Talk:Marie Lloyd

	Marie Lloyd is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 15, 2013 Peer review Reviewed May 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed May 21, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 7, 2017, and October 7, 2022. Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Musical Theatre Marie Lloyd is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Barely a B; could use more references.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone put in exactly where her grave is "North London" is much too big a place! john mullen

HTH Kbthompson 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to W Macqueen-Pope's biography "Queen of the Music Halls" she was buried in Fortune Green Cemetery. He also describes her last performance in Edmonton, not a week later at the Alhambra Theatre. Robert Steel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.248.204 (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which is the copy this or that but see http://www.peopleplayuk.org.uk/guided_tours/music_hall_tour/music_hall_stars/lloyd.php "In one famous incident... and doing herself no favours." and this text from this article "In one famous incident, ... She did herself no favours." the site is not cited and the words are very similar. --

Assessed as C-class, for lack of references. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have any objections if I swap the current article for a version I have been working on of late. I intend to eventually make this featured content. Any thoughts? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent plan: let me know if you need proofing or assistance. -

talk) 13:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the offer which I shall greatfully take you up on. I will hunt down some sources at the BL over the next few weeks and report back. Since replaced! -- Cassianto^Talk 14:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is on my "to do" list but I keep getting distracted. I have all the literature but I'm finding it difficult to commit right now. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this now make sense? -- Cassianto^Talk 12:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'"The Three Ages of Woman", which took a cynical look from a female's perspective of the opposite sex' - the opposite sex being men, then, even though the title has 'Woman'? Rothorpe (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not clear. Can you clarify, Cassianto? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mustn't forget this. Who's looking at whom? Rothorpe (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, It was Lloyd making comic observations about the opposite sex. But I'm damned if I can find it now. I have looked EVERYWHERE! --Cassianto^Talk 11:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've rewritten it accordingly. Rothorpe (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

doh, there it is! Yes, the edit looks great and makes much more sense, thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we were wrong (on my talk page), it doesn't rhyme with 'starry' but has the conventional French/English pronunciation? Rothorpe (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, her name does rhyme with starry, but the correct thing to do would be to put the pronunciation template in (like we said). After a lot of flpping and save previews, I managed to do it, but it asked me for the pronunciation. I thought the pronunciation of "Marie" (rhyming with "starry") sounded a bit French, so I opted for that. I also found a citation from Gillies, who also used the "starry" rhyme. Would this be correct? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the starry Marie is very much an English pronunciation, one might say a Victorian one; it's the modern pron that is like the French, roughly. But not to worry, I've put both starry and the IPA in now. Rothorpe (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Remind me never to use my dodgy pronunciations in France... --Cassianto^Talk 04:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Marie Lloyd/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this nomination. Pyrotec (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

• Now reviewing. Sorry for the delay. Pyrotec (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, welcome back! -- Cassianto^Talk 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much, I booked and took a late-availability holiday in Norway (five days before departure), so it was quite cheep. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read through the article, once, quite quickly and I've glanced at the references, but not checked them at all. On this basis, my impression is that this article is probably at GA-level and perhaps well on the way to being at FA, but I will not be assessing it against

...stopping for now. To be continued tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Biography -
  • Family background and early life & Early career and first marriage -

• On the basis for my review, these two subsection appear to be compliant with
  WP:WIAGA. I merely added one wikilink to injunction
  .

• Possibly, it's a typo, but this subsection twice in the second paragraph of Drury Lane and success refers to "Courtney" but elsewhere "Courtenay", as in Percy Charles Courtenay, is used.

• Well spotted! Now changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This subsection is now regarded as being compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1900s -

• Just a comment, the link in the second line to coster goes to a Surname disambig-page, I assume the intended usage is Costermonger?

• Yes it should be, and now is. I have tweaked this slightly. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This subsection appears to be compliant.

• • Later years -

• This subsection appears to be compliant.

• • Decline and death -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This subsection appears to be compliant.

• WP:Lead
  -

• Quite a good lead, which both introduces the topic of the article and summarises the main points, as per
  WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B.

   lists

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an

   appropriate reference section

   :

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B.

   Focused

   :

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are provided if possible and are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Once again, thank you for the review Pyrotec and for the shiny green circle. Your thoughts and praise make the effort and research all the more worthwhile. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the image of Marie Lloyd Jr from the article because she is not mentioned anywhere in the text and because Marie Lloyd had no children as far as I am aware and this woman was born when Lloyd was 14 so can't be her daughter anyway. Jack1956 (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Marie Lloyd had no children as far as I am aware . . ."

See the article text

"In October 1888, Lloyd returned from maternity leave . . ."

and

"In 1896, Lloyd sailed to South Africa with her daughter, who appeared as Little Maudie Courtenay on the same bill as her mother.^[100]" {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't spot that - image reinstated. Jack1956 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning that James Callaghan wrongly attributed the song Waiting at the Church to her, in a controversial speech in 1978? PatGallacher (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think we are verging on trivia with that. Cassianto^talk 00:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an American professor who took his PhD in 19th century studies at Columbia, I am grateful for this article. Since Steven Marcus's The Other Victorians, followed by works by Foucault and Peter Gay, we've tried to balance old accounts of the era by restoring to the prominence they genuinely held such figures as Lloyd. Leaving her and her audience out of cultural history is a bit like writing about contemporary America without writing about rap and its huge audience. It's important for a scholar to know that the Victorian lower classes could make a star of someone who sang songs like (to quote the article) "She Sits Among the Cabbages and Peas",[95] which she retitled "I Sits Amongst the Cabbages and Leeks" after some protest.[96] Victorian life wasn't only Sundays of grim middle-class bible study with one's room's pictures turned to the wall. Profhum (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is comments like this that make all my effort researching and writing this article all the more worth it. Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for commenting here. Cassianto^talk 00:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to ShroCat, at any rate, who is seems believes that the IMBD entries of the TV productions in which Lloyd appears are either about another "Marie Lloyd," or else... what? Made up? Despite the fact that

Can you point to the edit where I've said there are no screen portrayals? What I have said is that IMDB is not a

talk page headings have to be neutral, I've altered the rather pointy one that was initially in place. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Nope, I reinstated the content that was previously removed. Clearly you think it better to pretend it never existed than actually "improve" it yourself. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try (again) to misrepresent me, or try and double guess my position. If you think it's worth adding the information in there (a moot point in it's own right), then not only will it have to be written properly (which it previously wasn't), but it will have to be supported by reliable sources (which it also wasn't). - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you actually think constitutes a "reliable source" for the existence of a TV programme? Seems to me that there are thousands of references to TV programmes across Wikipedia, and nobody's demanding a secondary source to confirm, "yes, this is real," for them. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of things that constitute reliable sources, including most books, magazines and newspapers, but not IMDB, which is not considered reliable. Although there may be other unreferenced information on Wiki,

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't justify adding unsourced information to articles. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Aside from the fact that your edits are poorly written and unreliably sourced, they are also trivial. To mention some half-baked television drama which post dates the article subject by nearly 85 years, is completely unnecessary. Cassianto^talk 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so we get to it. It's really just snobbery on your part (which I guess also explains your condescending attitude on my Talk page) that "half-baked television drama" featuring the subject of a Wikipedia page "doesn't count." Gaming the system by invoking

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't wash. Sources for films and TV programmes are needed for reactions and specific details, not to establish that they actually exist, which the ones featuring Lloyd clearly do. What's the point of, say, referencing the Radio Times they were originally listed in? And which production exactly is "half-baked"? The BBC4 one? The one by Alan Plater

?

It's rather ironic that in this particular case we're dealing with a popular media and entertainment figure of her day, but God forbid that we acknowledge that her influence in that sphere continued long after her death. How utterly pathetic. Nick Cooper (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure in what thread I've referred to anything being "half-baked", could you provide a diff? If not, then stop misrepresenting my position please. The bottom line here is that a reliable source is needed to support any inclusion of information. There is no snobbery, and your forays into uncivil accusations are an unwelcome development. - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is referring to me. The half-baked drama of which I speak is the awful Jessie Wallace vehicle which was made all the more worse by the principal stars terrible performance. That, I might add, is just MY opinion. Nobody here has said that her influence failed to continue after her death, I actually agree with you that it has, but I refuse to allow a wall of unsourced and badly composed writing, which is nothing more than a list of factoidial trivia, to be added to a featured article. Cassianto^talk 07:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was Cassianto who came up with the "half-baked" snobbery, but I doubt you can blame crossed-wires for your condescending comments on my Talk page. Obviously you two have staked your fence out round this article, so I'll leave you both to it. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you not to edit war, and to provide sources isn't being condescending, and not is it staking out any form of fence: it's sticking to the required policies that demand citations from reliable sources are required. I'm really not sure why that is a difficult line to follow, given how fundamental it is to all articles. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intro says " In 1884, she made her professional début as Bella Delmere; she changed her stage name to Marie Lloyd the following year," but the Early career section has her starting her solo career in 1885, under the name Matilda Wood, with the name Bella Delmere coming later. Can anyone clarify? Drmab (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently away, but I will check the sources when I get back. I suspect, "Matilda Wood" has been confused with Bella Delmere as the former was the name of Lloyd's mother. Thanks for pointing this out. Cassianto^talk 00:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W Macqueen-Pope's biography "Queen of the Music Halls" says she chose the name Belle Delmore having previously appeared under her own name. However, he implies she appeared as Tilly Wood. It must be coincidence that when Marie was on picket-duty during the 1907 strike another performer called Belle Elmore tried to cross the picket line. When others tried to stop her Marie said "Let her play. She will do more to help by playing than by stopping out". Belle Elmore subsequently found fame as Mrs Crippin. Robert Steel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.248.204 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And I think that is mentioned, is it not? Cassianto^Talk 08:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the phrase "earned her an extended audience" in the lead isn't clear, it isn't in the body of the article (and is therefore uncited), and the year given (1919) contradicts the year given for perfomance of the song in the body (1918). SpinningSpark 16:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So much better through the art of communication. Now done. Cassianto^Talk 17:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marie Lloyd. 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/20130905125320/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/visiting-the-city/archives-and-city-history/london-metropolitan-archives/Documents/visitor-information/47-theatre-and-music-hall-sources-at-lma.pdf to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/visiting-the-city/archives-and-city-history/london-metropolitan-archives/Documents/visitor-information/47-theatre-and-music-hall-sources-at-lma.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 11:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started an article on "A Little of What You Fancy Does You Good", which all sources I've found say was published in 1915, and recorded by Lloyd in 1916. However, this article states that Lloyd popularised it in 1914. Can anyone who is an expert on Lloyd (I'm not) clarify this point? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can be trusted. Gillies can remain in place for any other information the sentence contains, should it still fit. Cassianto^Talk 17:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

My best source is the Richard Anthony Baker book - "In 1915, Arthurs and Leigh wrote "A Little of What You Fancy".....". (p. 151) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle, Yes, I've heard of Baker - I used him on George Robey - so it's fine with me to use. Cassianto^Talk 22:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the book - I'm not going to edit a FA myself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth not? Cassianto^Talk 06:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the respected music hall historian Richard Anthony Baker (in his book Old Time Variety: an illustrated history, p.190), the story that Lloyd sang a song with that title is a much-repeated myth, which is perpetuated in this article. Baker wrote that "In fact, there was no such song. It was a line in a Leslie Sarony song, "Mucking about the Garden". Aware of the controversy, Sarony registered the composer as Q. Cumber." Can the reference be safely removed from the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a stub on the 1972-1973 UK miniseries The Edwardians. One of the episodes was about Marie Lloyd. There is currently no legacy section or cultural depictions section in this article. I always hesitate to add anything to an FA article, perhaps an editor more invested in this article might consider where content like this might exist within this article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching out to those with experience with editing, approving articles relating to Music Hall artists and history for the following draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanford_and_Lyons

Thankyou so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriana2022 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really interesting article. Well done to all who have worked on it. I noticed the Times republished the original news article of her death (as part of the centenary of the occasion) the other day. It seemed to contradict this page's claim that her final appearance was at the Alhambra Theatre. (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nation-mourns-marie-lloyd-star-of-music-hall-w73nj5r87). I am thinking of adding some of this detail to the page in the coming days so I thought I'd pose this puzzle here beforehand.

SnowballWT (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent research by the historian Hallie Rubenhold has not turned up evidence that the Belle Elmore story is a reliable one (see https://twitter.com/HallieRubenhold/status/1654145844818452482).

Even the source cited by the article (Macqueen-Pope 'Queen of the Music Hall' refers to the story with the term 'It is said that...', suggesting this is hearsay rather than historical fact. So, whilst there is a source which can be cited, the story is gossip or hearsay. Given the claim serves to blacken the name of a murder victim, isn't really historical fact and isn't necessary for detailing Marie's role in the 1907 music hall strike, should it not be removed?

The version here isn't the one that's in Macqueen-Pope's book in any case. 137.220.109.188 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]