Talk:Clarissa Eden

Article location
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) for discussion that could lead to this article being renamed. Timrollpickering 19:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But it's hard to see why that would be helpful in this instance. She is more than just the appendage of a peer. IXIA 20:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry
I had moved the geneological chart, added by another author some time ago, to a separate sub-article because of the length of the main article. I have no strong feeelings of principle about its location. IXIA (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that separating the ancestry chart won't do much to solve the problem of article length. That would be like putting a Band-Aid on an open wound. Hence, merging it back seems to be the sensible solution. --Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth -timed 15:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the most suitable of analogies, perhaps, but I have put it back. IXIA (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Goldfish Bowl - Booth & Haste.JPG
Image:Goldfish Bowl - Booth & Haste.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anthony Eden and Randolph Churchill.JPG
Image:Anthony Eden and Randolph Churchill.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Edens fly to Jamaica 1956.JPG
Image:Edens fly to Jamaica 1956.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Duff Cooper Diaries.JPG
Image:Duff Cooper Diaries.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Edens fly to Jamaica 1956.JPG
Image:Edens fly to Jamaica 1956.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarissa Eden, Countess of Avon → Clarissa Eden – The current title seems to exhibit unnecessary disambiguation based on an honorific title. The suggested title is more concise without obvious loss of recognizability or clarity as best I can tell. She published a book in 2007 simply as "Clarissa Eden", so she is presumably recognizable by that shorter name. Also, the shorter name is already a redirect to this article, and always has been (since its creation in 2006). And she seems to have been notable before she was a countess, so the appended title seems unnecessary. (But I'm no expert on WP:NCROY, so please feel free to slap me with a trout and speedy close if this suggestion is off the mark.) Relisted. Favonian (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC). BarrelProof (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. If she is "Clarissa Eden" as the author of her memoir, I assume that's what she wants to be called. The Chicago Manual of Style says to consult Who's Who regarding the names of living Brits, if anyone feels motivated to do that. One leg at a time (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC) !vote by sock of site-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect her memoir's billing is primarily motivated by being recognisable in the marketplace as the spouse of the former Prime Minister (IIRC Cherie Blair's book on Prime Ministerial spouses used her professional surname of "Booth" and this may have contributed to poor sales; her subsequent memoir used the more sellable name of "Blair" but don't know if this was Cherie or the publisher's decision) rather than a disclaiming of her title which she does normally use. This is a tricky one because on the one hand she's generally been called "Avon" in modern day to day usage for over fifty years but her main fame stems from her husband's premiership when she was still just "Eden"; her longevity has meant she's spanned the ages from when her title would have been used unquestionably to when recognition is an increased factor leading to a greater use of personal names. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Either she doesn't have a Who's Who entry or I can't work the search options properly. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked up her memoir on Amazon (per the link given above). I notice several things: 1) As author, she is just "Clarissa Eden", 2) the title also includes (just) "Clarissa Eden", and 3) the summary of the book, presumably produced by the publisher, just talks about "Clarissa Eden", 4) Even in the customer reviews, there is no mention of being a Countess and no mention of "Avon". My suggested conclusion is that the honorific is therefore unnecessary in the article title. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per OLAAT and nom -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment in response to the original nomination the Countess title is not included here just for disambiguation but because it's the default for wives of hereditary peers who normally are referred to by their titles - see WP:NCPEER number 2. However this is, I think, an exceptional case in both directions. Normally we don't use the peerage for politicians who received them as a retirement honour and this is the case with the article on her husband (and indeed most PMs) and I think the same should apply to their wives who are usually best known for their time in Downing Street rather than subsequently (though past attempts to change some of these article titles have been opposed because the subjects are "not very well known at all"). However here the title doesn't incorporate the surname and amongst the wives of twentieth century PMs the subject is almost unique in this regard - Margot Asquith, Countess of Oxford and Asquith is the nearest comparison (in practice the "...and Asquith" bit of the title was usually ignored for both Margot and H.H.). Other 20th century PMs either used their surname in their title (e.g. Baldwin, Attlee) or were enobled after their wife's death (e.g. Macmillan/Stockton) or were never enobled (e.g. Chamberlain, Major) or were never married (e.g. Balfour or Heath). Losing "Avon" from the title could reduce recognisbility if her day to day life over the last half century is deemed as significant as the days when the Suez Canal flowed through her drawing room. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note of notification I have notified WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage of this RM. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Its clearly an odd case and the usual sources seem to use almost every variation possible. If she had been known with her title only briefly I'd feel differently but 50+yrs seems enough for that to be included. I don't find pen names very persuasive as many authors are known differently for various reasonsGarlicplanting (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per OLAAT and furthermore suggest refactoring the article to include less "Lady Avon" to refer to her and more "Eden" or "Clarissa Eden." This form of title is more appropriate when someone is usually known as "Title of X", especially in pre-modern times, while in this case Eden clearly wants to be known by her actual name.  SnowFire (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you any proof of that beyond the name used to sell her memoir? When she's turned up at public meetings or does stuff in association with her husband's legacy she's usually called "Avon". Timrollpickering (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "name on her memoir" is one of the strongest sources possible for her current preferences, overriding almost anything else that could be offered! Most of the entries in Category:Pseudonymous writers are under their psuedonyms (Mark Twain, George Eliot, etc.), and that's a much more dramatic nameshift than "Clarissa Eden" vs. "Countess of Avon."    SnowFire (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but this is the second time someone has mentioned OLAAT. I have no idea what that means. Apparently there is some charity in Central America called "One Life at a Time", another charity in Ohio called "One Leg at a Time", and a real estate company in Saudi Arabia called OLAAT Properties Management, but that's all I could find by searching Wikipedia and the web. What, exactly, is OLAAT? —BarrelProof (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant "per the logic of User:One leg at a time". Apologies about the confusion. SnowFire (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I should have been able to figure that out. Thank you. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If she was predominantly known just as a writer named "Clarissa Eden", then that would be the best title ... but having been popularly known for most of her adult life as "Countess of Avon", removing that part of the article title makes the title less recognisable. And recognisability is one of the naming WP:CRITERIA. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have a subject who is referred to by multiple names depending on the context and the era but I'm not persuaded the memoir pen name is indicative of anything more than what's deemed the best for sales (and that may be a publisher's decision rather than the author's - a lot of writers have limited control over this), especially given the experience of Cherie Booth/Blair's books on the subject. If the title was based on the surname, as with Violet Attlee or Lucy Baldwin, then there would be less use for the title but here I think it's better to keep it in rather than dropping it. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – Less long-winded title is a good thing, IMO, for most users except those addicted to Debrett. Given that Lady Avon is notable as the spouse of a prime minister it seems sensible to home in on the surname by which he was known and under which she chooses to publish. Tim riley (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is the norm for the wife of a peer, per WP:NCPEER; the nom is wrong to suggest that it is a disambiguator. (It may also serve as a disambiguator, but that is not its purpose).
 * Support Whether disambiguation is the purpose of the extra information is irrelevant to the question of whether the information is needed for disambiguation. If the extra information is not needed for disambiguation, and the name of the topic is natural and recognizable without the extra information, and there are no other uses for the name, then the extra information is unnecessary disambiguation, by definition, even if it is there for some other reason, like to be consistent with other similar titles.  Being unnecessary disambiguation is not in and of itself necessarily a reason to not include it, but it is an important reason. For someone who is notable solely for being a peer (or a spouse of a peer), there might be good reason to include title information, but that is is not the case here.  This is not a stubbish article of a person whose only claim to notability is being a peer (or spouse of a peer).   The article title should not convey otherwise.    --B2C 17:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The convnetion for peers is that the article should normally be under their formal title (or highest title), with the exception of Prime Ministers. The rule should (I think) also apply to peers' wives.  The title is not mere disambiguation: it is part of her name.  If they are also known by another name, that should exist as a redirect to where the article actually sits.  In the last few years, in some cases where a peer does not use their title, we have allowed the convention to be reversed, so that the article sits at their common name with a redirect from the formal one.  Whatever the outcome of this discussion it is important that the move takes place, it is important that the other alternative should survive as a redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Although it is impossible to achieve total consistency in relation to titles, it does seem inconsistent to refer to her husband without his title, although he held it for around 20 years. Actually the convention is that we avoid titles for all senior politicians who were only given their title after retiring, it seems artificial not to extend this convention to their wives. PatGallacher (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name/title
The subject of this article is referred to throughout as "Lady Avon". This is contrary to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which requires the use of the name or title applicable at the time referred to. See WP:SURNAME: "Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use 'Robert Dudley' or 'Dudley' when describing events before [the Earl of Leicester's] elevation to the peerage in 1564." – Tim riley (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Memoir publication date
The article says her memoir was published in 2007. However, the off-Wikipedia sources that I have been able to locate say it was published in 2008. Please see the publisher's page and Amazon's. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WorldCat, always reliable in my experience, confirms 2007: see here. Amazon UK agrees: here. BarrelProof is looking at later editions, I think. Tim riley (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess that was the problem. Thanks for checking. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dowager?
I don't know why, all of a sudden, after all the long drawn out palaver about her title, she is now referred to as "dowager". I have never ever seen her referred to as that and she has certainly never used it herself. It is only really relevant if there is another living Lady Avon, but there isn't. Eden's only surviving son was unmarried and without issue, and the earldom is now extinct. I would propose to delete this slightly superfluous addition, but await the comments of others.IXIA (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the Wikipedia article on Dowager implies that this "title" is relevant only if there is another (in this instance) "Lady Avon"; and there isn't. The 2nd Earl, Clarissa's stepson, was unmarried and died almost 30 years ago. The earldom is extinct.IXIA (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers
Regarding the tag for page numbers of references, I'm not clear what the convention is now that writers often use e-books rather than hard copies as their sources.IXIA (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent copy editing
Not terribly impressed with this. I think it was established some time ago that it was easier to call her "Lady Avon" throughout. "Clarissa Spencer-Churchill" is rather a mouthful (maybe just "Clarissa Churchill"?) and "Clarissa" borders on the over-familiar. This has also led to mistakes: for example that, by 1952, she was Lady Eden, which she wasn't (Eden became Sir Anthony in 1954). People with time on their hands!IXIA (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ref 6 and similar
Somebody seems to have messed around with the referencing such that there are now repeated errors. Not sure how to sort this out. Can anyone help? IXIA (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarissa Anthony Eden.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Eden-wedding001.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anthony and Clarissa Eden.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarissa and Anthony Eden in Carlton Gardens.jpg