using these primary sources, and providing full referencing. This is part of an ongoing research project.
The mythology of George Square is often used politically in social media, both by some people supporting Scottish independence, and by those who see themselves as inheritors of the socialist strikers' mantle. Given the divisive potential of the events, it seems important to try to present an objective account, based on primary sources, and wherever possible, avoiding emotive mythology; the previous version gave greater credence to some supposed events than the evidence would allow. I would be happy to discuss the justification of any of the text I have inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjbarclay (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see why the article is called 1919 Battle of George Square and a redirect has been put in from Battle of George Square. If there aren't any objections in the next week, I'll move the article and fix any links to the previous title. Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to be told how this standard was established and enforced - was it the law and/or an agreement between multiple employers and unions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article is about the 'Battle' - a riot, the sidebar talks about the causes of the Forty Hours Strike: "Anger with 47-hour working week' was the cause of the strike, not the riot. Nor was 'Reduced working week' the 'goal' of the riot. Either the scope of the article needs to widen to cover the Forty Hours Strike, and change its name, or narrow to the riot itself, and reduce the Forty Hours Strike material to context. The article continues to repeat as true things that are invented. For example, the 'machine gun nests' are mythical and don't appear in the narrative until the later 20th century; the 'retreat' of the police from George Square is not evidenced in any contemporary source, only in the retrospective memoirs of some strike leaders, 50 years later. 77.97.230.21 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to historian Gordon Barclay, tanks were not used against protesters during George square. In his book ‘Tanks on the Streets?: The Battle of George Square, Glasgow, 1919’ (ISBN: 9781526782663) he presents evidence that challenges the notion of tanks being used. Serious discussion is required around this issue for the references to tanks in the Wikipedia page. Newmate12 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the battle continue to be listed as part of the Revolutions of 1917–1923? The outcome section of the article itself notes that "Most historians now dispute" the claim that the battle was revolutionary, with the battle's place as part of those revolutions relying on Gallacher's descriptions, even though he himself described it as a "strike when we ought to have been making a revolution" - and therefore not a revolution.
The article and its sources do not substantiate any organised aspirations of socialist revolution, unlike those other protests and battles listed in the Revolutions wikibox - the Seattle General Strike given there for instance was directly inspired by the October revolution and its revolutionary aims were made clear from campaign material. No organised revolutionary intent is made clear from the sources of this article. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
