Talk:Florence St. John

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Opera

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

England -v- Britain

I have removed the "sic" after "Prime Minister of England" in the relevant quote in the article. Such an interpolation is desirable when there is any doubt that the person quoted could have meant to say what he said, but I don't think that arises here. He might as well have said "the Queen of England" - equally out of step with orthodox usage, but not, I should say, "sic" material. Happy to recant if others demur, though. - Tim riley (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim riley. No need for the "sic" in this case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a need to have "sic". I hope you can appreciate how frustrating it is for non-English Brits (like myself) when our Prime Minister is refered to as the "Prime Minister of England". The BBC has a policy of puting "sic" when 'England' is used to mean the UK; this article for example. There has never been a "Prime Minister of England" and I think, when that term is used to refer to the "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", it should be noted as incorrect. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The (sic) makes it harder to read. People outside the UK won't even know what you're talking about, and there is no ambiguity, so, with apologies to our Scottish and Welsh readers, I think the (sic) is not helpful here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sic" is used to 'indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error', it is not for clearing up ambiguity. If people outside the UK don't know what it is there for, I hope they'd check why and learn something. Also, I really don't think it makes is harder to read than any other use of "sic". --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler says of "sic", that it "is inserted after a quoted word or phrase to confirm its accuracy as a quotation, or occasionally after the writer's own word to emphasize it as giving his deliberate meaning; it amounts to Yes, he did say that, or Yes, I do mean that, in spite of your natural doubts. It should be used only when doubt is natural; but reviewers and controversialists are tempted to pretend that it is, because sic provides them with a neat and compendious form of sneer". I don't really think one can pretend that the person quoted in the present article really didn't mean to write what he wrote. Some might wish that he hadn't but that is not quite the point. We need not (to use the words of the OED in its definition of sic) "guard against the supposition of misquotation" as such a supposition is a remote contingency. – Tim riley (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given there has never been any such office as 'Prime Minister of England', I seriously doubt that is what the speaker indented to say. Also, before adding "sic", I checked the source to see if it was an accurate quote or a misquotation by the user who put it in the article. As it is an incorrect term, and so it is impossible to tell from reading the article whether the mistake was made by the speaker or those who quoted them, I feel the "sic" is needed. --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any reason to suppose it is a misquotation this should be clarified with something stronger than a "sic". If, on the other hand, these are the ipsissima verba the question is one of commonplace nomenclature. "England" for "the UK" is, as all right-thinking people of course know, constitutionally and geographically inaccurate, but was (and lamentably still is) common usage among foreigners, and even, shockingly, some UK citizens. It would be very harsh to put in a "sic" to indicate scorn at a benighted alien for being inadequately versed in the constitutional niceties of the United Kingdom; it is abundantly clear what he meant. "Prime Minister of Britain" would have been equally inaccurate, and it would be a singular nineteenth century US speaker who referred to "the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". (Even that, a purist might insist, is wrong, as the post of prime minister in the UK was not formally recognised until 1905 – after the words in question were written.) A Briton in the nineteenth century might have written of "the President of America", or "the Emperor of France", which would have been equally slipshod usage – but everyone would know what he meant. Not "sic" material either way, me judice. But happy to go with the majority on this not exceptionally crucial point. – Tim riley (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Tim, Philip. The purpose of (sic) is not to point out that the quote contains an error, it is to point out that the quotation is an exact quotation notwithstanding an apparent error. Here the reader will have no doubt that the quotation is transcribed correctly. Let's not distract our readers with our own agendas. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, it appears that this is the only occasion when "Prime Minister of England" is quoted in an article without a [sic] at the end. Just thought I'd point this out. Hera1187 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the list you give shows many such instances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples? Please note, I specifically said articles (not talk, user or wiki pages) for reasons I hope are obvious. Hera1187 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An outbreak of 'sic'-ing for "prime minister of England" would logically need a similar epidemic of 'sic' for "prime minister of Britain" or "prime minister of Great Britain" for the reasons adumbrated above. The key point remains whether anyone is likely to think the quotation is mistranscribed, and it would be hard to assert in conscience that anyone would. - Tim riley (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Prime Minister of Britain/Great Britain" was the accepted term for the office before the 19th century. Sic should only be used for quotations, and I can't imagine there will be too many occasions where someone is quoted referring to a post-1801 PM as 'Prime Minister of Britain/Great Britain'. I'm not saying [sic] should or should not be added on this page, I'm just pointing out that this is the only page where 'Prime Minister of England' is quoted without a [sic] at the end. Hera1187 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I've just uploaded this image of an advert for a play starring Florence St. John: not sure if it is of any use in the article as the page already has a lot of illustrations. Jasper33 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's of interest, but I don't see how we can cram it into the article - it's chock full of images. If someone does some more research and expands the article, we can revisit this. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Florence St. John. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901175447/https://www.gsarchive.net/other_savoy/grand_duchess_review.txt to https://www.gsarchive.net/other_savoy/grand_duchess_review.txt

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) 14:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Florence St. John. 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) 06:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]