Talk:Cleveland Street scandal

Coordinate

Should this article have a coordinate for 19 Cleveland Street? If so then based on multimap, the following template would do the trick: {{coord|51|31|08|N|0|08|14|W|region:GB_type:landmark|display=title}}. I'd argue that the article should contain a coordinate, since being able to click onto a map helps to locate the geographical locus of the scandal - it was here: 51°31′08″N 0°08′14″W. Set against that is the risk that multimap's 2008 conception of the location of no.19 does not marry with 1889. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Coordinates make terrorist attacks too easy. I vote that we stand up to those who hate freedom by not telling them where to kill us. Mwahcysl (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo?

Is there a photo of the location? (Preferably contemporary; if not then a photo from today would cover.) Tempshill (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Euston v Parkes Trial

I am confused by the description of the trial. The issue of a libel writ against Parkes would be a civil matter. This would result in damagaes against Parkes had he lost, but not imprisonment. Were there two cases, one a criminal case against Parkes, as well as the civil libel case? --Yendor1958 (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a criminal libel case. English law provided for both criminal and civil libel. DrKay (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The House

I've added a paragraph to the Aftermath section on the house, including one report that suggests it still exists under another number - unlikely IMHO. I was able to check the house numbering on a map when Cleveland Street was called Norfolk Street (which was certainly different), but I couldn't find a Victorian era map with house numbers after it was named Cleveland. Another tricky issue is that in 1888, the year before the scandal, there was a wholesale renumbering of streets.Engleham (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that @DrKay had deleted the following paragraph written in 2011:

"19 Cleveland Street is presumed to have been demolished when the Middlesex Hospital was expanded in the 1920s. The hospital once occupied an entire block on the western side of the southern section of the street. The former Middlesex Hospital Annexe and Outpatient Department survives on the eastern side of the street. However one report (Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/4811529/Inside-story-19-Cleveland-Street.html) has alleged that Cleveland Street was renumbered, with number 19 being removed from the Land Registry, but that the house survives, divided into three flats, under another number. The street was certainly renumbered (and was originally called Norfolk Street), but this suggestion seems unlikely."

I can understand why this information might been seen as extraneous to the Scandal. However, I don't believe it is. There has been an increasingly legacy of interest in the actual site, as indicated by it being referenced in The London Compendium, the newspaper article in the original entry, and other publications, plus its continual visitation as a place pilgrimage in gay historical walkabouts, etc. If you dip your toe into the endless Jack the Ripper forums, you'll also see people going on about it. Importantly, Victorian Studies scholars (e.g. http://graduable.com/2013/05/13/walking-in-london-iii-more-pornographic-addresses/) reference the site. The whole street has become of deep historical interest because of the fight to save the Workhouse a few doors down on the opposite side from No19, and the discovery that Dickens had lived in the street. So providing accurate cited information about No19, which corrects falsehoods, would be of value to many. Which is, let's face it, the end goal here. I've substantially rewritten the inclusion with more citations, and rather than putting it in Aftermath, will split it out into a separate section The House. It is as follows:

The site of the house has been the subject of continuing interest. In the Parliamentary Session of February 28, 1890, Henry Labouchere indignantly describes 19 Cleveland Street as "in no obscure thoroughfare, but nearly opposite the Middlesex Hospital". An Ordinance Survey of 1870 shows it to be located on the western side of the street. In an 1894 Ordinance Survey, the house and several adjacent properties had been replaced by an extension of the hospital. The hospital itself was demolished in 2008.

As Cleveland Street had been renumbered, it has been suggested that the house was located on the eastern side of the street and survives as No18.(Ref: Glinert, Ed The London Compendium, Penguin Books, 2003) It has been further suggested that the renumbering occurred after the scandal and No19 was deleted from the Land Survey to suppress its existence.

However, the official record shows these suggestions to be erroneous. That Cleveland Street was renumbered is certainly true: the southernmost end was originally Norfolk Street. (For example, the current number 22 Cleveland Street, was originally 10 Norfolk Street, and for a time was the home Charles Dickens.) However, as the Minutes of Proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works for 1867 record, the renumbering was ordered in that year, long before the scandal:"the odd numbers, commencing with 1 and ending with 175, being assigned to the houses on the Western side; that the even numbers, commencing with 2 and ending with 140, to those on the Eastern side; that such numbers do commence at the Southern end" (Ref: Minutes of Proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works, July-December 1867, p983, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=aShJAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA980&dq=%22cleveland+street%22+%2B+renumbered) A full-view sketch of the house was published in a newspaper report – one of two sketches which appeared at the time.

I think it would be helpful to insert a Victorian-era photo of the street (there's some online in regard to the Workhouse fight) or the sketch of the house such as this one: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JXlA84GW2XA/VHROi57n2GI/AAAAAAAA_Kw/UXOLOlcDfhs/s1600/1923.jpg However I'll leave it to others to decide. Engleham (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The section you inserted is problematic for a few reasons. First, this is a Featured article so the highest standards of prose and sourcing are required. Your proposed text is not well-written or well-sourced, and phrases like "it has been suggested" are vague and seem like WP:OR. You will need strong secondary sources that summarize the points you are trying to insert, and indicate that they are relevant to the subject. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Laser_brain (a) Use of the word "suggestions" three times I agree is twice too many! However, as these are claims, I'll need to refer to them with some other word that states them as such. Yes? (b) I forgot to add the citation after the words "suppress its existence." It is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/4811529/Inside-story-19-Cleveland-Street.html (c) What other specific points do you wish cited? Engleham (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a Featured article, everything needs to be cited. We need to make sure we are not interpreting or making claims about things ourselves. We need to cite secondary sources that analyze and provide information about the claims. Does that make sense? --Laser brain (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Laser_brain I shall revise "suggestions"; add a citation for the demolition of the hospital, Labby's parliament statement, add the previously mentioned missing citation, and find a link to the Ordinance Survey Maps. Okey dokey? Engleham (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Every statement needs a citation to a source that explicitly supports that entire statement. DrKay (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay @Laser_brain Not every single one, surely. It's a matter of reasoned judgement - especially on non-controversial articles and points. Look at the existing Cleveland St article. More citations are needed, but does every statement currently made there demand a citation-needed tag be whacked on it? Oh well, good luck with that! After I've (hopefully) sorted this wee section I'm movin' on. Engleham (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Laser_brain @DrKay OK, here's the completely rewritten proposed entry with authoritative citations for every statement:

The site of the brothel at 19 Cleveland Street, Marylebone, and its historical context within the homosexual and other transgressive communities of London's Fitzrovia and neighbouring Soho and Bloomsbury, has become the subject of academic study and general interest. (Ref: Houlbrook, Paul Queer London: Perils and Pleasures in the Sexual Metropolis, 1918-1957 p4) (Ref: Hallam, Paul "The Book of Sodom, Verso, London, 1993, p13-96) (Ref: Delgado, Anne Scandals In Sodom: The Victorian City's Queer Streets in Studies in the Literary Imagination, Vol40, No1, 2007) In Parliament, Henry Labouchere indignantly described 19 Cleveland Street as "in no obscure thoroughfare, but nearly opposite the Middlesex Hospital".(Ref: Cook, Matt London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885-1914, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p56) The house, which was located on the western side of Cleveland Street, no longer survives: it was demolished in the 1890s for an extension of the Hospital.(Ref: Inwood, Stephen Historic London: An Explorer's Companion, Macmillan, 2008, p327)(Ref:Andrew Duncan's Favourite London Walks, New Holland Publishers, 2006, p93) which itself was bulldozed in 2005. (Ref:Foot, Tom Glowing reviews! Fitzrovia chapel reopens to the public after £2million restoration, 25 September 2015, http://www.westendextra.com/news/2015/sep/glowing-reviews-fitzrovia-chapel-reopens-public-after-%C2%A32million-restoration) Two sketches of the house were published by The Illustrated Police News". (Ref: Hyde, H. Montgomery The Cleveland Street Scandal, W.H.Allen, 1976, Plates btw pages 208-9)

It has occasionally been claimed that the house survives. This theory proposes that, following a renumbering of the street, No19 was deleted from the Land Survey to suppress its existence, and that the house is the current No18 on the eastern side of the street. (Ref: Gwyther, Matthew Inside Story: 19 Cleveland Street, Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2000, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4811529/Inside-story-19-Cleveland-Street.html) (Ref:Glinert, Ed The London Compendium, Penguin Books, 2003) The official record shows such notions to be without foundation. That Cleveland Street was renumbered is certainly true: the southernmost end was originally Norfolk Street. (For example, the current number 22 Cleveland Street, was originally 10 Norfolk Street, and for a time was the home Charles Dickens.) (Ref: Plaque unveiled to identify Charles Dickens first London home, Fitzrovia News, 10 June 2013, http://news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2013/06/10/plaque-unveiled-to-identify-charles-dickens-first-london-home/) However, as the Minutes of Proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works for 1867 record, the renumbering of Cleveland Street was ordered in that year, long before the scandal:"the odd numbers, commencing with 1 and ending with 175, being assigned to the houses on the Western side; that the even numbers, commencing with 2 and ending with 140, to those on the Eastern side; that such numbers do commence at the Southern end." (Ref: Minutes of Proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works, July-December 1867, p983, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=aShJAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA980&dq=%22cleveland+street%22+%2B+renumbered) An Ordinance Survey of 1870 also shows No19 and its adjacent houses on the street's western side. (Ref: Ordinance Survey 1870: London (City of Westminster; St Marylebone; St Pancras), National Library of Scotland, http://maps.nls.uk/view/103313021#zoom=5&lat=8658&lon=10908&layers=BT) In an 1894 Ordinance Survey these properties have been subsumed by the new Middlesex Hospital wing. (Ref: Ordinance Survey 1894: London, Sheet VII, National Library of Scotland, http://maps.nls.uk/view/101201553#zoom=4&lat=5497&lon=10692&layers=BT)

That's it. While doing all the searching for the added citations, I came across a quote which I think would be good for the Aftermath section. Here it is:

The great-great nephew of Ernest Parke has written that: "For Ernest, I suspect, this was not about homosexuality but about the abuse of power — and it all feels strangely relevant today." (Ref: Parke, Simon My uncle Ernie, a society sex scandal... and a lesson in courage, Daily Mail, 6 November 2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2228474/My-uncle-Ernie-society-sex-scandal--lesson-courage.html)

Both proposals OK? Engleham (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no source for "The official record shows such notions to be without foundation." I recommend cutting it. DrKay (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay I agree! After re-reading it I can see it doesn't require it. Ta. Engleham (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

New book

A new book 'The Sexual Constitution of Political Authority: The 'Trials' of Same-Sex Desire' offers some excellent fresh analysis of the case -- and also of the Dublin Castle scandals which John Saul was also mixed up in. Sections can be read on Google Books: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=L1GhCAAAQBAJ& Some of its points could maybe be incorporated to strengthen the article. Thoughts? Engleham (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is a bit diffuse. It needs to explain briefly upfront why the scandal scored got so much press (you only have to look at newspaper archives to see it was a global story) and created such a fuss in the Establishment. And it wasn't solely because of the Albert Victor allegation. Some points that could be brought out stronger: (1) Labby (while he hated gays, jews, etc.), his key motive was surely to use the case to bring down Salisbury's govt (2) The cover up by the authorities and by the guilty e.g. non-prosecution of Saul; removal of the boys to overseas (c) Most importantly, the way the press, & Labby, Parke, framed the scandal to highlight hypocrisy and the corruption of the establishment and upper classes which was an increasing theme in the press at the time -- and not just the radical press. It was this combination of elements with the Albert Victor rumour that made it so big. The linkages are also worth pointing out: Arthur Newton acted for Somerset, other unnamed clients, and Euston - and later got into difficulties with Euston. Engleham (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cleveland Street scandal. 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/20160216114107/http://www.westendextra.com/news/2015/sep/glowing-reviews-fitzrovia-chapel-reopens-public-after-%C2%A32million-restoration to http://www.westendextra.com/news/2015/sep/glowing-reviews-fitzrovia-chapel-reopens-public-after-%C2%A32million-restoration

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)