Talk:Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones

Age?

Wasn't she a little young to have worked for the OSS in Spain? The article says she was born in 1943 and the OSS was dissolved in 1945.

JimCubb (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, she was NOT born in 1943. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizayaro (talk • contribs) 08:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OSS Exploits Fictionalized

Griffith's exploits as a spy for the OSS in Spain during WWII, as she describes them in "The Spy Wore Red" and her other books, are highly fictionalized. She did work as a junior cipher clerk for the OSS in Madrid, but he accounts of engaging in espionage in the books are fictionalized. Please see this reference before reverting the verbage that her memoirs were highly fictionalized: http://books.google.com/books?id=nKaHjVFxwXAC&pg=PA326&lpg=PA326&dq=aline+romanones+fabricated&source=bl&ots=wx2DFqVNwH&sig=hTNwJzzk1YEiyHn0RZ_PhCbDBeY&hl=en&ei=Og3aTOvYB8X_lgejl-jZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=aline%20romanones%20fabricated&f=false Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Griffith's exploits as a spy for the OSS are published as non fiction, and her stories are supported by William J. Casey, both on the inside jacket of the hard cover of The Spy Wore Red, as well as confirmed, very detailed, on page 169 of Elizabeth P. McIntosh's, Women of the OSS, Sisterhood of Spies. Also, the National Archives files reveal some of her operations. Aline is still alive, and can be interviewed, but I think the current wording, that a) the books are non fiction (they are indeed published as non fiction), and that there is a debate regarding her story, should be enough common ground to keep the current verbage as is. So, please see the National Archives, and McIntosh's book before you revert back. I will stay close to this to support a national hero who was recruited and trained by the OSS, and sent into the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizayaro (talk • contribs) 08:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Kizayaro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I find the new verbage that acknowledges there is debate about how much she has fictionalized her memoirs to be generally acceptable for now, so I see no reason to revert at this time, though in the future it may be a good idea to expand the discussion of the controversy over the veracity of her memoirs if more sources come to light. However, your comment "I will stay close to this to support a national hero" is not constructive. First of all, it is an implied threat that you are going to edit war if I revert, second, you've pretty much stated that you do not have a neutral point of view on this. You have said that you are editing here "to support a national hero", a reason for being here that will come into conflict with the purpose of making sound edits that are supported by reliable significant sources, if those sources end up pointing to her memoirs being fictionalized. With that statement, you have made it impossible for any editors to assume good faith in your edits regarding the veracity of Griffith's memoirs.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC):Also, telling me to refer to the "National Archives" before I revert is incivil and unconstructive. Had you refered me to a specific document in the National Archives, that would have been one thing, but to say it as you did, you might as well have said "A book in the New York Public Library says I am right, so there." If there is a specific document in the National Archives that verifies her claims, you need to cite it specifically in the article - just throwing out "please see the national archives before reverting" doesn't carry any water. Also, I read the McIntosh citation through Google Books. Google Books does not allow me to see McIntosh's bibliography, so for all I know, she used "The Spy Wore Red" as her source for her description of Griffith's exploits, and I think you can see that would do nothing to clarify the controversy over the truthfulness of Griffith's memoirs. If you can provide McIntosh's bibliography in regards to her discussion of Griffith, and show that it cites independent official sources, I would be glad to change my position, but until then, there is plenty of reason to remain skeptical.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmyers, with all due respect, one can remain neutral, while still calling a women, Aline, a "national hero", regardless of this "conroversy" you created on Wiki. She enlisted in a brand new espionage organization, the OSS, giving up her life in NYC as a model, and was sent off to Europe to serve her country during the war. I don't think that you even debate that fact. The level of detail of her stories may remain under debate which is fine. But, then you go on to slam the way I post on this discussion page, regarding my reference to the National Archives, when in fact its not the National Archives you won't investigate for yourself, but didn't want to even check the actual contents of McIntosh's book, which can be purchased easily online or found at a library. So, please feel free to get a copy of the book, and see page 169 for the National Archives mention, as well as a quote from William Casy (only as it relates to Spy Wore Red), which I will write here, "She (Aline) accurately reflected the sensitivity of the clandestine intrigue and strategic maneuvers that marked the struggle between the secret services.... and the atmosphere of the high social life in wartime Spain.", Women of the OSS Sisterhood of Spies, by Elizabeth P. McIntosh, in reference to the dust jacket of SWR. Also, in reply to your concern that I would stay "close" to this record was due to you instructing the Wikipedia community not to revert back, as if you are the sole manage of the site. So, I repeat, I am neutral and simply wanted to support that Aline published non fiction books about her adventures. You already have quite a reputation on this site and I really don't know who you think you are to tell me that I'm "incivil and unconstructive".— Kizayaro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Kizayaro - first of all, please remember to sign your comments with 4 atildas so people can know who is making a particular comment. Second, I did not create a controversy regarding questions about Romanones' OSS career, I merely repeated what had been reported in at least 3 different sources that I know of. That Romanones served in the OSS has never been under debate. While it is admirable that Romanones volunteered to serve her country during WWII, she served as a cypher clerk in a neutral, noncombatant country, so to call her a "hero" is to fall victim of the trend in this country to overuse that term which has cheapened its value. I actually did read the McIntosh reference, page 169, and refered to it and the Casey quote contained in it, so you are misrepresenting me when you claim that I didn't want to check the contents. I merely said I couldn't read its bibliographym and it is not my responbsibility to purchase a book or drive to the library to read it every time there is a question about a source on Wikipedia, especially when I have not opposed its inclusion, merely said it is not the final word on Romanones' career. You also unfairly misrepresent me when you say I instructed the Wikipedia community not to refer back. I did no such thing - I requested that they read the West source (so they could make an informed decision) before reverting back. Last, I take exception to your completely uncivil and unsubstantiated claim that I "have quite a reputation on this site." I am an occasional editor who doesn't have much of a reputation, positive or negative. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what makes Historical Dictionary of Sexpionage a reliable source? The author's WP article, especially the comment by the judge in the last lawsuit listed in the legal actions section, makes the book rather suspect. JimCubb (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the lawsuits have anything to do with the source cited here, nor does the opinion of one judge regarding the behavior of the author in court proceedings unrelated to the source make the source itself "rather suspect." You're arguing Ad hominem here. But if you don't like the Nigel West source, there are more. In 1991, Women's Wear Daily retrieved her OSS files from the National Archives and reported to its readers that she had highly embellished her exploits (Here is a link to an LA Times article that confirms that: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-10/news/vw-55_1_aline-romanones). That's right, the National Archives, which Kizayaro so harps on, seem to dispute her claims. Kizayaro also is being disingenuous when he says that her stories are supported by William J. Casey. First of all, Casey died the very month that Griffith's first book came out, so there is no way he could have supported the veracity of her claims in her subsequent books. Second, what Casey said was: "A FASCINATING AND EXCITING STORY evoking those marvelous days we served in the OSS in Europe. Her narrative reflects sensitively and accurately the clandestine intrigue and strategic maneuvers that marked the struggle between the secret services, as well as the Allied and Axis powers, and the atmosphere and high social life in wartime Spain." So Casey was not saying that he knew for a fact Griffith was accurately portraying her exploits, only in a very general way that she accurately portrayed life in the OSS in Spain. There is no question that she was employed by the OSS in Spain - only whether she embellished what she did during that time, and Casey's endorsement does nothing to lay that question to rest. Page 169 of McIntosh also simply quotes the Casey quote I have quoted here - there is no other confirmation by Casey in that source, even though Kizayaro's post might mislead one to think there is.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice bit of re-direction, but I still do not see any reason to accept Historical Dictionary of Sexpionage as a reliable source. I did not see any indication of footnotes. Are there other sources for the debunking that was done?

The Times article, dated 10 March 1991, only has one paragraph regarding the WWD information and this is it:

Late last month, Romanones became the vortex of controversy in the New York press over charges that her best-selling memoirs are precisely that--just stories. Women's Wear Daily said it had retrieved her file from OSS (precursor to the CIA) from the National Archives and learned she had embroidered her exploits as an American spy.

That is hardly a confirmation of the information. It is merely a confirmation that WWD had made some allegations. The article does mention that Aline's husband disapproved of her espionage activities. It seems odd that he would disapprove activities that would have ended in 1945 if she were merely a cipher clerk. JimCubb (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no re-direction at all on my part, your accusation is just petty grandstanding. Your use of the court case to cast doubt on the West source is a clear-cut example of the Ad hominem fallacy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his comments about Griffith. I challenge you to provide any link whatsoever between the two, or to provide any reasonable explanation that would make it likely that West would have any reason or anything to gain by falsly claiming that Griffith embellished. However, you say "I do not see any reason to accept [West] as a reliable source...Are there other sources for the debunking that was done?" Staggering that you would write that right after I wrote "[b]ut if you don't like the Nigel West source, there are more." I had already said "if you don't buy the West source, here is another" and then provided the additional source, and you respond by saying you don't buy the source and want another. You have a very awkward way of expressing yourself that gives the appearance that you didn't read very carefully.

Your attempt at refuting the other source is also awkward. You zero in on the number of paragraphs. One paragraph or 10, it is still confirmation that other sources independent of West have found reason to doubt Griffith's memoirs after viewing her file. Again, what reason or gain would WWD have in falsely making such an allegation? And if the information in the National Archives file disputes this allegation, why haven't Griffith or her publisher sued WWD or LA Times for libel? Strangely, you seem to have no problem with Kizayaro invoking the National Archives file without providing any evidence of its contents, but when I provide mainstream media sources that indicate the file supports the charge of exaggeration, you jump all over me. Serious double standard there.

Then you say "The article does mention that Aline's husband disapproved of her espionage activities. It seems odd that he would disapprove activities that would have ended in 1945 if she were merely a cipher clerk." Wow. Let's apply a little common sense here. Why do you think the article mentions this? Could it be because Griffith herself (the person who maintains she is a spy) told Lacher (the interviewer) that this was the case? We know her husband didn't tell Lacher this, since he died 3 years before the interview took place and thus could neither confirm nor deny that he wanted her to quit (though it is not unreasonable to think that a husband would go along with his wife's lie that had helped her sell books).So Aline telling an interviewer that her dead husband asked her to quit being a spy in no way proves that Aline isn't lying about having been a spy, right? Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmyers, you go too far by changing "agent" to "employee". This is rediculous. Interestingly enough, Nigel West, quoted above, appeared along with Aline in the above quoted documentary “Garbo: The Spy”. Many are now asking, if Nigel West didn’t think Aline was a spy in Madrid during WWII, why would he agree to appear in the documentary with her? DrCoox (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)— DrCoox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is nothing "too far" or "rediculous (sic)" about doing so. While Romanones was unquestionably employed by the OSS, there is a documented controversy about whether or not she was actually an agent or intelligence operative for them. Therefore, the use of the completely verified and uncontroversial "employee" is the best choice of word for that sentence. The only thing ridiculous here is your attempt to use West's and Romanones' both appearing in the same documentary as West validating Romanone's memoirs. Are you trying to tell me that documentaries never interview different people who might disagree with each other? Furthermore, West EXPLICITLY states in more than one book he has written that Romanones's exploits were fictional, leaving no room for question that he believes she was not a spy, so your argument that his being interviewed in the same documentary means he believes her is just extremely faulty logic.. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DrCoox, I think your latest edit to the sentence in question is a very reasonable compromise. Thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmyers, Thank you, but I want to go on record to state, The "documented controversy” was a debate that was in the mass media and newspapers when Aline's first book came out. There was nothing conclusive to say she was not a spy. You quote your sources, and I have the right to include others. I can live with the text I changed today, which you have accepted, only because I am tired this debate. There is specific mention of her “spy” work, referenced directly to her work in the National archives. This is a fact. In addition, I quote from the referenced Sisterhood of Spies book by McIntosh, “there was one lady spy in this group, a Hattie Carnegie model from Pearl River New York, who later became known as Aline, Countess of Romanones. It goes on, “in her undercover days, she was Aline Griffith”, it continues, “she also handled a small agent net that spied on the private secretary of a minister in the Spanish Government. But, more conclusive is the specific mention of Aline’s work in The National Archives, with specific mention of information obtained, from Aline, on Prince Max Ernst zu Hohenlohe. DrCoox (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmyers, If you want to call it a “controversy” than please let both sides of the story be told. I have, once again, added a fair comment to the controversy section to represent the other side of the story, quoted to the reliable source. DrCoox (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DrCoox, if there had been something conclusive to say that she is not a spy, there would be no controvery, everyone would agree that she was not a spy. Controversy comes from there being no tidy conclusion, no definitive proof either way. It doesn't matter that the coverage of the controversy only occured when her books first came out. Since they went on and off the bestseller list and no new information came to light, they, and the countess were not in the public mind, therefore it would not be newsworthy for the media to keep reporting on the controversy much beyond the publication date of the books. However, there still was in fact controversy. However, academics CONTINUE to discuss it, West talked about it in 1998 and 2009, so you cannot claim that it has never been discussed since the early newspaper coverage, that's simply untrue. You're also trying to parse words here, saying "the 'documented controversy' (in quotations) was a debate in the mass media" - yes, a debate in the mass media is a controversy. Look up the definition of controversy: "dispute, argument, or debate, esp one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement and esp one carried on in public or in the press"(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/controversy) Yes, I want to call it a controversy because it IS a controversy. The very way you tried to describe the media debate is actually the dictionary's definition for a controversy.

Your second mistake is placement of the McIntosh quote. That should go in the biography section, not the controvery section, as it gives biographical information about her, and doesn't give any information about the controversy. You are trying to put in in the controvery section as rebuttal to the controversy, but this is an encyclopedia article, not a discussion forum. You are new to Wikipedia, and don't know all the policies, so you need to read WP:NOT which states "...please DO NOT use Wikipedia for any of the following purposes....4.Discussion forums" Karl 334 already had to revert quite a bit of your original research that you typed into the Controversy section and tell you that this is "not a talk page."

Your third mistake is also how you use the McIntosh source. Yes, the source does state that Griffith was a spy, however it does not talk about the National Archives confirming her status as a spy, nor does it say that the National Archives confirmed all her exploits were in fact nonfictional. However, the way you place the source endnote, it makes it appear that McIntosh BOTH states that she was a spy AND references the National Archives as confirming her exploits. Your insistence on editing it that way, taken with your using the Controversy section as a talk page, and your being a single purpose account are fair evidence that you are POV pushing and would tend to make me suspect that your misdirection with the McIntosh citation is deliberate. However, I am going to continue to assume good faith, especially since you are a newcomer, and I am going to assume that your mistake is not deliberate, that you just don't understand Wikipedia policy or style guidelines. However, now that I have brought this to your attention, that assumption won't last forever. I have explained the problems with the use of the McIntosh reference and the placement of it in the article, and your continuing to replace it constitutes continuing a disputed edit without consensus and I will report you for violation of the three-revert rule if you continue.

(P.S. - I would also like to point out that McIntosh uses "The Spy Wore Red" as her primary source for making her assertions that Griffith was a spy, and that is problematic because her main source is the source of the controversy.) Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

One-third of the whole article is dedicated to controversies, which gives a misleading impression of her life as constantly mirrored in disputes. A single sentence referencing the controversies about her work as an OSS would be enough.Baidelan (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Grandee of Spain??

Her husband may have been a Grandee of Spain. She isn't. She was only countess-consort, and now Dowager countess. Her husband, the 3rd Count, died in 1988.

208.87.248.162 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have some documentation for that, we can make the change. Doesn't have to be specific to Romanones, can just be a source that explains how the Spanish peerage system works, especially for those who marry into it.Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a little research, and from what I have read spouses do not actually become Grandees just by marrying one. It seems they are entitled to be treated with the same privileges as their husbands, at least as long as the husbands are alive, but Grandeeship is not a title of nobility, it is an inherited rank, so they don't actually get that rank. She is entitled to the courtesy titles of a Countess unless she remarries, but I don't see anything that allows her the courtesy title of Grandee. Still, i have not found enough definitive evidence that the title is in error for me to feel comfortable removing it yet - although the claim of her being a grandee is itself unsourced, so could be removed for that reason. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Spouse of late Grandee of Spain" should be a good work around, as her husband was a Grandee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrCoox (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is due for some cleanup. The changes I recommend include:

• Cutting the controversies section. Content is relevant but goes into far too many details, especially when compared to the biography section. I suggest combining the first three paragraphs into one and expanding the fourth one about her imperious personality.
• Including a portrait and other pictures about her social life int he biography.
• Adding more details about her social life. She was a close friend of Nancy Regan, Jacky Kennedy, Audrey Hepburn, and even knew Donald Trump.

If I receive no comments in the following 15 days, I'll go ahead with the changes myself.Baidelan (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the change to the Controversy section. The issue of her exploits being fictionalized and the appropriateness of inclusion was previously discussed extensively. Baidelan overreaches with his claim of undue weight because the paragraphs on the controversy were not that long, the section itself is not that long, nor is it by any means excessively detailed. The section makes the article more comprehensive, and thus a better article. The lions' share of Romanones' Notability comes from her book series with its claims of being autobiographical fact, if she had never published the books she would have been a minor noble little-known outside of certain elite social circles. Since it is her book series and about her life as a spy that made her well-known in the wider world, a discussion of documented questions about its veracity is significantly relevant to any discussion of her. Last, it is important to point out that Baidelan appears to have a documented conflict of interest relating to Romanones, so should not be editing on her page to begin with, and may be POV-pushing with his attempts to minimize the controversy. 74.213.48.38 (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to "Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones" per consensus favoring alternative suggestion. Station1 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Aline Griffith, Dowager Countess of Romanones → Aline Griffith, 3rd Countess of Romanones – She was the Countess of Romanones when her husband lived, from 1963 to 1988. When her husband passed away she became the Dowager Countess of Romanones. Since she too passed away on Dec 11, 2017, she is no longer the Dowager Countess. Baidelan (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones. We don't use "Dowager" anyway, and she certainly isn't one now she's dead. Neither was she the 3rd Countess of Romanones; her husband was the 3rd Count of Romanones. She was just the countess; wives do not take their husband's title number. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • AGREE, BUT, in Spain, "Dowager" is the correct title for the consorts of deceased nobility, I am 100% sure Baidelan (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Dowager is everywhere the title for the widow of a deceased nobleman. However, we don't generally use it on Wikipedia. It's merely an indicator that her husband is dead. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• OPPOSE good faith suggestion by @Baidelan (re Aline Griffith, 3rd Countess of Romanones) because consort monarchs do not follow this numerical MOS. Support suggestion by @Necrothesp. Quis separabit? 00:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones. We don't usually use "dowager" or a numerical number for the consort of a monarch. We don't call Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon Dowager Queen Elizabeth, we simply call her Queen Elizabeth. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 20:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RE: 10th Count of Quintanilla and 11th Count of Quintanilla

@Baidelan :: How could the second son (Luis de Figueroa y Griffith) become "11th Count of Quintanilla" if the first son, Álvaro de Figueroa y Griffith, 10th Count of Quintanilla, 4th Count of Romanones, is still alive? Just curious. Quis separabit? 00:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I understand the confusion and both brothers are still alive. As you probably know, according to Spanish law, the title must go to the oldest sibling (male or female). However, when there is more than one title to inherit, the family can agree to split them among the siblings, which is what happened in this case. In the past, nobility titles were linked to an allowance, so the trend was to concentrate the titles among fewer and fewer people. The oldest sibling would inherit all titles and he, in turn, would marry a woman who had inherited a title and then their oldest sibling would inherit all the titles from both parents. However, nowadays titles don't carry any allowance, so the trend is the opposite. As long as the most important title in terms of rank goes to the oldest sibling, the younger siblings can inherit as many titles as the parent decides. Baidelan (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Mcudos

To editor Mcudos: I reverted you. Please explain why you added a bunch of uncited content and removed citations. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Mcudos: please make a list of your suggested edits here Baidelan (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Baidelan: Do I need to start raising questions at WP:COIN or will you provide some honest answers? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:The certifacte of birth seems legit, why would Mcudos lie about that even if COI? Secondly, I was not aware that I was being questionned. I have no work or family relationship with the subject of this page whatsoever, but I do follow it because I am interested in this historical figure.Baidelan (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Baidelan and User:Chris troutman,

I have a COI because I have worked for 3 years with the Countess of Romanones until her death, and am working now in the Foundation Aline Countess of Romanones. So: I propose the following changes for the article Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones

Date of birth: 1920 - Her birth certificate is online. Her biography only cites the beginning of her adulthood. Publications: there are mistakes on the year of publishing and also there are different titles which are the same book.

References: This one is in Spanish 2. Nieto, Maite (12 December 2017). "Muere Aline Griffith, condesa de Romanones, periodista y espía" [Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones, journalist and spy, dies]. El País (in Spanish). Retrieved 13 December 2017. This one has no information 6. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/lohud/obituary.aspx?pid=157846297 This one doesn't exist 9. "Milestones: announcement of marriage". Time. 7 July 1947. Retrieved 17 May 2009. This one has no information 10. "María Aline Griffiths Dexter profile". Geneall. This one has no information and it is in Spanish 11. "Collection of articles about and photographs of the Countess". Cotilleando (in Spanish). Retrieved 14 December 2017. This one has no link - just a book reference 15. West, Nigel (1998). "3". Counterfeit Spies. Little Brown.

The page you offer in Wikipedia has information that is misleading.

Thank you

To editor Mcudos: - regarding your concerns that the Nigel West reference has no link, just a book reference, that is not a reason to edit or delete the reference. Wikipedia allows books to be used as references even if they are not available online. 74.213.48.38 (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WRIT 015-31, Writing for Others

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): El34aya (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by El34aya (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Editing Plan: In the upcoming weeks I will be editing, revising, and adding to this wikipedia article for an english assignment. Thus far, I have noticed content gaps regarding Griffith’s family, personal life, and career. I especially feel that the existing ‘controversy’ section needs to be edited - I plan on adding citations from a more diverse background, in order to present a well-rounded ‘controversy’ section, establishing both sides. I also plan on getting rid of the ‘marriage’ and ‘biography’ sections, and creating a personal/early life section/s. I will then add information I have found regarding her past life, education, parents, and children. I feel that it is important to provide a thorough background of Aline Griffith in order to create the most accurate image of her on Wikipedia. I also plan to edit the lead section and make sure that it follows Wikipedia’s lead section guidelines. In general, I hope to remove excess information, correct misinformation, and build off of pre existing text, with the hope to provide a truthful representation of Aline Griffith. Here is my annotated bib: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El34aya/Aline_Griffith%2C_Countess_of_Romanones/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography El34aya (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)