Talk:Melford Stevenson

message: Stevenson was not involved in the main Nuremberg Trials, which involved Nazi leaders, nor at the subsequent trials. The case he was involved in should perhaps have an article of its own but it is misleading to link in this way. --John (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're almost certainly right; I'll check what the major sources have to say. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

text: All mention of Nuremberg now expunged. The trial does seem to be sufficiently notable to have its own article, as Eck and his fellow officers were the only U-boat personnel to be convicted of war crimes after the Second World War. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevenson served at the (British) Hamburg Trials, not the (American) Nuremberg Military Tribunals. The official law report of the Peleus trial is a UN document, and publicly available, so it's very easy to establish exactly what everyone did. 78.151.144.199 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really useful, thanks, and it clarifies something that's been puzzling me, why the article claims that Eck's trial was in 1948; it clearly wasn't, it was in 1945, which makes the chronology I was struggling with a bit easier. And it's a rather a surprise to find that we don't have an article on this series of trials. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What's so surprising isn't the redlink, but the fact that this particular series of trials aren't even listed at List of Axis personnel indicted for war crimes. It's unusual for Wikipedia to drop the ball on a military history topic, especially on one as important and as widely researched as WWII. 78.151.144.199 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

text: (adding) There wouldn't be any point in having a separate Peleus trial article, since it would be an exact duplicate of Heinz-Wilhelm Eck, of which all but three sentences are about the trial. (Eck looks like the textbook Biography of a Person Famous For One Event, and probably ought to redirect either to an article on the trial or the existing article on his ship.) 78.151.144.199 (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But it might be worth having a Hamburg trials article, don't you think? --John (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Depending on what else, if anything, is known about Eck it might well be a good idea to rename his article to something like Peleus affair and expand on the trial in there. And I certainly think an article on that series of trials would be worthwhile. Do we think they were officially/unofficially referred to as the Hamburg trials? Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "British Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals Held at the War Crimes Court, Hamburg" seems to have been the formal name (at least according to that Library of Congress link I posted above". Hamburg war crimes trials would seem to be the obvious title, regardless of what the "official" name was. 78.146.201.142 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I have made a start at User:Ferma/sandbox.  It need lots more work, and ‎I still need to wade through the last 10 or so volumes of the UN reports, but feel free to chip in. -- Ferma (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a great start Ferma. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your encouragement and for your small tweaks. It is coming along, but lots of work is still necessary. I probably ought to add the Far East too. -- Ferma (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuremberg Trials 

message: IIRC and a few sources support, MS was the trial judge for some of the Angry Brigade activists in the early 70's. Highly notable at the time. Might be worth a mention. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good shout, Leaky. I am on it. --John (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Surprising how few good sources I could find for this, but I have done my best with it. --John (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Angry Brigade 

message: I get that "he died in Foo Hospital" would be grammatically correct if we had the building name, but can one grammatically die at a geographic location? "He died at St Leonards in 1979" looks really odd to me; we wouldn't say "Ronald Reagan died at California". 78.146.201.142 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an WP:ENGVAR issue. --John (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I think you can: "He died at Runnymede" for instance. Having said that I've got no objection to you or anyone else changing it to "in". Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you die ''at'' a town? 

message: *I've read through the article (was asked if I was willing to take a look at the article) and don't have much to add (I see more extensive comments have been added above). The article looks fine, the quotes from Stevenson add flavour (the ones about places to live are particularly attention grabbing) and are balanced by views detailing other sides to this judge. The lead picture is, unfortunately, a very poor scan. What I tend to do in such cases is find the best available image online that is definitely being legitimately hosted and point readers to it from the external links. I looked on Google Images and there is a nice 1970 picture of him in judicial robes with medals - it's on an Italian ebay page so I'm not sure where it has come from. There is also one of a memorial slab, so it might be worth trying to get a photograph of that. The wikilinking looks good. Not looked in detail at the sources, but they look good as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief comments 

message: * Clearly an extraordinary character! In the sentence "Known for his outspokenness,[24] Stevenson described one case...", 'outspokenness' has a connotation of courageous plain speaking which doesn't to my mind characterise the casual offensiveness of the case description in the rest of the sentence. Dsp13 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: really interesting? 'constipated Methodists' doesn't seem esp. clever to me. I suppose 'Methodist' is supposed to mean something like 'Puritan', along with a little class condescension, and 'constipated' amusingly disparage the inhibition of these little people. (Unless for him judicial decision was assimilated to successful separation of self and shit, and having his decisions overturned was a blockage which threatened this desired outcome. But no idea how the Methodists would fit that schema!) Dsp13 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief comment

message: According to this fairly unreliable source, Stevenson was portrayed by Bernard Horsfall in an episode of the TV show Ladykillers. Is this worth noting? --John (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, not unless there was something about Horsfall's portrayal that might shed some light on how Stevenson was perceived. I've added a few bits and pieces in response to some of the issues raised at the FAC, but I think all the sources are just about sucked dry now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw. I was trying to do the same. What about this? --John (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Or this? --John (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what they might add, but I'll leave it to you to decide; I'm done with Melford for now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I am just about finished too. The second might provide a (somewhat tenuous) source for one of his TV appearances; someone was asking about this at FAR. --John (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look through this legal database, but although Stevenson's decisions are sometimes referred to (often critically), I can't really see anything significant there. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I've added a bit about Stevenson's participation in Granada's The State of the Nation series in 1979, but I really do think the well has run dry now. Surely the FAC must end soon, one way or another. Malleus Fatuorum 12:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's partly why I posted here and not at the FAC. I'm happy with the text of the article, though I don't think it would be right to support the FAC when I've just convinced myself that the image shouldn't be used and should be deleted (I'm a bit annoyed about that, as I should have realised that is where that particular matter would end up, though I'm guessing not as half as annoyed as you and John might be). I'm going to leave that for a bit and see whether I can work out the right thing to do (or if it resolves itself somehow). About the documentary, the proper title of the series Stevenson took part in is 'The Bounds of Freedom', as 'The State of the Nation' is the umbrella name for the Granada investigative series that also broadcast on other issues (e.g. 'State of the Nation: Labour and the Land' in 1976, and 'State of the Nation: Parliament' in 1973). The interview by Robin Day should really be mentioned - how common was it for retired High Court judges to be interviewed on television? Anyway, I'm not going to be around much for the rest of the weekend, so I'll leave things at that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the series title, which I'll change. It occurs to me that the State of the Nation perhaps deserves an article. As for the Robin Day interview, unless we can say something about it (rather than just that it took place), then I don't see the purpose of including it, but I wouldn't object to someone else adding it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV portrayal 

message: What was the surname of Melford Stevenson's first wife before their marriage?  His ODNB entry says "In 1929 he married Anna Cecilia Francesca Imelda, daughter of Michael Rynston, musician." It seems pretty clear to me that "Imelda" was not her surname.
Also, do we know when they were divorced?  Again, Stevenson's ODNB entry says they were divorced in 1942.
However, these two details disagree with Maurice Buckmaster's ODNB entry.  After Stevenson's first marriage was dissolved, and Buckmaster divorced his own first wife, Stevenson's ex-wife married Buckmaster (then I believe a Major, not a Colonel).  Buckmaster's ODNB entry says:  "On 18 December the same year [that is, 1941], his first marriage having ended in divorce, he married Anna Cecilia Frances Stevenson (1903/4–1988), daughter of Michael Reinstein, of independent means, and divorced wife of Aubrey Melford Steed Stevenson."
So, which ODNB entry is correct?  Rynston or Reinstein?  (Or perhaps both, if the spelling was changed to avoid German overtones.) And 1941 or 1942?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.120 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maurice Buckmaster article states that Anna was "the daughter of a Bavarian German hairdresser brought up in East London", and cites as its source "Register of Marriages, December Quarter 1941, Chelsea, London." Also note that Franscesca has become Frances. Probably all that can be concluded is that sources are hopelessly confused on this (even the primary documents may differ in details) and until someone publishes something authoritative on this, it will remain unclear. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First wife