Jump to content

Talk:Lady Sybil Grant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sybil Grant)

Untitled

[edit]

Grant's birth and death years are coincident with those of Albert Einstein, which is perhaps as relevant as the RMS Titanic reference. Newyorkbrad 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporaries

[edit]
  1. It's hardly worth mentioning that she was a contemporary of George Bernard Shaw. Everybody was. The man lived to be 150.
  2. Also, what you actually grammatically speaking state, is that her published works were a contemporary of Shaw et al.
Bishonen | talk 16:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please note the page has a link [1] showing this literary giant with her contemporaries. Regarding the Titanic ref it is important to give the reader an historic time scale and flavour of the era. Giano 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite mystery writers, Jacques Futrelle, did go down on the Titanic, so I suppose it's refreshing to look at it from the point of view of the number of other authors who weren't there. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both generals

[edit]

Surely we need a bit more evidence to posit a family connection between General Sir Charles John Cecil Grant, KCB, KCVO, DSO and General Ulysses S. Grant, more than "they were both generals so he might have been" (!) I'm sure there are lots of generals (some indeed named Grant, and some not) to whom he "might" have been related but probably was not. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my evidence that she liked Field Marshals even more than she liked generals? If there's a Field Marshal Grant somewhere, we'd be cookin'. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I had assumed the U.S. Grant line was included to give the Featured Articles team something to change without messing up the real content. :) Newyorkbrad 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is important to make the American readers feel included, hence knowing one of their compatriots may be related to this flower of the aristocracy must be gratifying indeed to them. I think Ghirlandajo's amazing research which has unearthed that her son married a descendent of the Greatest general is significant, just to think there may be a living human being descended from both Ulysses S. Grant and the Duke of Wellington is amazing. Incidentally Lady Sybil was descended also from both William Pitts so it is possible that Napoleon is also connected. Giano 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the Australian reader feel positively implicated, I think. And Wellington and Napoleaon are definitely involved, see my new footnote. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
What about the Russians, I am wondered that Ghirlandajo and his compatriots may feel left out? Giano 07:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- These are the kinds of articles which bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Surreal, irrelevant, funny, yes, but is it good scholarship? No it is not. Is it contributing ANYTHING to the archives of historical research? No it is not. Very disappointing, folks. 128.250.227.184 00:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Em Johnson, Academic Librarian.[reply]

Early Years

[edit]

Are the first two paragraphs of "Early Years" interlaced with some kind of private joke? Why is this article highlighted 10/25/06 on the Main Page in "Did you know..."?

10/27/06 - the parts I saw earlier have been cleaned up. Must be someone vandalizing this article, which is pretty sad given the nearly insignificant subject.

Silliness

[edit]

There's a great deal of silliness and what seems ironic gushy praise ("insight that few others could possess") that should probably be removed. Too young to understand the dangers of revolution at 38? This whole article seems like a joke, which would probably be funnier if I knew who Sybil Grant was - if only there was a Wikipedia entry about Sybil Grant I could look at! Illuminatedwax 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree. Much of the content, the "footnotes that aren't actually footnotes" and even the discussion page comments (eg. "I have made the Australian reader feel positively implicated" -- what?!) lead to the inevitable conclusion that this entire page is actually a private joke between friends. There are other websites for that sort of thing, chaps. Shannonr 04:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fremantle - hoax ?

[edit]

I been reading and according to this http://www.dukesofbuckingham.org/index.htm which list the families of note in the area where Fremantle is from none of the families or locations mentioned in this article are on this site, except for the Fremantle family. This article also doesn't have any references to support the claim of association with the Fremantle family. I'm inclined to remove the references to Fremantle from the article but will wait a short period of time to enable sources to cited. Gnangarra 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried just clicking on the Freemantle link in the article? Giano 09:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now reffed [2]
That only proves Fremantle and cottesloe were named after fremantle family members It still doesnt associate them to Sybil Grant (nee Primrose) Gnangarra 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does it associate Fremantle to Durdan or Rosebery families Gnangarra 09:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5 just added also doesnt support the statement it doesn mention Fremantle Gnangarra 10:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking all available references and found that others also dont support the article, full list later tonight Gnangarra 10:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further questions the use of "Ashtead Pottery" as a cite is dubious the "Lest We Forget Charitable Fund" has two google references Wikipedia and Ashtead Pottery, not a good sign. I then checked th UK National Archives not references at all, though just the word "Charity" in general has 69,000 hits. I would suggest that the heavily referenced "McKinstry" is the basis of a hoax. Suggest that some of the facts being sourced from there are crossed referenced with other sources. Gnangarra 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but you will find no hoaxs, every word is and was true, albeit some were a little tenuous! Giano 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No disappointment I just found so many of the claims very dubious that they need stronger support. the worst being the Fremantle claims which you've removed. the pottery claim about the charity is still very dubious, a better source for the charity is needed I couldnt find any 3rd party references to it. There are many hoaxes/dubious claims involving family lineage and associations especially from within australian history that these need to be carefully referenced and supported by another independant source. Also while checking the writings, i noticed a lady sybil primrose had a publication in 1895, might be interesting. Gnangarra 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should think here is the clue for the "Lest we forget" is here [3] and it is now closed down; and I promise you the Roseberys and the fremantles were were neighbours in Buckinghamshire, the Roseberys at Mentmore and the Fremantles about 10 km away at Swanbourne all hunting tith the same pack of fox hounds "The Whaddon Chase" of which Sybil's brother was the master.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lady Sybil Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Sybil_Grant&oldid=1207579770"