Talk:Patrick Hastings

Fixes

Fixed the part on Joss Ross Campbell - he had published the article in question, not written it.

Quite right! Thanks for spotting it. David | Talk 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Also It was the Worker's Weekly Not the Daily Worker. Fixed. 83.104.171.111 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wallsend candidacy

Montgomery Hyde fell into error on several aspects of his judgment of Hastings' political career. He makes a howler in stating that Wallsend was held by a Liberal: Matt Simm was actually a member of the National Democratic Party, a right-wing Labour Party substitute which was generally supportive of the Lloyd George coalition. When planning the 1918 election the Coalition tried, if it could, to target its coupons at the candidate thought most suited to a constituency - so the fact that a ' Coalition Labour' candidate was preferred in Wallsend indicates that it was generally thought a good seat for Labour. Also the 1918 election was not the walkover seen in most other seats as Simm only scraped 50% against the third placed incumbent left-wing Liberal MP - but with Labour in a strong second. Hence Hyde was also in error in implying that Hastings achieved a surprising feat in winning in 1922. He was one of the most prominent Labour candidates, and was in a strong seat. Before the election The Times expected him to be elected.

I regret the loss of a brief note explaining that the sincerity of Hastings' commitment to the Labour Party was seriously doubted before he was elected, with many thinking he had chosen to get involved in left-wing politics purely because he had worked out that it might bring him high office. Whether true or not, people believed it, and it affected Hastings' reputation never more than when he bungled the Campbell case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Such a statement was removed primarily because it was unreferenced. If you can provide reliable sources for both the Wallsend and sincerity problems, go ahead and add them. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Patrick Hastings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll have a crack at reviewing this article. Back later with my thoughts. Bencherlite^Talk 20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I think it's a fine, readable and sufficiently detailed account of a man with two good careers. I only have some minor points, really:

• I've done some minor copy-editing, of which I hope you approve. In particular, I tended to remove repeated references after successive sentences, unless there was a quotation or something that needed a specific citation. I also tried to avoid having to decide whether Hastings', Hastings's or Hasting's was correct (I'm certain the last is wrong, and both of the first two are awkward-looking!)
• Some of your references are defined more than once, leading to reference duplication and in at least one case (h29) contradiction - am1, h29, h36, h65 and h68
• Could you add a citation/source for the "seedy clients" in the "Early life" section, please (just so we can see whose words they are)?
• the switch between first and third person in saying that he "hated the masters, I hated the bell which drove us up in the morning, I hated the masters" looked odd, and I wondered whether it was because of an accidental error in transcription (repetition of "hated the masters". Is my fix OK?
• "like a faithful hound" - similar point as before: his words, or someone else?
• Gill owned the chambers? In what sense? As you know (but subsequent readers of this review may not) barristers in private practice are all self-employed, and at that time AFAIK there were no London chambers outside the Inns, so Gill wouldn't have been the owner of the property in which the chambers were based. Should this be "headed"? Similarly, is "chamber-master" really the term used? It's not one I've heard of, and Google Books/Scholar don't seem to thrown up obvious hits for it in the context of barristers - I've changed it to "head of chambers" for now.
• I'm not sure that a photo of Eastbourne Pier is the best to illustrate the section of the Case of the Hooded Man - is there anything better?
• The trial of Williams wouldn't have been at Lewes "Crown Court" since this was before the Crown Court was created (1971) - Lewes Assizes, perhaps?
• The Hooded Man enabled him to move from the county courts to the High Court - just checking this is right, since of course this is a criminal case and the CC/HC are civil. In fact, the start of the next sentence contradicts this, by saying he was mainly working in the county courts; and then it's said that it was Gruban that allowed him to make the switch....
• Politics - "six newer MPs": surely they can't have been any newer than he was?
• Interment: "Between February and March they provided information on individuals that they said..." is "they" the Free State government?
• Savidge Inquiry, or Savidge Enquiry? You use both spellings.
• Was "Wylde" a repeated typo for "Wyles"? I changed it on the assumption that it was.
• Can you add a citation for the Laski exchange?
• His son-in-law is mentioned in a "see also" section, which is the first time we find out he had a daughter; it's only slightly before his death that we discover he had a son. Can something about his personal life be added?
• The ODNB mentions that he was rejected as medically unfit for service in WWI, which might help flesh out the short para on WWI (I was wondering what he did / why he didn't serve)

Images

• I think that the FUR for the infobox image File:Patrick Hastings.jpg could be stronger, although I'll be the first to admit that FURs aren't my area of expertise.
• File:Jamesmaxton.jpg is missing source information to verify its free status, and the uploader hasn't edited for nearly two years. Can you improve this situation?

  Removed - can't find it. Suggest asking Sam Blacketer, who used to edit as the uploading account. Ironholds (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  It's the same source as for the succeeding information - the Daily Express verbatim report of the Trial. The page numbers are given. I'm a bit annoyed that you did not check that first. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:Leo Chiozza Money.jpg has no date, so its copyright status is unclear. Can you improve?

  It's a Library of Congress image, and is (apparently) PD. Ironholds (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall

On hold whilst these relatively small points are looked at. Bencherlite^Talk 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

GA pass

Good work, well done. Bencherlite^Talk 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)