Talk:Thorpe affair/Archive 2

Beneath the Streets
Should this sentence be in the article?

"The 2020 novel Beneath the Streets, by Adam MacQueen, is an alternate history version of 1976 where Rinka survived and Scott was killed. "

--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Can't really see why it should. At least, not without evidence that third-party sources consider fictitious 'alternate history' novels to be a significant part of the Thorpe affair. People write fiction about all sorts of things - we don't generally include such books in fact-based articles. If we did, what would e.g. Wikipedia articles on WW2 look like? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Like World War II in popular culture? It's not a great example: WWII is a massive subject, the Thorpe affair extremely niche. So niche, in fact, that we can easily afford to list the few works that have been written on it. In any case, my sole involvement here comes from reverting a belligerent IP who edit-warred to remove material even an editor who attended the FAC thought should stay in: the material has been there nearly a year, which suggests a consensus has formed for inclusion.And welcome back, AtG! ——  Serial  19:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't the point of this thread to establish a consensus, regarding something which seems to be under dispute? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No: leave it out. It’s pointless fluff that doesn’t advance a reader’s understanding of the subject. And to suggest that “an editor who attended the FAC thought should stay in” is misleading. The edit summary of “This is crap” gives a clue, as does the fact person who inserted the material edit warred to get in. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I vote to retain it. It's in a section titled "in popular media", and seems as relevant as the note about the tv miniseries.--Jburlinson (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One is a work broadcast on the the main British television channel, with the story largely based on fact and a cast of notable actors; the second is a non-notable work by a non-notable writer (neither pass WP:GNG) with a fictional story that brings no understanding to readers about the affair or its history. While ‘relevance’ is often a subjective thing, I can’t see the parallel between the two items you are comparing. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Got to agree with this. The TV series received significant media coverage, and won several awards. MacQueen's book gets a single paragraph in the Guardian, and a flattering review in the Law Society Gazette. Neither really demonstrate that the book has had much public notice at all. Even if it hadn't been 'alternative history', its inclusion would have been hard to justify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Beneath the Streets got more public notice than you grant. For one, there was a BBC radio broadcast that included quite a lengthy interview with MacQueen.  It can still be found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000h94l . MacQueen is quite a popular writer, having been a long-term contributor and editor of Private Eye. --Jburlinson (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you’re wrong: MacQueen may write for Private Eye, but he has never been the editor. Ever. If you think the book or MacQueen are worthy of inclusion in this article, consider whether either would pass the GNG criteria for their own article. If they don’t, then they probably are not worth including here, as the work is too tangential from the proper history of the affair to be of assistance or worth to readers. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, MacQueen has certainly never been "the" editor of Private Eye. And he's currently non-notable here. I'm thinking about Category:Books about the Watergate scandal and the fact that none appear at Watergate scandal. Is that a similar situation? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The GNG criteria state: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The book has been reviewed by The Guardian and the Law Society Gazette as well as the segment on BBC4 mentioned above.  Plus, the book received a rave review in The Critic by John Preston, author of the book A Very English Scandal, upon which the miniseries was based. I suppose we could debate what constitutes "significant coverage", but to my mind, this seems to qualify; I'd certainly be well pleased with such coverage should I ever author a book. MacQueen is the author/editor of Private Eye: The First 50 Years, an A-Z, published by Private Eye Productions, a popular book reviewed in many places. Why doesn't that count when I referred to MacQueen as an editor? So, IMO, MacQueen bids fair for a Wikipedia article of his own.


 * Having said that, the point of including mention of Beneath the Streets is that the Thorpe affair still continues to generate interest in popular media. After all, how many political/historical events have given birth to an "alternative history"? From the perspective of the subject of this article, the fact that there is an "alternative history" at all, regardless of how widely reviewed it might be, is significant in demonstrating ongoing public fascination. The reader of this WP article is being provided evidence of the enduring appeal of this affair.--Jburlinson (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I write a book about The Times it doesn’t make me an editor of The Times. MacQueen, whatever else is is or has done, is not an editor of Private Eye. We know that the events still resonate in the public mind (as evidenced by the several films and books that cover the event (such as the BBC series), so a fictitious alternative is neither here nor there. As to how many events generate fictional works, or alternative works: lots. And lots. And we don’t tend to cover them along with the main article either (I see no reference to SS-GB in Churchill or George VI’s articles, for example, and that is a notable book by a notable author. 2A01:4C8:472:8710:FC77:43A9:7EFA:E54 (talk - same editor as the IP above) 13:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If The Times were to publish your book of material from The Times, I would think you might be considered to have edited that publication.--Jburlinson (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * By all means, if Adam MacQueen gets his own article, things might look different. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But I still wouldn’t be an editor of The Times, just as MacQueen isn’t the editor of Private Eye. As it stands neither he nor his work pass GNG, which raises a serious question as to why they should be included here. 2A01:4C8:472:8710:FC77:43A9:7EFA:E54 (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Question over homosexuality in the text
At the time I'm typing this, the article contains the following:
 * QUOTE:
 * The scandal arose from allegations by Norman Josiffe (otherwise known as Norman Scott) that he and Thorpe had a homosexual relationship in the early 1960s, and that Thorpe had begun a badly planned conspiracy to murder Josiffe, who was threatening to expose their affair. {NEW PARAGRAPH} Thorpe, while admitting that the two had been friends, denied any such relationship. With the help of political colleagues and a compliant press, he was able to ensure that rumours of misconduct went unreported for more than a decade.
 * UNQUOTE

Wow. Okay, so at first we are talking about "allegations" of a "homosexual relationship". Then we are talking about "rumours of misconduct". How did we get from "homosexual relationship" to "misconduct" without first introducing somehow someway some kind of argument that a "homosexual relationship" is "misconduct"? Maybe homosexuality was still illegal at the time the relationship was occurring, but to argue that that qualifies as "misconduct" is to act as an advocate for the theory that the law is always the correct arbiter and source of what is "misconduct". Why should someone be allowed to be such an advocate in an encyclopedia which should be neutral on the proposition that the law is always correct and that if the law says that something qualifies as "misconduct" then that's not merely the point of view of the people who enacted the law but is some kind of absolute truth, and that, therefore, the thing IS, by the statement of the law alone, "misconduct"? That's rather like saying smoking pot in one's own home in the 1950s was "misconduct" or that helping slaves escape in the 1850s was "misconduct". Since when does Wikipedia take the position that the law is the thing that has say-so on this score? If the problem is that the homosexuality was during a heterosexual marriage and was therefore adultery, change the phrase to read "rumours of adultery". If the problem is that an MP was doing something illegal (if it was the case that homosexuality per se was still illegal at the time), then change the phrase to "rumours of illegal conduct". But "rumours of midsconduct", without some kind of declaration that the author of that phrase considers homosexuality to be "misconduct", and some kind of a link to a page where the author tries to make the case that homosexuality is misconduct, is absolutely beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, which oughtn't to have an opinion about what is and what is not "misconduct". Wikipedia is guilty of misconduct here.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson


 * There is nothing ‘anti-homosexual’ in the article, despite your massive stretch of misinterpretation. The text reflects the sources, which reflect the facts of the time. After the story broke, Thorpe was accused of misconduct in his love life (as opposed to the reaction over the criminal action): that was the reaction of public and press at the time. And there is no ‘misconduct’ by the writer or Wikipedia, despite your hyperbole.Addendum: You asked ''. Can I direct your gaze to the section "Homosexuality and English law, which explains just that. It gives the all important legal-historical context for the events. - SchroCat (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with SchroCat's reading of the article. This is a Featured Article. Six editors reviewed it at peer review, and nine reviewers supported its promotion to FA at the FAC. I think this is a case of "everyone's out of step but Charlie". As it happens, I am gay (as the main author, the late Brian Boulton, a friend IRL, knew perfectly well) and I had and have no problem with the text.  Tim riley  talk   07:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Later: I've just looked "misconduct" up in the Oxford English Dictionary (2023): .  Tim riley  talk   08:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)