User talk:Diana Wyndham

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

Hello Tony

Thanks for contacting me. I'm a novice on Wikipedia so can't help you there but I too, have a special interest in Peter Hall - in the 1980s I was the part time Librarian for the Hall and Bowe office when they were in Miller Street North Sydney. My husband, John, is an architect and we know Peter Webber (email: Peter Webber @bigpond.com) who wrote 'Peter Hall Architect: The Phantom of the Architect' (Watermark Press). The Australian Story of that name was interesting (http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/australian-story/NC1601Q001S00) I'm sure Peter would be helpful.

If you send me your email I can send a photo of a group of historians, led by Dr Catherine Storey, celebrating History Week on Saturday 16 September 2006. Our starting point was the Sydney Cove Map which was completed in 1978 by Conybeare Morrison and Partners and the State Planning Department from original sources.

My email is Diana.wy@bigpond.net.au Diana Wyndham (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Diana Wyndham[reply]

Tony Rodi (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Hi Diana Wyndham I found your user page under the category of Wikipedians in Sydney, with particular interest in you being a historian as well as setting up libraries for Architects. Please excuse me if this seems to be an intrusion on your talk page. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and would welcome advice from a more experienced Wikipedian, particularly with respect to my user page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_Rodi, which I have been compiling in recent years. The object of interest is my claim in having had an exclusive role along with my now deceased associate, Paul Henry Johnson, in the most significant cultural and historic urban developments in Australia. Unfortunately, politics and vested interests have dominated with propaganda to keep this history well hidden from public view. My association with Lionel Todd ( now deceased), of Hall ,Todd and Littlemore, Stage 3 Sydney Opera House Architects, in relation to the East Circular Quay (Sydney Opera House Precinct), is largely unknown as is Peter Hall's true role in the completion of the Sydney Opera House. If this communication engenders some interest, please have a look at my user page. Feel free to comment. I would value your advice on how to best proceed to communicate this important Architectural History to the wider community.[reply]

Sincerely Tony Rodi

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages.

Where next?[edit]

  • If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
  • If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
  • If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
  • For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page should be your next stop!

See also[edit]

Good luck and happy editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Wyndham, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Diana Wyndham! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your book[edit]

Please stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote your book. If it's that important, somebody else will add it. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I am astonished by this deletion - I was trying to add a reference (giving a history of the development of Family Planning in Australia) to a stub for the Family Planning Association of Queensland. The book I cited was published in 1990, it is now out of print and I was not trying to 'promote my own book'.

It was co-authored (Stefania Siedlecky and Diana Wyndham) and the details I initially gave did not display this information correctly, so I made a couple of attempts to get it right.

Is there any reason why 'Populate and Perish: Australian Women's Fight for Birth Control' should not be listed? See: http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/18030774?versionId=44841226 Part V of the book deals with Family Planning Associations and Queensland FPA is discussed on pages 193-196. This extra information should be welcomed, not censored.

Best wishes

Diana Wyndham email: diana.wy@bigpond.net.au

Please read WP:COI. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if this addition is cut or not but if you do, it would seem that, in your view, Wikipedia is only meant to be like a sun dial and record the sunny hours.

1. The 1922 exchange of letters in The Lancet had important ramifications - it was not a mere 'squabble'. If you considered it was too long, it could have been abridged - the judgement about its significance is subjective.

2. The citation of dates of The Lancet articles were sufficient to find the letters.

3. The comments about Rout were important because Stopes had criticised Rout's book and methods.

4. Reference to 'A New Gospel to all people' was a direct quote

5. The 'tone' of the words used came from those in Haire and Rout's letters in The Lancet.

6. It was not misleading to give this Haire-Rout-Stopes interchange of letters. While Stopes may not have used the Gold-pin pessary in her clinic - she certainly promoted its use and asked Haire to insert the pessary in two women she referred to him from her clinic - and Stopes made a disingenuous claim in The Lancet on 2 September 1922 to have advocated using the Gold-pin pessary only once, in her book Wise Parenthood' 'for abnormal cases only'.

7. I quoted both sides of the dispute - that is balanced and not tendentious.

Diana Wyndham

Haire-Stopes squabble[edit]

I have removed the contribution you made to the Marie Stopes article, as it doesn't meet Wiki criteria in a number of areas.

1. Its length was disproportionate to the significance of the material it dealt with.

2. It lacked citations to meet Wiki criteria of support.

3. It's discussion of Ettie Rout adds nothing to what has already been said via Haire.

4. Its comment about the New Gospel is irrelevant to the substance of the material.

5. It is not neutral in tone, as reflected in some of the vocabulary used, eg "boasted", "brave", "childishly", and the editorial use of squabbling such as "ignorance", "quackery", the reference to "Christian Science", "discredited".

6. It is misleading, putting so much emphasis on the harmful nature of the gold pin when Stopes never used it.

7. It is tendentious, predominantly presenting the views of one side of the dispute.

I really don't think the basic material constructively adds to the article. -- spin|control 09:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if this addition is cut or not but if you do, it would seem that, in your view, Wikipedia is only meant to be like a sun dial and record the sunny hours.
1. The 1922 exchange of letters in The Lancet had important ramifications - it was not a mere 'squabble'. If you considered it was too long, it could have been abridged - the judgement about its significance is subjective.
2. The citation of dates of The Lancet articles were sufficient to find the letters.
3. The comments about Rout were important because Stopes had criticised Rout's book and methods.
4. Reference to 'A New Gospel to all people' was a direct quote
5. The 'tone' of the words used came from those in Haire and Rout's letters in The Lancet.
6. It was not misleading to give this Haire-Rout-Stopes interchange of letters. While Stopes may not have used the Gold-pin pessary in her clinic - she certainly promoted its use and asked Haire to insert the pessary in two women she referred to him from her clinic - and Stopes made a disingenuous claim in The Lancet on 2 September 1922 to have advocated using the Gold-pin pessary only once, in her book Wise Parenthood' 'for abnormal cases only'.
7. I quoted both sides of the dispute - that is balanced and not tendentious. --Diana Wyndham (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. The combination of the various issues made abridgment more difficult than necessary. The gold-pin by Aug 1922 was a red herring, which you know. The squabbling over credentials and numbers was just that of two rivals trying to support their commitments, Haire to Walworth and Stopes to Holloway.
2. Perhaps you should take note of citations in Wiki.
3. Nobody had talked about Rout or Stopes's criticism of her. You brought her in as a backup to Haire's shot at Stopes.
4. Direct quote: There is no such thing as a passive editor. You are responsible for what you cite. You cannot play the naive and blame the original source for your own subjective selection. An editor is expected to be neutral.
5. Tone: You were the one who wrote "boasted", "brave", & "childishly", not derived from your sources, then I pointed out your editorial responsibility for the other aggressive opinions. Editorial selection is one of the oldest ways of manipulating a narrative. Get other people to do the dirty work. You don't really want to say, "it wasn't me!?"
6. Misleading: Again you are the editor. Rather than deal with the original events in 1921 you chose to focus on a dispute well after the fact. The Lancet exchange happened long after Stopes solicited Haire to do a clinical trial, quite a reasonable request in itself. The result of that solicitation was that Haire rejected Stopes's appeal, as he had learnt the effects of its usage. The gold-pin was never used. Haire was merely being polemical in 1922, a young doctor trying to assert himself and defend his turf by putting down the non-doctor. Stopes probably didn't know about the gold-pin until after the writing of Wise Parenthood, given her comments in it, which were negative towards all "instruments" other than her preferred cervical cap, only conceding a possibility regarding "some unfortunate women". The gold-pin seems to have been a bee from early 1921.
7. Tendentious: It's sad if you believe that your comment was balanced and not tendentious. You quoted nothing from Stopes except ‘for abnormal cases only.’ Each paragraph is an attack on Stopes, from people who had motive, with no balance given at all. Despite no background on (Stopes's attack on) Rout, it is only natural for Rout to defend herself and to attack her attacker however she can. One cannot omit most of the events and use biased selection to tell your own story. That is not an editor's job.
Incidentally, to sign your work on a Wiki talk page just use four tildes (~~~~) and Wiki will supply both your name and a time-date stamp, after you save. -- spin|control 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you only want a 'sunny' view of Stopes that is OK but the issue about the Gold-pin was not trivial - in 1921 Birth Control was just starting to be accepted by the medical profession and if a method the pioneers advocated was harmful (possibly deadly) that would scuttle their efforts. It was not a 'turf war' between Stopes, Haire and Rout but a plea for birth control advocates to work together and promote safe contraception. As Haire put it: ‘If our oponents can point to one single case, where our methods of contraception can be proved to have caused abortion, an enormously damaging blow will have been struck at the whole Birth Control movement, and Your work and that of others will be largely nullified’.

Here is a suggested new paragraph and a summary of the issues -

If you only want a 'sunny' view of Stopes that is OK but the issue about the Gold-pin was not trivial - Birth Control was just starting to be accepted by the medical profession and if a method the pioneers advocated was harmful (possibly deadly) that would scuttle their efforts.

Here is a suggested new paragraph and a summary of the issues -

Stopes

Stopes had become enthusiastic about the "Gold-pin" contraceptive device which was reportedly successful in America and her correspondence with Dr Norman Haire about the device (from May 1921 to January 1922) is held in the British Library (ref: Norman Haire Correspondence with Marie Stopes 1921-1934 – British Library – ADD 58567, ff 30-42). Haire, who had investigated the device and found it dangerous[28] and said if she advocated this method it would make her vulnerable for an attack by ‘the many bitter enemies of birth control’ (ref: Correspondence with Marie Stopes 1921-1934. Haire to Stopes, 6 June 1921 – British Library – ADD 58567, f35). Despite this, she referred two women to Haire’s birth control clinic for insertion of this device and he refused Norman Haire Correspondence with Marie Stopes 1921-1934 – British Library – ADD 58567, ff 36). In response to a review of the Malthusian and Birth Control Conference (The Lancet, 22 July 1922, p. 195) which mentioned Norman Haire’s discussion of 200 cases he had seen at the Malthusian’s birth control clinic, Stopes boasted (‘Clinical Experience in Contraception’, The Lancet, 12 August 1922, p. 357-358) that her clinic had seen a thousand cases. In reply, (The Lancet, 19 August 1922, p. 419) Haire claimed that Stopes’ ‘ignorance of medical matters had led he to advocate, in her books, at her clinic, and elsewhere, the use of the gold-pin pessary, which has been condemned by British medical women as indisputably dangerous, giving rise to sepsis and abortions’. Stopes denied that the device had been used in her clinic (The Lancet, 3 September 1922, pp. 539-588) and said she had only advocated its use in Wise Parenthood; ‘for abnormal cases only’. The correspondence was closed with two more letters from Haire and Ettie Rout on 9 September 1922, pp. 588-589.

The issue of the gold-pin would resurface in the Stopes-Sutherland libel case a few years later (ref. The Trial of Marie Stopes, edited by Muriel Box. London: A Femina Book, 1967).

Notes from original sources

British Library – Add 58567 Norman Haire – Correspondence with Marie Stopes 1921 – 1934 – ff 30-80

Haire to Stopes -16.2.1921 – Haire wrote to introduce himself and express his admiration of her ’Letter to Working Mothers’

Haire to Stopes – 30.3. 1921 - f 30 – Request to see her clinic

Haire to Stopes - 26.5.1921- f 33 – confidential – Haire had been making enquiries about the Gold-pin and listed 3 adverse effects which two unbiased but keen women birth control enthusiasts had listed and said he felt sure ‘that these points will convince you… that it would be imprudent to recommend it, as by doing so one would expose onself to the charge of abortion.

Stopes to Haire - 5.6.1921 – f34 – Stopes ignored Haire warning because she had heard ‘from American women that it is entirely satisfactory’ and asked him to take on two or three [Gold-pin] cases and watch them carefully.

Haire to Stopes – 6.6.1921 - f35 – Haire told her that a woman who had had a Gold-pin inserted by an American gynaecological surgeon’ but became pregnant and had a very bad septic abortion at about two months’. With this knowledge he could not try it without risking his professional reputation and rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution as an abortionist. He saw in the new edition of her book that she spoke very favourably of the method. He said he had the highest regard for her work but was ‘sorry to see [her] give any grounds for a possibly successful attack by the many bitter enemies of Birth Control. I beg you, most earnestly, to go very carefully in the matter of the “gold pin.”’

Haire to Stopes – 8.6.1921 – f 36 – Confidential Despite Haire’s previous letters, Stopes sent two women to have the Gold-pin’ inserted. He was sorry not to try it but felt it would be subjecting them to the risk of sepsis and exposing him to the risk of prosecution for ‘abortification’.

Haire to Stopes – 19.6.1921 – f 37 – Haire thanked her for her husband’s letter and for hers dated 16th [not in the British Library file] He reiterated his warnings about the Gold-pin: ‘If our oponents can point to one single case, where our methods of contraception can be proved to have caused abortion, an enormously damaging blow will have been struck at the whole Birth Control movement, and Your work and that of others will be largely nullified’.

Haire to Stopes – 23.9.1921 – f 39 … [in Amsterdam] he made inquiries re the Gold-pin and I found the universal opinion to be that it was definitely an abortifacient … affirmed that the appliance was expressly manufactured for that purpose’…

Stopes to Haire 27.8.1921 – f 40. … ‘I have received so many good reports of the gold spring that it still seems worth mentioning although I myself do not pin any faith in it’.

--Diana Wyndham (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2013

It seems evident that the gold-pin itself was not an issue of importance by 1922, except for polemical purposes. I don't think you have the chronology of events in June 1921 correct. Stopes was only in correspondence with the women who were interested in the gold-pin. They were not clinic patients. Before she wrote to Haire urging on the possibility of a clinical trial, she wrote to the women believing Haire would go for the trial--as seems evident from the letter read by Haire during the trial (M.Box, p.294)--, so they went to Haire directly. There is no sign of Stopes sending the women to Haire despite his rejection of the gold-pin.
Haire makes the claim in 1922 that Stopes advocated "in her books, at her clinic, and elsewhere, the use of the gold-pin pessary". I must challenge you to defend that accusation with evidence specifically indicating that in 1922 Stopes advocated the use of the gold-pin "in her books, at her clinic, and elsewhere". It's one thing to try a few times to get Haire to test the device, but it's another thing to assert that Stopes advocated its use beyond her effort to set up a trial, especially in her books and at her clinic. I think Haire seems to have lost track of the truth, spurred by Stopes's sniping. One cannot just take his word for his claims. You need evidence. His declaration does not make truth and BL Add.58567 doesn't help. If she actually did specifically advocate the gold pin in her books, there should be no trouble finding where she did so.
(The four tildes ~~~~ require nothing else on the line. The symbols with the words "nowiki" you see on this line when you are editing prevent the tildes from being replaced. This allows me to show you the tildes. But you type just the tildes.) -- spin|control 18:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the original source material which I supplied and quoted from: the letters from The Lancet in 1922 and letters from Stopes and Haire in the British Library - British Library – (Add 58567) - Norman Haire – Correspondence with Marie Stopes 1921 – 1934 – ff 30-80) which I laboriously summarised for you. Folio 36 from this shows that that the two women were sent by Stopes to Haire. This letter from Haire to Stopes begins:

Dear Dr Stopes, 'Two patients from you come today [details of their names] to have the gold pin inserted'...

Also I was quoting what Stopes had written in The Lancet:

Stopes denied that the device had been used in her clinic and said she 'had only advocated its use in 'Wise Parenthood'; "for abnormal cases only".(The Lancet, 3 September 1922, pp. 539-588).

Please (1) allow me to insert this paragraph or (2) stop sending me comments.

Stopes had become enthusiastic about the "Gold-pin" contraceptive device which was reportedly successful in America and her correspondence with Dr Norman Haire about the device (from May 1921 to January 1922) is held in the British Library (ref: Norman Haire Correspondence with Marie Stopes 1921-1934 – British Library – ADD 58567, ff 30-42). Haire, who had investigated the device and found it dangerous [28], said if she advocated this method it would make her vulnerable to attack by ‘the many bitter enemies of birth control’ (ref: Correspondence with Marie Stopes 1921-1934. Haire to Stopes, 6 June 1921 – British Library – ADD 58567, f35). Despite this, she referred two women to Haire’s birth control clinic for insertion of this device and he refused (ref: Norman Haire Correspondence with Marie Stopes 1921-1934 – British Library – ADD 58567, f 36).

In response to a review of the Malthusian and Birth Control Conference (The Lancet, 22 July 1922, p. 195) which mentioned Norman Haire’s discussion of 200 cases he had seen at the Malthusian’s birth control clinic, Stopes claimed her clinic had seen a thousand cases (‘Clinical Experience in Contraception’, The Lancet, 12 August 1922, p. 357-358). Haire responded that Stopes had advocated, 'in her books, at her clinic, and elsewhere, the use of the gold-pin pessary, which has been condemned by British medical women as indisputably dangerous, giving rise to sepsis and abortions’ (The Lancet, 19 August 1922, p. 419). Stopes denied that the device had been used in her clinic and said she had only advocated its use in Wise Parenthood; ‘for abnormal cases only’(The Lancet, 3 September 1922, pp. 539-588). The correspondence was closed after Haire and Ettie Rout replied on 9 September 1922, pp. 588-589.

The issue of the gold-pin would resurface in the Stopes-Sutherland libel case a few years later (ref. The Trial of Marie Stopes, edited by Muriel Box. London: A Femina Book, 1967).--Diana Wyndham (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2013‎

I'm sorry, you've repeated the same ideas in three different responses. The material you want to insert is based on polemic from Haire that you cannot substantiate. This is what Stopes actually wrote in Wise Parenthood:
"Various instruments, some of metal, have been made and from time to time recommended for internal use of women. They should in any circumstance only be used after the fullest and most competent medical examination and must be fitted by a doctor. For some unfortunate women who have been damaged by child-birth, and whose organs are no longer normally placed, they may be necessary. For normal women they are entirely to be condemned. (p.26)"
In the scheme of the life of Stopes the 1922 exchange in Lancet was just another spat. The gold pin was never used by Stopes. It's a storm in a teacup. Thank you for your time. -- spin|control 05:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Enid Lyons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to ABC and Colin Clark
H. G. Wells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Steinach
Havelock Ellis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sterilization

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney September 2013 edit-a-thon invite[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

Invitation[edit]

There is a backstage pass coming up to be followed by an editathon in the State Library of New South Wales on 23 November. This is the first time that an Australian cultural institution has opened its doors to us in this way and will be a special opportunity because the Library is providing: one of its best rooms; its expert curators (along with their expertise and their white gloves); a newly launched website (containing new resources); and of course, items from its collection (including rare and usually unavailable material) which we can look at, learn from, and use, to improve WP articles. For example, on the chosen topic (Australia and WWI), the Library holds many diaries and manuscripts from the period.

As you can see from the Library's project page, they have connected this editathon with their own work. They have already set out a wide range of resources to make things easier for us. Please sign up on the editathon project page if you can participate either online or in person with other Wikipedians. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been delivered using AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Sydney.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diana_Wyndham&oldid=1141580891"