Talk:Jill Craigie

message: Why is this page a candidate for deletion? Craigie was a significant pioneer in the British film industry; much more than a "political wife." Normally she is in film reference books, see Brian MacFarlane's "Encyclopedia of British Film". Philip Cross 15:34, 26 February 2005
* It looks like this page has been worked on since the speedy-deletion tag was added. I've removed the tag now. Stephen Turner 15:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable 

message: This article was clearly sourced from the Jill Craigie biography written by Sarah Easen for the Screenonline site (http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/581828/), which is copyright of the British Film Institute.  Although some minor changes have been made (mostly cuts), the structure, content and even the wording of several sentences is essentially identical, and goes far beyond any possible definition of "fair use". Furthermore, the author has not been credited as the source, and neither has a link been offered to her work.  I therefore suggest deleting the bulk of this piece and replacing it with a link to the original article - which, being longer than the plagiarised version, will hopefully prove more valuable to your readers.
::I've attempted to rewrite this to avoid any copyright violation. Please feel free to edit more if you think it's required. howcheng  {chat} 00:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC
:::I've reverted to the pre-copyvio version, per wp:cp. Please remember, copyrights extend to derivitive works. --Duk 01:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: It says in the article that Jill Craigie was born in 1911, however she is under the category of 1914 births.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LienEmpire (talk • contribs) 05:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. The screenonline page cited above gives 1911 in the heading, but 1914 in the text. A previously included claim for 1911, citing a Camden New Journal article, is not sustained by the source. Philip Cross (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of birth? 

message: The text says: "In 1998, a biography of the late Hungarian-born writer Arthur Koestler by David Cesarani alleged Koestler had been a serial rapist and that Craigie had been one of his victims in 1951. Craigie confirmed the allegations. (...) Michael Scammell countered that Craigie was the only woman to go on record that she had been raped by Koestler, and had revealed this at a dinner party over fifty years after the alleged incident."
That must be wrong. If the incident took place in 1951, Craigie, who died in 1999, cannot have revealed it "over fifty years later" because she would have been dead by then, neither could it appear in a book published in 1998. The wording strongly suggests that Craigie revealed the incident "at a dinner party" in some moment, but surely before 1998, at this was picked up by Cesarani and confirmed by Craigie later. So it might be "almost 50 years later", but not "over". If somebody has read the book by Cesarani or the one by Scammell, they might recall when that dinner party was said to take place. Just to get the maths right. Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape allegation - Maths