Talk:Emily Davison/Archive 1

[Untitled]

Earlier, 213.78.91.144 had a question about exactly what Ms. Davidson was protesting in prison. I believe she was protesting the practice of force-feeding prisoners, although the original statement was unclear. Can anyone clear this up? Scott Burley 05:00, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Oxford degree

The article states that Davison gained "a first-class degree" from Oxford University, but this can't be strictly true since Oxford didn't begin granting degrees to women until 1920. Does anyone have reliable information? Perhaps St Hugh's College Oxford would be a good place to find out -- opr would that be "original research"?! Flapdragon 09:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Her picture shows her in graduate gown, hood and cap, so she clearly gained a degree from somewhere. Various sources reveal that she began her studies at Royal Holloway, Oxford; but all go on to state that she went on to Oxford, where she gained a first-class degree. Might Oxford have sent her to get a London degree? I know that female students at Durham could be examined for London degrees before Durham's supplementary charter allowing women to be given degrees was awarded. TSP 22:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Women's Who's Who" source quoted in the external link states that she had a BA from Royal Holloway (London), so presumably it would be the gown and hood of that degree. As for "graduate cap", graduates and undergrads wear the same cap, at least at Oxford, and elsewhere too I'd have thought. Incidentally, the tassle of her cap ("mortar board") appears to be bunched up on the top, rather than hanging down freely as it is worn at Oxford -- though it's hard to be sure from the picture. Flapdragon 03:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about undergrads wearing mortar boards - we don't have them at Durham; but anyway, she is clearly wearing a hood, which (barring the Literates' Hood, which it doesn't look like and which I'm not sure anyone this century has worn in seriousness) would seem to indicate graduate status. As you say, this is presumably her London degree. Interestingly, Royal Holloway themselves claim that, while she went there, she did not gain a degree there; but then they claim that she received an Oxford degree, which she plainly could not have. The Morning Post quoting of the Women's Who's Who should, as you say, probably be considered our best source - I wrote the comment above before I found it. TSP 09:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think contacting St Hugh's would be perfectly acceptable, by the way. I've contacted Royal Holloway to ask if they can provide any more information. TSP 10:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to that link [1], "She came to Royal Holloway to study English in 1892. However, she completed her degree at Oxford University where graduated with a first class honours degree." I think this might be a slightly inaccurate way of saying she "had" a degree in the has got back to me with some definite details. His information is so good that I will include it in full here:

Further to my previous email regarding Emily Wilding Davison, it seems
that the information you quoted from the Morning Post article was
correct.  I wasn't happy not having a definite answer so I contacted
Senate House who have confirmed that she matriculated in September 1902,
was awarded intermediate arts in 1906 and graduated with a 3rd class
hons. in modern languages in 1908 (all from the University of London and
all some years after she had left Royal Holloway).

some people suggest that it wasnt suiside and that she was just trying to stop the race to get attenstion for the news papers even though she acchived getting in the news papers it was for a diffrent reason.

As such, her academic career ran as follows:

1892 - 93, attended Royal Holloway

1895, took a First Class in the English Final Honour School, Oxford

1902 - 1908, as above resulting in an honours degree from the University
of London.

I will try to work this into the article! TSP 11:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great stuff. Good to have this sorted out authoritatively. Flapdragon 15:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

place of birth: London or Morpeth?

The article states she was "born in London" but according to this website (North East England History Pages) she was "from Longhorsley, to the north of Morpeth", which would seem to lend credence to the idea she was born if not brought up there. It also says that "Her body was brought to Morpeth for burial". Anyone know the facts?

Emily Wilding Davison Born..Blackheath, London, 11th October 1872.Lived, in her latter years with her mother in Longhorsley, 5 miles north of Morpeth, Northumberland. Buried in St Mary the Virgin Churchyard, Morpeth, Northumberland. Emily never lived in Morpeth.

This is great but where does it come from? Flapdragon 16:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Northumberland County Council Website:

"Born in Blackheath, London. Emily lived with her mother in a small house opposite the "Shoulder of Mutton" Inn in the village of Longhorsley." Henriksdal 14:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emily was born in Blackheath, London but her parents were from Northumberland. Her father was from Morpeth while her mother was from Longhorsley which is a small village which lies 5 miles north of Morpeth. Her father predeceased her in 1893 and was buried at Morpeth. I believe this is why Emily was buried there also. She did live for a time with her mother, Margaret in Longhorsely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.109.88 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too Strong?

"Facts surrounding the event, including newsreel footage, have led experts to doubt the popular notion that she intended to kill herself."

This sentence, with its reference to "experts," states pretty definitively that she didn't mean to kill herself. I don't think we should come down quite so strong... I'm not too familiar with the literature on the case, but from what I do know, it's not as clear cut as this article makes it sound.

The article, as it stands, still overdoes the scepticism about whether she meant to kill herself. If there are "experts" who doubt the popular notion, then they should be named.

Her colleagues did not have any doubts:

Emmeline Pankhurst, founder of the Women's Social and Political Union, described the contribution Emily Davison believed her death would make in her autobiography, My Own Story.

She writes: "Emily Davison clung to her conviction that one great tragedy, the deliberate throwing into the breach of a human life, would put an end to the intolerable torture of women.

"And so she threw herself at the king's horse, in full view of the king and queen and a great multitude of their majesties' subjects." -- Picapica 10:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/298471.stm

Yes but they have reason to say that she did - it reminds me of how so many people make out Laura Ingalls Wilder not using "obey" in her wedding vows as some kind of feminists statement or standing up for women's rights when in reality she just didn't want to make a promise to Almanzo that she potentially couldn't keep! PMA 04:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Anyone know the identity of the British History Textbook" cited as a source? If not let's delete this odd reference. Flapdragon 18:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Horse-related accidents

Should this article be in this category seeing as there is no proof that it was an accident? Abbyemery 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of Anmer?

This article states "The horse had to be put down."

However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anmer_(horse) states "Anmer made a full recovery and made a return to racing."

Which is it?

TimmerK (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.42.29.2 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmetic

If Ms. Davison was injured on 4 June and died on 11 June, she lingered for seven days, not three.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of injuries

The article says she suffered a fractured skull. Any source for this? The New Statesman article in the references (Diane Atkinson, "Deeds not words" 6 June 2005) says she had an operation to relieve pressure in the skull, which suggests she was suffering from compression rather than a fracture. Flapdragon (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Atkinson's article refers to her skull as "smashed". Amandajm (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More info

There is a great deal more information in Diane Atkinson "Deeds not words" New Statesman 6 June 2005. that could be used here. Earlier, I corrected the description of Emily eing "trampled" by the horse, based on the photo showing the horse and Emily falling.

The Atkinson article, which I hadn't read at the time, but which was already cited as a source, gives a very detailed description of the collision and the injuries sustained. I can't understand how such a lax and simplistic description as "trampled" could have been used, given the info available. This needs to be fixed.

Amandajm (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Either self-destructive or violent"?

I added a "citation needed" tag for the claim that, "On 4 June 1913, after a series of actions that were either self-destructive or violent...." I see nothing in the article that supports the claim that there was a "series of actions" before she stepped in front of the horse that could count as either self-destructive or violent, so this would seem to refer to the action of stepping onto the track. Further, the text of the article acknowledges that Davison's motivation for stepping onto the track is unclear. For this reason, I'm also skeptical that a citation to support this claim can even be provided; it's ultimately just an opinion about her actions that assumes a particular motivation, without warrant. Frankly, this reads like a smear and I think it should be deleted. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trarms (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable summary of the currect text of paras 3 & 5 in 'Biography'. If you think "series" is misleading, change to "number" or something else. Davidships (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return Ticket

Footnote 3 is placed to imply that it supports the belief that return tickets were the only type available yet the article to which it is linked seems to provide no such evidence. I think this should be moved to earlier in the sentence or removed completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.60.253.40 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting deletion of Michael Tanner's opinions.

The portions of the article regarding the claims of Michael Tanner should be better sourced. HOWEVER, unilaterally declaring them frivolous and thus deleting them whole-cloth without investigating their merit is not the proper course of action. The flimsiest of google searches would have indicated that Michael Tanner is an authority in the area.

Furthermore, using the "minor" tag on an edit that blanks entire paragraphs is an entirely inappropriate use of that tag. It is a major change to the article and deserves to be treated as such. At the very least, the text should have been moved to the talk page with a request for better sourcing. Wickedjacob (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Clarity

The page makes it sound as though the king was riding the horse. I understand Anmer was owned by the king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.32.117 (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against suicide illogical

The introduction contains two entirely illogical arguments against suicide.

The first is that newsreel suggests that she was trying to attach a sash to the horse. Perhaps it does, in the eyes of some modern viewers. However no one in their right mind would run in front of a galloping horse to attach a sash. Whoever thinks that this is possible has obviously never been near a galloping horse. The only likely consequence of that proximity is that the pedestrian is knocked down.

Secondly the claim that "Analysis of newsreel also indicated that her position before she stepped out onto the track would have given her a clear view of the oncoming race, further countering the belief that she ran out in a haphazard way to kill herself". This does not make sense. That she may have had a clear view does not suggest that she did not run out "in a haphazard way to kill herself". There is nothing haphazard about running out to attach a sash or commit suicide. She saw the horse and rider, and successfully ran in front of them. That she had a clear view does not support the suicide or accident argumentsRoyalcourtier (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"However no one in their right mind would run in front of a galloping horse to attach a sash. Whoever thinks that this is possible has obviously never been near a galloping horse." Having had some experience with horses, I completely agree with both these statements. However, what did Emily Davison know about galloping horses? Had she ever even seen one before? Some illumination of this point might help to clarify the event. Peter Bell (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist

I would suggest that "militant" is too mild a term. By modern standards the term terrorist would be used. She committed arson, vandalism, violent assaults, and finally committed suicide to gain publicity for her cause. If she had been a Muslim man she would certainly be called a terrorist. I recommend that the term militant be replaced by terrorist in the article.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scarf and Sash

The last part of the "Injury at Epsom Derby" section is very confusing, for the paragraph beginning with "The 2013 Channel 4 film" discusses the "sash" but the next paragraph discusses the "scarf". These two are different from each other, but there is no explanation. This section should be more clearly rewritten, following Tanner's analysis. --さえぼー (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the confusing section I mentioned above. --saebou (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stats box

How does the statistic box get added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.227.116 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which statistics you mean? She didn't represent anyone at sport, or release records, so I'm unsure what you mean. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture moments after accident

I have tried to include this image but have been reverted with the comment "better in the video, and without the sandwiching of text".

The image has far higher detail than the video, where it is very difficult to see what is going on. I don't understand the "sandwiching" comment, as an "upright=1.4" scale isn't unduly wide for such an image, and it doesn't sandwich text between two images. (Hohum ^@) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It pushes the video image down and causes the text to sandwich. As to the balance between video and image, it's actually very difficult to see what is what in the image. That's why, whe the article was rewritten and I uploaded the image in the first place, I thought better of it and used the video instead. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placement choice is not a reason to exclude an image, it's a reason to choose a better placement.

The image is crystal clear to me. A woman bouncing on the ground and a horse rolling. The video shows hardly any detail. (Hohum ^@) 19:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and the image is not that clear - it's a large scene and confusing, with the pertinent part only a small section where much of the detail is lost in the clutter of the crowd scene. To clarify, placement choice was not the sole reason it was removed: it was removed because it repeats the information contained in the video. The sandwiching was secondary, but it should have been considered. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched the film footage a couple of times and also carefully examined the full-size photo. In the film footage, you can clearly see her walking out onto the track and being struck by the horse. The film footage, in my opinion, does not add anything, as it simply shows a horse on the ground and, if you know what you are looking at, also a woman on the ground. I agree that it is redundant and, depending on how wide your monitor is, it pushes the images down until there is sandwiching of the text. I do not think we should include the photo. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the idea that the horse was travelling at "35 miles (56 km) per hour" is sensationalistic. That would be a world record pace over this 1-1/2 mile course (the record is 151 seconds = exactly .6 miles per minute = 36 miles per hour, and the winner of this race finished in 157 seconds; the king's horse was far behind in the pack), so the horse must have been travelling at more like 25-30 miles per hour around the final turn. The claim is also very tangential to Davison's article and, even if true (which it is not), it would not add anything, since being struck by a horse running at 25 mph is still plenty fast to kill you. I've been stepped on by a horse moving at 0 miles per hour, and it is not pleasant. IMO, it would strengthen the article to remove this claim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, The world record for a horse is about 44 mph, so this speed is well within that. As usual, we've only reflected what is in the sources. I'll have a hunt round to see if there is anything else that mentions the speed element. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

The introductory sentence refers to the subject as "a suffragette who fought for votes for women". Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.103.44.70 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little, but as this is a global encyclopaedia, not everyone who reads it will immediately know what a "suffragette" actually is, so it does no harm to add it to the into for those who only read the lead. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fought vs Advocated

I've made it clear to @SchroCat: that advocacy is a more general umbrella term whereas fought implies a specific confrontational form of advocacy. Nonetheless, SchroCat has reverted me. I bring this up here to avoid a 3RR conflict, and to get some thoughts from the rest of the community. 150.251.3.1 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "fought" is too narrow. It's also a term many of the reliable sources are comfortable with using, (and, from my memory of her writings, one Davison used too). - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counting

A couple of counting points:

The lead asserts that "she was arrested on nine occasions", but the article, by my count, lists ten... 1909: Mar, Jul, Sep, Oct, probably Oct again; 1910: April, probably Nov; 1911: Apr, Dec. 1912: Nov.
There's a source for the lead's "went on hunger strike seven times", but the body mentions six occasions by my count. Is there one missing from the body, or was it mixed up with the incident described as "she did not go on hunger strike, but the authorities required that she be force-fed between 29 February and 7 March 1912"? EddieHugh (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/profile-emily-wilding-davison-8631739.html. There seem to be two strikes during the January-June 1909 imprisonment. DrKay (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DrKay, for addressing this. The first point has now been dealt with. Actually, so has the second: I couldn't find it as I was looking at 1909, but the double strike is mentioned (in 1912, rather than 1909). EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]