Talk:Baroness Orczy

Untitled

"Her novel Lady Molly of Scotland Yard was the first to feature a female detective as the main character" is not correct. The lady investigates, Patricia Craig and Mary Cadogan, (Oxford 1981) lists several from the 19th century. I've amended it to an early example". Richard Pinch 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"left Hungary" and then "lived in Budapest"?

Something must be wrong here:

Her parents left Hungary in 1868, fearful of the threat of a peasant revolution. They lived in Budapest ...

--Sandycx (Talk) 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Would someone who knows care to add the pronunciation of her name - please? Awien 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Antisemite

I moved the following here from the main page: "From a passage in her famed Scarlet Pimpernel it is apparent that she was a virulent anti-semite."

I do not think this can be left in without some sort of citation. I will alert those at Antisemitism. --Thehalfone (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal as I said there. --BozMo talk 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted - tag with a citation needed tag. Have you read the book? Albatross2147 (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have read the book. Using a stereotype prevalent at the time doesn't make you an antisemite but it might make you thoughtless. Anyway your OR judgement on the passage is OR you need to find a notable commentator who asserts AS--BozMo talk 06:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed Spoiler

I have just started reading the Scarlet Pimpernel and was interested in the author. I did not want to learn the identity of the SP via Wikipedia rather than through the joy of reading. I have removed the reference so others are not disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.48.71 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit per WP:SPOILER. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias will have spoilers by their very nature. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It can also be argued that 'decades after the novels were published' people are likely to have some idea that 'the given hero or chief narrator character' is likely to be the person using the 'masquerading name' (as a generic title). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Baroness O's court case

In The Times 26 MArch 1908 Baroness Orczy and Mr Montagu thank those who have supported them in the recent court case decided against them. To what does this refer? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Emma Orczy. 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/20060329100020/http://www.blackmask.com:80/ to http://www.blackmask.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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) 20:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing Scarlet Pimpernel work?

Eldorado? DCDuring (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Emma Orczy → Baroness Orczy – This is the WP:COMMONNAME, that she published as, and is nearly always referred to as. It was the original article title until moved without discussion in 2007 Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This came out of an opposed speedy category move, as follows:

• Category:Books by Baroness Emma Orczy to Category:Books by Emma Orczy – C2D per Emma Orczy Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose this one. This author is really very famous under the name of Baroness Orczy (sample cover on the right). While Baroness is probably useless and misplaced in the title of her biographical article, per our conventions on honorifics, it is very useful in anything related to her literary work. Place Clichy (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  However, note that she is never referred to as Baroness Emma Orczy, but just as Baroness Orczy. The hybrid title you want to keep it at is simply inaccurate. There would certainly be a case for moving the article to Baroness Orczy per WP:NCPEER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not exactly. NCPEER writes that Baroness should be included in the article title if the person is far better recognised with the title than without, which can be argued to be the case here. I don't really see a rationale to remove the first name. There are also other baronesses Orczy, starting probably with the writer's mother. The example given at WP:NCPEER is Lord Frederick Cavendish, not Lord Cavendish. What we have here is a title plus a name, not exactly a pen name or pseudonym. Place Clichy (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  I was referring to the exception: When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known: e.g. Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron. She is unquestionably the best-known Baroness Orczy and is published under the name Baroness Orczy, without any mention of her first name. Normally I would agree that full names should be used, but she's clearly one of the few exceptions a la Byron and Tennyson. Lord Frederick Cavendish isn't referred to as Lord Cavendish because he wasn't. Younger sons of dukes always take the title before the first name, not the surname. But he is actually being used as an example of why he shouldn't be referred to as Frederick Cavendish, not why he shouldn't be referred to as Lord Cavendish. Completely different situation from Orczy, who was unquestionably commonly known as Baroness Orczy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Agree - the article needs moving. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  She was a Hungarian baroness that lived most of her life in Britain, so usual conventions about British titles (and even continental titles) may not apply, as the examples of Lord Byron and Lord Tennyson. She probably wouldn't be Lady Orczy or Emma, Lady Orczy. More importantly, while she (or her editor) undeniably chose to write Baroness Orczy on the cover of her books (perhaps a catchy name for the kind of easy-selling good-feeling cheap literature she produced), I doubt that she would have been known as such socially. To compare again with "Lord Byron", I don't think that this is how he called himself on the cover of his books. Not being found of unnecessary honorifics, I would favour keeping the article at Emma Orczy but having the category about her work at either Books by Baroness Emma Orczy or Books by Baroness Orczy. Anyway this should be discussed on the article talk page and CfD rather than here (I suggest copying this discussion there). Place Clichy (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Place Clichy, Necrothesp, and Johnbod: is one of you planning to open a discussion at the article talk page? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle: I actually find that the article is fine where it stands now, and I therefore do not intend to request its renaming. I merely suggest copying this discussion there for memory. Place Clichy (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• End of category discussion. Please comment on the article move below. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support As nominator, and per the discussion above. Actually User:Place Clichy, Lord Byron was so called in the title pages of books published in his lifetime. What she was called socially in her lifetime is not relevant to COMMONNAME, but I bet it was indeed "Baroness", by all but a few. And apparently "Emma" was not used, but "Emmuska", a Hungarian diminutive form. The current first line is an abomination. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Even if subject never held an aristocratic title, the name "Baroness Orczy" was her pen name and the name by which she was best known to the public. The professional and royal name of artist and author Prince Andrew Romanoff is used as the main title header of his Wikipedia entry. The blues and soul singer Sir Charles Jones does not hold a knighthood but, since that is his stage name, it is also the header of his entry. If Baroness Orczy had used Emma Orczy as her pen name in the same manner that Baron Olivier/Lord Olivier used Laurence Olivier as his stage name, then "Emma Orczy" would indeed be the proper header for her article. However, since her pen name was not "Emma Orczy", but "Baroness Orczy", then the main header of her entry should be "Baroness Orczy". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Y Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

First line

While I supported the article move above, I'm puzzled as to why we're breaking our usual practice and not listing her full name in the first line (see MOS:FULLNAME). I edited the article to conform to our usual style, as I have done with thousands of articles, but it was reverted to a style that we don't usually use. Not sure why we're making an exception here. There is no requirement for the first line to conform to the article title, as quite clearly stated in the MOS. @Johnbod: Care to explain your objections to following the MOS for this particular article? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Bolding six first names is certainly not the usual way we do it. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

We list and bold the full name. Always. Please show me where in the MOS it says we shouldn't just because someone happens to have a lot of names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)