Talk:W. T. Stead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:William Thomas Stead)
Jump to: navigation, search

Pub named after Stead[edit]

Is this really noteworthy enough for an encyclopaedia article? Lots of people have pubs named after them. If it stays, it may need to be reworded to emphasise a re-assessment of Stead's impact/importance etc. Farrtj (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Northern Echo[edit]

Since its inception the Northern Echo has been titled "The Northern Echo". Should it therefore remain titled as the "Darlington Northern Echo" in the article? I know that overseas "The Times" is often referred to as "The Times of London", so perhaps a case can be made that using the Darlington prefix is informative. Perhaps "The Northern Echo of Darlington"? Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Darlington was named in general to avoid confusion with the London "Echo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.138.87 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Pall Mall extras?[edit]

I have no idea what "He made a feature of the Pall Mall extras..." might mean. Also, the article is full of lavish, unsourced praise of his brilliance - which seems inappropriate.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The most famous passenger?[edit]

The lead of this article claimed that Stead was 'the most famous passenger on RMS Titanic'. While he obviously was very well-known, 'the most famous' is potentially contentious - there were plenty of other famous names on that ship, like John Jacob Astor IV. I've changed it to 'among the most famous passengers', unless anyone can provide a source to support the original statement. Robofish (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you actually checked the citation at the end of the sentence, you will see that the claim is already sourced. The source is attackinthedevil.co.uk Farrtj (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This cites the faulty source for justification of an error. The article attributes all Stead research to itself. Further, my corrections of three errors in the article have been deleted.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace Eckley (talkcontribs) 06:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

www.attackingthedevil.co.uk[edit]

Much of the article is sourced to this website, the W.T. Stead Resource Site. Is there any reason to believwe that it is a reliable source? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's highlighted by the British Library as an online archive resource worthy of preservation.Farrtj (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reference for that, so we can understand what it implies? In general, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ada Goodrich Freer[edit]

The clause "employing Ada Goodrich Freer as assistant editor" with a citation to a book by Trevor Hall, was deleted. Why? In general one does not remove well-sourced material without explanation, per WP:BRD. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

She doesn't have a Wikipedia page, so her role as assistant editor is not particularly noteworthy.Farrtj (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Funnily enough, she has an entire book written about her (namely the source cited). It devotes at least 8 pages to her relationship with Stead and Borderland. I think that's noteworthy. The argument that we only mention things or people with articles about them seems contrary to prevailing practice, and indeed is not followed in this article, where Penny Poets, The Daily Paper, Borderland itself, William T. Stead Memorial Center, Philip Mock, to name but a few, are mentioned but have no articles. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
My point is that working with Stead may have been important to her life, but it wasn't important in Stead's life. And this is Stead's page, not Freer's.Farrtj (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
No, your point was, and I quote "She doesn't have a Wikipedia page, so her role as assistant editor is not particularly noteworthy", and that is not normal practice. Now it is simply "it wasn't important". Neither of these is an adequate explanation for removing a mere seven words with a citation. Did you perhaps mean WP:UNDUE? Are you really saying that it is disproprtionate to name his co- assistant editor and a "substantial contributor" to his journal (the latter being established by the source cited, p.51)? Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Hall is a particularly noteworthy source. I've never heard of him, nor does he seem to have a wikipedia page either.Farrtj (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
So? The issue is, is he a reliable source, not is he a noteworthy one, and to be honest, whether you happen have heard of him is completely beside the point. Hall is an historian who has written several books on aspects of spritualism and psychic research, which are well-researched, written with a scholarly apparatus, published by a reputable publisher and cited extensively by other writers. There is no doubt that he is a reliable source. Why are you so keen to keep this completely uncontroversial fact out of this article? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I have expanded the material about Freer to include the fact that Stead claimed to have a telepathic connection with her that allowed him to communicate with her at a distance by automatic writing. There are several reliable sources for this, which seems to me to be sufficiently significant in his life to be worthy of mention. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversial?[edit]

All public figures are controversial to some extent, however, I would say that William T Stead was one of the most across-the-political-spectrum appreciated public figures of his time. According to Tuchmann's book he was appreciated by people from super-imperialist Cecil Rhodes to social democrat Lady Warwick. His filantropic endeavours and his efforts at the peace conferences won much admiration. The first part of the article calls Stead controversial but there is very little in the article which shows anything but appreciation. I have read the reference to William Stead resource site, but I do not see any real support there for calling him controversial, much less "one of the most controversial figures of the Victorian era". If no one can convince me otherwise, I will change "controversial" to "famous".

Sensemaker

It's a fair point, but you can't changed it to famous. Use of famous is discouraged under Wikipedia rules.Farrtj (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you refer me to the rule in question? What do they suggest instead? "Talked-about"?
Sensemaker
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery. Anyway, it says "notorious" now I believe. Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay I've changed it to "as one of the early pioneers of investigative journalism, was one of the most famous figures of the Victorian era." Farrtj (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. Thanks for the contribution. I had apparently missed the "puffery" rule. You live you learn, I guess.
Sensemaker

Eliza Armstrong Case[edit]

The article currently says, "his successful demonstration of the trade's existence". He didn't actually demonstrate anything of the kind; he faked its existence. The entire article was in that sense a fraud. I'm not sure what wording would be better, but it's factually wrong to assert that he had demonstrated the existence of the said trade.82.71.30.178 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

He did, because iirc, the mother was perfectly willing to sell her child to Stead. Farrtj (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The mother was told that her daughter was going into respectable service, which was quite normal at the time (whatever we may think of it now). Nothing that Stead did demonstrated the existence of the trade that he claimed to exist. All he demonstrated was that he himself was able to abduct a child under false pretences.82.71.30.178 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The mother claimed that she was told her daughter was going into respectable service. So the way I understand it, it is word against word. You didn't really expect her to confess to the press that she had sold her own daughter to sexual slavery, did you? -Sensemaker

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William Thomas Stead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Website article merged in[edit]

I've merged the W.T. Stead Resource Site article into this article, as it did not seem to independently meet the notability criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)