Jump to content

Talk:Edith Cavell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Accuracy of quote

Anyone have any sources on which is the actual ending of the quote, "hatred or bitterness towards anyone" or "... for anyone"? One will note the statue pictured actually has the latter inscribed in its base, though the article uses the former, and Google yields over three times as many hits for the former than the latter.[1] The article text ought to be changed, as the words given are not in fact the ones inscribed, but given the popular prevalence of the non-inscribed version, and the possibility that the inscription is incorrect, I hesitate to edit the article without knowing which version is indeed accurate. --Severinus 04:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Saints banner and category

Based on this individual being included in the Calendar of saints (Church of England), I am adding the Category:Anglican saints and the Saints WikiProject banner to this article. I am awaiting reliable sources which can be used to add the content to the article. John Carter 17:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

The German Wikipedia version of this article has a nice image from Commons, commons:Image:Edith Cavell.jpg. This is blocked here by the rather nasty local image Image:Edith Cavell.jpg, which is orphaned.

Can we move (or delete) the local image, so we can use the commons image here in place of the poor quality Gutenberg scan? -- !! ?? 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroine?

The opening sentence simply describes here as "a World War I heroine", is this neutral? I mean I'm not arguing that she wasn't, but calling someone a hero or heroine is highly political and POV. Surely we need a neutral and encyclopaedic description here. --Hibernian 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it wasn't neutral. I've edited the lead to say that Cavell was, simply, a "nurse and humanitarian." The second is iffy, but because she is known mainly for saving the lives of others, I thought that a safer bet than "heroine." I also added some information on her alleged acts and why some may consider her a heroine ("Her subsequent execution received significant sympathetic press coverage worldwide"). Let me know what you think. María (habla conmigo) 22:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me as this mprovocatively: shouldn't she be called a covert military operative ? After all, she was involved in secretly assisting Allied troops, while officially beeing a Red Cross nurse.Wefa (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
She wasn't a covert military operative, she merely protected and assisted allied troops and others, on her own initiative, I believe. 192.117.101.209 (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Execution details

Martin Gilbert's book on World War I devotes considerable space to Edith Cavell, and Gilbert asserts that the details in the 1955 account cited in the article are incorrect in significant ways. According to Gilbert, she did indeed face a full firing squad, alongside a Belgian national -- he cites a poignant story of her requesting a hat pin to pin up her skirts so they would not flap unbecomingly when she was shot -- and the story as cited here was a (highly effective) propaganda fabrication. Gilbert has his own axes to grind, and I don't know whether the sources he used are any more reputable than that 1955 reference, so I'm unsure on how to proceed here. Any thoughts? -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy?

A memorial service at Westminster Abbey led by King George V was followed by travel by special train to Thorpe Station, Norwich. She was reburied on Life's Green, at the east end of Norwich Cathedral.

This is a very clumsy sentence, and I doubt the accuracy of it. It appears to be a rewording of the following:

On 19 May 1919, King George V lead a very well attended memorial service at Westminster Abbey before Edith's body was taken by special train to Thorpe Station, Norwich, and she was reburied on Life's Green, located at the east end of Norwich Cathedral. from Stephen's Study Room: British Military & Criminal History in the period 1900 to 1999. at [2]

I am dubious about the accuracy of this sentence for two reasons.

  1. Kings don't "lead" services. A clergymen, probably the Dean of Westminster, would have lead the service, assisted by his Precentor and possibly His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. If the King participated, then it would normally be to read a lesson (a bible reading) as Charles did at the funeral of his uncle the Earl Mountbatten. My other source says that the King "attended" the service.

It is also possible that the King led the funeral procession, but this is not very likely as her family had accompanied the coffin and would normally be given first place among the mourners, even in the presence of a King.

  1. The wording "a very well attended memorial service" is waffle and doesn't give the sense of a reliable document. Of course the service was "well attended"! "Well attended" implies that the church was quite full! The facts are that from the moment Cavell's remains arrived at Dover Harbour on May 13, crowds had flocked to pay homage, and as her coffin travelled from Dover to Victoria Station, London, school children lined the railway track. Crowds of people lined Victoria Street as the funeral procession proceeded to the Abbey, and more crowds lined the route to Liverpool Street Station, from whence her body was taken to Norwich. So that to say that the memorial service was "very well attended" is a bit like saying that Princess Diana's funeral was "very well attended". It fails to give any sense of the true picture.

I make this latter comment merely to indicate that this particular source doesn't seem to be an entirely reliable one. I can't find any other reference to suggest that the KIng lead the service. So I am deleting it. Amandajm (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dimplonier

I am a little puzzled by L'École d'Infirmière Dimplonier ; it looks so much like the French L'École d'Infirmières Diplomées (Diploma awarding nurse school), that I wonder if it is a bad copy or bad scan or something. Dimplonier is really an unknown word in French. Hektor 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that no-one has picked up on this. The clearly spurious "École d'Infirmière Dimplonier" has spread all over the English-speaking web. However, no French-language sources seem to quote it or even give it any special name, they just refer to a nursing school at Brussels. It's clearly an OCR scanning error, just like the "1’Ecole Belge cl’Iiifirmi8rcs DiplCiniCes" [sic]. I've changed it.
I've also removed a claim that Cavell actually founded this school in 1907, as opposed to becoming its director or matron. According to the abstract of this article it was Antoine Depage: "In 1907 he founded a school for nurses in Brussels, to be directed by Edith Cavell", and this is indeed what we have at the WP article on Depage, though there's still some confusion about the date of its founding. We can only hope the rest of the web will slowly catch up and eliminate this widely-propagated artifact.
I hate to say it but come on guys, Wikipedia's supposed to be better than this!! Then again, printed sources can get it wrong too: according to a bibliography, a book on Edith Cavell by A. E. Clarke-Kennedy (London, Faber & Faber, 1965) states that "When the war broke out Edith Cavell was matron of Dr. Depages's [sic] Training School for Nurses in Brussels' [sic] Barkendalle [sic] Medical Institute", i.e. Berkendael.
But was the Berkendael institution the same as the Ecole belge d’infirmières diplômées, as the article implies? ("After a period as a governess, she trained as a nurse at the Royal London Hospital and in 1903 was appointed matron of the Berkendael Institute founded by Antoine Depage.") According to this archives website she was still Assistant Matron at Shoreditch Infirmary in 1903 and went on to be Matron of the Manchester and Salford Sick Poor and Private Nursing Institution in 1907. It looks to me as if perhaps two institutions are being confused, an earlier ?surgical college (founded 1903) and a secular nursing school to which Cavell was appointed in 1907. No more time now to look into it but something's still not right! Flapdragon (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sainthood, again

Edith Cavell is listed in the categories for Anglican saints but not at Modern Anglican Saints and there doesn't seem to be a source recorded with a definitive list. Does anybody have one? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a saint?

Looking at the history of this article, the suggestion that Cavell is a saint comes from John Carter's comment above that she is listed in Calendar of saints (Church of England). However, she is listed in italics in that article, stating that this is a commemoration of her only, and does not imply that she is a saint. Furthermore, that article states that the only person to have been canonised by the Church of England since the reformation is (possibly) King Charles I. I've therefore been bold and removed the categories. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Leuven

Since Leuven (Louvain in the article) is located in the FLemish part of Belgium it should be named as Leuven, not the french name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.17.57 (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the policy of Wikipedia to use the name that was most common at the time. In 1915, a lot of Belgian cities were commonly known by their French name, even if the people living there spoke Dutch. This policy is why we don't refer to the First, Second and Third Battles of Ieper today, or have articles on the Battle of Slavkov u Brna or the Battle of Volgograd. Jsc1973 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I came upon this article while browsing the main page. It's a fine article about a fine lady, written with a restraint that I'm sure she would have approved of. So I just want to thank all those who wrote it. McZeus (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Priest"?

Her father is described as the "priest". Should that not be vicar? It is very unlikely that he was a Catholic, but would have been Church Of England, and they are referred to as vicars. 92.29.125.142 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

He was of course an ordained Anglican priest; a vicar must be a priest; a priest can then be vicar, rector, curate, chaplain, non-stipendiary or other role Ned de Rotelande 14:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

Not much to add here, except to say that if you want to be really pedantic you could call her father either a presbyter or a priest, though priest is by far the more common usage. But, yes, as has been stated, in part, Anglican clergy are deacons, priests (also called presbyters), and bishops. These are Holy Orders and have nothing to do with the job that the person so ordained (or ordered, to be archaic) is doing. Vicars are, indeed, always priests, but being a vicar is an office. Other Anglican parish priests are styled rector or priest-in-charge (or, formerly, perpetual curate) (or, more complicatedly, team rector/vicar). On leaving office the priest ceases to be a vicar, rector, etc, but remains a priest. There is a really bizarre idea among the public that Anglican clergy are not called priests, and that priests are only Catholic. This is completely wrong.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

YWCA Camp Cavell is the camp named after her in Michigan

The camp in Michigan that was named after Edith is YWCA Camp Cavell in Lexington, Michigan in the thumb area of the Michigan mitten. When one of the camp organizers read Edith's story in the 1920's she felt all young women should aspire to be as Edith and renamed the camp... Camp Cavell. It has been owned and operated since 1914 by the YWCA of Metropolitan Detroit. There is a small memorial on the site that holds a rock from her grave site and one from the mountain peak named after her in the Canadian Rockies.

YWCA Camp Cavell Website: http://campcavell.org/Cavell2pg.htm

Jill Laidlaw, YWCA Camp Director —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.99.225.76 (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some Differences to German Wikipedia

German wikipedia says that she was first a nurse than joined in an illegal organisation and worked as a spy helping allied POWs to escape to the Netherlands.--Prisoner 911 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


MEMORIAL SECTION

I restore memorial sites in South Africa. The town of Belfast in the province of Mpumalanga hosts a memorial for Edith Cavell too. The memorial is situated in the grave yard that contains the graves of fallen Brittish soldiers from the Boer War (1899-1902) as well as the graves of the Boer women and children which perished in the concentration camp East of the town during the same war.

Initially her memorial was located in front of the Town Hall in Belfast but was moved to it's current location some time after 1994. The memorial has been vandalized and the original bronze plate was removed. Her name that is engraved on the granite memorial, however is well preserved.

Herman van Deventer [redact] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.8.79 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sainthood, Nov 2012

As mentioned above, Edith Cavell is one of the deceased persons whose names are printed in italics in the "Holy Days" section of the Church of England's "Common Worship". The list includes festivals and saint's days. The names in italics are for commemoration, but are not celebrated as feast days or saint's days.[3] A fuller explanation can be seen at Calendar of saints (Church of England).

  • Dirkbb[4]] has been asked to look at the revision of 18 May 2009 "Feast day" and amend to avoid giving a misleading impression about sainthood in the Church of England. And see Category: Anglican saints. Qexigator (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

DC Red Cross memorial

Just confirming the recent IP deletion of a memorial to Cavell in the U.S. Red Cross HQ gardens. The Tait sculpture in question is for Jane Delano "and the 296 nurses who died in the war." I'm not sure there is any suggestion that the sculpture looks like Delano -- it seems a more generic "holy nurse". This has also been misrepresented at Outdoor sculpture in Washington, D.C.. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. see above: "Now deleted.[5] I have added the image to Jane Delano." Qexigator (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)06:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Memorials

The list of memorials is approaching half the length of the whole article. I am considering splitting them off in to List of memorials to Edith Cavell with a hat note to direct the reader. I'm not sure though about the first section Edith Cavell#Memorials. Should this be moved or kept as special case? If the latter then perhaps the list should be List of dedications to Edith Cavell. I'll try and rustle up a sandbox page this evening (UK time), but can we please keep comments here. It would be nice to obtain a concensus by, let's say, the end of this month. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on this at User:Martin_of_Sheffield/sandbox3, please feel free to comment. If doing so, please add your comments to the BOTTOM of the page to avoid edit conflicts. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

British nursing matrons from the 19th century

Is a "See Also" section the best place for this? There is already a category that covers this. If you want to make it more prominent then a collapsed navbox might be a better way forward, it has the advantage that you only need to keep the navbox up to date and all those mentioned within it are correctly displayed without having to edit the pages individually. Alternatively, would a list page be a better solution, but then that is what categories are supposed to do! I'll start the ball rolling with this list (in order of preference):

  • Use and update the category system.
  • Navbox (I'll be happy to write it if required).
  • List page.

May I suggest we keep this open for suggestions/debate until the end of the month and then take consensus? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There is already a List of nurses, but some of these names are missing from it. Any thoughts on the best way forward? I would suggest either the navbox or else merging this list into the list page and pointing the user at it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Arrest

Is it really true that Edith Cavell was betrayed by George Gaston Quien? (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19340502&id=47NQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PyIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5814,7189518&hl=en) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.164.148 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Treason - again

The matter has already been raised on this Talk Page, and I don't find the answer given above satisfactory. It is:

"A foreigner owes allegiance to the country in which he or she resides and can be charged with treason. I do not know how this principle applies in an occupied country, however. --JDM1991 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)"

The legal code - Belgian or German (with article number(s), etc) - and whether or not military and/or some kind of emergency decree, ought to be stated and a reliable source given for this astonishing claim. Edith Cavell was at the time a resident of occupied Belgium, and it really does stretch the imagination to see how she could be convicted of treason - and against which country or whom, incidentally? It just doesn't make sense. Norvo (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The claim was made by the authorities that executed her - not Wikipedia - and this is what has to be verifiable. The point is not whether she was "legally" executed (that would probably be unencyclopedic POV) but if the people doing it believed it was. This is much less far-fetched and unlikely than it seems. Even in the first world war the Germans were at times fairly flexible about interpreting the "laws of warfare" in their own favour - in both Belgium and France they were not overly scrupulous about executing, often summarily and en mass, civilians who were deemed to be "interfering in German war operations". All part of the Prussian ideal of military ruthlessness. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't dispute what you say, but it seems to me that 'for treason' may not be the accurate term and/or that a clause or so on the background would be useful. Norvo (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
An encyclopedia ought to simply state the facts and not engage in debate. That the facts may themselves argue, or appear to argue, towards a particular conclusion is probably unavoidable, but then that's sometimes just the point. But feel free, to suggest an alternative wording (of the sentence(s) that disturb you). That's (after all) how Wikipedia editing is supposed to work. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Until someone finds a reliable source how about omitting the charge and simply saying was shot by the German military authorities in Belgium? Norvo (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
There are many, many sources online that say she was executed for treason, including contemporary documents from 1915 available (at least in snippet view) on Google Books. Whether or not it was a ridiculous charge seems beside the point, and any reader of the Wiki article would surely want to know why, were it simply stated that she was shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.45.182 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've recast the disputed sentence to make it clear she was accused of treason but leaving it ambiguous as to whether she had committed treason or was merely found guilty by a court martial. Hope that satisfies both sides of the argument. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this dispute. According to the sources, Germany executed her for what they called' treason. Whether they were technically correct in this, or if the term even applies, is naturally the subject of scholarly debate. All of which we can (and should) cover adequately in the article. --Errant (chat!) 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I've tried to limit the lead to basic facts. Politics, national prejudices and legality can be explained further down the article. I'm just hoping Norvo & Soundofmusicals can come on board with this. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I accept, though the new formulation isn't ideal. Norvo (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The British Committee of Enquiry into Breaches of the Laws of War examined the verdict and found nothing wrong ("From These considerations it follows that the Feldgericht was justified in finding that Miss Cavell had committed the offence with which she was charged, and that it had power under the German law with which it was administering to condemn her to death." First, Second and Third Interim Reports from the Committee of Enquiry into Breaches of the Laws of War, with Appendices; p. 419 ff.; page 424)
In simplified terms: According to § 160 of the German military penal code foreigners under German jurisdiction could be sentenced to death if they commit one of the actions described in §§ 57, 58, 59 and 134 (e.g. aiding enemy troops). 80.136.82.144 (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC Radio Documentary

I'm not sure where to begin with doing this, as I'm no expert on Cavell and it seems as if a lot of big issues arise in talking about/editing her story, but it may be important to include the (new?) details concerning her espionage activities, as included in the documentary broadcast this week, presented by Stella Rimington, former chief of MI5: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b069wth6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.45.182 (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, I just googled Cavell and found an article in the Telegraph on the programme. I was bold, it seemed to have a place in the article. cygnis insignis 13:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

How did Cavell help German P.O.W.s?

I can see no reference to her helping German prisoners escape. If a woman insists on helping P.O.W.s escape then she can expect the same treatment as a man would.Wythy (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you are guilty of anachronism here. You can only apply the social mores of 1916 to behaviour in 1916. Women were not expected to be in wars and were expected to be treated differently. Executing women would be seen at that time as an act of barbarism, and as such the media made the most of it. We might, or rather some people might, think differently today, but the social structures of 2016 differ radically from those of 1916. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, OK. But is the execution of Mata Hari by the Western Allies any less barbaric? Nope.
In fact looking at the article on Mata Hari, her treatment was just disgusting. Hari was not even laid to rest after death. Her decapitated head was kept at a medical school and in 1954 it came to light that her head was lost.
On a slightly different angle, I still can't see any evidence of Edith Cavell helping German P.O.W.s escape. If by "helping" the article means giving medical treatment to, then that is entirely unremarkable. Wythy (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I would be very surprised if anyone in German occupied Belgium was helping German POWs escape from the Germans! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree not sure where helping Germans comes from, they would have given her a medal rather than execute her. MilborneOne (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I think Wythy's confusion stems from her helping all soliders and civilians of both sides as a nurse. Indeed, if you read the article, she had been one of the leaders of modern nursing in Belgium. As the lead says, her beliefs led her to offer help to all: "I can’t stop while there are lives to be saved". There is also a problem with the conviction. She was convicted of treason, not espionage. It is difficult to see how a British citizen in Belgium can be convicted of treason against the German state - she owed the Germans no loyalty and the essence of treason is the betrayal of loyalty. Again, (re)read the article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Propagandistic article

This article reads like propaganda itself – she was executed as a spy – not for "the offence of saving lives" like this article says.
The allied executed the dancer Mata Hari in the same way – for being a spy. What did their propaganda machine say about it?
217.236.231.115 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

...my impression from the article was that she was giving medical aid to Allied soldiers (i.e. "aiding the the enemy"), and thus a thorn in the side of the Germans, for which she was executed. Nothing more, and nothing less; saving the lives of precisely the same soldiers the Germans were trying to kill is obviously something that the Germans would want to put a stop to, just like the Allies would and did during the same war. :P I don't know what country you're from, or what your native language is, but personally, as an American, the connotation of "spy" to me has always been a little more... not... passive, somehow. Maybe it's just me, but when I see the word "spy" or "espionage" I don't think of for instance, people who hid or aided Jews during the Holocaust, or the folks of the Underground Railroad, or nurses who treated members of the enemy forces. I think of people who pass state secrets or dangerous weapon plans to outside or foreign (and most especially hostile) countries or organizations, or who for instance, might deliberately spread illness or destruction amongst what they (or their employer, or whatever) consider an enemy group. As opposed to administering something minor, like healthcare. So, I would definitely say she was "aiding the enemy" from the German perspective, from what little is relatively verifiable (by WP standards anyway) in the article... but I wouldn't necessarily label her a "spy", since she wasn't passing secrets or anything, well, active like that. Again, maybe it's just me, but the word seems to be a bit too much POVish given the circumstances, at least in the sense of the connotation it would give. "Aiding the British" isn't really POV, if that's exactly what she was doing. :P Neither does it seem special, though - save for the fact that the British turned her into a wartime martyr of sorts, obviously. 4.238.21.126 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia article says that she joined an underground movement and so helped to free POWs. How does international law judge this kind of behavior? How would America treat an Iraqi who freed POWs today? I read American accounts where suspected terrorists were shot on spot - every human life has the same worth, right?
Edith Cavell was not - of course not - accused of administering healthcare - and old British WWI-propaganda can't change that.
What does your logic say to the fact that countless other nurses - no matter what nationality - were not accused of being a spy?
Why the constant emphasis on calling her a spy? The German court did not charge with being a spy, but with being a traitor. She was not convicted of espionage, but on the charge of being a traitor. One might raise the question as to how she could be considered a traitor under a German court, when she was not a German subject, and had no allegiance to Germany, and was not in Germany, but occupied Belgium. 58.168.7.251 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC) (Colin)
She was an enemy national surreptitiously engage in an act of war under cover of civilan status thus in a broad sense it was espionage activity punishable by death in wartime under prevailing rules of the time. The British would have and did carry out similar measures in Ireland and elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.30.48 (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Propaganda distortions (cf. Jessica Lynch, Nurse Nayirah) are not a new invention.
A that time British newspapers not only published propaganda articles about Germany killing POWs but also accused German soldiers of eating Belgian children - do you believe that? Just research for yourself and climb down the tip of the propaganda iceberg to find the distortion of Cavell's case somewhere at the bottom.
By the way: the following book calls her a heroine and a spy -
Edith Cavell: Nurse, Spy, Heroine, by Leeuwen, Published: G. P. Putnams Sons (1968)
217.236.239.15 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
One can be both a hero and a spy; they are not mutually exclusive. Nathan Hale and John André were executed as spies during the American Revolutionary War, but are regarded as heroes by their respective countries (and in the case of at least, respected even by the enemy). Edith Cavell was a spy, in the sense that she was operating on behalf of Britain behind enemy lines, but it doesn't mean she wasn't a British war heroine. Jsc1973 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
She was helping enemy POWs escape, something the Germans had every right under the rules of war to sanction severly even if it is not exactly treason or espionage. What is however, is engaging in an act of war under cover of a protected civilian status, something routinely punishable by death in that situation. Whether that extreme penalty was called for in this case is another question. Like Nathan Hale she may be a hero and a martyr, but as with Hale, what happened to her (and British spies summarily executed by General Washington) was sadly fair game.

Treason?

Will someone who knows more about the German legal system of the WWI period please explain how the Germans could charge Edith Cavell with treason? She didn't have German citizenship and had not taken an oath to serve Germany, so how could she be charged be charged with treason?

Helping Allied POWs escape? Certainly guilty. Espionage? Quite likely. But treason?

Someone who is a specialist in this area should document the legal reasoning that would define her as a traitor to Germany. It appears to be sloppy work on someone's part otherwise. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

A foreigner owes allegiance to the country in which he or she resides and can be charged with treason. I do not know how this principle applies in an occupied country, however. --JDM1991 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Treason may not be the right word, her offense sounds more in spying or espionage. Deceptively engaging in acts of war while not openly in uniform by helping 200 enemy soldiers escape back to Britain where they could fight again. Thus, for example, the German troops who wore American uniforms during the Bulge were summarily executed. Not a partisan of either side in this wretched conflict, but Bethmann-Hollweg was right, Cavell was treated fairly under the prevailing rules of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.30.48 (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Death

Mullins suggests she was actually shot for a 1915 Apr 15 editorial in Nursing Mirror exposing Belgian Relief as a covert German supply...(http://www.whale. to/b/m_ch7.html) (Whatever you may think of Mullins, it'd be interesting to know whether she wrote such a thing.) Kwantus 23:41, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

I have just been to the University Library in Cambridge, UK to verify this reference. The Nursing Mirror was published every Saturday at that time. April 15th was a Thursday, so there was no issue of April 15th. I consulted the issues of April 10th and April 17th 1915, and found no such article. The reference is bogus. 86.136.130.241 (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If I understand the text correctly, the Germans reluctantly shot Cavell against their better judgement, on the secret insistance of the British, who hoped thereby to prolong the war? Bastie 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Why would the Germans do anything that the British wanted them to do? They were reluctant to carry out the sentence, but felt they had to do so in order to set an example that Allied noncombatants allowed inside German lines would be punished if they aided and abetted the Allied war effort. Jsc1973 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"A patriotic British woman who had operated a small hospital in Belgium for several years, Edith Cavell, wrote to the Nursing Mirror in London, April 15, 1915, complaining that the "Belgian Relief" supplies were being shipped to Germany to feed the German army. The Germans considered Miss Cavell to be of no importance, and paid no attention to her, but the British Intelligence Service in London was appalled by Miss Cavell's discovery, and demanded that the Germans arrest her as a spy."
See Political Resouces Ogg 12:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That quote is from a repository of conspiracy theories--this simply doesn't make any sense any way you slice it, unless you really believe that the Germans were in the business of taking orders from the British. Anyway, that particular bit of the actual article seems safely edited away... Col pogo 11:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Even by the standards of Wikipedia-quoted conspiracy theories that is a weird one. Perhaps User Ogg could explain why the British Intelligence Service didn't demand that the Germans evacuate Belgium and shoot the Kaiser while they were at it. 210.246.16.68 23:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

April 15th referred to the dated letter on her envelope, Edith's "Nursing Mirror" article appeared on April 24th, 1915.

https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/img_0517.jpg

https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/img_0519.jpg

https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/edith-cavell-2-the-constant-correspondent/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.139.120 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edith Cavell. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Book reference

Following a deletion Habakkuk21 pinged me with the following:

"The addition I made to the Edith Cavell page was removed; you commented that it sounded like a book promotion. I'd like to have the contemporary reference to Edith Cavell acknowledged. Can you suggest how I can make this sound less like a book promotion?"

We can't record every possible reference to Cavell, only those of some significance. Before reverting the edit I looked for both the author and the series on Wiki and couldn't find them, so there is a question over the books significance and notability. The reference was way too detailed, "A Class 1 fully equipped hospital ship" may have meaning to fans but has no significance to others. The only reference was a bare URL to an Amazon site where the book could be purchased. Any other watchers care to venture an opinion? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

British Empire Union Poster

The execution of Edith Cavell was indeed exploited by official (government) propaganda in Britain during the First World War. The poster illustrated here is however a poor example (although it is a very good example of other things). Firstly, it is plainly NOT of 1914-1918 vintage: its concerns are economic - it incites hatred of Germans not in order to strengthen determination to win the war - but in order to maintain post-war pressure on the German economy (hence the smiling German salesman equating with the "brutal" German soldier). The point of the text is clearly that any revival of German manufacturing would harm the British economy: again, not a likely wartime theme at all - but obviously very relevant in the immediate post war years. All this puts the probable date in the early 1920s. Secondly, it is not "official" propaganda: the "British Empire Union" was an extreme right-wing organisation of the later war and early post war years that certainly never had any official government backing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is still an example of Cavell inspired propaganda. The amended text makes that clear. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Granted - this is why I said it is a "poor" example rather than an "inappropriate" one. I'm sure you'd agree that if we could find an official wartime poster with Cavell as the central point (sure I've seen at least one somewhere) it would be very much better. In the meantime this one will do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Possibily this stamp? or this post card? Should be out of copyright by now. Some other priceless gems here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 08:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
If Cavell had been a man, he would have been shot and nobody would have heard of him. Nurse or not. Wythy (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm chilean, and I'm very happy to have seen it. Why would you want it removed or replaced? From my perspective this whole Edith Cavell thingie is nothing but a fabrication used for propaganda purposes. If she had been a man or if she had been executed by an ally of Englando, nobody would have cared. Korosuke (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

A relatively new user, TWOQ (talk · contribs), deleted the timeline section pointing out that it duplicated information in the text. I have reverted this change since I feel that timelines can provide a useful and clear summary. However this is clearly a difference of opinion, so in the spirit of WP:BRD would other editors please care to comment. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:USEPROSE:
"Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain lists. Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain."
How does a bullet-pointed list of dates and events which have already been given in normal prose fit in with the basic concept of an encyclopaedia article? TWOQ (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I would have to agree that anything important in the timeline should already be included in the prose so is not really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Should there be a reference for the pronunciation of Cavell? I have heard the name spoken often, but never pronounced in the manner described. I am not disputing the pronunciation, just suggesting a reference. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see there is advice now in the article suggesting a pronunciation to rhyme with "gravel" (surely "gavel" would be a more apt guide, as it just means changing the first letter). I appreciate that this is the correct pronunciation, but it is not the usual one. (Much as Anthony Powell is correctly "Pole", not "Powl", even though most people think it is the latter.) So would it be helpful to offer some documentary source confirming this?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
You can hear the correct pronunciation here in the testimony of nurses who had worked with Edith Cavell.--Terry Patterson (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Historically correct?

How historically correct is the 1939 movie starring Anna Neagle, directed by Herbert Willcox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.125.176 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Memorials

There is a Rue Edith Cavell in Rennes, and I suppose in many french cities (among others) I Suppose the streets named after her should be removed from the memorials.81.48.185.214 14:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    • I would like to reccomend the deletion of the statement above from the text of the article. The Statue in Red Cross Square in Washington, DC by R Tait Mackenzie is dedicated to Jane Delano, not Edith ClavellOgdenRogers (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Now deleted.[6] I have added the image to Jane Delano. --Qexigator (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Also a rue Edith Cavell in Uccle (Brussels, Belgium), which intersects the rue Marie Depage per https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rue_Edith_Cavell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Already listed at List of dedications to Edith Cavell#Streets. I have however added the coordinates from the French page, thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edith_Cavell/Archive_1&oldid=1191056864"