Talk:Lady Agnew of Lochnaw

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Issues

This article appears to have gone through a number of strange changes and somebody should check the sources.

I was curious about the sentence "At the time Noel Agnew commissioned the portrait, Sargent's fee for a three-quarter length portrait was about £500.". Her husband is called Andrew elsewhere in this article and in his own article, but his full name was Andrew Noel Agnew. Was he perhaps known as Noel with somebody just assuming that he was known by his first given name, hence Andrew elsewhere? What does the source actually say?

Trying to identify the source, I discovered another problem: in this version the sentence quoted above was referenced to Roberts (1979). In the current version it is referenced to Rolfe (1997). What is correct? --Hegvald (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hegvald: the article was a constant target of many socks and IPs used by the ArbCom banned Coat of Many Colours. The source of the sentence you are querying has always been referenced to Rolfe (1997) as far as I can see, so perhaps you are mis-reading it? Anyway, it was added by one of the socks but the Rolfe source (page 17) actually reads "Noel Agnew became the ninth Baronet of Lochnaw and could afford Sargent's prices, at that time about £500 for a three-quarter length portrait ...". SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not sure how I misread that; I must have been tired. Still, the "Noel" bit needs explaining. Assuming he wasn't known as Noel, could it be that it was taken from after a pagebreak, where his full name was used but "Sir Andrew" ended up on the previous page? --Hegvald (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hegvald: No problem, it's easily done; I had to look at it a few times myself to make sure I wasn't mistaken.

I cannot explain why Rolfe used Noel, I'm afraid. It's not caused by a page break as, sorry, I hadn't quoted the full sentence above; it actually starts "After his father died in March 1892, Noel Agnew became ... ...". There are several other bits I can see that use 'Noel' - just a few examples:

Page 17: "A few days after announcing the engagement, Noel had 'called on Dr MacLagan to get advice about Gerty' and soon after their honeymoon ... ..." " ... ... July 1890 an ambulance carriage took her to Pitlochry for six weeks holiday while Noel used the extensive railway network ... " "There was a slight improvement in February 1891 and Noel bought a poodle for his wife perhaps hoping to ...."

Page 15, at the start of a paragraph there's "Noel Agnew pursued Gertrude Vernon for over a year before she capitulated and agreed to become his wife ..."

Page 22 in the middle of a paragraph it has: "Noel Agnew's diary entry for 8 June 1892 reads: ... ..." so I don't think there's any doubt it is Sir Andrew being referred to? Perhaps it was done to differentiate from his father? As I mentioned before, it was added by a sock who may or may not have had access to the full source; I had managed to trick Google into letting me see sufficient to check the additions as the socks also had the habit of very close paraphrasing but I haven't looked at this article for more than 18 months - mainly due to the activities of the socks whose master I'm led to believe still maintains a particularly nasty off-wiki attack site so I really don't intend to do any further work on it. Perhaps someone can manage to get full access to the source? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]