Talk:Eastbourne manslaughter

Chancellor or Cancellor?

Whilst Marie Parker-Jenkins refers to the name "Reginald Chancellor", this does not appear in any of the primary source material, which names the victim as "Reginald Cancellor". Unusual surname, I know, but the Victorian newspapers and Hopley's own books on the subject are quite consistent on this. 91.107.25.19 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And the "Chancellor" references need to stay out. Cancellor is not referred to by that name until Parker-Jenkins' book. Literally. There is not a single piece of primary source material using that name, and his birth (and death) certificates are quite clear. Propagating the error by repeating it is an error in itself. 91.107.25.19 (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", per WP:V. Some sources (in particular, Parker-Jenkins' book) do refer to the student as "Chancellor". Whether that was his real name or not is immaterial - the fact that he is referred to as such in some sources can be thoroughly cited and is verifiable, and thus should be mentioned. I will wait 24 hours to allow you and others to respond; unless you can provide me with a policy-based reason for not including that name, I'm going to restore the footnote you removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the name "Chancellor" is used in only one unreliable printed source, and the name "Cancellor" is used in at least several hundred printed sources, spread over the last 150 years, I think there is absolutely no need for the reference.91.107.25.19 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You should not be giving privilege to a spelling mistake! We can verify the correct name of Reginald Cancellor with reliable sources, and so should be using that name. The only work in print that uses the name "Chancellor" is the Parker-Jenkins book, and given that the sources cited by Marie Parker-Jenkins use the correct name, her book should be regarded as a questionable source as per verifiability, not truth. 213.121.54.208 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That book is not the only source to use that name. For example, see this and this. We can use Cancellor as his name in the article, as that's what the majority of sources use, but Chancellor should still be mentioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, those two instances don't count, as the spelling has been changed in transcription. I believe the original of the Punch article appears in Google books. It's not really forgivable to give credence to the poor quality of transcription (and Parker-Jenkins book) in this manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.189.81 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate page?

When one tries to follow the link to "Reginald Cancellor" in the line "The Eastbourne manslaughter was an 1860 legal case in Eastbourne, England, concerning the death of 15-year-old Reginald Cancellor", one is directed to a virtually identical page, the original being at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastbourne_manslaughter", the second at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Cancellor", but both pages appear to be the same.

Is this correct? CoeurDeHamster (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Reginald Cancellor is a redirect that brings you back to Eastbourne manslaughter; the link has been removed now by some good soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.25.160 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The redirect is active, as it should be.FeatherPluma (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias?

The word "sensationalised" is used five times in this article, enough to be remarkable as out of the ordinary. Does anyone think this suggests bias? or am I reading too much into it? 161.225.196.111 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The one that particularly stood out at me when originally reading the article, was "The trial was sensationalised by contemporary media." It potentially implies that the trial (and the incident it concerned) was nothing out of the ordinary, but the media made it so. An alternative wording might be better - perhaps "The trial caused a sensation in contemporary media." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that the spreading of rumours and casting him as an evil villain (in every way) would be enough to justify the use of the word 'sensationalise'. Although the phrases may look similar, "Caused a sensation in" is not just an alternative wording but means much less than "was sensationalised by", in that the former implies nothing more than popularity. 86.154.92.65 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The man beat a child to death. It's hardly surprising that there'd be rumours spread and that he's be cast as an evil villain. JIMp _talk·cont 22:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary.com suggests (trying to avoid a verbatim quote here) that one meaning of "sensationalise" has to do with exaggerating the more lurid elements of something. I don't feel that the word implies the event or trial were ordinary; it just seems that the newspapers of the time played up the most gory and malevolent aspects of it all, presumably to boost their own circulation. Dick Kimball (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Red linked people

Should the red links to Edward Hopley and Caroline Lefevre stay or go? No, there's little concern that they might be defamed but they still may be misidentified by the creation of (an) article(s) about a different Edward Hopley and/or Caroline Lefevre. On the other hand, will there ever be any articles there? JIMp _talk·cont 20:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Both articles are on my "to-be-created" list (but that's a good-sized list, so I can't say when exactly they will be created). I've seen reliable sources relating to both, for example ODNB for Hopley and a contemporary report for Lefevre. (Hopley is probably the more notable of the two, but Lefevre likely merits an article). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good luck with them. JIMp _talk·cont 22:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Corporal punishment

Perhaps the discussion of the corporal punishment of English children might be enhanced by mention of Mrs Elizabeth Brownrigg who was hanged in 1767 for the lethal use of corporal punishment on a 14-year-old girl. Dick Kimball (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect date

I notice there's a desire to have a specific year listed in this article as when "physical discipline was officially banned in British schools". At present the article uses the year 1987. According to The Telegraph and plenty of other sources, corporal punishment was finally banned in private schools in Northern Ireland in 2003. If the article has to use a specific year, that's the one to use; although if we change it to "schools in England and Wales" then we can use 1999. (There's also this BBC News article - which also confirms the 1999 and 2003 dates - that says physical discipline was still permitted in some religious weekend schools in England in 2010, which muddies the issue slightly more.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

TFA rerun

We're leaving a note on the pages of articles that have run at TFA and are potential reruns; I believe Jim mentioned that he's going to run this one in January. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastbourne manslaughter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722080330/http://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2261/848/1/KJ00002401025.pdf to http://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2261/848/1/KJ00002401025.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I've made a few small changes. Grand-parade to Grand Parade; naming the court of which John Henry Cancellor was master (from 1837, when his previous office of "secondary" was abolished, along with those of Custos Brevium and prothonotary and various other clerks); giving full names and links for the two prosecution baristers, one of whom (at least) was also a serjeant-at-law and has an article; Queen's (not King's) Bench in 1860 (as it had been, indeed, since the death of William IV and accession of Victoria also in 1837).

I've not changed it, but ODNB says Hopley served his four year sentence in Portsea and Chatham prisons, not at Millbank.

Also, ODNB describes him as "stern, even harsh" towards his wife, and says his servants thought him "oppressive, pernickety and sanctimonious". Perhaps something more could be added about Hopley's character?

The main page says the conviction was upheld by the Court of King's [sic] Bench. When and why did Chief Justice Cockburn comment on the case? Was there an appeal? It is not mentioned here.

Hmm, which judge presided at the trial at Lewes Assizes? Was it in fact Chief Justice Cockburn on circuit? ... [checks] ... Yes, the trial judge was indeed Chief Justice Cockburn. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.74.55.114 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Featured article

This is an outstanding article, well deserving of Featured Article commendation. Thank you and congratulations to all who contributed to its excellence.—Finell 19:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Deprecated parameter

Nikkimaria; hello, saw the revert - could you please expand on "that does not appear to work"? Thanks and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi The joy of all things, in your version there is no visible indication that the link requires subscription to access, unlike in the previous version. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, right, I see. The parameters ''registration=yes'' and ''subscription=yes'' are now deprecated and need to be replaced with either ''url-access=registration'' or ''url-access=subscription''. This then generates a padlock symbol with green being free access, a grey padlock is shown for registration and a red padlock for subscription needed. I have replaced about 200 deprecated parameters so far, and to be fair, you are the first to state that there is no actual text displaying the access rights required. Hovering over, or clicking on the padlock describes the level of access required, which I'll admit, is not as easy as a parameter actually stating what is needed. The link describing the padlocks is here and the page with advice on how to correct the deprecated parameters is here [2]. Please investigate and tell me if I am in the wrong (I have definitely been in the wrong before), but I assume that the text displaying the access rights is now not displayed, merely the padlock. Thank you for pointing this out and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The joy of all things, what padlock? There doesn't appear to be one. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, click on the link you provided (your version) and it is in the middle of the citation. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The joy of all things, that is the version I screenshotted above, and there is none. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria okay, how about this? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The first of those two is better because it has a visible indicator of the subscription status, whereas the second does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so I haven't done anything wrong, which for me is good, as I can carry on sorting out other pages with the deprecated parameters issue. So it is up to you and the cohort of editors who routinely look after this page if you want the deprecated parameter fixed or not; either way, it seems the padlocks is the solution, though I do agree the visibility of the subscription options isn't great.I will not change it again in case we get into an edit war, I am certainly not that concerned about it. Perhaps you could ask the technical people who look after the wiki-mark up for a template similar to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which if you write cite ODNB rather than cite web, generates a citation as follows. BTW, the ODNB cite is not correct on the Eastbourne manslaughter article page; I have changed it so that it states Subscription or UK public library membership required text on display at the end of the citation.

The CS1 Deprecated parameters page states

“ Over time, some parameters have become obsolete or unnecessary. When this happens, the parameters are identified as deprecated. Editors are encouraged to use other parameters that accomplish the same purpose as those that have been deprecated. The CS1|2 deprecated parameters are listed in the following table, along with recommended replacement parameters. Parameter names are case-sensitive. Editors should expect that support for deprecated parameters will be withdrawn. ”

I am unsure exactly what the ramifications of having support for deprecated parameters withdrawn may be, but I do sincerely wish you happy editing. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Yeah, even the ODNB cite has now been reformatted to not show the subscription required. Trappist the monk has changed several of these today, though I have not seen any recent updates on the ODNB cite, but the fact that two of the parameters have now been rendered with redlinks, suggest they need an update; shame about the loss of the access message. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that Template:Cite ODNB history shows that I recent[ly] update[d] the live template with the content from Template:Cite ODNB/sandbox. Interestingly, Editor PBS, just today, reverted that with the complaint that I had not discussed the {{cite ODNB}} changes on the talk page. I beg to differ; see Template talk:Cite ODNB/Archive1 § use Module:template wrapper. Editor PBS has since reverted their revert.

In this cite, the error message arises because {{cite ODNB}} supplies several pre-filled parameters among which is:

|encyclopedia=[[Dictionary of National Biography#Oxford Dictionary of National Biography|Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]

The title of the entry at ODNB for this example is: Hopley, Thomas (1819–1876) it is not Hopley, Thomas (1819–1876), schoolmaster and convicted homicide {{!}} Oxford Dictionary of National Biography . Use of an incipit in place of an actual extant title is probably not good practice; the inclusion of stuff that is not part of the title is definitely not good practice because such extraneous stuff corrupts the citation template's metadata for those who consume these citations by means other than their eyes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I have been recently reverted with an edit summary that reads see discussion on talk. The particular edit that was reverted was made because:

• |url=http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a727755462&fulltext=713240928 does not link to the article "Thomas Hopley and mid-Victorian attitudes to corporal punishment" but, instead, gets redirected to https://taylorandfrancis.com/; try it; this source is not preserved in internet archive but is available via the citation's |doi=10.1080/00467600500313898
• because I deleted the non-functional |url=, I deleted |access-date= because that parameter requires |url=
• similarly, I deleted |subscription=yes because that parameter is deprecated; its replacement, |url-access=, requires |url= so I did not replace it

My edit should be restored.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the URL and accessdate. Given that the doi requires subscription to access, we should retain an indicator of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

What is it that makes this citation special when compared to the other five citations that link to their sources through the doi identifier? None of those other five are free-to-read; all of them lie behind a paywall or registration barrier.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to add the indicator to the others as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are happy to have six citations in this FA display until support for that parameter is removed and then display forevermore, that is your prerogative. I would not recommend that. If you are going to keep / add the subscription indicators, you should probably add {{bots|deny=Monkbot13}} to this article so that the next time I run the bot to cleanup deprecated |subscription= and |registration= parameters, this article will be skipped.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Is there another method that you would recommend that would result in a visible marker of the source's subscription status? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I do: let the templates render cs1|2 style as they render cs1|2 style.

The problem with |subscription= and |registration= is that they are not specific to individual source-links. It is possible and legitimate for cs1|2 citations to link |title= with |url= to a free-to-read preprint of an article on the author's website while, at the same time, |doi= links to the article-of-record behind a paywall at the publisher's website. Readers can't know to which of these |subscription= applies. This is why we made the determination that |title= linked by |url= is considered free-to-read unless marked otherwise by |url-access=subscription, |url-access=registration, or |url-access=limited. As part of our determination, sources linked through identifiers (|doi=, |jstor=, etc) are considered to lie behind a paywall or registration barrier unless otherwise marked with |doi-access=free, |jstor-access=free, etc.

There is {{subscription required}}. But, this template suffers from the same problem as |subscription= and |registration=; no specificity. Not recommended.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: As noted above, the use of |url-access=subscription does not result in any visible indicator that the URL is not free to access. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to Middleton, then yes, |url-access=subscription does nothing but show an error message because (at this writing) Middleton does not have |url= and |url-access= requires |url=. Example of |url-access= without |url=:

{{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |url-access=subscription}}

"Title". Journal. {{cite journal}}: |url-access= requires |url= (help)

proper use of |url-access= with |url=:

{{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |url=http://www.example.com/Article |url-access=subscription}}

"Title". Journal. – bright red lock icon at the end of "Title" to indicate that |url= does not link to a free-to-read source

Similarly:

{{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |doi=10.1010/bogus.doi.article |doi-access=free}}

"Title". Journal. doi:10.1010/bogus.doi.article. – green lock icon next to doi identifier

This scheme does not highlight the norm – no green lock icon next to free-to-read title; no red lock icon next to paywalled identifiers. Highlighting the norm just creates visual clutter.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: There are no lock icons at all in the examples provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you see the pdf icon at the end of this link?

http://www.example.com/Article.pdf ← should be a pdf icon here

If you log out and look at this page, do you see the icons then?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Then the problem is not with cs1|2 but with your browser and / or your settings. We know that it mostly works because the error messages in your screen-cap get their styling from the same css file that styles the background images that are the icons (cs1|2 uses css to override the generic external link icon in the same way that MediaWiki uses css to override the external link icon for pdf links). I don't think that it is your browser, per se, because when logged out you see the icons (same browser, right?) but it could be. That suggests that it's your skin or that somewhere you have some custom css or javascript that is interfering with the rendering of the icon images.

What skin do you use? Is it modern? For me, with Chrome, modern doesn't work. Don't know why.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and Modern. (And yes, tested same browser logged out). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Started a conversation at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § icons and the modern skin.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

References