Talk:Edith Cavell

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Historically correct?

How historically correct is the 1939 movie starring Anna Neagle, directed by Herbert Willcox?

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?

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)

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)