Talk:Sigrid Undset

immaturely written

The biography section is immaturely written; it sounds like a high school paper. Note awkward use of the first person plural.

Agreed. This is horrible. How do we put a flag on it?

Seconded. Not saying I can do much better, but somebody can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.59.123 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation

As per: http://www.helium.com/tm/124237

On the morning of 8th January, 2007 I made the following two changes on Wikipedia: 1. On its page for existentialism, I changed the first sentence from "Existentialism is a philosophical movement that deals with human freedom" to "Existentialism is a philosophical movement that deals with human existence". 2. On its page for Sigrid Undset, in the first sentence I changed the year when she got Nobel prize in literature from 1928 (correct) to 1927 (incorrect). Both changes were reverted on January 12. The first change is certainly more involved. As far as I know, it is misleading to say that existentialism deals with human freedom. It deals with human freedom also. But this is not the first sentence one writes on the topic. (Indeed, the whole article in wikipedia is unsatisfactory. I would definitely prefer this article on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) Of course, what I wrote is more misleading. But surely, thousands of people since 8th January have read the first sentence and retained only that confusing piece of information.The second is more straightforward. It alarms me that no one has corrected it yet. A Google search on Sigrid Undet returns the Wikipedia page as the third result. Many people would click on this ahead of the first two results. It is conceivable that lots of people have looked at this page in the last five days and went away with the wrong information. A little bit of checking (indeed, even reading the Wikipedia page till the end) would correct them. But of course few people would actually check. This is the crux of the Wikipedia phenomenon: it pays no attention to the matter of expertise.[1]

The changes were made by anon 128.206.48.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[2]

signed: Travb (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The biography is plagarized

Most of the biographical section is plagarized from an article by Gidske Anderson found at the following URL: http://www.reisenett.no/norway/facts/culture_science/sigrid_undset.html Haddison (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is still plagiarized, years later! I have begun cleaning it, and I've tagged the article as a copyvio. --Hordaland (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The plagiarized text was added 29 September 2006 by an IP. --Hordaland (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted "reisenett.no" and been told that we may use their text. That may not be sufficient for Wikipedia's rules, and I don't know if the text is a reliable source. What I intend to do first is remove the personal tone and try to make the article appear encyclopedic. Since the owner of the text doesn't mind us using it, I will remove the copyvio template. --Hordaland (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Original Research/Very Poor Quality

This page is loaded with original research and commentary. The writing style also is in need of a serious overhaul, as well as the layout (ex: the divorce section mentions nothing about a divorce). I wouldn't be suprised if this page needs a complete overhaul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have attempted to improve some of the earlier sections, but I do not have the necessary knowledge to tackle the section on Kristin Lavransdatter. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Sigrid Undset-Lillehammer.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sigrid Undset-Lillehammer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

what does this mean?

" she had another child of her own" Usually when you say "of her own", you would be talking about setting up something for herself when previously she had used something belonging to somebody else. For example, if she and her husband lived in a house which he wholly owned, it would mean she set up a house that she bought with proceeds from her writing. You can't say that of a child unless she underwent parthenogenesis, a process not known in humans. I think the sentence is written backward; you should point out that her husband had children from his previous marriage and _then_ say that this was his first child with her. 108.45.122.74 (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)