Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thorpe affair/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:29, 24 May 2014.

Thorpe affair

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a fairly unbelievable but entirely true story of British political life in the 1960s and 1970s (The past is a foreign country. They [did] things differently there). It ended with the unlikely sight of the erstwhile leader of Britain's Liberal Party on trial at the Old Bailey for conspiracy to murder. He was acquitted, but it was no victory; the public perception was that if he hadn't planned murder, he'd got away with something else. There were few winners (beside lawyers) from this bizarre tale, but plenty of disillusionment, ruined careers and sad what-might-have beens. I hope I have been fair in providing this account, the two principal protagonists of which are both still living. Read and judge (the article, not them – they've been judged enough). Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Gave this a thorough read and review at the peer review and am satisfied it is an excellent account of the scandal. Great job Brian.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was most grateful for your help and suggestions at the peer review, and am equally glad of your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Support A fine article on a sad, sad affair, admirably neutral, comprehensive, balanced and widely-sourced, and in the best of prose. I can't see how the images could be improved, and this article seems to me wholly compliant with all the FA criteria. I rather hope for a happier topic at BB's next FAC, but this one is impeccable on its subject.  Tim riley  talk   19:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say, Tim, that my next potential FAC is scarcely happier, as it concerns a shipwreck. I promise I'll move on to lighter things after that. Meanwhile, as always I am grateful for your comments and support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Three very, very minor suggestions/questions (you'll be able to tell from these points that I'm a lawyer, so ignore at will if you don't think they'd help) - (a) Where did Newton's trial take place? I assume some local crown court, but I may be wrong. (b) Was the counsel who tried to steer Scott away from making the allegations Newton's counsel or prosecuting counsel (and would it be better to say "barrister" as "counsel" might be a little obscure?) (c) is it worth rewording the "Old Bailey" to say "at the Central Criminal Court in London, popularly known as the Old Bailey", for the benefit of those not immediately familiar with it? Otherwise, an excellent article, as expected. Feel free to revert my minor typography alterations if I've gone against MOS or the views at peer review. BencherliteTalk 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these suggestions – I have clarified as appropriate, although I've said "lawyers" rather than "barristers", as a term which everyone understands. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support reviewed at the PR, concerns satisfactorily addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - This article is about as tight as they come. I looked it over twice, but all I could find were personal preference issues that do not amount to actionable objections. The only thing that occurred to me was that I wondered if this case had any lasting impact on civil liberties in the UK. I.e., was it cited in case law during the same-sex prohibition era, or did it have any influence in that prohibition's eventual repeal? Regardless, this is an excellent article that easily meets the FAC criteria. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the time the case came to trial, the same-sex prohibition era had long since ended; Thorpe was tried for conspiracy, not for his sexual activities. And, of course, he denies to this day any homosexual activity with Scott. Notwithstanding the Sexual Offences Act 1967, public attitudes were slow to change, and politicians continued to be wary about their sexuality for many years. The first gay MP to come out was, I think, Labour's Chris Smith in 1984, and the first Conservative, Alan Duncan, didn't come out until 2002. It is likely that revelations of past gay experiences scuppered Michael Portillo's chances of becoming Conservative leader in 2001. I've no doubt that in 2014, Thorpe could have carried off his relationship with Scott with panache, but – well, see the L.P. Hartley quote in the nom statement. Thanks for your kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (I thought it was one of your sources that beat Smith to it: Matthew Parris? Not that it matters one jot here!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that Parris didn't come out until he had stopped being an MP, but I could be wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Support: Another satisfied peer reviewer. I think it easily meets the FA criteria and is another excellent read. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you too for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support and image review I participated in the peer review and find the article satisfies all the FA requirements. I have also looked at the images. Three images are free (from Geograph Britain and Ireland), and the fourth is fair use (four out of seven participants in the PR commented on the fair use image, and all agreed it met the fair use criteria). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you particularly for your help and advice over image issues, and for your welcome support here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Support. I was happy at PR, and a further read through shows a general strengthening here and there too. I have just one further comment to make from the PR: in Shooting you refer to a "hitman". The OED suggests this should be hyphenated. (Mind you, they say the same thing about evenhandedness—or even-handedness, as they have it—so whether you want to change this in the Committal and trial section is up to you). – SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On "hit man", I'm inclined to think that this should two words, no hyphen, and "even-handedness" definitely require a hyphen. I've made these two adjustments. Thank you for your review and other assistance, always much valued, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Hamiltonstone. This is a well crafted piece about a significant event in British politics. There are some issues though.
 * The first thing we are introduced to is English law regarding homosexuality, and this is indeed critical context for this piece. The para concludes "Thus when Jeremy Thorpe was first elected to Parliament in October 1959, he knew that indiscreet behaviour or friendships could quickly compromise or end his political career". This sentence troubles me. We are yet to be introduced to Thorpe (that happens in the next section), yet we are already part way through his life in this sentence. But the biggest issue is that it is both euphemistic and presumptious. It is euphemistic when it refers to "indiscreet behaviour or friendships". This is an unfortunate code. Britain was full of indiscreet people - men, mainly, having sex with other men's wives or their personal private secretaries, and MI5 didn't mind in the least (unless, of course, the woman was Christine Keeler). The article doesn't mean "indiscrete". It means homosexual. It is presumptious because, without having introduced us to Thorpe or any confirmed male partner, it suggests he is homosexual (or bisexual) - it does this by, while not stating it explicitly, making it the very first information we are given about what Thorpe had to keep the risks in mind - and why would he have to keep the risks in mind unless, as it were, he had it in mind? I have just read the rather brief Wikipedia bio on Thorpe. I have no idea as to its veracity, but it says he married twice, had a child, and has never made public statements about his sexual orientation. Hardly the sort of material upon which to be presuming there is any factual basis for considering him to be homosexual - rather, we should ensure the article stays focussed on the issue of how allegations, in the context of the law of the time, could be harmful. The final sentence in this background section runs the risk of fuelling the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" culture that was so destructive then, and can still be so now. I sugest re-crafting the final sentence to avoid any mention of Thorpe, but summarise the climate of fear regarding secual orientation that characterised the period. Alternatively (though I'm not convinced it's the best solution), change it say that "...he knew that allegations of homosexual behaviour..."
 * I agree with you. I have revised the sentence to remove the reference to Thorpe; it now reads: "Thus, anyone entering politics at that time knew that revelations of homosexual behaviour would likely bring such a career to a swift end". Originally, this subsection was placed in the article after the question of Thorpe's possible homosexual leanings had been raised, but I think the present arrangement, with the amendd text, is the better one.
 * That is much better. Do you think that "revelations of" might be a bit tabloidish? Also, my understanding is that one of the biggest problems with the law of that time is that unfounded allegations, often in a blackmail context, were as much of an issue as any actual homosexual acts. In those circumstances, i wonder if it might better read "anyone entering politics at that time knew that claims of homosexual behaviour would likely bring such a career to a swift end"? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tinkered with this. I see that earlier in the paragraph I wrote: "The careers of public figures could be wrecked by any hint of homosexuality." On reflection, this seems a bit excessive – quite a few politicians, including the notorious Tom Driberg, survived "hints" of homosexuality because nothing was ever "revealed" to the public. So I've altered that sentence to read: "Political figures were particularly vulnerable to exposure". In the later sentence I think "revelations" has to stay, because it was "revelations" of homosexual activity, rather than "claims", that brought careers to an end (I have altered "behaviour" to "activity"). Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, thanks for that. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "The writer and sometime MP Matthew Parris describes Thorpe as one of the most dashing of "the debilitated 1959 intake"" - I wasn't sure who was debilitated. The Commons, by a poor crop of MPs? The LibDems, by a poor showing in the poll? It was just a little too obscure for the lay reader.
 * Parris's term "the debilitated 1959 intake" refers to the new MPs who entered parliament with Thorpe in that year. Why he considered them "debilitated" (weak and infirm) he doesn't say. I've got rid of "debilitated", and just left it that he considered Thorpe one of the more dashing of the 1959 intake.


 * "In his hurry to depart he left his suitcase behind, which contained letters and other documents that supported his claims to a sexual relationship with Thorpe." Can I get clarification - do the reliable sources tell us that this is the same briefcase that turned up some years later in the UK? Related to that: do the sources substantiate the expression "...that supported his claims to a sexual relationship with Thorpe" or should that read "that he [meaning Josiffe/Scott] said would support his claims to a sexual relationship with Thorpe"? I'm just not sure whether the current wording is right - it is saying that, as a matter of fact, those particular letters do support the claim, and I had trouble working out whether those letters were amongst those later found, and did indeed support the claim... hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two briefcases in the story. (1) Scott's briefcase which he left behind in Switzerland in 1964, which contained documents that he believed  supported his allegations against Thorpe. This briefcase was recovered by Bessell and given back to Scott in April 1965, though minus some of the supposedly incriminating documents; (2) an old briefcase of Bessell's, hidden for years in a London office, which   came to light in November 1974.  I've slightly altered the wording in regard to the first briefcase;  "that supported his claims" has become "that, he believed, supported his claims".

Thank you for raising these points. I hope these clarifications help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally an excellent piece. I think that's it from me. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Had my say at PR, I have no qualms whatsoever in supporting—really excellent work as always Brian. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * Political Science Resources takes its UK election results from The Times Guides and Whittaker's Almanac which are ultra-reliable. However, I don't have access to the appropriate volumes of these, so I'm unable to check that the data presented in the website is accurate. In the circumstances, I have replaced  the PSR refs (and made appropriate prose tweaks).


 * FN18: missing publication title
 * Done


 * Compare FNs 13 and 45
 * Made consistent


 * FN159: formatting should match other book sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not actually a source (never published in the UK as far as I know). But I have brought the format into line with the sourced books.

Many thanks for this sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.