Talk:Edward Marshall Hall

Untitled
The name is often written without the hyphen. Richard Pinch 07:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Written in an extremely partial style. PingreePark 01:01, 11 February 2010 (GMT)
 * In what way? Groomtech (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no response to the request for clarification on the partiality accusation, can the notice on the main page now be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jla Sol (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It could use work; it reads like the pulp fiction of the day. Famously and notorious are words to avoid; we are writing an encyclopedia, not sensational fiction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of style, and Wikipedia is a work in progress. The tag suggests that there is a serious point-of-view issue and I don't see that.  Groomtech (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The effect of the style is to make this a puff piece. That's a point of view, and a seriously flawed one. Get rid of the value judgments and hype and then remove the tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost every adjective carries with it some value judgment. Should all adjectives be purged? Can a person even write "successful" defense, when in fact it was not successful to the prosecution, and some might judge that a guilty party went free?  It is nearly impossible to write in an engaging manner and maintain a cold-blooded neutrality.  The article may not be perfect, but flagging it as "extremely partial" seems inappropriate.Hdsmith8712 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since discussion appears to have ground to a halt and I see no consensus that the article is unduly partial. Given that Hall was a successful barrister, some words must validate that description, and in the circumstances I see no issue with "famous" or "notorious" in that context. Accordingly, I'll remove the POV tag. Rodhull  andemu  20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Marshall Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225352/http://www.buses.co.uk/history/fleethist/871em.htm to http://www.buses.co.uk/history/fleethist/871em.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528090824/http://www.nickelinthemachine.com/2008/11/the-murder-of-ali-fahmy-at-the-savoy-hotel.html to http://www.nickelinthemachine.com/2008/11/the-murder-of-ali-fahmy-at-the-savoy-hotel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed "copy/paste" template in "Other cases" re. Madame Fahmy case
The cited article http://tweedlandthegentlemansclub.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-two-princes-francaise-and-perfect.html about the Madame Fahmy case was published in March 2017. The text thought to have been copied and pasted from there to the article is part of a section of quotes from other websites, with the quotations in quotation marks, but not all sources are credited.

On Wikipedia the first part about the Madame Fahmy case was added by an IP on 20 April 2009, and remains essentially unchanged. The part about the Prince of Wales was added by another IP on 23 April 2013, and is also essentially unchanged.

What appears on the tweedlandthegentlemansclub blog is a straight lift of text that had already been on Wikipedia for nearly eight and four years respectively.

The cropped image — without the white border and caption — by Spy from Vanity Fair was added to the article by user Jack1956 on 24 January 2009, and the image on tweedlandthegentlemansclub appears to be the same, simply having been resized.

-- Peter NYC (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Newton
The article mentions Arthur Newton as a 'leading solicitor' who instructed Marshall Hall, and as a main character in The Shadow of the Noose, but fails to mention that Newton was a notorious wrong 'un. He was convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in the Cleveland Street case in 1889 and got six weeks. He was then suspended by the Law Society for 12 months in 1911 for forging a supposed death-cell letter from his client Dr Crippen for press publication, for considerable payment. He learned nothing from this and in 1913 he was convicted for his part in an attempted fraud involving Canadian timber lands, the sum at issue about £23,000, which was a great deal then; you could multiply by about 100 for the current value. He was sentenced to three years and finally struck off the rolls. That Marshall Hall liked to take instruction from this character is... interesting. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/bowing-out-of-justice/1835.article https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/50486098 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/10276545 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GM2_O5dJ6GUC&pg=PT35&lpg=PT35&dq=arthur+newton+solicitor+fraud&source=bl&ots=CS6kMuGtW5&sig=ACfU3U35VN9zWOqL7iYhX_a7NwVHigzLPg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKzJOplKfoAhUGbcAKHehzDkUQ6AEwCHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=arthur%20newton%20solicitor%20fraud&f=false One might wonder if Marshall Hall really was the noble white knight portrayed by Jonathan Hyde in Shadow of the Noose, or perhaps more of an amoral PT Barnum one-born-every-minute pleader. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)