Talk:Edith Sitwell
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]Should this article start by giving Edith Sitwell her full name: Dame Edith Louisa Sitwell? --Infilms
- Looks like someone thought so - David Gerard 12:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Lights of England
[edit]'She wrote under the light of oil lamps when the lights of England were out of service.' is a strange sentence. Does it mean during the blackout, when it would not matter if one used electric light or oil lamps as long as no light could be seen outside, or when the power was cut off because of bombing - not sure if this ever happened in rural Derbyshire? PhilUK (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sequence
[edit]We read 'The poems she wrote during the war brought her back before the public.' At this point in the article, there has been no mention that she had ever been before the public. The early work is not featured till further down. 109.154.14.8 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Date, place and cause of death
[edit]The infobox just gives 9 December 1964 (aged 77) in "London", but the text currently says "She died of cerebral haemorrhage at St Thomas' Hospital, Lambeth, London, on 9 December 1964 at the age of 77."
As far as I can see, the existing two sources (both primary) support only "December 1964" (for registration quarter), Lambeth (as registration district) and age of 77. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- The ODNB entry here might be useful, although no cause is given. I see that The New York Times claimed that she died from a heart attack. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC).
- The ODNB entry is vague and not useful for this purpose. The best primary source would be the death certificate from the GRO. Cost used to be around $30 in real money. Or would that be rejected by Wikimedia as consituting original research? Perhaps the NYT "heart attack" report is a verifiable secondary source? But if it's wrong...? Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that the ODNB entry is "vague and not useful for this purpose." It's pretty clear in what it says. It's also not pay-walled. Indeed, ODNB is generally one of the best biographical sources we can use. So I have now added that as the source. I will search for a WP:RS for cause of death. Yes, use of GRO certificates is usually considered WP:OR. And images can be faked, of course. By the way, talking of "real money", certificates cost £11 in the UK (if you are personally that interested). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Here's the front page of the NYT, from 10 December 1964. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- The ODNB entry is vague and not useful for this purpose. The best primary source would be the death certificate from the GRO. Cost used to be around $30 in real money. Or would that be rejected by Wikimedia as consituting original research? Perhaps the NYT "heart attack" report is a verifiable secondary source? But if it's wrong...? Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why GRO certificates are considered to be OR. What's the difference between buying a [auto]biography and quoting that as a verifiable source [anyone can verify it by buying their own copy, or finding one in a library], and buying a GRO certificate, which anyone is also at liberty to buy, at least within GB? Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- A very reasonable question. I have always been a little bemused by this, especially as they are the essential currency of most genealogical research and are used as legal proof of identity in many contexts. Note that WP:PRIMARYCARE says this:
"* An article about a person: ... Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name."
- I've always assumed that applies equally to marriage and death certificates. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- C-Class vital articles in People
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Poetry articles
- Unknown-importance Poetry articles
- WikiProject Poetry articles
- C-Class Women writers articles
- Mid-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles
- C-Class Women's History articles
- Mid-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- C-Class England-related articles
- Mid-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- C-Class Yorkshire articles
- Low-importance Yorkshire articles
- WikiProject Yorkshire articles