Talk:Ida Lewis

Old comments
The 1827 death date cannot be correct for her fater as it is after the ilness date. Can someone get the right date?

Ooops, my fault - that was a typo. I've fixed it. --AlbertHerring 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination
I thought the stub classification unjust, and on studying the classes thought this appropriate. Now to see what others think... J S Ayer 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the article and while I think that it is a good start I just didn't think that it met the criterion for a good article. I would agree with you that the article is certainly not a stub, I don't think it is a good article either.  To make it a good article I would suggest adding more citation throughout the article (many lines with declarative statements go unsourced) and I would add some  more information in the middle of the article.  You talk about how she became the lighthouse keeper but then you jump to her national acclaim. I would like some more explanation about how exactly that occurred. I hope this is helpful.  Timhud 17:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The links are all broken or out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.23.14 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ida Lewis (lighthouse keeper) → Ida Lewis – Remove unnecessary disambiguation. Ida Lewis is currently a redirect to Julia Arthur, an actress born under the name of Ida Lewis. Being the birth name of the actress is not sufficient reason to keep this article at this current disambiguation title. After the move, I would place the following hatnote on this article, to wit:   . The hatnote on Julia Arthur would also need a slight tweak following the move. Safiel (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The disambiguation "lighthouse keeper" is totally unnecessary. The other individual was famous and known as Julia Arthur, so a note, as you suggested, would solve the problem. Keivan.f  Talk 07:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and Keivan.f. Historical perspective may be gleaned from the 2008 discussion, Articles for deletion/Myrna Williams, which decided to keep the 2-entry Myrna Williams disambiguation page listing Myrna Williams (politician) and Myrna Adele Williams, the redirect indicating the birth name of movie star Myrna Loy. The qualifier "(politician)" was thus retained, even though the politician is the sole subject of a Wikipedia article entitled "Myrna Williams". &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is the obvious thing to do MATThematical (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The "Ida Lewis" title, unadorned, best serves the most well-known meme: the lighthouse keeper, not the actress who professionally went by another name. A standard disambiguation statement at the top of the light house keeper's article will serve the rare person looking up the actress by her original name. Gosgood (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Seems sensible to me given the policy of putting actors under their more common stage names, as long as both articles get hatnotes making linking to the other. Geoff Canyon (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Seems completely sensible to me. Good suggestion. --Jhertel (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Kiwifist (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Even Google infobox thinks this Ida is the more famous under the name. 2601:643:8102:EA80:FD31:EAF1:55D4:7B53 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Julia Arthur is not primarily known as "Ida Lewis" despite it being her birth name. The proposed hatnote could send people to that article in the rare event they've gotten to the wrong place (or perhaps there should be a newly-created Ida Lewis (disambiguation), given the existence of Ida Lewis Guillory and Ida Lewis Rock Light, but that's a different discussion). TJRC (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely. We don't have a convention of listing the majority of biographical articles under titles which include the person's occupation. No reason why this one should be any different.Cadar (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as creator, way back when (my God, this is a blast from the past): I was new when I created it, and didn't want to disrespect a redirect. I have no problem with the move. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Something is not right
It says that Ida's father took his family to live on Lime Rock in 1857. Ida, born in 1842, would have been 15. But it also says that she made her first rescue when she was 12. This is documented in the National Archives, but nowhere else. Ten American Girls from History says this rescue of four people happened when she was 17, the year before her father died (page 130).

Also, the information from the Ida Lewis Yacht Club says that the unofficial rescue count is 25, not 36, as does the National Archives. TychaBrahe (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My guess is it was vandalized. But I'm too lazy to check. Kiwifist (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Further, in regards to the Twitter comment, you've used the word 'commencing' instead of 'commemorating'. The coast guards didn't 'start' her birthday, they honoured it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.58.184 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. Kiwifist (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Google doodle
is the doodle really an encyclopedic fact worthy of report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:4100:9C0:8CE:F24A:A11F:6841 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but my answer leans to a yes, I find it worthy. Google has become a large part of (at least Western) world culture and is seen by more than a billion people per month, and probably hundreds of millions of people every day. And my guess is that today's mention increased the world's knowledge of Ida Lewis immensely (I wouldn't be surprised if, worldwide, a thousand times more people know her now than did before); I find that that makes the mention worthy of report. --Jhertel (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that there already is an article for Google Doodles, I don't see how mentioning she's in one would hurt, or would not be considered "encyclopedic" enough of a fact. Skywalker Kush (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Google doodles frequently direct me to Wikipedia for more information. Without any partisanship toward the company, I find its effort at making currently hidden histories available to be worth noting since despite recognition during her lifetime I did not know about Ida Lewis; thanks to a doodle pointing to this article, now I do.Transportia (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. If it wasn't for Google doodles I wouldn't know of all these wonderful women who serve as role models to me and many other women.  Also, these doodles enlighten others in how equally powerful women can be.  The message has clearly not gotten across to enough people yet and I thank Google for their educational mission.Joan (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I personally recognize google doodles as a high praise, most definitely worthy of report. Thank you. Fordm992001 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so. There are few enough of them as to be worthy of note - especially for less-well-known figures such as Lewis. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017
The picture of Ida Lewis rowing appears to be be Grace Darling by artist Thomas Brooks, not Ida Lewis. refer to www.gracedarling.co.uk Rmtait (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The woodcut includes a lighthouse, not included in either the painting or the engraving. I think we probably have a case of Victorian plagiarism - but without more information on the dates of the originals, we do not know who copied who. Darling's famous rescue was in 1838, Lewis's in 1869 so the painting probably pre-dates the others, but variations of that image are used on several websites and publications about Lewis so it is "perceived" to be her. - Arjayay (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: - Interesting problem - the description of this image is that it is a woodcut taken from "Women of the century By Phebe Ann Hanaford 1876". It is very similar to the oil painting "Grace Darling: by Thomas Brooks" at Grace Darling.co, but is even more similar to (but not identical to) the Ida Lewis picture at at rhodeislandlighthousehistory which appears to be an engraving. The description of a similar engraving at Quahog.org here describes it as an "Image from a circa 1869 carte de visite"