Talk:Daniel Gooch

c.m.e.
Gooch's title at the GWR was Locomotive Superintendent; the title Chief Mechanical Engineer was not created until 1915. Reference: Wikipedia article, List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway

I can't see how to edit the first paragraph of the Gooch article!

8474tim (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes; it's a common misconception that Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) was a universal title, and synonymous with Locomotive Superintendent. Unfortunately, a number of books use the title of CME indiscriminately for all such staff, regardless of whether that was the actual job title or not. I can go further: since the first CME of any British railway was John Aspinall, of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway (although I can't source that at this stage), anybody who left office prior to Aspinall's appointment in 1886 cannot have been a CME. However, I can source the date that Churchward's job title changed (you can't use Wikipedia itself as a reference source, see WP:CIRCULAR): MacDermot's History of the Great Western Railway, volume 2, p. 568 "[Churchward] was accorded the title of Chief Mechanical Engineer early in 1916"; there are similar notes in the RCTS Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, part nine, p. J3 and in Haresnape's Churchward Locomotives, p. 10.
 * As for your second point: the first (or "lead") section of any article does not, by default, have its own "[edit]" link, so you need to use the "edit" tab along the top edge as if you were editing the entire page. However, if you go to my preferences, then select the "Gadgets" tab, and under the heading "User interface gadgets: editing" is the option "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" - make sure that is ticked. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

MP
Gooch was am MP for Cricklade for 20 years? Assuming that the infobox should still be for engineer and not for MP, shouldn't this be mentioned in both the infobox and lead section? I think he still counts as "a politician" even if he never addressed Parliament. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Politicians debate matters that are raised in parliament. His Hansard record comes back with 0 results; and whilst that might be attributed to the time it takes to digitise the older records, in his diaries Gooch unashamedly - even proudly - states that he did not take part in any debates, treating Parliament as a gentleman's club. He was an MP, but not a politician. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So we can't mention him being an MP? You are saying his 20 years as a Member of Parliament does not contribute in any way to his notability? You might also want to adjust the politician to explain that British MPs who make no contributions in the House of Commons are excluded? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes we can, it's right there at Daniel Gooch and I did not remove any of that text - indeed, I a mention. The main thing is that being an MP is not what he is best known for, nor can it be considered to be among his major achievements. Career politicians give up the day job; Gooch did nothing of the kind. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how he had a "Political career" if he wasn't a politician. I guess UK "politics" was slightly different in 1865. I think his position as an MP should appear in the lead section and in the infobox. In fact most MPs have a dedicated section of the infobox especially for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've invited WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and WikiProject Biography/Politics and government. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a very good idea. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He was elected to Parliament: that means he is, among other things, a politician. We call people politicians just for standing for Parliament, even if they're not elected. It is interesting that he never said anything in a debate, but that doesn't mean he wasn't carrying out the other functions of an MP. We call Sinn Fein MPs who don't take their seats politicians. Being an MP is not what he is best known for, so I wouldn't lead on it, but it is a notable fact about him that I would include in the lead section. Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should there be a section in the infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally favour shorter, to-the-point infoboxes, so I'll say yes to a mention in the lead section and no to a mention in the infobox, but I do not have a strong feeling on the infobox. Get the article right and worry about the infobox later is my attitude! Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I suppose it would look like this. But coverage in other articles for those who were MPs is very patchy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course, Gooch didn't get paid £1m for working for a Caribbean Island, did he. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article focuses on Gooch's engineering career, so the infobox should too. The question is whether to have a couple of lines in the infobox about his MP career. Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that being an MP was a "categorical fact" and not dependant on the content or focus of the article. And that the "MP" infobox module was the standard way of signifying this. I guess the alternative is to just add "Member of Parliament" to his list of "Occupations"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As per MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox is a summary of the article. If the article focuses on aspect X, the infobox must too. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article..". I'd say that his being an MP was a "key fact" about his life. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * as an MP, what did he actually do, other than get elected? Did he, perhaps, speak for or against some Parliamentary motion that affected the GWR in particular or the railways in general? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I have no idea what he did. I suspect nothing. I guess he turned up for votes occasionally. It's just getting voted in for 20 years that counts as the "key fact". I suspect he was a hopeless MP. But still an MP. As I said I assumed it was just a "categorical fact". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He didn't vote on anything - you can't vote in the Commons until you have made your maiden speech. Since he proudly boasted of never having spoken to the House (it's in his diaries, see Daniel Gooch), he therefore could not have voted. That's been my point all along - since his contribution to national politics was precisely zero (except perhaps to block the seat from a more deserving candidate), and he treated the post as a virtual sinecure, it is WP:UNDUE to place MP on an equal footing with his real work for the railways and towards international communications. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gosh, you mean there are corrupt MPs who just use the position to feather their own nests? Who knew. I think, provided a good source can be found, those details could certainly be added to the article. Or maybe you think we should say only good things about him? I think we need as full a picture of Gooch as possible. That's been my point all along. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the claim above an MP can't vote if they haven't taken the oath but don't have to have made a maiden speech. e.g. Winston Churchill first voted four days before making his maiden speech. Many MPs make their best contributions outside the chamber and a search shows Sir Daniel served on a number of committees e.g. Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Patents for Inventions Bill, Select Committee on Railways (Rates on Fares) or Select Committee of last Session, to inquire whether it may be expedient to render Masters liable for injuries occasioned to their Servants by the negligent acts of certificated managers of collieries, managers, foremen, and others to whom the general control and superintendence of workshops and works is committed, and whether the term "common employment" could be defined by legislative enactment more clearly than it is by Law as it at present stands and the lack of a short title for that last one is an indication of the problem of too many in politics saying far more than they needed to so perhaps Sir Daniel was exemplary in not adding to the noise. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Tim. It seems Sir Daniel was not so idle after all. I would have no objection to some or all of those details being added. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)