Wikipedia:Peer review/Thorpe affair/archive1

Thorpe affair
This peer review discussion has been closed.

Following the Profumo scandal of the 1960s, the 1970s gave us 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 the case shattered his reputation; the public perception was that if he hadn't got away with murder, he'd got away with something. Among the bit-part players: a dog called Rinka (RIP), a carpet salesman called John Le Mesurier, and unforgettably at the end, Peter Cook. It must have been distressing for those directly involved in the long drawn-out affair; the rest of us, I'm afraid to say, were largely beside ourselves with malicious glee. (And then came Thatcher – ah, well...) All comments and suggestions welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Cliftonian
Looks interesting—I'd never heard of this (showing my age! ha). From a brief look over it looks very well written and I'm sure I'll enjoy reading it in detail. Since I don't know anything about the subject, I'll start with the body, make notes as I go through and come back to the lead at the end.

Background


 * "In the following year" Perhaps "A year later" to reduce repetition?
 * Its the only use of the phrase in the article, so I'm unclear about the repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer; the previous sentence begins in a similar way and it's quite repetitive (In ... In) "In 1953 William Field, the Labour MP for Paddington North, was forced to resign his seat after a conviction for importuning in a public lavatory.[2] In the following year..."


 * I'm somewhat uneasy about describing somebody as "homophobic" in Wikipedia's voice. I'd recommend using a quote of some of his actual words, which will get over exactly what Maxwell-Fyfe thought of homosexuals without courting controversy—perhaps "victim of a virulent campaign against "male vice" led by the Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who described homosexual activity as a "plague"."
 * Point taken – but I've kept it short. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Four years later Maxwell-Fyfe had departed" not entirely clear from context, suggest change to "By 1958 Maxwell-Fyfe had departed"
 * Removed unnecessary ref to David M-F. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "the apartheid regime"—Dreadful though it was, I would prefer not using the loaded word "regime" if possible; perhaps "the apartheid government" or "the apartheid system" (even just "apartheid" would work)
 * "attracted the attention of the South African Bureau of State Security (BOSS), who took note of this rising Liberal star." sentence fragment, needs redrawing

Origins


 * "among his pesions" possessions?
 * Was the assumed name Scott chosen for any reason, do we know, or was it simply to help him start again overseas?
 * It was the family name of Lord Eldon, near to whom Josiffe had lived for a while in Devon. He probably thought that by adopting the name, people would assume a familial relationship with the Eldons. I will add a footnote explaining this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "In April 1967 Scott wrote to Bessell" The previous sentence begins "In January 1967", I would recommend rephrasing slightly to reduce repetition
 * "dated July," I think you need another comma before this (or perhaps, because there are quite a few commas here, put this between emdashes)
 * "wished to re-establish his career as a model" Had he been a model before? Either I have missed this or it is left out above.

Developments


 * "his utter loyalty" not keen on "utter" here, suggest substitute "unswerving"
 * "Caroline Thorpe was killed" perhaps "his wife Caroline"; we've only mentioned her once in the article before this and it took me a second to remember who she was
 * "inverstigation" typo
 * "gave full details of his relationship with Thorpe" this implies that Scott was definitely telling the truth; perhaps "of his claimed relationship" or similar
 * We don't wikilink Harold Wilson
 * £2500 should have comma
 * perhaps wikilink the actor Le Mesurier at "actor" (also not sure "famous" is needed, potentially POV)
 * "On a deserted stretch of road"... I'd recommend starting a new paragraph here
 * I've tried this – not too sure it works well, might reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like it like that, but if you prefer it the other way I won't make a big deal of it. I think it works well to have the shooting incident itself described in its own paragraph. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Revelations



Committal and trial


 * "he (Scott) vanished" did he actually say "Scott", or is this us making this clearer? if the latter we should use square brackets
 * "one-sided to Auberon Waugh" perhaps "in the view of Auberon Waugh" to make this clearer—"to Auberon Waugh" could mean it was biased towards him

Verdict and aftermath


 * defendents should be defendants
 * "In January 2008 Thorpe gave his first press interview in 25 years, to The Guardian" To reduce repetition, suggest redrawing to "Nine years later, in January 2008, he gave his first press interview in 25 years, to The Guardian" or similar
 * perhaps wikilink the News of the World

And back up to the Lead


 * Liberal Party needs a capital "P"
 * perhaps wikilink "illegal" to Labouchere Amendment
 * "Thorpe denied any such relationship while admitting a platonic friendship" Perhaps "Thorpe denied any such relationship, insisting that he had Scott had merely been friends"
 * defendents again should be defendants

I will come back for more probably, but I don't think anything major will pop up—this seems very well dealt with and, as always, extremely well written. A pleasure to read and review. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these comments, all addressed; I have only commented where I think necessary, otherwise I've adopted your suggestions or something close. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to have been helpful. Well done again Brian—I look forward to seeing this at FAC. —Cliftonian (talk)</b></b> 05:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro
"was allegations"? (But there's probably some obscure grammatical rule at work here, or I'm being thick. Either is equally likely...)
 * "The basis of the scandal were allegations by Norman Josiffe": Possibly my grammar is sub-standard, but this doesn't look right here: should it not be
 * No, it's my carelessness, duly reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Thorpe denied any such relationship while admitting that the two had been friends, and with the help of political colleagues and a compliant press ensured that any rumours of misconduct were unreported for more than a decade.": Would it be smoother here if the comma was placed after "and", and another added after "press"?
 * Again, I've slightly reworded – on reflection, neither my original nor your suggestion looked quite right. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Scott was a persistent threat" and "was perceived as a danger both to Thorpe and to the Liberal Party": Could we make it clearer here what the nature of this threat was, and where it was? I don't think the lead quite says how Thorpe was being pressured until it says "further newspaper revelations" quite late on.
 * The threat and danger came from Scott's allegations of a relationship with Thorpe that, as the opening paragraph says, was illegal. I have tweaked to make this clearer in the second paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "he devoted his main energies to making an impact.": Presumably on the political scene, but at Oxford or generally? A little vague.
 * A personal rather than a political impact, I'd say. Clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Four years later, in October 1979": I'm assuming a typo for 1959?
 * "According to some accounts, Thorpe was briefly considered as best man at the 1960 wedding": Which accounts? Unless there is another source than the de Courcey book, maybe attribute it specifically to her? If there are other versions of this, could we give some examples to establish how reliable this might be?
 * Plenty of sources besides de Courcy. Chester et al, p.31; Daily Telegraph 31 May 2008; Ken Bayliss: Secret Royal History p. 190] – and plenty more, need I go on? I've decided to delete the words "According to some sources, which implies a significant degree of doubt, and I've added two more sources. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Down to the end of "Background" so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks thus far Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "In 1963, a relatively stable period in Josiffe's life as a riding instructor in Northern Ireland ended after an accident at the Dublin Horse Show.": Why did this cost him the job?
 * Clarified: he was quite badly hurt and couldn't work for a while. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "When, in July 1962, in the wake of some disastrous Conservative by-election performances, Macmillan sacked seven cabinet ministers in what was known as the "Night of the Long Knives", Thorpe's comment: "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life", was widely regarded in the press as the most apt verdict on the prime minister": A very long sentence, which I suspect was intended to be two.
 * "Emlyn Hooson, no friend of either Thorpe or Bessell": Do we need a word on why he was not a fan?
 * He was a Welsh non-conformist, very reactionary for a Liberal, who  instinctively   recoiled from louche figures such as Thorpe and Bessell.  I don't particularly want to go into detail, but have added that he was on the right of the party. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "This seemed plausible to Scott, who had been beaten up a few weeks earlier.": Any connection?
 * None established. Freeman and Penrose say that Le Mesurier may have been involved, with an accomplice (possibly Hattie Jacques), but nothing known for sure. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "and a few days later Steel discovered from Dinshaw, a personal friend": Worth reiterating which Steel: it's been a while since he was mentioned, and there could be some confusion with the earlier mentioned Steele.
 * "Auberon Waugh, who was writing a book on the trial, noted that Cantley's general attitude to other prosecution witnesses became increasingly one-sided.": In saying noted, are we not agreeing? Perhaps "believed" or similar would be more neutral?
 * Changed it to "thought". Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there anything worth adding about later reaction to the affair, or later coverage in books, newspapers, TV, etc?
 * Not really, but I wouldn't be surprised if some interesting stuff comes out when Thorpe dies. We shall see. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing else jumps out. You couldn't make this stuff up, could you??? It almost makes the MCC look saintly. Almost. Another excellent piece of work, and please let me know when it reaches FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for completing the review and for your useful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
I've made a few copy edits here and there - mostly uncontentious ones, but feel free to revert anything you don't like. As always an engaging and interesting BB article - very readable and enjoyable throughout. Unfortunately I have to do this in chunks - but hope to finish this as soon as is practicable.

Overall
 * There's a sad dearth of images here - I presume because there are no PD ones available?
 * I'm afraid that's the case. Thorpe and Scott are both still alive; I don't think claiming fair use for non-free images of lesser lights such as Bessell, Holmes etc would be accepted, and I wouldn't want to do this anyway. (Perhaps we could stick in a photo of your Le Mez, with a caption saying: "It's not him!"). Seriously, though, I think that for the moment, we're stuck with what we've got, or similar.  Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the thought on that one, but even he doesn't have any PD images, except his grave! - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Disputed friendship
 * "the "missing card" remained an ongoing source of grievance.": with Josiffe, I presume?
 * "In his hurry to depart he left his suitcase behind, which among his possessions held letters and other documents which supported his claims to a sexual relationship with Thorpe.": I think this could probably be framed a little better - I had to read it a couple of,times to get it straight and the which / which jars a bit.
 * Dealt with both. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Threats and counter-measures
 * There's a "however" at the start of a sentence: I don't have a problem with it, but I know there are some who may comment at FAC about its use.
 * "However" is perfectly OK when properly and sparingly used. It is an appropriate connection when a presumed state of affairs is qualified or modified in some particular. The word occurs five times in this article; the one you've highlighted is probably the least justifiable, and I'll probably delete it. But those editors who maintain the word should never be used are going too far. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

More to follow soonest. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A few more (very) minor copy edits done here and there – more in the way of nit-picking than anything else. An excellent article (as always) and I look forward to seeing it at FAC soon. - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * Lede
 * "the judge was particularly scathing" How does "particularly" add anything to the reader's understanding?
 * Adds a bit of emphasis – but I'm always game to lose a word from the count, so deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * H&the Law
 * "importuning" this would not be understood by a US reader though he would probably figure it out from the context.
 * "soliciting for sex"? Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Four years later" we are sufficiently remote from the last date that I think there should be another.
 * It's intended to reduce the "In (year)..." format which occurs quite a bit in the article. The year is given just afterwards, so I don't think there'll be much confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "a junior Foreign Office in Harold Macmillan's government," A word appears to be missing.
 * Thorpe
 * Pipes to the relevant general elections would appear in order.
 * Bessell
 * "Aware that at that time, exposure as a homosexual would end Thorpe's career" Is "at that time" really needed? You've educated the reader as to the relevant statutory provisions.
 * Origins
 * "Kingham stables" you earlier capitalise "stables" in what appears an identical phrase
 * "Kingham Stables" was the business name, so K and S should both be capitals
 * "In 1963 a relatively stable period " I think there should be a comma after 1963.
 * "Macmillan sacked seven cabinet ministers" at least pipe to Night of the Long Knives (1962) even if you can't bring yourself to say it in the article!
 * Again, pipe to the general election
 * "Father Sweetman" You could not make this stuff up. (no action)
 * Developments
 * I'm returning to this after completing my reading. You take the allegations against Thorpe as true.  He does not confirm these details. He is a BLP.  It's going to be asked sooner or later, so how can you be so definitive?
 * I began the "Incitement" section with "According to Bessell", and this was meant to cover all the allegations in the section. However, I have now strengthened the qualification considerably, adding "Bessell said", "Thorpe supposedly thought", "Bessell further maintained". I've also added that Holmes largely corroborated Bessell's account of the second meeting. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "the Home Secretary, Reginald Maudling, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir John Waldron to inform Byers " Should there be a comma after Waldron?
 * Although you mention a reluctance to print in the next section, it might be worth a mention of how widely known the party enquiry was, including to the press. Westminster being what it ever has been, I can't imagine such prime gossip remaining truly quiet.
 * The party enquiry was confidential If  the press were aware of it they didn't report it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "South African intelligence agency BOSS" Pipe?
 * Piped earlier. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "lay low" Dare I say that Wiktionary deems this informal?
 * "returned the briefcase and its content to Thorpe." Did Thorpe previously possess the briefcase?
 * "continuing extent of investigative reporting. " I would move "continuing" to after the "of". Perhaps "ongoing"?
 * The Pencourt description can be read to say that Wilson hired them AFTER retiring as prime minister. Not everyone will read the footnotes.
 * Verdict
 * "nor adequately explained himself" I would insert "had he" after "nor"
 * " campaign to stop the erosion of the San Diego beaches in California." Shades of King Canute! They are still there, I saw. (no action)
 * "failed to find a newspaper willing to print his story" or would it be fairer to say failed to find a newspaper willing to pay him for his story?
 * I'm inclined to think they wouldn't have paid for such stuff even had it not been written for money. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Most absorbing, and a detail of British politics I had scanted in my studies. And the legal aspect is most intriguing. I have jury duty tomorrow, in fact, though it is surpassingly unlikely any sane lawyer will tolerate me getting on a jury.  In any event, I have no doubt this article will do well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these very insightful comments. I'd be obliged if you would again cast your lawyerly eye over my attempts to avoid the BLP pit, and would be glad to know if and where these precautions need to be taken further. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld
Sorry for the delay, will read shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "British political and sex scandal that ended the political career of Jeremy Thorpe" -repetition of political.
 * "denied" and "while admitting" are in a different tense, "although admitted" would fit better I think.
 * No tense conflict. He denied something while at the same time admitting something else. A similar example might be: "He read the newspaper while eating his breakfast". Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * financial arrangements with a newspaper. -which was?
 * 'The Daily Telegraph


 * Background
 * "Four years later public attitudes had changed little" If you said 1953 wouldn't four years later be 1957, yet you say November 1958. Shouldn't it be five years?
 * After "1953", it reads: "In the following year, e.g. 1954, so 1958 is four years later? Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "He was ostracised by the Conservative Party" -I'd link it seems as you mention it in the next paragraph.
 * "rising Liberal star" comes across as a little tabloid-like.
 * My view - just about OK. At any rate I can't think of any other equally succinct way of putting it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Developments
 * (unconnected with the famous actor of that name) - better put in a footnote I think.
 * The trouble is, people don't often read footnotes. And it's a very distinctive name. So some will come across Le Mez, and perhaps think: "Crikey, he got about a bit!" without realising it's a different bloke. I wouldn't even put it past some ignoramus to add something to the real Le Mez article. That's why I think the clarification should be in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the shooting section you state The Daily Mail and then Daily Mail. You've linked the other papers but not that one?
 * No Dail Mail in the "Shooting" section. As far as I can see, the two mwntions in "Revelations" are consistent in format. I have wikilinked the first.


 * " In an effort to forestall this, Thorpe arranged for the publication of two of the letters in the Sunday Times, a paper generally sympathetic towards him." Some sources to back up that the paper was sympathetic towards him would be good here as it's a strong claim.
 * It's covered in the citation at the end of the paragraph (Freeman and Penrose, pp. 238–41). In these pages F&P refer to the Sunday Times as a "firm ally" of Thorpe which could not believe that "Thorpe, MP and PC, was a liar and that Scott ... was telling the truth". Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Committal
 * I think it would be useful to link Rhodesia for anybody unfamiliar with it as a former country and its history, even though according to MoS existing countries are not advised to be linked.
 * "considered a rising star in the legal world," by whom? I'd reword.


 * Verdict
 * "The jury retired in the morning" -is "in" preferred than "on" the morning?

An excellent read and clearly knowledgeable account of the ordeal. One thing though, I think the article suffers from lack of images of those involved. The problem of course it that both Thorpe and Scott are still living so it's difficult to claim fair use. A newspaper cover of the scandal like I think you could possibly get away with though which would greatly help the article, although some would claim it has to be about the newspaper/article itself. I think in such cases where an image is badly needed for encyclopedic purposes you can find a way of claiming use of an image in some way. I just google imaged Thorpe and he looked nothing like the plump, jovial sort of character (like Cyril Smith) I was envisaging, rather gaunt in the face actually! Norman Scott on the other hand looks exactly as I'd envisaged.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this review. I've done the minor fixes more or less as you suggest, otherwise, see my notes above. On the image question, I am tempted to fly with your Daily Mirror front page as a special case for fair use, but I see problems: it contains a photo of Thorpe; the page itself is not the subject of critical commentary in the article; finally the tone of the banner headline is non-neutral and damaging to Thorpe, and even if we explain this by a caption, the headline is what will stick in people's minds. I intend to consult some of the editors I've discused images with before, and see what they advise, but thanks for the suggestion and link. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah if you could upload that as the main image and move down the road to section I think it would look a lot stronger. It's finding a way to claim use though which will be tricky. I think it would be a valuable asset.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ruhrfisch
I was asked to comment on the fair use of an image of a newspaper front page. I have finally read the whole article and think that such use would be allowed under WP:Fair use, specifically the contextual significance criteria where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. I think that showing a newspaper front page image helps the reader better understand why Thorpe resigned and the role the press played in the affair, even though Thorpe was eventually acquitted (thank you Judge Cantley). I think the caption would be important to fair use too - perhaps something like "Newspaper coverage of the affair helped force Thorpe's resignation from party leadership and parliament, even though he and his co-defendants were eventually acquitted in court." Not great, but hopefully it gives some idea.

I found one place where the text had a needless redundancy: ...Bessell began paying him a weekly "retainer" of between £5 and £10 a week, ...

Very nicely done. Please let me know when this is at FAC, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ruhrfisch, and thanks for responding to my request. I very much respect your views on image usage, and have as you know relied a lot on your advice in the past. In view of what you say, I'm prepared to let it ride at FAC, though  the image may well have to be defended there. I will give further thought to the caption wording; this newspaper headline dates from the committal proceedings, two and a half years after his resignation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been bold and added the fair use image with a caption based on that suggested above; I agree with the Dr that it strengthens the article a lot. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As indicated above, the caption needs more thought. Thorpe resigned in May 1976; at that point, nobody imagined that he would be arraigned for conspiracy to murder, and the headlines he'd been getting were pretty restrained. Things changed at the committal, when the prosecution revealed its case in all its gory details, and the press was free to publish whatever was said in court. I will work on this. Note also that he did not resign from parliament. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have redrafted the caption. though this is not necessarily the final version. Still under consideration. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Brian - I was not as clear on the timeline as I could have been and apologize for the error. I still think the newspaper image conveys how the affair was covered in a way that justifies fair use. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added more text to the "trial" section, relating to the Mirror headline and  the likely effect of press coverage on Thorpe's future career. This should strengthen  the case for the picture's use. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think it improves the article. I like too that the libel laws are made clearer by your recent additions (especially for those of us from countries whose libel laws are somewhat different regarding court testimony). Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)