Talk:W. H. Davies

	Biography portal 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 the arts and entertainment work group.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sequel to Supertramp?

I read Supertramp decades ago, and I seem to remember a sequel to supertramp which I also read, although I might just possibly be confusing it with Young Emma which I read more recently. Its a pity Project Gutenberg does not have (last time I looked) the text of Supertramp to download and read. And from what I recall from reading Young Emma, there is a suggestion that she was a (probably amatuer) prostitute that he picked up. Edit: the sequel was Later Days, and the BBC link says his wife was a prostitute, so I've adjusted the article. I believe they were childless. Not sure if him losing his leg is described in Supertramp or Later Days - I think it may be the latter. 80.2.192.179 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion to old version unreasonable

Somebody reverted the improvements I made to the old version, with a comment that they had no basis. However, I have read all three of his autobiographical books, and the BBC article does say that his wife was a prostitute. I'm sorry, but I cannot see any good reason for reverting them unless you think you own the article, so I've undone the reversion. 80.2.202.176 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a help if you supply inline citations to clarify: these require the <ref> and <ref/> tags to place footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else has done that with this article. 80.2.193.142 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? Charles Matthews (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

I have notes that say he was born on 20 April 1871 and 3 July 1871. Anyone know which is correct? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC seem to think it was 20 April 1871: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/calendar/?2004/04/20. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That BBC page, however, admits "NB: Sources seem equally divided over his date of birth. Some give this date, others give 3 July 1871." A quick search on www.findmypast.com for a William Henry Davies born in Newport, Mon in 1871, reveals none in Apr/May/June, but one in July/Aug/Sept. This strongly supports 3 July, but the original copy of that certificate might settle matters. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Normand (2003) gives 20 April and it seems unlikely he would have not fully researched this. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, curious. Does Normand make any comment on 3 July or explain how it arose? Maybe he was baptised on 3 July. What we really need is not just an assertion that one particular birth date is correct, but something that explicitly refutes the alternative candidates. I'm interested in cases like this, where 2 or more different dates appear in sources. What I'd really like to find is a comprehensive site that looks at a range of such cases, explains how the incorrect dates came to exist in the first place, and gives the most likely correct dates. Maybe I should write it myself. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I think we need to say something about his birthdate in the article, even if it's that sources are divided on whether it was 20 April or 3 July. If Normand is considered the most authoritative source, we should give 20 April as the date, with a note about the other date. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no reference to 3 July in Normand's excellent book. I suggest you go ahead. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Martin. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now in my possession a copy of the birth cerificate for William Henry, son of Francis Davies (a Moulder) and Mary Anne Davies (formerly Evans), at 6, Portland Street, Newport, St.Woolos (sic) on July 3rd 1871. This is conclusive. I guess Normand must have used a secondary and incorrect source. I shall amend the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great detective work, Martin. Thanks for settling it once and for all. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yes, I guess although the certficate is conclusive, some users (BBC included) might be confused without a little more explanation in a footnote. I am still intrigued as to where 20 April came from, maybe I can track down Lawrence Normand! And also why the Register office in 1871 places Portland Street in St.Woolos and not in Pilwgenlly. Ecclestiastical boundaries I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Normand has kindly confirmed that he did indfeed unwittingly use a secondary source for birth details which was incorrect. The Register Office has also kindly confirmed that in 1871 Portland Srteet was in the parish of St.Woolos. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth

The birth certificate is equally clear about place of birth being 6, Portland Street, so I have corrected the article. But there may have been some genuine confusion here, given that the informant, "H. Creanes", is intriguingly described as "Occupier 6 Portland Steet". Was the property sub-let? Was this a relative? Did Mary Anne move to the Church House to have the baby? Did the informant mistakenly give own address as place of birth? Davies himself maintained all his life he had been born at The Church House, and that is where the plaque was installed. But I suggest we stick with the content of the birth certificate for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..."abandoned" by mother?

According to Normand, after William's father Francis died in 1873, Mary Ann received money from her father-in-law to help support herself and the three children. When, out of respectability, she re-married that same year, however, Captain Davies refused to give any more money suggesting instead that he and his wife adopt the children - provided that Mary Ann gave up all claim to them. This she agreed to do. 20 years later when William's grandmother Lydia died, it was Mary Ann who offered her three children shelter once again. This despite having had four more children in the intervening years, and having been widowed TWICE more. The loss of both his mother and father in his early years was certainly deeply significant for William. But his mother alone cannot really be held wholly responsible, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free image?

The article is sadly lacking a copyright free image of Davies. Can anyone provide anything, or would an image of the blue plaque and/or statue be possible substitutes? The Epstein sculpture seems to be a very good likeness, but any image will surely have the same copyright restrictions? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the blue plaque from The Church House is now present, but the article still lacks an image of Davies himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Scewing (talk) for the NYPL Coburn image. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]