Talk:Mary Seacole

This page has been vandalised Untitled Current 1

GA review

I'll post detailed comments when I get time for a proper read-through. Looks pretty good at first sight. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Rudget (review) 17:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Some bits unreffed, first example is Many of the residents were disabled European soldiers and sailors, often suffering from the endemic yellow fever. Here Seacole acquired her nursing skills. In her autobiography she records her early experiments in medicine: imitating her mother by ministering to a doll, then progressing to pets before helping her mother to treat humans. If this is covered by the previous ref, that should be moved, otherwise needs ref or removal
2. Seacole returned to Jamaica in 1825. unreffed

    Done Rudget (review) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Unusually, in a time when mixed-race relationships were common but mixed-race marriages were rare, he was a white man, baptised in Prittlewell in Essex in 1803, the sixth son of Thomas Seacole and his first wife, Ann. reads oddly to me, could be rephrased

   I've read this through and it doesn't make sense or really fit in with the paragraph, so its been removed. Rudget (review) 08:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

4. traveled in the Caribbean "elsewhere in" perhaps -Jamaica is in the Caribbean

    Done Rudget (review) 09:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

5. mostly US Eng, but favoured - needs to be consistent

   Y I can only find favoured in the text twice, in the same section, both consistent. Rudget (review) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Thousands of troops from all the countries concerned .... their prospects were little better when they arrived at the poorly-staffed, unsanitary and overcrowded hospital. did all the countries use the same hospital, or has the subject of the sentence changed half way through?

   Y Copy-edited. Rudget (review) 09:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

7. Seacole was rightly concerned pov I think

   Y Copy-edited. Rudget (review) 08:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

8. A careful copy edit would be helpful, especially as many sentences start with a subclause Hiring local labour the hotel was built from the salvaged driftwood, how can an unbuilt hotel hire local labour?
9. Seacole often went out to the troops as a sutler, selling her wares near the British camp at Kadikoi, and attending to casualties brought out from the trenches around Sevastopol or from the Tchernaya valley. She was widely known to the British Army as "Mother Seacole". ref?

   Y Minor copy-edit and refs provided. Rudget (review) 09:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

10. Priced at 1s 6d a copy the cover... subclause prob again, was the cover sold separately?

     Done The subject of the sentence is the cover, now defined by a comma and fix the currency issues. Rudget (review) 08:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

11. white leg surely must be linkable to something?? Deep vein thrombosis?

     Done Linked to thrombosis. Rudget (review) 09:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

12. Seacole died in 1881 at her home in Paddington, London[90] the cause of death on her death was given as "apoplexy". too many deaths, ref not following any punctuation

    Y Copy-edited. Rudget (review) 09:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

13. blue plaque section unreffed

     Done Rudget (review) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

14. Note comments seem pointless, say it in the text, or leave it out

     Done Rudget (review) 08:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

15. Image:SeacoleWar.png presume self-made, if so, why not add that to its licence page

     Done Rudget (review) 08:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed a few minor bits, check that you are happy with the changes. This needs a careful copy edit for punctuation and meaning; sentences beginning with subclauses are a minefield for ambiguity (is this a tribute to Victorian Britain? (: ). It's pretty good otherwise, look forward to final version Jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

re spelling, I didn't mean that "favoured" was inconsistently spelt within the article, but that it's the UK spelling, whereas "watercolor" and "traveling" are US, so you need to settle for one style. Given that the West Indies and UK use Brit spelling, that's probably more appropriate, but if you prefer US that's fine, as long as you stick to it throughout Jimfbleak (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'll look for any inconsistencies now. Rudget (review) 09:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done ? Rudget (review) 10:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No rush, I'll give it another once-over before I do a formal review. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I made some final tweaks, mostly minor, but took out bit about American Red Cross since it appears to be unreffed, unexplained, not mentioned in that article and not intuitively obvious. If I've got it wrong, please restore.

If you intend to go to FAC, the text could stil do with a bit of work and further copyediting in places, good luck Jimfbleak (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you've been a wonderful GA reviewer to say the least. Regards, Rudget (review) 10:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary Seacole was a good person an whrn she nows from cholera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.13.210 (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

multiracial

Do we describe Barak Obama as multiracial in the opening? No. Bob Marley? No. So lets not describe Seacole thus either. Paradoxially I came to the article from a bbc artile describing her as the greatest Black Briton. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Query re Referencing of Jane Robinson's book.

Note 7 onwards. [[1]]The References do not seem to contain a full reference to This link is to the publishers web page but the actual book linked is a later edition than maybe has it's full reference missed in the article.

I regret I am not an experienced referencer, it looks as if there may have been an earlier editing mistake so I will just mark this and leave it to another to hopefully get the aricle into an even better state than it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolkny (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Stranger on the shore (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

She is not a real Black Hero

Why not mention her opinions of Dark Skin Black people. The usage of the N word in her journals and her utter contempt for African people. This needs to be added because she was a great Nurse- Yes but not a Black hero. She would turn in her grave to here this. Someone dug her up out of history and added her as a Black reaction to Florence N Gale. Voice Online Wish i had time to add this stuff in.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got that backwards. While she is a great example of a role model for women of mixed racial heritage (being 1/4 African descent), she had no formal training as a nurse.Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"here" should read hear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.45.228 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lady Alicia Blackwood's sketch of Mary Seacole's hut

This sketch shows Major Cox's hut and the Zebra Vicarage in the foreground. In the far distance beyond the railway tracks on the extreme left lies Mary Secole's hut. The interior of the Zebra Vicarage is depicted below. These features are clearly labelled as such on the original sketch. The inclusion of Mary Seacole's hut seems incidental and not the object of the sketch, which must be the vicarage where Lady Alicia Blackwood stayed. The wording of the caption needs changing in case the reader thinks the buildings in the foreground are Mary Seacole's hotel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.242.132 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

socking?

we have now had three brand new accounts removing a reference from Daily Mail. On each occasion the account owner seems familiar with Wiki Procedures, writing in reasons for the removal, similar in each case. This seems a bit like socking. I hope an administrator will take note Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC) similarities are that on each occasion the editor takes exception to reference being from the Daily Mail. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Following a fourth similar revision from yet another new I have now requested opening a sock-puppet investigation.Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

infobox

I removed nursing infobox before realising that this should be discussed first. My attempt to replace it was unsuccessful. I think a different info box simply for notable person would be acceptable. Any views? 22:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs)

Why has thee quote about her role in history been removed?

William Curtis of the Crimean War Research Society has said: "The hype

that has built up surrounding this otherwise worthy woman is a disgrace to the serious study of history."?

Was on here a few days ago.

Yet since the story about her being taken off the curriculum has broken this has been removed.

Wiki is meant to presents facts. History can't be re-written to fit views about how the world should be.

This is absolutely disgusting.

Now it's hit the main press, people will be coming to wiki to see both sides of the debate.

Why should one side be removed just because you don't like it.

Whoever's done this has done it for political reasons. The quote is genuine, I believe. It was in the Daily Mail. (A horrid paper, I know, but that's the way it is. people can check the references and make up their own mind.) So it should be on here.

This person has got to be stopped destroying pages politically.

I've only written a few pages about uncontroversial history. But if this isn't put back, I'll not bother with editing wiki again.

I don't want to think that my research could be deleted simply because someone's politics means they don't like a fact quoted.

Sort it out, wiki.

This is disgusting.

And whichever idiot made this change - you are utterly evil. You are trying to destroy this place simply for your own political ends. How are we ever going to get universities to take wiki as a source when you do things like this.

You can't find any reason to criticise the quoter, so you nuke it.

You are sick.

Ganpati23 (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ganpat. I am the editor who put it in and also the editor who took it out. I put it in originally to balance the lead and took it out when I shortened the lead. Someone objected to it as inflammatory and from a not very reliable source. I agree the source - the Daily Mail - isn't the best and it seems to have been knocking around on the Internet for quite a while. Yes Wikipedia is supposed to give both sides. There is a considerable body of opinion that Seacole's medical achievements have been exaggerated, I have tried to recast the opening so that it expresses what everyone agrees she actually did. I have removed all detailed quotes bar one from the lead. If you think this quote should be restored it may go best in 'controversies' - I put in a quote which appeared in yesterday's Times which says similar things and is a better source. I've had criticism and reversion from both sides of the debate now so feel I may be having some success at being neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead should be NPOV and concise - see [[2]] - and as it already states that there is a body of opinion that Seacole's achievements have been exaggerated, there is no reason to amplify that by a quote, I have left in the note referencing the Daily Mail article in question. The quote is very strongly worded and doesn't agree well with NPOV in the lead. It would be better in 'Controversies. Please reply here if wishing to re-revert.Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'fairness' and 'neutrality' I came across this comment from the Daily Telegraph at There's no wiki article on the film so he is presumably referring to this article. Italicisation is my own.

"It is not possible to rewrite history in the light of modern political correctness - but a fair account of Mrs Seacole's "Wonderful Adventures" would not go amiss - wiki is having a crack at it - and there is supposed to be a film in the pipeline." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, my politics are completely opposed to the Daily Mail, but you suggest they may have made up this quote while saying that the fact they want to turn it into a film is a good example of her importance during the Crimean War?

Dear God, I give up.

All my studies of the Crimea would tend to agree with the quote.

There were many privates, NCOs and junior officers in WW1 who were thoroughly good eggs, brave and inspirational to their comrades but aren't known in history. If one were given treated as Seacole just because they were 25% sky-blue-pink, the I would want to know that a quote that put that in perspective.

(and ftr, I'm mixed race.)

That quote needs to be in the article.

It means those of us who are both anti-racism campaigners and historians know that there are others who have explicitly stated what we'd suspected. Lovely lady, but if she were a poor, white colonial, she wouldn't have had half as much publicity as she had.

This is other balanced, and that inclused colour blind, or wiki is just a forum for thos ethat shout the loudest (by deleting and adding) to advance their agenda.

I didn't know about the quote.

When this story was raised on the New Statesman 5 days ago, I checked my facts, found the quote and published it.

A few hours later, it would seem, the quote was nuked, not by a logged-in member, just some random IP address.

I raised this on the Guardian.

Everyone looked sheepish.

I put it back, but in the interests of fairness, they've added a second reference. To that very Guardian thread. Which is 99% in favour of Seacole being considered the hero of the Crimea.

You'd cry if you didn't laugh.

My current tutor, a world expert on the Malaysian insurgency, says he occasionally adds to wiki pages to corrects errors, but he won't let us ref it, and doesn't keep re-adding, because of things like this. People from both extremes will nuke his work because they don't like facts they are uncomfortable with.

Now I come to agree with him.

Is there any point in bothering?

Why not put the quote in a separate heading? It is relevant.

Unless a) This wasn't in the Daily Mail b) this was never said, or c) This society doesn't exist, it needs to be in there.

If wiki just becomes a forum for the busiest to spout their own political views, then what's the point?

Seriously, that quote added to my understanding of the debate. I may not like why the DM published it, but it added to my understanding.

So make a new section - controversy. Put the quote in, and let the nuke-nazis add their own counter-quotes. Not hard is it, a bit of historiography.

Give me one good reason from removing from the page a quote that adds to the understanding of the subject and the debate surrounding of the subject?

Ganpati23 (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ganpati, I haven't read that all in detail, it's to confused for me, but let me explain, I originally put the quote in the lead. It was removed four times from three different IP addresses, I suspect the same person. I put it back in each time. Then I shortened the lead, which nobody has reverted, and considered that the quote shouldn't be in the lead any more for the sake of balance. The lead should be concise and there are many points there which could be amplified by a quote but are not, why should that particular point be amplified. The point that some people consider importance exaggerated is already made. This is a sensitive area so I think we should be careful to have balance and NPOV. For the record I'm very sympathetic to the quote, I think the one by Sean Lang, which may not be available online, but which I part quote, is better - she may belong in the History of the Crimean War, or the British Army but not in History of Nursing, is better.

I think the place to amplify controversies is in the controversies section.

So please bear in mind there are two separate editors who have removed that quote, one who found it offensive, and me who does it in the interests of balance and neutrality. I don't think our views on the subject are in any serious disagreement, it's just a question of differing views on balance. I think the other editor has given up now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a "Controversies" section already, so I'm not sure why Ganpati is suggesting that one should be created. Otherwise, I think Sceptic1954 has done a good job of editing the lead, and my view is that it should remain as it is. The lead section is supposed to give a concise overview of the article's content -- further discussion, and any relevant quotations which improve the article, can go into the "Controversies" section. Celuici (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We could equally put quotes from this article in the lead, but I wouldn't think it's the right place. I may put add it to the controversies section.Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Put both quotes in. The point is that people should be able to add to wiki. It's not fair for one person to edit out a legitimate quote because it doesn't fit with their world view. This is the complete opposite of what wiki's meant to be. The page should contain as much information as possible so students can make up their own mind.

The sources are referenced so we can make up our own minds. We might consider that the Mail would have reason to denigrate her, while the Voice would want to show her in the best possible light. Wiki is meant to be neutral, so let them both go in. We could decide how much weight to give to the head of the Mary Seacole society, a union member and a Hackney councillor, and how much weight to give to the head of the Crimean War society.

Referenced sources should not be deleted.

Give me one good reason why the quote should not remain in the controversies section. Because there isn't one. Other than that some people wish it had not been said or published. If there is a quote from an authority which directly relates to the page, then it should be in here. You can't just go around deleting quotes you don't like. That quote was here for ages until the recent controversy. This is meant to be history, not propaganda. Deleting the quote is nothing short of intellectual vandalism. Ganpati23 (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors of similar opinion, namely, that this quote should remain in the article in the controversies section, but not in the lead. I came to this article, as well as the ones about Florence Nightingale and the Crimean War, as a keen student of history, after hearing Lynn McDonald being interviewed on the CBC. While it is common practice for politicians and activists to use revisionism to promote various activities, it should never be the practice of an encyclopedia to do anything but present an accurate and balanced representation of information that can be supported by reliable references. Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)