Talk:Lynn Fontanne

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Gay Icon Project

edit

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Algonquin Round Table proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, please vote!

edit
Description
The focus of the project would be articles relating to the Algonquin Round Table, including its members and their literary works.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Otto4711 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
  2. Chris 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Comments

Wow, a project of depth, thought and lasting impact! Most cool, I'm in! Chris 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

British citizenship

edit

No such thing as British citizenship at that time so she couldn't have relinquished it even if she had wanted to. In fact British subjects (as she was) remained British subjects even if they became citizens of another country, so it's not at all clear what the article is trying to say. If it's trying to say that she never took out US citizenship, it should make that clear. But even if she had done that, it still wouldn't have affected her status as a British subject, entitled to a British passport, and to right-of-abode in the UK. British nationality just isn't that easy to relinquish, even now. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Derek, I believe you are wrong about some of the above assertions. Alistair Cooke, among others, lost his British citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen in the 1940s. As far as Fontanne, I checked at Ancestry.com, and she was listed in the 1930 census as a naturalized citizen, so I updated the article accordingly. Quis separabit? 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Census information.

edit

Using census information to press what is (as far as I can tell) the random pet theory of an editor here is original research. Before the article can make any statements regarding her citizenship, you need to cite a source that specifically questions her citizenship status in as many words -- you can't prove it yourself using primary sources; you also need a source indicating that those primary sources are relevant, and that the conclusion you're trying to draw from them is both reasonable and relevant. Please don't put anything in the article about her citizenship status without citing a source that discusses it specifically and supports its relevance to the article -- without a source like that, citing official census figures, the wordings of various laws, etc is just speculation by a random editor here and not an encyclopedic subject. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know anything about any of that, and don't care (and don't see why anybody would feel very strongly about this trivial ancient issue). I just restored sourced information. We're allowed to include primary sources for simple statements of fact. WP:OR says in the lede "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material...". This is not what is being done here, at least not in the first clause. "According to the 1930 United States Federal Census, Fontanne indicated she arrived in the United States in 1915, and a notation by the enumerator indicates she was or claimed to be a naturalized United States citizen" is a simple statement of fact. It's either true or it's not. Assuming that the source checks out and it's true, and another editor decided it was worth putting in the article, your only argument would be that it's trivial. Maybe it's trivial, maybe not. There's a whole section on the pronunciation of her name, though, and that seems more trivial. When she arrived in the US and what her citizenship status was or became seems like something that some researchers would want to know, I think. We don't need a secondary source saying "The issue of X was important" for every fact that we write into our articles. That's our judgement, subject to discussion.
The second clause "which at that time would likely have resulted in her losing her British citizenship under then British nationality laws" is either true or not, and is researchable, but I don't see a citation for it, so that part of it is OK to remove if challenged, which you have. Better would be to find out if it's true, but I've no interest in doing that.
I restored the first, referenced, part. Per WP:BRD the onus is you to convince me that's its not germane to the article, or that it really is not the sort of material that's allowed in articles. I'd need some serious convincing on the second part, since there's a hella lot of article material -- everyone's citizenship, and I suppose birth date and place of residence etc. -- that would have to removed under that rubric. Herostratus (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
As this topic has already been introduced to the Original research noticeboard, I am copying all comments from this talk page there. Please direct all future comments to the ORN. This will give other uninvolved editors a chance to weigh in. -- Mesconsing (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, fine. I don't care strongly either way and am eager to be instructed on what is the right thing to do here. Herostratus (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lynn Fontanne. 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) 18:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lynn Fontanne. 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) 23:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply