Talk:Royal baccarat scandal

Court

The text states "The atmosphere at trial was described as being like a theatre, and Edward [(VII)] was called as a witness, the first time the heir to the throne had been compelled to appear in court since 1411." This is not true unless you forget about Charles I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.31.206.178 (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is: Charles was the king, and therefore not the heir to the throne. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah true. too early in the morning for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.31.206.178 (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a coffee – and I hope you enjoyed the article. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

But the article also describes that Edward had been subpoenaed, and appeared, as a witness in the earlier divorce case. Doesn't that count? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not according to the sources, no. The subpoenae was, as far as I understand, a formal issue rather than anything else. Havers et al have it that "except for the very brief incident of the Maudaunt Case, in which the Prince had voluntarily entered the witness-box to clear himself from blame, no heir to the throne had appeared in court since Prince Henry..." - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. The Lady Mordaunt case also says it is "the first" time for the heir/duke of wales testified in a court case.Airproofing (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Then that is something best taken up on the Mordaunt article’s talk page. If there is an error there, there is no point in raising the question here. - SchroCat (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know if it was an error here or there, that's all.Airproofing (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a Featured Article which is fully sourced and cited throughout. The Mordaunt article is sadly lacking in that direction. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

What do mean by "a formal issue"? This article says he was subpoened. How is that different from "compelled to appear in court"? If there is some distinction here, you're not making it clear, and the article isn't either. Even if you're right about the distinction, whatever it may be, you seem to me wrong to defend the article. Wikipedia articles need to be transparantly clear to the reader and devoid of apparant contradiction. TheScotch (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

British opinion of France

The article states that baccarat "was illegal, [but] 'worse still in the eyes of many Englishmen, [it was] thought to be popular in France'." This goes unexplained, which might be mysterious to those unaware of the popular late-Victorian English view of France as a den of iniquity. This should be explained, perhaps with examples, maybe in a footnote. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this sentence fragment a sentence?

User:SchroCat claims that the following caption is a complete sentence: "Sir William Gordon-Cumming in the witness box, in the presence of Edward, Prince of Wales, and others". This is a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence, so it must appear without a period at the end per MOS:CAPTION. Can other editors please weigh in here? 9kat (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, a sentence does not need a verb to be a sentence. You have also failed to address your addition of some poor commas. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you opened discussion of that on my talk page; I only brought up the period here since it's a much simpler issue. You have my permission to move the comma discussion to a new section here from my talk page if you want, or any interested editor can participate at User talk:9kat#Royal baccarat scandal. 9kat (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Or you could just acknowledge that you ignored WP:BRD, edit warred over it, and that you have the decency to self-revert back to the status quo while the discussion over both your poor comma use and the full stop question takes place. Your call. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I made an MOS-compliant revert with my full rationale because you didn't include an edit summary. [1] If you bother to read WP:BRD yourself, you'll note: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." Since you made other changes at the same time, it was impossible to tell whether your edit was supposed to be constructive. (And yes, I actually took the time to find your edit before reverting it. Your edit also contained another error that was later reverted, changing "brought" to "bought", making it even less clear what you were trying to do; frankly, I thought your revert was either accidental or vandalism.)

As should be clear, I think the comma is a fair question that can be debated. (Although, it's hard to do that when you seem more interested in slinging accusations than having a constructive discussion by actually addressing my points.) I will self-revert those comma changes while it's under discussion, despite a lack of good faith from you. However, the issue of the sentence fragment is so ridiculous and clear-cut, so I decline to violate the MOS by performing a revert on that material. 9kat (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Except it isn't either ridiculous or clear cut. According to Fowler's Modern English Usage, a sentence "means a set of words complete in itself, having either expressed or understood in it a subject & a predicate, & conveying a statement or question or command". Looking at the caption in question we have exactly that: subject "Sir William Gordon-Cumming" predicate "in the witness box, in the presence of Edward, Prince of Wales and others." A complete, grammatical sentence, deserving of a full stop. And you can try and wheedle and wriggle as much as you want: you edit warred, and you shouldn't have done so, especially as your edit was not MOS-compliant, whatever you may think. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This "edit war" wouldn't be an issue if you'd left an edit summary when you reverted me, and I think you know that. (Especially on TFA with lots of IP and new users making similarly broken edits.) Quit creating pointless drama. I'll respond to the grammar points later. 9kat (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not creating any drama, and I well aware it's the fucking TFA: I took this article through PR, FAC and then nominated it for the front page. I don't say this to claim any special rights here, but it's just to point out that I'm neither a new editor, IP or a drive-by. End of the day, you edit warred when you shouldn't have done. End of story. So you can stop the drama and the pointless bickering. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WHAT??? A sentence doesn't need a verb? Every English teacher I have ever had would whack whomever said that. --Minturn (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Such is the standard of English grammar teaching nowadays. No, not every sentence needs a verb. When you consider that a perfectly constructed sentence can consist of one word, it's difficult to cram a verb in there. You've used a perfect example yourself: "WHAT???". As I've already outlined, a sentence needs a subject and a predicate. A predicate may be a verb, but not always. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. In informal usage sentence certain fragments are perfectly permissible, depending on the fragment and the particular circumstances. They're still sentence fragments, however, and they're never acceptable in formal writing such as an encyclopedia. The specimen in question is clearly a sentence fragment, not a sentence, and no amount of sophistry will change that.TheScotch (talk)

By the way, when you quote Fowler you need to specify which edition. The third edition was published long after Fowler's death and has very little to do with anything Fowler ever wrote, except to flat-out contradict him right and left. it's also just plain wrong left and right. TheScotch (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment

A very good article about some very alien people. I'm a little confused on one point, however. The section "Gambling and baccarat in 1890" makes a point of the illegality of playing baccarat for money, but no one present seems to have faced any legal consequences for doing exactly that (aside from the slander case). Why is that? Furius (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Because of the Jenks v. Turpin case (referred to in the baccarat section) which fudged the issue a fair amount, including allowing a possible loophole when played in a private house. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see. Is that what is meant by the sentence "After a solicitor asked the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, to clarify the position regarding baccarat in social clubs and private houses, the Home Office civil servant Godfrey Lushington stated that there was nothing in the court's judgment that made baccarat illegal if not played for money." ? At the moment it reads as if the loophole only extended to games in private houses which were not played for money. Furius (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, who rewrote this entire article to change the POV?

Maybe I'm hallucinating this, but I work in a profession that requires tremendous amounts of scanning of documents for unmarked changes, and thus I distinctly recall this article being much different when I read it several years ago, back when it was a freshly Featured Article.

Re-reading it now, the entire tone and "thrust" of the article has been carefully and meticulously rewritten (while preserving all the original FA sources) to suggest that Gordon-Cumming was innocent, the entire affair was a product of hysteria and proletariat envy and (most disturbingly) that both contemporary and modern historians are virtually unanimous in their conclusion that the matter was highly suspect at best and an outright miscarriage of justice at worst. Yet I see no new "blockbuster" sources providing such a novel contemporary retrospective on the issue, and cannot help but notice the major shift in how the article reads. This was not a random vandal or a hot-headed "hit and run" graffitist. I propose that, much like Gordon-Cumming himself was accused of, somebody who knows Wikipedia and knows how to avoid suspicion has carefully and surreptitiously woven their personal POV into this article: that Gordon-Cumming was the victim of a conspiracy and that only sources supporting this assertion should be included. It's also why I'm editing from an IP and failing to point any fingers specifically, as I know how sharp the teeth of Wikipedia "vested contributors" can be, and they have a historical predilection for British related articles...

Summary: The article's formerly neutral POV is now markedly different from when this article was a fresh Featured Article. I no longer believe the article meets WP:NPOV sufficiently to justify the Featured Article status, and if necessary, I plan to request it's status be reviewed in light of a potential demotion. Please reply with your personal assessments of same. 45.47.168.184 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi there IP. I think your mind may be playing tricks on you here. This is the article in June 2014, when it passed the FA process and was promoted, and these are the changes since it became an FA. Plenty of small changes (mostly very minor changes in line with the MoS), but nothing that alters the main thrust or balance of the article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RoyalBaccaratScandal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Scots Guards: oversupply of Colonels?

Puzzle: the article describes Gordon-Cumming as a lieutenant colonel in the Scots Guards, and identifies Col.Stacey as his Commanding Officer, presumably therefore Colonel of the Scots Guards; but also describes the Duke of Connaught as Colonel of the Scots Guards. How many colonels is a regiment supposed to have (at any one time)? One, I thought - am I airing my ignorance here?

Maybe Connaught was the (honorary) Colonel-in-Chief? - though that isn't what the article on him seems to say? (in the table of military offices, at the foot) 87.74.164.56 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)