Talk:The Grand Sophy

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

title

Hey, Augusta, can we clarify what the title section is saying? Was this an intentional Regency-era pun by Heyer? Valereee (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting ping: Angusta. Valereee (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee: I don't know of any evidence one way or the other. However, "The Grand Sophy was a name used by some 18th century writers for the ruler of Persia, the way The Grand Turk was used for the Ottoman Sultan, so it made sense for the young officers to have used it as a nickname for Sophy." (Regency Manipulations: The Grand Sophy) IMHO it's very unlikely that Heyer, who knew the period so well, would have been unaware of that fact. Angusta (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's it's quite likely, but it feels like we're drawing a conclusion rather than following the sources. I'd like to remove the section. Valereee (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where "we're drawing a conclusion rather than following the sources." Everything in the Title section is simple, verified fact. No conclusion is drawn. But if you feel that the wording somehow draws a conclusion, then I suggest that you alter it to remove the conclusion, leaving the factual statements in place because (IMHO) it's useful to explain the title of a book where – as in this case – the reason for the title isn't made clear in the text.
However, if you feel strongly about it, you're free to delete the section; it'd be silly to start an edit war by putting it back, so I won't do so. Angusta (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping: Valereee – Angusta (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not getting the point of reliable sources, Angusta. Somebody's speculation in an online discussion is little better than the piece of original research added to the article that is being objected to here. Only a direct quotation from Georgette Heyer herself would count - and since she wrote regularly to her publishers commenting on the novels she was writing at the time, it may be available in her correspondance. I agree with Valereee that the section should be removed per Wikipedia guidelines until the point is reliably clarified. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. For the first sentence of the Title section I cited a reliable, published source that is directly related to the topic and directly supports the material being presented. (unquote WP:OR) Not "somebody's speculation in an online discussion." As I said to Valereee, the section is a simple statement of fact; it says nothing about Georgette Heyer's view of the matter. If you feel that you can somehow read something into that section that isn't actually there then you, like Valereee, are free to delete it. {shrug} Angusta (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]