In the pantheon of naughty vicars the Revd Harold Davidson, rector of Stiffkey with Morston 1906–32, holds a high place. His odd interpretation of his duties as a clerk in Holy Orders, not to mention his obsession with teenage girls, got him into trouble with his bishop who, embarrassed and offended by Harold's activities, finally threw the book at him and kicked him out of the Church. Harold campaigned tirelessly for reinstatement, using all sorts of stunts – fasting in a barrel, being roasted in pit while being prodded with pitchforks, and preaching in a den of lions. Unfortunately, one lion got bored and attacked the ex-rector with fatal consequences. It's a wonderful story, part hilarious, part tragic, part pathos, and I hope that reviewers will enjoy reading it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dr. Blofeld
Hehe, yes indeed, a "naughty vicar"! I was beginning to wonder if "Stiffkey" was a double entendre for naughty activities involving the church organ and his female "guests"! I'm beginning a read through, will post as I go along:
Family
Why is Revd abbreviated? Same applies to other examples in the article. I know it's common to use it but I've always wondered why it is so difficult to add a further "eren" between the rev and the d. Major and Colonel aren't abbreviated, so why Revd?
It's an accepted abbreviation for "Reverend", more so than the commonly used "Rev.", but I agree it looks odd in the text so I've made the change. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"while Alice Davidson was a great-niece of Thomas Arnold, the noted headmaster of Rugby School" Who noted him?
Well. he's a major figure in the development of English education, but I have reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" many inclined to drunkenness and with little interest in churchgoing." with doesn't seem right here, displayed or showed would seem to fit better.
"Although he could be pugnacious when necessary, a former parishioner recorded that he never turned away anyone who needed help whatever the circumstances". A little awkward, how about something like "although a belligerent character at times, according to a former parishioner he was always eager to assist people, whatever the circumstances."
"Belligerent" would not be right (too aggressive). "Pugnacious when necessary" seems more appropriate, though I have adopted your wording for the latter part of the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the relevance of mentioning the year and who founded Whitgift school, stands out as a little superfluous to me.
It sort of indicated the kind of school it was – but I agree it's rather superfluous, and have deleted this. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sent to the Tower, you might mention the author before the word farce if he is notable, if not, don't worry.
No information on authorship, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theatre
Why is Embankment is capitals? If you mean Thames Embankment, please link fully.
"Having intervened to prevent her, Davidson learned that she had run away from home and, her money having run out, was stranded. " How about "After thwarting her suicide attempt, Davidson learned that she had run away from home and was penniless and desperate."
Have reworded, combining your phrasing with mine. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" enormous energy" doesn't seem to fit to me might be because of the alliteration of the letter e. Tremendous energy or enthusiasm would seem to fit better in my opinion.
I've gone for "considerable energy. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" energies and enthusiasm", I think the word "fervour" instead would cover both adequately.
" At the time of Davidson's arrival in 1906 the village, with a population of around 350, was generally impoverished, although according to Tucker well supplied with shops and public houses" Shouldn't there be a "was" between Tucker and well?
Yes, and a bit ofpunc work, too. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Enjoyed good relations", I'd word it as "been on amicable terms" but you might prefer the original, just a suggestion anyway.
Odd that Shetlands and Middle East is linked but Cairo isn't.
I tend not to link countries or major cities. "Middle East" is a slightly amorphous area, so a link might be helpful to some readers, but if you think it's overlinking I'll remove it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd delink Middle East then, I think large regions are more generic. I'd be more inclined to link smaller districts/cities/islands than large regions myself anyway.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rector, prostitutes
"Typical of these was Rose Ellis, whom Davidson met in September 1920, in Leicester Square." I think it should be "Typical of these was Rose Ellis, whom Davidson had met in Leicester Square in September 1920."
"she had no money and nowhere to spend the night. "she was penniless and homeless" would seem to fit better.
Used "penniless before", but oherwise tweaked as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He styled himself the "Prostitutes' Padre" which, he asserted to his bishop, was "the proudest title that a true priest of Christ can hold", commas seem to affect flow a little, how about "He styled himself the "Prostitutes' Padre", asserting to his bishop that it was "the proudest title that a true priest of Christ can hold".
I'm not a fan of "...ing" connectors, but I have reworded to avoid excessive commas. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Downfall, complaints
"upbraided the major" shouldn't it be the Major, it is a title?
I think (perhaps Tim will bear me out) that modern usage tends only to capitalise ranks when a name is attached, thus "Major Hamond" but otherwise "the major". Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The press was publicising the story with lurid headlines; there was wide public interest and the matter could no longer be hushed up", needs a bit of polish, maybe something like "The case was widely publicised, captivating public interest with lurid headlines.
Again I don't like the "...ing" (and I'm unsure of the grammar), so I have rewritten the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, changes you've made are good.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Downfall, court hearing
Can you date the photograph in text and in caption as April 1932? I was curious to know when it was taken and I had to click onto a different page to find it. I've done it, don't worry.
Thanks. I find that I misrecorded the date when I uploaded the image. The date was 28 March 1932. I have amended the cation, text and image description. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for double checking on that one, excellent.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Downfall, verdict
A little concerned with the neutrality in the paragraph which begins On 8 July 1932 and the Blackpool showman sections, it seems to intentionally draw on the negative more than the positive. Can't see use of The Rector of Stiffkey: His Life and Trial, but I think getting hold of the book would be advisable before taking to FAC just for neutrality purposes to ensure that nothing as been overlooked and any notable family/bio details haven't been missed.
I don't think the paragraphs to which you refer are not neutral in tone. There is little positive to be said about the ways in which Davidson chose to demean himself, and my summary is entirely consistent with the sources. As to The Rector of Stiffkey: His Life and Trial, this is a self-published pamphlet by a family member, written to advertise Davidson's innocence. It does not meet the FA criteria for a high-quality source. In his scholarly biography, Jonathan Tucker lists the pamphlet in his bibliography. Though he makes little direct reference to the pamphlet, he was no doubt aware of its contents in giving his considered view that (a) the case was mishandled by the court and by the defence and (b) Davidson was irresponsible and foolish, but not immoral. I have reorganised and slightly strengthened my summary, to ensure that this judicial viewpoint is properly represented. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was an intense period of his life after all, but it did capture my attention how negative that period seems to be. Poor chap and to meet his demise that way! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath and appraisal
Delink Second World War per guidelines
Well OK, but I'm not sure that all our readers are aware of the dates of the Second worls war, which ended 68 years ago. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"when the former was adapted for television, the Daily Telegraph's critic wondered at the artistic justification for a musical about "so sad and peculiar a person", wondered I don't think is quite right, how about "the Daily Telegraph's critic questioned the artistic justification for a musical about "so sad and peculiar a person".
Overall, as usual, a mighty fine interesting article, which with some polishing I can see becoming a featured article in the not too distant future. Hope my suggestions are useful to you Brian.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these thoughtful and helpful comments. Very largely I have followed your suggestions; where not I have explained why. The article is undoubtedly better for your input. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of service and good luck with taking it all of the way. Feel free to contact me whenever you want input, the volcano roof is open, just watch out for the ninjas..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Schro
A couple of "dittos" from above: the abbreviated Reverend looked odd to me too, as does linking both world wars, perhaps? Aside form those, this is very good indeed—as always—and is almost an unbelievable tale, so bizarre are many of the ingredients (especially when you can add the Carry on name of Stiffkey into proceedings: I have an image of Sid James at work here! To then come across Vice-admiral Tupper just reinforces it all!) I've made a couple of tweaks here and there: please feel free to revert anything you want to. A couple of other bits:
"generally known as the Rector of Stiffkey": was he generally known as, or was this just his title and he was called something else?
It was his Church office. I think this is how he is generally known to posterity, rather than as Harold Davidson. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I've got. Another great piece of work: could you ping me when it gets to FAC? - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A minor addition: I see the Vice-admiral caps have been changed: I always thought that Vice-admiral was the correct format, but I have asked one of the milhist people if they could provide something definitive for us. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Holy Orders" (here and later) – the WP article can't make up its mind if the phrase is capitalised or not, but the OED is in no doubt – it isn't.
You are right (other reputable dictionaries confirm this). I have decapitalised, though I fear there will be howls of wrath from the Anglican community as a result, and I hope you'll back me up. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"innocence from any wrongdoing" – "of" would be more usual, I think
"had been Anglican clergy, while Alice Davidson was a great-niece of Thomas Arnold" – the "while" implies some species of causality; I'd be inclined to replace it with a semicolon.
I've gone for "and" – I'm over-fond of semicolons
"the farce Sent to the Tower" – is by John Maddison Morton, who wrote Box and Cox, though I'm not sure I agree with Dr B that it needs mentioning.
Well researched, but since none of my sources mention it, and it's peripheral information, I'll leave it out.Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Researched? I knew! That was from the Silvers-Riley Victorian Theatre production line. I concur about not mentioning the author, though.Tim riley (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and missed the chance to win a scholarship that would enable him to study" – a lot of words here – perhaps "failed to win", and it is not clear if the second part just means "a scholarship to study" or something more convoluted.
"failed to win" is better. A "scholarship" enables study by providing a financial grant, so I think my wording is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theatre, Oxford and ordination
"engagements in masonic lodges" – another preposition I shouldn't have expected; "for" or "by" might be preferable (masonic lodges and lit socs being, I think, groups of people rather than buildings)
I don't much like "for" or "by", but what about "with"?
That surprises me; I've not seen it hyphenated elsewhere. I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"acting as a chaperone for dancers recruited by the Folies Bergère" – how you can expect your reviewers to read this with straight faces I have no idea. What was that Gershwin song? – "Nice work if you can get it". Be that as it may, I thought a "chaperone" was a woman and a "chaperon" a man, but on looking into the matter, insofar as I can understand what the OED says on it, I think I was wrong. Worth double-checking, perhaps, from the dictionaries on your shelves.
My dictionary tells me these are alternative spellings, and that neither is gender-specific. I think my usage is OK, & chimes with the source. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Rather pleased, in fact. I have learned something. Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now linked per your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Prostitutes' Padre"
"Quoted text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit."
Quoted text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Quote box – Is it simply personal preference that inclines you to go for the first rather than the second format, which I think is more usual? And if I may impertinently express a personal preference of my own, I think your background colour is too strong. The boxed text seems to me to be easier on the eye in the lower box, with html background colour #E0E6F8 or thereabouts.
I definitely prefer the format that I have used, in this and other articles, to the other. I have, however, adopted your suggestion to lighten the background colour. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"17-year-old girl, Barbara Harris" – red-linked. Are we to brace ourselves for a spin-off article about her? I have to consider my blood pressure at my time of life.
The redlink arises from circumstances outlined by me on the talkpage. I have no intention of writing an article on her, but someone may prepare a stub (as has happened with Tupper). Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good Heavens! The new Tupper article is by Andrew Gray who is jointly running the Ashton ballet Wikibash at the the Royal Opera House tomorrow, which will, scandalously, require me to get out of bed at 7.00 on a Saturday. I shall seek to extract a promise from Andrew not to write up Ms Harris. Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this - I had wondered about Harris's link as well! I saw Tupper's footnote and on encountering the fascisti could not resist looking him up to see what else there was. Not the most notable of figures, but curious enough, and since I'd got that far I knocked a short article together. I promise nothing on Harris... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes
I have always understood that the idiomatic pronunciation of "Stiffkey" is not "Stiffkey" but not "Stewkey" either. In the Norfolk dialect, words like "Stuart", "computer" and, God save us, "beautiful", become "Stooart", "compooter" and notoriously "bootiful". I was exiled to Norfolk in the 1970s and on the few occasions the town was mentioned it was always pronounced "Stookey". I can't find any WP:RS to back this up, but I thought it worth mentioning here, if only for background.
Blyth says the locals call it "Stewky"; Parris, who I suspect did little of his own research, says "pronounced Stewkey: villagers remain sensitive on this point." Tom Cullen and Jonathan Tucker both aver that locals pronounce the name as spelt; none of these sources refer to "Stookey". If another RS can be found to support this pronunciation, I will gladly add it to the footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref format
Is a four-col layout usual? Looks a bit squeezed to me, esp in these days of small screens. I merely mention the point, knowing very little about it.
4 cols is my norm (I even cheekily imposed it on the BB article!). No one has ever suggested to me that this presents viewing difficulties, but if it does, maybe 3 cols? Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's my lot. I admired the skill with which you walked the tightrope throughout the article. As SchroCat says, above, there could all too easily be a touch of the Carry Ons about it. You have not missed the comic side of the story, but nor have you missed its sad side. – Tim riley (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim for these comments which show your usual attachment to esoteric detail (and all the better for that). Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ruhrfisch
I checked the images and they are fine - either freely licensed (though I had never seen the free license used on the Blackpool photo before) or Fair Use with a strong rationale.
I wonder if it would help to add to the rationale or description for the lead image that he appears to be wearing his war service medals? This would be highly unusual in an American church. I also note the image was taken at Easter 1932 (which was March 27 that year), or right before his hearing began (March 29). He had to have known this picture was being taken and it seems likely to me that the image tries to present him in the best possible light - serious, in the pulpit, with his medals.
Unfortunatetly, the sources that show this picture give no information beyond that it was taken on Easter Day 1932. Your conjecture that he wore his medals to give a good impression is quite likely correct, but is not supported, so must remain as conjecture. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-sized the image to better comply with fair use policies, and also adjusted the contrast. Hopefully it looks better - if not, let me know and I will revert the adjustment and upload that version. Could the fact that he is wearing medals from his military service be added to the image description? Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access to the sources, but it seems likely to me that Davidson would have known who took the photo of him with the near naked girl. Again the odd thing for me is that it is dated April 1932, or after his hearing began.
I actually had the date wrong; it was 28 March 1932, the day before the trial started (!) The photo was taken by an unnamed press photographer, in what Davidson believed was a set-up. This was supposedly a publicity photograph to help Estelle Douglas to start a theatrical career; as the article says, Davidson claimed he had no idea she was naked under the shawl, or that the back of her body was exposed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also resized and adjusted this image (took two tries as I got a moire pattern on Wikipedia that I did not see on my monitor). Again please let me know if looks OK in the article (as I have to delete the other versions). Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both fair use images are too large (file size) - I can resize them over the weekend if you want.
Two quick points - the DYK for this article says he died after treading on the lion's tail. I assume this is not born out by the RS used, but it might need to be addressed in a note (assume it is a common story)
There is nothing in the sources to support the treading on tail story. The young lion tamer Irene Somner gives quite a detailed account of the mauling, and doesn't mention it. The DYK is eight years old, from a time when I suspect standards of verification were rather lax; perhaps the story came from some inferior source, or was a made-up bit of detail. I can't really incorporate negative information into the article, so I suggest we allow sleeping dogs (or lions) to lie. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the version from 2008 and there were no (zero) refs for the treading on the lion's tale story. Would it be worth adding a note to the article's talk page, right under the DYK banner? Ruhrfisch><>°° 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For myself I'd prefer not to do it – seems like unnecessary drawing of attention to a relatively minor lapse of detail. The point of the DYK, I imagine, was that Davidson was killed by a lion, rather than that he trod on it tail. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Stiffkey says in part "He was a popular priest in the area and the villagers asked his family to allow him to be buried in Stiffkey when he died, rather than in the family tomb in Sholing, where he was born." Again I have no idea if this true or not, but if it is, it seems worth mentioning.
There again, neither of Davidson's biographers mention this. Tucker says that the family "simply could not afford to move the body to Stiffkey and were considering having him interred in Skegness". But a friendly haulage contractor offered to transport the body to Stiffkey at no cost. Nothing about the family tomb at Sholing. The story could possibly have some truth in it, but the information is uncited in the Stiffkey article; I have added a citation tag. If a reliable source can be found, this small detail could be added to the Davidson article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to review it for real. Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments. Further observation will be welcome if/when you have the time; the PR will be open for at least another week. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here are my comments on the article - I did not find much to comment on, but here are my nitpicks. I added ha for acres.
Lead
Would the first sentence Harold Francis Davidson (14 July 1875 – 30 July 1937), generally known as the Rector of Stiffkey, was a Church of England priest who, after a notorious court case in 1932, was defrocked by the church when convicted on charges of immorality. be better if the last phrase were changed to ... was convicted on charges of immorality and defrocked by the church.
I wonder it if would help to add his age at one or two points here - for example, when he helped the 16 year old runaway in London, he was presumably between 19 and 24 years old himself. Or later, should it be mentioned that he was about 31 when he married, which seems somewhat old for the time.
I have added the date of the "rescue", and have included that he was 28 when ordained in 1903. I think that will probably do. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complaints and investigations
It is not clear to me when the press attention to him / his case started, and I assume this section would be the place to make it clearer beyond the sentence "Lurid headlines in the newspapers had created wide public interest, and the matter could no longer be hushed up."
It is not clear from the sources how the press first got hold of the story; possibly it was through Davidson himself. I have added this possibility to the text, with a reference. I will add an explanatory footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would include the image of Bertram Pollock that used to be in the article.
The image of Pollock dates from 1902, long before he was Bishop of Norwich, when he was the relatively youthful headmaster of Wellington College. It's also a large and awkward-shaped image. The most relevant placement for it would be in the "Complaints and investigations" section, in place of the quote box to avoid image congestion. Personally I think the quoted text is more germane than a picture of the youthful Pollock. However, if the result of the discussion I have instigated at the foot of this review should result in a decision to omit the Davidson-Douglas photo, then I will bring back the bishop. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Barbara Harris likely to have an article of her own in the future? It seems to me that her notability is likely limited to her role in this scandal / trial, so I wonder if she deserves a red link?
Probably not; this arises from an issue discussed on the article's talkpage, but I think on balance her individual notability would be insufficient to sustain a WP article, so I'll remove the link. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Bibliography, why is one chapter numbered and the other not?
Parris does not number his chapters, so I've given the page numbers instead. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed help. Many thanks for these comments and for your assistance with the images. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
I have not that much to say, which given the travails you are under at Stevens, is almost regrettable. Still, I fear not that it will be considered a Friday afternoon (well, night) job, as I see the worthy people who have gone before me.
Lede
Davidson strongly protested his innocence and to raise funds for his reinstatement campaign he exhibited himself in a barrel on the Blackpool seafront." I advise a comma someplace.
"while later commentators generally accept that although he was often foolish and eccentric in his behaviour" The problem is, the "foolish and eccentric" comes from a contemporary leading article. It's a rather kind summation.
Sorry, I'm not clear what, if anything, you are suggesting I should do. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say that LATER commentators said that. Yet the phrase is taken from a contemporary commentator, from the 1930s. And I guess I'm hinting that your thumbnail summary of the view of Davidson is a bit on the favorable end, and I felt the quotes you proffered at the end were a bit more mixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually say that later commentators accept that he was foolish and eccentric, not that they said it. The exact words are indeed those of the Church Times report of 1932, but I think they are a generally fair summation of more recent opinion as expressed in the main text, and I would prefer not to change the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either masonic should be capitalized, or made lower case in Stevens, or we are truly divided by our common language.
Well, my understanding is that in current British English usage the use of initial capitals in minimised. According to my dictionaries, the noun "Mason" (meaning a Freemason) is capitalised to distinguish him from a "mason" (meaning a stonecarver). The adjective "masonic" does not carry a capital. I will ask Tim, who is a guru on such matters, to pronounce judgement on this; of course, American usage may be quite different and I see no reason why we need to harmonise the usage. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OED admits both capitalised and non-capitalised for the word in this sense, but favours the capped version ("... Usu. in form Mason = Freemason") which preponderates in its list of nine examples by six Masons to three masons. I think the caps have it. Tim riley (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
– and I had a £1 bet that you would judge in my favour! Oh, the way of the scholar is hard. (Proverbs 13:15, modified) Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he helped the girl on the Embankment, but possibly the reader should not have to.
You don't say whether he did anything to help the girl on the Embankment. I think the reader would be grateful for a brief "rest of the story". Saying he gave her money or found her a room or job would be sufficient.
"Davidson was an acquaintance" A sentence which should be divided.
the process known as "defrocking" Suggest shortening to "or "defrocking", with a comma substituted for the dash.
Is Barbara Harris truly deserving of a redlink? Has she notability not derived from the Stiffkey case?
I've redlinked it because another editor has found a source, which I do not consider reliable, that indicates that Harris married a well-known artist, was a friend of Dylan Thomas, and led a generally Bohemian life until 2003. See the talkpage for details, and my doubts. Should this be confirmed, then I think Barbara would indeed be worth a short article, but I need to be convinced that the details are true. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it is the back of her body that is unclothed, her front is covered by a shawl." I'm uncertain about the present tense here.
I've redrafted this bit, & added a few words to explain why the photo was taken. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Campaigning
"because of his genuine fear of animals" Is genuine really needed?
" became disturbed" agitated?
Was Hamond at the funeral?
Not recorded, but I very much doubt it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shoutout to Cosmo duly noted.
Bibliography
On the two references where you have chapters, the open parens and the letter C clash on my browser. Consider separating with a non-breaking space.
That's all I have. Excellent work. I will confess to never hearing of the reverend.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Small fixes done, otherwise notes as above. Thank you for your comments. I wouldn't expect Davidson to be known much outside our shores, but here he has some status as a minor anti-establishment folk hero. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to your concerns above.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments from Cliftonian
Great work here, just a few quick suggestions from me. Feel free to implement as you see fit.
Was his wife's name spelt "Moira" (infobox) or "Moyra" (prose)?
"Although many of Davidson's parishioners accepted that his London rescue mission was entirely above board, some, including Major Hamond, were less impressed". I'm not sure "impressed" is the best word to use here; perhaps "less convinced" or "some, including Major Hamond, were apprehensive".
"This statement—which she immediately retracted and was never presented in court". This seems awkwardly worded to me, perhaps "This statement—which was immediately retracted by Ellis, and never presented in court"
"The enquiry agent's activities continued for months. Davidson was prepared to resign his living if the charges against him were dropped, but Pollock was advised by Dashwood that this was no longer viable". Perhaps "The enquiry agent continued his activities for months. Davidson was prepared to resign his living if the charges against him were dropped, but Dashwood counselled Pollock that this was no longer viable".
I found the Harris redlink a bit spurious myself on first glances but looking at the comments above I am not greatly concerned by it, and will go with consensus
"Davidson raised sufficient funds, partly from the sale of newspaper stories, to ensure he was represented by experienced lawyers." Maybe "Davidson, meanwhile, engaged experienced lawyers to defend him, funding this partly through the sale of newspaper stories."
"He then began regular visitor to her lodgings" Presume a typo, should probably be "He then became a regular visitor ..."
"His only recourse was to return to Blackpool and resume his career as a showman;" Perhaps "again resume his career", as he had already reverted to entertainment once?
Well, perhaps, but during his first Blackpool stint, Davidson was still in holy orders, still Rector of Stiffkey, still collecting his tithes and still preaching from time to time, so his "career" was still as a clergyman. He only fully reverted to his earlier vocation after he was defrocked. It's as broad as it is long; I think I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. —Cliftonian(talk) 04:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The format of the quotation crediting should be consistent (one says "Ronald Blythe: The Rector of Stiffkey", another says "Ronald Blythe, The Rector of Stiffkey (1964).")
Very well done on a thoroughly entertaining read, and I hope these are helpful. Have a great rest of the weekend. —Cliftonian(talk) 14:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for these useful observations which, with the exception noted, I have been happy to incorporate into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you found these helpful. Have a pleasant Sunday —Cliftonian(talk) 04:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Davidson's later career as a showman earned him much notoriety but little money, and he had no success in his attempts at legal redress despite recognition, even in church circles, that he had not been fairly treated in the court hearing that resulted in his deposition from Holy Orders" > the first time I read this it seemed a bit long, but on re-reading is probably okay. But mentioning anyway, based on the first read.
Two consecutive sentences with "His" > "His case" and "His descendents" > maybe vary?
The sentence was too long, and I've split it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theatre
"Davidson's chosen theatrical genre was that of the "drawing-room entertainer"; Cullen describes this kind of performance as "[a]n answer to the demand of a rising middle class which was neither cultured nor resourceful, but which wanted desperately to be diverted".[6]" > This is fine, but the para and section goes on to describe different types of entertainment, so might need a tweak.
"Her pitiful story made a tremendous impression on me ... I have ever since ... kept my eyes open for opportunities to help that kind of girl."[7] > integrate the quote?
Early years
"£503 per annum, rising during Davidson's incumbency to £800" > convert?
I have been long convinced that calculated present-day values of amounts from 100+ years ago can be misleading. The information in footnote 3 gives a better indication of the value at that time of Davidson's Stiffkey stipend. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Notwithstanding his parochial and domestic responsibilities, Davidson quickly adopted the habit of spending much of the week in London, engaged in various kinds of social work" > Not important but I found myself wondering about his proximity to London - is it close, or a long trip for him to make. I'm not sure this is relevant, but mentioning.
It's a good point, which I can't see that any of the main sources have mentioned. Looking at the map, I'd say the distance is about 130 miles. I'll dig around and see if I can get a more accurate figure from a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Prostitutes' Padre"
"Although deeply upset by Molly's infidelity, Davidson accepted the child—who bore some resemblance to him—as his own" > I'm just curious, why the resemblance? Do we know?
None of the sources elaborate, though they all discount the possibility that the child could have been Davidson's. I think it's just one of those mysteries/coincidences. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Financial problems
"In February that year he failed to pay his local rates" > rates in the US has a different meaning than in the UK. I'd link to Rates (tax)
Court hearing
"vitiated her testimony" > reword for plain English (good word though)?
Maybe leave, for its educational value? Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"She was 15-year-old Estelle Douglas, the daughter of one of his oldest friends" > pronoun antecedent is Oliver, so best to clarify Davidson here
These are all nitpicks and this is as far as I got. I've also commented below re the image. Victoria (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All useful points, either adopted or noted as above. Thanks for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image issue
I am asking all peer reviewers if they would kindly comment on the inclusion in the article of File:Davidson with Douglas.jpg. I did not have it in my initial expansion of the article, as I was concerned that the girl in the photograph was a 15-year-old minor. However, all commentators on the Davidson case are agreed that the photograph was a critical factor in the court's decision to convict him of immorality, and I decided that it should go in.
The age factor has not prevented the photgraph from being widely published - it is in all the recent biographical accounts, and indeed forms the cover picture for Cullen's 1975 book. It is also been published on the internet. The question that keeps bothering me, however, is whether the relevance of the image is sufficient to trump the argument of inappropriateness. The image is not there for prurient purposes, but some might think this, or might in any case feel that a photograph of an unclad minor is not acceptable in any circumstances. I would be very grateful if you would add your thoughts on this, here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an extremely valuable photograph and one which is clearly very relevant to the article discussion. Some might dispute the extent to which it is used for "critical commentary", but the mention of the photograph and its importance to the case meets the guidelines for use in my opinion and the article would be worse off without it. A picture is worth a thousand words, in this case 10,000, showing up the naughty vicar!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that the thought crossed my mind too, although only fleetingly. If the girl had been turned around then I'd back it's removal, but showing only the buttocks of the girl, wearing some form of blanket as cover, puts it out of the prurient camp and into the explanatory/educational one. If the image also appears in the reliable print sources, then the lawyers will already have discussed the legality of use and deemed it appropriate. As with Doc's comment, I also think it tells a thousand words. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above. I think standards have changed so much in eighty years that without the image, the reader is whistling in the dark. As to appropriateness, as I said, standards have changed. I think the article needs it, and it will shock no one.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say if the image has already been used prominently in the print sources, and indeed on the front cover of one, there is no reason why we should not also use it. It's already available on the internet anyway. In any case I do not think that the nudity therein is excessive by today's standards and as the Doctor says this photograph in particular is extremely pertinent to the subject and commentary. And as both the Doctor and SchroCat have already said, the Reverend's apparent demeanour in that picture really does say far, far more than any written description could. So for me it's a keep. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't weigh in earlier, but this is certainly acceptable fair use and would decidedly not fall under child pornography as defined by US law. If this has been widely published in the UK, I doubt it would fall afoul of UK laws. (From a FU point-of-view, however, the size should be reduced) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this more than meets FAIR USE and should be included in the article. The two fair use images (this and the lead image) show the two views of Davidson presented in his trial. I do find the image disturbing - how could he have not known / seen that she was nearly naked and her whole back and bottom exposed? The photo was obviously a setup - who would use a child (and the daughter of one of his oldest friends) like this? On a technical note, I made the image smaller (about 40% of the original upload) but when I tried to make it smaller still initially (about 33% of the original), there was a bad Moiré pattern. I also briefly considered suggesting cropping the image so not all of the buttocks were shown, but I think the original image is more useful for the article than any cropped version would be. Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this in passing on Brian's page and should have been more clear, so just a note her to clarify. The image itself doesn't bother me (well it does a bit) and should be kept. What bothers me, personally, is that the girl was not only 15 but a neighbor's daughter, and clearly, despite his statement to contrary, he's touching her. She of course is obviously almost completely nude. I'm afraid my own personal ethos of what is acceptable and not acceptable kicked in. But that doesn't effect the article itself. Victoria (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image made me shudder, but I think it is so central to the narrative that it would be negligent to omit it if it is available. I'm as sure as I can be that it qualifies for fair use. Brian's text is crystal clear, as always, but imagine how its impact here would be diminished without the image. – Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who have contributed here. I think the consensus is that, distasteful though it is, the image should remain, and I will leave it in place. If the matter should be raised at FAC I will refer to this discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
