Talk:Lucy Worsley

File:Lucy Worsley.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lucy Worsley.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Year of birth

So is it 1973 or 1974? Both dates are given for this on the page. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

LW's speech impediments

The article mentions her rhotacism - but does not mention the prevalence of th-fronting in her speech. Skeptic12 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This hardly counts as a speech impediment. Lots of English accents have this pronunciation and it seems to be becoming more common. Maybe she does it deliberately to try to appear friendly and approachable on TV. --Ef80 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, maybe she does. Like ET on Prozac Jilljack1952 (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The lack of an R is not a speech impediment, either. Most English accents don't pronounce the R except in some places in a word, and for some regional dialects. Watch the TV comedy/drama Doc Martin. Catherine Catz affects a regional rhotic accent. In a documentary about the making of Doc Martin, she speaks in normal English RP with dropped Rs --- Lucy just sounds English to me. It is not a speach impediment. 24.204.160.147 (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Worsley's speech comes across as highly affected and false. 78.149.208.201 (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As Worsley said of Lord Byron, she is a "Self-regarding poser."78.149.209.22 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The r pronounced as w affectation is spoken by those who wish to appear upper class in England. Another user of this was Roy Jenkins. 78.149.208.201 (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to your own OR on this, but as to what goes in the article, that's going to stay based on what RS say about her, not how you judge it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Any reference for sources must be independent of Worsley; her website won't do at all. Jilljack1952 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Says who? Nick Cooper (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not her website, it's the Daily Telegraph. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Which speech impediment is it that makes you say Liebniz instead of Leibniz (the first two Georges)? Vince Calegon (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is not true that speech therapy was "to no avail" - her speech now is very different from when I first heard it (I'm Vince Calegon, but I lost my password, so I had to create a new user name, twice, Im Fuficius Fango too!). FangoFuficius (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a confusion between rhotacism and rhoticity in some of these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snugglepuss (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving on from Chief Curator position??

The National Archives mentioned that Dr Tracy Borman "has recently been appointed interim Chief Curator of Historic Royal Palaces" in November 2014 (source: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/events/thomas-cromwell.htm ) ... but not seeing why or when anywhere? Any knowledge around? --gobears87 (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

After some research it seems there are now two curators, Dr Tracy Borman is listed as "joint" in several places. Have updated page with the one word. I suppose it may be reverted if someone is bothered (can't find a full official announcement), but thought might as well make it correct. No great spot to put a reference, so here are more: http://www.tracyborman.co.uk/home-1/ and http://www.museumofrichmond.com/gallery/gallery-1/and https://www.quarterhouse.co.uk/whats-on/tracy-borman There are some on the HRP website but they're so buried in text it isn't worth linking. --gobears87 (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Private Eye

Has anyone read the recent review of her book (last Weds) in Private Eye? It also referred to an earlier book which had similar problems, and there were extensive quotes to support the opinion that she has been liberal in her non-attribution of sources and sometimes extremely close in her rephrasing. I'm am trying to avoid any BLP issues here but I guess people can read between the lines and it is perhaps an issue of note. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It has hit the mainstream national newspapers, eg: The Times, i and (heaven forfend) Daily Mail. And they're not pulling their punches in using the word "plagiarism", as I did above. I don't think we can ignore this issue, provided that we also give her reaction to the allegations. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The I article is hardly damning, if the best it can come up with is that both Byrne and Worsley quote Woolf's (public domian) opinion, and the parallel use of the term "treasure trove" in reference to Austen's letters, but surrounded by entirely different descriptions of their worth. It's a bit of a no-brainer that a writer's letters are a significant source, but how many different ways can one say so? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree but, that aside, have you read the other stuff? Do you want a copy of Private Eye? I could email it but if you're int he UK it is still on the newstands until roughly next Wednesday. Don't ignore the fact that this is not the first time she has been accused and that, in this instance, the reports suggest that at first the person whom she had allegedly plagiarised laughed it off and then got upset about it after actually getting hold of a copy of the book. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a subscriber to Private Eye, actually, but thanks for the condescending advice. As is often the case with this sort of accusation, though, it makes a lot of hay about what are essentially the same things - events, behaviour, interpretations, etc. - being described in - gasp! - a similar way. There are really only so many ways that you can say the same thing. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I try to help out and you call it condescending? Charmed, I'm sure.

I don't care a crap whether you think there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing, the fact remains that she has been accused of plagiarism and even an idiot can see why that is so. Such accusations are fairly rare, so your original research regarding ways of phrasing things doesn't seem to stack up. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've raised the issue here. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be common ground that Worsley is indebted for some of the content to Byrne, as you might expect for the most recent substantial academic work on the same topic. There are tow issues of potntial palgiarism: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinlc (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Drmies is a busy fellow but is an tenured academic with an English Lit specialism. Perhaps he has an opinion? (I'm pretty sure I am not outing by saying this). - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't read the Times article, unfortunately, but this looks like it needs to be included, yes--fairly, of course, but still. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Um the lede for Private Eye is "Private Eye is a British fortnightly satirical... magazine". Is that a good source? We don't use Mad (magazine), but maybe Private Eye is different? They also have news it says. Are they both accurate and neutral in their news coverage? Would they possibly be prone to scandal-mongering for circulation purposes? I don't know, but "satirical magazine" does not inspire confidence.

The British press is generally not, as a class, usually a particularly good source, sorry. The Daily Mail is flat out of course, the Times is owned by the Murdoch organization (can't read the article so hard to judge). i I don't know what that is, they don't seem to have an article here (I don't think they are iNews TV) which does not speak of their notability, at least.

Anyway, the i article kind of makes it look like a pissing match between two people. "Plagiarism" is a kind of... it's a thing of degrees rather than a black-and-white issue. I do recall a case some years ago where a biographer of Lincoln was accused of plagiarism, and his response was "look, there are hundreds of books about Lincoln, and perforce they have to describe the same events, and really there are only so many ways to say it". Makes sense (which is not the same as necessarily being true). Byrnes accused Worsley of stealing "ideas". Hmmmmm. (Also "phrases", which is not the same as "passages".)

And I mean, the source: Paula Byrne is claiming that Worsley plagiarized her. Well of course that's an extremely sketchy source. Writers often see other's work as stealing their own work, when other people don't see it; Byrne has a natural proprietary and protective attitude to her work. She also has a material interest in discrediting a potential rival.

If some notable, disinterested, and qualified expert(s) had said "I read these two works, and the similarities go well beyond what is considered acceptable in the field" or something, that'd be different. "Was fired for plagiarism" or "was sued for plagiarism and had to pay damages" would be better.

But a one-off and probably bogus claim by an interested person reported in a satire magazine? I don't see us as need to valorize Byrne's claims by getting involved in this pissing contest. Herostratus (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Private Eye' is way more than a satirical magazine. It is well-known for its investigative journalism, is often called upon to give evidence to parliamentary committees etc and is often weeks or even months ahead of the mainstream press. It definitely is not a "bogus claim" - the excerpts given are very obvious, and it covers both ideas and actual passages. Note that Byrne was not initially concerned, seeing it as flattery, but then changed her mind after presumably seeing the book (her first comments were before she had seen it). - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can see, Worsley doesn't actually deny it. She is waffling on about it being a work of love and that she is going to cancel her Eye subscription (that, btw, might indeed be satirical). Unless there is a proven connection between Byrne and the reviewer, which there is not, I see no reason to assume axes to grind/shenanigans on that score. Accusations made by people in good standing, reported in major newspapers etc are fair game. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but on the other hand, Byrne posted something on her website to the effect that it is a "storm in a fine-china teacup" - see here. It's a bit cryptic but looks like she really isn't too fussed. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look that way to me.

Our remit here is to help readers answer the question "who is Lucy Worsley". If we feel we cannot answer that question without including the information "she is a person who has been accused of plagiarism" then I suppose we must. Per WP:BLP we should only include it if we're cheating the reader by not.

I don't see it as core, key information. Being a plagiarist is an important character marker that readers need to know to answer the question "who is Lucy Worsley". Being accused of plagiarism by one interested person.... I mean, so what? Everybody has enemies and squabbles. And its not really our job to adjudicate how credible it is by comparing the documents ourselves, for goodness' sake.

I don't see the hurry here. We're here for the long term. Are people going to need to know this information in 20 years, 100. Let's wait a bit and see how this shakes out. Herostratus (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It seemed clear that Worsley was aware of and drew on Byrne's work. Private Eye implies that Worsley's acknowledgement of her debt to Byrne for ideas is inadequately reflected in the citations. Not having seen the book, this may be true, but it is also clear from the Eye's comments that some acknowledgement is made. Private Eye also highlights close similarity of wording which in academic terms is less of an issue: a slightly re-worded but properly cited statement in a popular history derived from an academic source would hardly be a problem. Finally it is worth bearing in mind that biographies of 18th century literary figures are not usually covered by Private Eye: this review should be considered in the light of the Eye's traditional distaste for celebrities and the BBC. Martinlc (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reign of Power

Lucy Worsley presented a programme called "Lucy Worsley's Reign of Power" about how horses have been used by past British monarchs. This was on BBC television at least twice, and could be added to the list of television programmes Worsley has presented. Vorbee (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Minor speech impediment

Does Lucy Worsley really have a speech impediment that affects her ability to say "r"? I have been watching her programme on BBC Two tonight - the programme called "A Night at the Opera" -(October 14 2017) and have not been able to detect any such a thing. Vorbee (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Telegraph says that she does, and she says that she does (those are to two refs in the article). I get where you're coming from, but what you'd need to do is find some published source that says that she doesn't.Herostratus (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that bit is out of date. Her rhotacism has diminished a lot in recent years; I remember seeing a link in one of her later programmes where she seemed to be deliberately using a lot of words with an initial "r" to show off that she could do it now! --2A00:23C6:3E03:2801:C548:F41C:26EC:A821 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments about Prince Albert

That bit is interesting, but doesn't seem all that notable really. --2A00:23C6:3E03:2801:C548:F41C:26EC:A821 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly that. There seems to be only a minimal reaction in the media. After all her comments are not that extraordinary. The section should probably just be deleted. Any opinions? Knaxberg (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Book on Agatha Christie

The article should say that she has published a book on Agatha Christie, called "Agatha Christie: A Very Elusive Woman". Details of this book can be found on the Amazon website. YTKJ (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)