Talk:Harold Davidson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Conviction and aftermath portion seems confusing. It mentions the barrel incident twice, once in 1932 and then in 1935. The second paragraph appears to run before the first chronologically, seemingly indicating that the barrel event did happen in 35?

Maury 21:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They were separate incidents. In 1932, Davidson was prosecuted by the police for aiding and abetting Luke Gannon in causing an obstruction to the highway (the appearance in the barrel was truncated by the police). In 1935, having found somewhere to perform the stunt which did not obstruct the highway, the Blackpool Corporation prosecuted for attempting suicide. David | Talk 21:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Got it. You may wish to incorporate the above into the main article. Maury 12:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"After being defrocked he returned to his former life as an entertainer, and was killed by a lion he was performing with when he accidentally trod on its tail." How unfortunate! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 NPOV of lead section 2 Comments by 82.35.82.97 placed on the article 3 Cleanup tag 4 NPOV and Verfication

[edit] NPOV of lead section

This is an NPOV article, except for the lead section. I've modified it, but I still think it could be better:

Harold Francis Davidson (July 14, 1875 – July 30, 1937) was a British Church of England Rector, who was famous as the 'Rector of Stiffkey' defrocked in 1932 for his licentious lifestyle, though this has been disputed by his descendants. After being defrocked he returned to his former life as an entertainer, and was killed by a lion he was performing with when he accidentally trod on its tail.

It needs to be noted that the evidence was slim. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added detail to the story of the assault by one of his churchwardens. I think this gives fairer treatment of the churchwarden, and casts an interesting light on how the affair was viewed more widely.

I changed the wording of the timing of the incident from "farewell service" to "last service". This detail was not included in the story as I heard it locally, and it seems improbable that any farewell service took place -- the rector was unlikely to hold one before the trial, and he would not have been able to hold one afterwards. This sounds like a cinematic invention. Is there anything to show that the incident was associated with a service at all? Oak 22:08 28 October 2005 (UTC)

See The Times for October 15, 1932: "The Rev. Harold Davidson, giving evidence, said that on August 21 he had taken a farewell service at Stiffkey ...". David | Talk 22:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

An interesting indication of his frame of mind, but not of course proof of guilt.

Also interesting that local legend had reduced the scale of the fine(s) -- though even GBP1 per offence must have been a token amount for someone of Major Hamond's resources. Oak

[edit] Comments by 82.35.82.97 placed on the article

No, all documents are not in the public arena yet. The rector's letters and papers only came to light ten years ago and were restored to the rector's grandaughter who holds the original papers pertaining to the trial and much else given to her over the years. They await publication and relate the true story of what happened not the creation based solely on media sensationalising after his death. Modern writers refer only to the media reporting. They tend not to research the factual evidence, which confirms the rector's innocence and sheds new light on the background to the trial. A web site is now in preparation exclusively devoted to the Rector. Stiffkey is pronounced as it is written not STEWKY at all. The name is a combination of two old english words brought over by William the Conqueror: SIFF = safe and QUAY = harbour. Siffkay eventually became stiffkey. The harbour was used for coammerce in the middle ages when there were many markets along the coastline and boats would come into Stiffkey as the safest place in the area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.82.97 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Cleanup tag

I added a cleanup tag for the following reasons:

1. Copyediting; I did a bit but it probably needs more;
2. Prose; the prose is not very 'sizzling'. It needs a lot of tightening, particularly in the latter middle sections, which have a lot of choppy sentences and confusing pronouns. Overall, it could just be a lot sharper, I think the whole article could be 1/4 to 1/3 shorter to make it less rambling and more readable. Not to be flippant, but a lot of the narrative has a 'penny dreadful' tone to it, more like 'true crime' than an encyclopedia;
3. Content; there is a lot of unencyclopedic minutae, again, particularly in the latter half, and the last two or three sections are quite maudlin and POV.

The pictures are great. I'm not an expert on refs so I can't comment on the status thereof.--Anchoress 12:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Verfication

The entire article is extremely non-neutral, with several asides bemoaning the treatment of Davidson. Also, none of the statements are cited so the whole thing is unverifiable. Grammar and punctuation isn't so hot, either. Needs a lot of work, I'm afraid. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote the original it was based largely on a thorough search of the Times Digital Archive. Then an anon came in and added a whole lot more, clearly from a very knowledgable base but equally clearly a firm believer in Davidson's total innocence. It was always going to be a heck of a job going through and separating baby from bathwater. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Point. Maybe we should revert to that, and move the current article to the talk page where we can go over it thoroughly. I hate leaving the article as is on the main page. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)