Talk:Harry Lauder

message: The original content of this page  is a copyright violation of , as pointed out by Giano_II. I have begun rewriting the article to avoid this. "Early Life" is rewritten, but further material remains to be removed. Choess 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewrite is complete. Choess 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done!  --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. As I said to Giano, there's still something of a void at the heart of the article — it doesn't really do a good job of describing what Lauder's act was like, what his talents were, and so on. Music hall performers, alas, are really beyond my competence, but I suppose we'll have to trust in eventualism to fix up the article in that respect. Choess 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: I understand Sir Harry Lauder was the first musichall artist to be knighted. can anyone confirm this? (Trevek (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Knighthood

message: I have heard that Harry Lauder was so greatly popular that after he made a "Farewell Tour", there was huge demand for another tour, and that this happened so often enough that they came to be described as "Harry Lauder's Annual Farewell Tour".
I think this is a lovely detail.  Can anyone provide a source to confirm this? Wanderer57 (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farewell Tours 

message: Anyone know what his plaid tartan kilt was called? Thanks. Programmer13 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey. 

message: Where in Strathaven is Lauder Ha'? --RyanTee82 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Lauder Ha'?

message: I believe Mr. Lauder toured America as an attraction in the Chautauqua movement, though I don't have the paper citation on me. Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chautauqua 

message: She would only be Lady Ann Lauder if she was born Lady Ann. Otherwise she would be simply 'Lady Lauder' or 'Ann, Lady Lauder'. Valetude (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Lady Ann' Lauder 

message: I have conducted an initial revamp of the first few paragraphs and of the lead section, but I feel the article is hindered somewhat by the brief, repetitive and extremely redundant infobox which I elect to delete.  It is not needed here and will not hamper the articles progress into anything more than a B-class, bearing in mind that we already have Dan Leno, Marie Lloyd, Little Tich and Stanley Holloway all at featured article with no infoboxes.  Cassiantotalk  19:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the IB offers very little; I was surprised to find it wasn't removed back in 2014 so have now done so. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The box was added Boldly, a Revert has taken place, now whoever disagrees, Discusses. It's really not that difficult to understand; unless you're you, it appears. CassiantoTalk 11:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will reply to you this once. You should know there is implied consensus as a result of the box being there since 2008 and despite your twistings of the BRD policy to fit whatever you want, you are being bold by removing it, and you should have to discuss. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be talking out of your backside again. Let me teach you how WP:BRD works. It was Boldy added in 2008, yes, but the fact nobody has removed it is not a fucking consensus. All that could mean is that the article doesn't have many visitors and no one could care one way or the other. Next on the BRD cycle is Revert, which I have done, as I believe this offers our readers nothing that the lead section doesn't.  Now you, or anyone else, are free do Discuss this WP:DISINFOBOX and why you think the three fields given within it (that also appear in the first line of the Lead Section), are of any benefit to this article. CassiantoTalk 11:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not. The fact that "no one has removed it", according to WP:CONSENSUS is a consensus! It does however say that it is the weakest form of consensus; I am therefore not opposed to having a discussion over removal of the infobox (as opposed to instating one). jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I both know that the fact nobody has removed it over the past nine years or so does not constitute a consensus; it was more of the fact that no one really cared one way or the other. While we're on the subject of "consensus's", may I ask where the discussion and then "consensus" was to add one back in 2008? More to the point, and if we go with your logic, may I also ask if such a consensus was in place for one not being added between 2003 and 2008 when the article omitted one? I would say that there was a consensus during this period and therefore, the addition of an infobox was added against consensus. Why do you and the rest of the idiotbox twatteratti insist on eschewing all common sense in favour of the dumbing down of our articles to visiting readers? CassiantoTalk 12:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Lie. There have been 67,246 visitors in the last two years. I presume the fact that you're now falling back on your crutch of frankly poor insults means that you've now read WP:CONSENSUS and realized that you are being bold in going against nine years of implied, stable, consensus. In response to your extrapolated logic, the person who added the infobox nine years ago was bold. They however, were not reverted. Therefore, no discussion was required then. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I make no apology in telling you how it is. 67,000 visitors is no great shakes on WP, especially over a two year period; I would bet that most of those visitors would be made up of non-editors, bots, or people fucking around with cats. I like the way you've avoided giving me the rather obvious answers to my recently posed questions, so I'll ask them again: 1) Where was the discussion to add an infobox in 2008? 2) As the article survived 5 years without an infobox, was there no consideration for the presumed "no infobox consensus" when one was added in 2008? Moreover, and in response to your added question, the editor who added one has been reverted nine years later; I don't believe there is a time limit, according to policy, so your point here is moot. CassiantoTalk 12:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you read my response? I'm not going to insult you by doing so, but copying it verbatim would give you the answers you want. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was unintelligible so it has gone unanswered. CassiantoTalk 12:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I wondered how long it would take you until you went to the talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: These unanswered questions are stacking up. Best you start answering... CassiantoTalk 12:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox removal 2017

message: Since auto infoboxes are being implemented ......I have listed this article to be omitted from that process because of the RfC above.....but not sure how long that will work.--Moxy (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What's an auto infobox? EEng 11:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry was not clear these are being implemented. I am making a list of omissions.--Moxy (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How about giving the writing a polish, , or maybe you could find some sources in order to reference some of the uncited information that currently exists? Or is the desire to fix a problem that doesn't exist too great to ignore? CassiantoTalk 12:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text: As per the norm your lost about what is being talked about......I have no intention in editing the page. All about make sure editor's like you don't get into conflicts.--Moxy (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, you doing a very poor job of not wanting anything to do with this article as you seem to be rattling the gatepost here, very loudly. Now toddle off.  CassiantoTalk 15:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text:  Redacted - NPA --Moxy (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And what would be helpful here is for the baiting to stop and not to imply someone else has an illness. We hope (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is odd to be upset with someone trying to make sure the outcome of the RfC is noticed by others before the Wikidata infoboxe is added . As per many times before hes lost as to what is being discussed. We are all aware of his odd behaviour so no surprise here I guess. --Moxy (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: hes not lost on what's being discussed at all. You still here? CassiantoTalk 18:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Moxy coming back with more isn't ending the issues mentioned above.  I haven't seen you placing warnings on other articles without boxes-maybe you need to get busy doing that. We hope (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor little Moxy; nah, let's keep him here and assist him in making himself look like a complete fool. CassiantoTalk 18:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping we all have better things to do than continue here because it's beginning to remind me of a discussion from early this year. We hope (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That we do. CassiantoTalk 19:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  auto infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harry Lauder. 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/20110629213733/http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/scottishtheatrearchive/stacollections/sirharrylauder/ to http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/scottishtheatrearchive/stacollections/sirharrylauder/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From the article you would think that Lauder's musical hall performances were universally praised. There is a strong element in the Scottish intelligencia which was reviled by Lauder's kitsch music hall stuff, not least Hugh MacDiarmid and folk-revivalists who saw Lauder as a kind of cheesy, black-face equivelent. Indeed, MacDiarmid wrote a poem about Lauder in 1932 called "Allelauder". We should mention this. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish critics? 

message: Portobello, in Edinburgh, rightly claims that Lauder was born there in Bridge Street. So proud is Edinburgh that it named a road after him, Sir Harry Lauder Road. Looking at Scotland's People, his birth certificate shows him as illegitimate, admittedly with his father witnessing the registration (his mother could not write).  He never seems to have lived in Edinburgh, his family living in Inveresk, East Lothian in 1881 where his one year younger brother, Matt, is shown as born in Musselburgh. I surmise that Isabella, a domestic servant from Forfar, went to her mother's house - as she was working as a servant in a house in Albany Street, Edinburgh.  The rather grander description of John Lauder's (the father) ancestry looks quite suspicious. Sebmelmoth (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portobello