Talk:Edith Rigby

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Edith Rigby. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208203822/http://www.avenhamwalks.co.uk:80/short7.htm to http://www.avenhamwalks.co.uk/short7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issue
Are you not supposed to sign this???

Anyway, my name is Maurice J. Halton MA PhD - I am the author of the paper/article entitled "William Lever and Edith Rigby An examination of the evidence relating to the burning of Roynton Cottage at Rivington, Lancashire on Tuesday 8th July 1913"

If anybody needs to know if I am willing to allow Fairchristobelle to cite my research, just email me [mauricehalton@gmail.com]

TTFN

FairchristobelleFairchristabelle (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't need to give permission for Wikipedia editors to cite your research. Every Wikipedia article should contain citations, and no permission is needed for them. However, has been copying paragraphs of your research into the article. That is forbidden by US copyright law, and consequently by Wikipedia policy, unless explicit permission has been received from the copyright holder. I doubt that what you have written above will be accepted as permission (this is not to thwart you, it is to prevent dishonest tricks that some people try). There is a rather tedious, but achievable, piece of bureaucracy that you can go through to grant this permission. You may however find it easier to go to the web site (or wherever it was) that you first published the material, and put a "public domain" or other acceptable copyright notice there.
 * By the way – thank you for providing a very interesting article. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Year of death
The article currently has her dying in both 1948 and 1950; also a blue plaque pictured has 1948. Looking at FreeBMD and probate notices, the correct year is 1950. On FreeBMD the only Edith Rigby who died in England and Wales in 1948 was aged 2 but a 77 year old died in 1950 in Conway Valley RD. Probate https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Calendar?surname=rigby&yearOfDeath=1950&page=2#calendar has Edith Rigby of LLanrhos dying 23 July 1950. Nedrutland (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Her entry in the ODNB agrees with those dates. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. An article on her later life shows her husband's gravestone (where her ashes were interred) with her details; "Edith Rigby: the later years" Nedrutland (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentence
The opening sentence of the article was changed by User:Duppy Conkeror from

Edith Rigby ( Rayner) (18 October 1872 – 23 July 1950) was an English suffragette and arsonist.

to

Edith Rigby ( Rayner) (18 October 1872 – 23 July 1950) was an English suffragette who used arson as a way to further the cause of women’s suffrage.

User:Viewmont Viking then undid the edit with the explanation that it was better the way it was before. Viewmont Viking, would you be able to expand on that reasoning? Richard Nevell (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I normally believe shorter is better, especially in the opening paragraph. She was an arsonist, we can add her reasons why she felt it was okay later in the article. -- VViking Talk Edits 14:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Given she is notable as a suffragette and the arson relates to that, adding the context would be helpful to the reader. I agree that getting to the point can often be helpful, but I don't think an additional 11 words in the lead is an excessive amount of detail. It makes the link between Rigby's arson and being a suffragette clear. --Richard Nevell (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Viewmont Viking - I think the orignal sentence is misleading it states that Edith was a suffragette and arsonist, as if they are two seperate things. But the arson she carried out was due to her poltical beliefs in women's suffrage and that should be made clear in the opening sentence. people may not read down to the later explanation in the article, first impressions are important. Also look at Neslon Mandela's Wikipedia entry, there is no mention of criminal activity in his opening paragraph yet he was involved in planning a bombing campaign. If arson is to be mentioned in Edith Rigby's opening paragraph it should be qualified by why she carried out that action.Duppy Conkeror (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi see above.


 * Duppy Conkeror's reasons for the change make good sense, as does Richard Nevell's support for it. This seemingly minor change improves the article materially; the lede sentence now makes Edith Rigby's legacy and motivations much clearer than the blanket description "arsonist", with its negative connotations. Thanks for the edit, Duppy Conkeror! Anasuyas (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change,→Duppy Conkeror, it's good to see this resolved. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)