Jump to content

Talk:Laura Secord/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Laura Secord

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 18 April 2019 (rchive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1

Reversion: Laura Secord in Fiction

I'm not opposed to inclusion of a "Laura Secord in Fiction" section as such, but the Harry Turtledove reference is, at best, extremely tangential, in that the character in the novel in question happens to have the name Laura Secord and is described as a distant descendent of the original. Interesting perhaps to fans of Harry Turtledove, but so far as encyclopedia entries go... Geoff NoNick 18:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, sorry. I just get an itchy rollback finger when people remove large chunks of text without an edit summary :) Adam Bishop 03:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

chocolates ("legacy")

This appears to be blatant advertising, and I propose to remove it if no-one objects. Palmiro 17:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd just as soon leave it in. Laura Secord Chocolates are something of an institution and it's not unreasonable that someone might look it up trying to find out more. Geoff NoNick 17:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, if you're convinced. Palmiro 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree strongly, Laura Secord is not, and never has been an "institution". There's no historical relevance. Do all Wikipedia articles include references to corporations that use a name. Think about it... there is precidence to be considered.
Most Canadians, when they hear the name Laura Secord, think chocolate. Avoiding commercialism is one thing, denying that commercial institutions exist is another. --22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to wiki-link "Laura Secord Chocolates" in this reference, but noticed that that page redirects here. While it's fine making a brief mention of a company named after her, it doesn't make sense for that company to redirect here, since it really doesn't have anything to do with her. --Q Canuck 00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Website

I really Like this website.It has good information and is exactly what i needed for my mid-term project on Laura Secord. Thanks to all who helped make this biography. 

                                        With Great Appreciation,
                                                          Niru

UE?

Whether or not descendents of Loyalists refer to themselves as UE, I don't know, but what possible justification can there be for referring to Secord that way? She herself would obviously not have used UE, and I have never seen anyone else use with her name either. It sounds not only dubious but also ridiculous. Adam Bishop, BA, MA, VC, GCVO, SGM, QHDS 15:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the use of post-nominals in general is (as you illustrated) silly, but UE is a recognized one that was prevalent at the time of her life. Whether or not she used it (and she probably didn't), she can be regarding in many ways as the archetypal UE. Given her place in Canadian history and the otherwise lack of official recognition she received in her lifetime (100 pounds notwithstanding), some sort of title seems appropriate. But I admit I haven't seen UE used with respect to Laura Secord in the past - can anyone offer other views? Geoff NoNick 19:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Arctic.gnome, can you explain why UE is necessary here? In what way is this a title or an official post-nominal? Are there any sources that ever use "Laura Secord, UE"? Who granted this title to her? When did she use it herself? When has anyone, anywhere, ever referred to his this way? Adam Bishop 06:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

U.E. is Canada's one official hereditary title, it was created as a post-nominal by Lord Dorchester's Order-in-Council in 1789. Laura's father qualified for it, and the honour is hereditary by children of either sex. Of course we would not attach the letters to every single Loyalist descendent on the Wikipedia; however, she is famous because of her loyalty to a British Canada, and is possibly the most famous UE after politicians and generals. I think that makes it worth adding her royally given title to her article.
Great, but has anyone ever used this title in association with Laura, outside of Wikipedia? Did she use it? Adam Bishop 16:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I know that genealogists do, at least. It’s the kind of thing that you only include when giving someone’s full, formal name, which rarely happens with anyone. People don’t use her middle name when referring to her either, but we’ve included that. The title legally applies to her, and is very relevant to who she is in history. The Wikipedia convention is to include all titles on the first line, even if not commonly used in practice.
Well, Ingersoll isn't her middle name, and we shouldn't include that either. Where do genealogists use this, anyway? Adam Bishop 07:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that the article describes her family as not being loyalists, but when you klick on the link to her father and then onto the town of Ingersoll the story changes to him bing a loyalist. Are they loyalists? Ozdaren 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Song title

I believe the song title is simply, "Secord's Warning." I don't see where the "for Love" part would come in. It has nothing to do with the song to the best of my knowledge.

Intro Paragraph

In the intro section it asserts that "Suffering the aftermath of the American Revolution, her father, Thomas Ingersoll, moved the family to Canada in 1795...", without going into any details as to the alleged suffering. Ingersoll's own wiki page, however would lead one to believe that the move was instigated by the avilibility of cheap land in Canada. Unless anyone has a good reason not to, I would edit the intro section to conform to Ingersoll's page, as the existing version is vague and contradictory. PreciousRoi (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Which house?

Under Attack it says; Native warriors who led her the rest of the way to FitzGibbon's headquarters at the Decew house. while in beaver dams it says DeCou house and refers to this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCou_House Only one is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.102.186 (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no absolute agreement about the proper spelling of Decou/DeCew/etc. While it'd be nice to have closure on the spelling, one can be sure that there'd be no confusion about where she was headed. Personally, I suspect that Decou is the proper spelling and is a victim of Anglicisation into Decew. However, the operative word there is "suspect". Natty10000 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
But changing the spelling from Decou to Decew changes the pronunciation. Varlaam (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
From KOO to SYOO. Decue would be more obvious.
Decou is pronounced DeSoo. Decew can be properly pronounced the same way (though it can also be pronounced Deckew). Is there any confusion as to where she was taken? If not, then worrying the spelling 200 years after the fact is being a tad pedantic. User:Natty10000 [Stop me before I edit again!] 23:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
My point was that "Decou" as French is KOO. A 'c' followed by an 'o' is never an 's' in French or in English. Ever.
The letter combination "ew", I'm 99% confident, historically always came with an initial palatalization in English; it was a long 'u', so YOO. Hence DeKYOO.
But a hard 'c' followed by an 'e' is unnatural in English (and disallowed in French, Spanish, Italian, and so on). So that becomes DeSYOO.
But over the past few decades we've had a bit of a (slovenly) pronunciation shift, where we have dropped the Y in many cases.
When I was a kid, "do" and "dew" were distinct; now "dew" often merges with "do" (in the American? way).
So you arrive at DeSOO. And that pronunciation requires the spelling Decew, rather than Decou.
Varlaam (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (Thornhill)

Laura's sixth child (name and bithdate)?

I can't find the name or birthdate of Laura's sixth child. It doesn't seem to be in Peggy Dymond Leavey's Laura Secord: Heroine of the War of 1812, which is the only book-length source I've had full access to (while I was visiting relatives).

I'm not actually residing in Canada, so I can't just pop down to the library to find this information. I have a feeling it is likely in David Hemmings' Laura Ingersoll Secord: A Heroine and her Family, which is supposed to be heavy on the genealogy.

Is their anyone out there who could help track down this info? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was in Leavey's book, although with no precise birthdate. I don't know how I could have missed it. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 01:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Works cited

This would be the third article I see in the past few weeks using the {{Refbegin|40em|indent=y}} code/layout. I am not sure what others see but every time i see this coding I have to side scroll because of the odd format in the works cited section. Not only that but the are no bullets to separate each book. Basically its a side scrolling undefined (not separated by line) list of books? Do others have this problem?Moxy (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What browser/OS are you using? I don't see this happening in Chrome or firefox on Linux, or on the Android browser on my phone. I've noticed you've changed this before. Should it be taken to the {{Refbegin}} talk page instead? Maybe the people who maintain that template can fix the problem. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I use Firefox - are you saying you see them one after the other(each on top of the other) with bullets? O-well I guess its just me .. will look over my settingsMoxy (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No, there shouldn't be any bullets, but you also shouldn't have to sidescroll. This is what it looks like (and is supposed to look like) on my computer on Firefox (Iceweasel):
maximized
unmaximized
The |indent=y option formats the references using a hanging indent, as detailed at Template:Refbegin#Option 3: Hanging indentation. If it's not displaying properly for you, there may be a problem with the programming of the template, and it would be helpful if you reported it to the people at {{Refbegin}}. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 05:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I do see what is above - except I do not see divisions per each book. Will make a report after xmass.Moxy (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Laura Secord/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do this review. I'll start with a close readthrough in the next week, noting any initial issues that I see, and then start the checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this article--looking forward to working with you, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

First readthrough

My first impression is that this is a strong article and shouldn't have much trouble passing. (It's an interesting bit of a history, too; as an American, we don't get taught Laura Secord in school. =))

(As a Canadian, I thought Laura Secord was "the lady who made the chocolates" until just a couple of years ago =)) Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "St. Davids" -- is it correct to not have an aposotrophe in this? I notice that these have been template-protected from AWB, so I'm assuming that's the case.
    I've done a little more internet research. The usage in the sources is divided, and it appears that there are actually two places in Ontario called St Davids or St David's. This site claims that the St David's in Niagara is the one with the apostrophe, although I doubt "WikiFieldTrip" can be accepted as a reliable source. Leavy 2012, my main source, uses "St Davids" with no apostrophe throughout, and so do piles of historical websites. Niagara-on-the-Lake's official site, according to a search there, uses "St. Davids" exclusively for all addresses, whereas a search there for "St. David's" only turns up a business called "St. David's Hydroponics". I'm pretty sure WikiFieldTrip is incorrect, which would mean the redirects St. Davids, Ontario and St David's, Ontario are also incorrect. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    The plural and not possessive form is correct (as it is for nearby St. Catharines).  Natty10000 | Natter  14:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • " Pierre Berton noted that she was never entirely clear on how she learned of the impending attack." Perhaps say something like "she never stated clearly"; the current phrasing could be read as saying that Secord herself didn't know how she learned of the attack.
    Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • " in The Story of Laura Secord Revisited" --this phrasing makes it ambiguous whether this is Ingram's book in which he makes conclusions, or whether this is the book he feels went too far.
    Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't an issue for this review, but you might consider adding bullet points for the bibliography list; my personal feeling is that it makes it easier to read, and I'm not used to seeing reference lists formatted without them on Wikipedia.
    I won't make a fuss if enough people object to this, but according to Template:Refbegin#Option 3: Hanging indentation, this is the style used by APA, MLA, and Chicago. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like Little Miss Khazar may be waking up upstairs, but if she gives me a few more minutes, I'll start the checklist now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I've got a pack of little attention-grabbers of my own who don't seem to appreciate the important contributions I'm making to the world's pool of knowledge. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you'd think as a six-month-old Little Miss K would have gotten the importance by now, but I guess it's going to take at least a year. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is excellent, and spotchecks show no signs of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images are tagged with status and rationales.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are well chosen.
7. Overall assessment. Pass--fine work.

Upcoming Secord stuff

I'm not going to add these things to the article until they cease to be "coming soon", but I suppose it's no surprise that a lot of Secord Stuff is happening in 2013. For instance:

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft TFA

Below is a draft of a TFA request for this article. It will need to be added in the next few days to allow time for discussion before the anniversary, but I thought it was worth posting here first as some tweaks will be needed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Laura Secord (1775–1868) was a Canadian heroine of the War of 1812, who undertook a 20-mile (32 km) walk out of American-occupied territory to warn British forces of an impending American attack. Secord's husband James was wounded at the Battle of Queenston Heights in 1812, and was still recovering when the Americans invaded the Niagara Peninsula in 1813. During the occupation, Secord acquired information about a planned American attack, and stole away on the morning of 23 June to inform Lieutenant James FitzGibbon in the territory still controlled by the British. The information helped the British and their Mohawk warrior allies repel the invading Americans at the Battle of Beaver Dams. Her contribution to the war was little known during her lifetime, but since her death she has been frequently honoured by Canada. Honours bestowed on her include schools and a chocolate company named after her, as well as monuments, a museum, a memorial stamp, and a statue at the Valiants Memorial in the Canadian capital. Her story has taken on mythological overtones in her home country, with many embellished versions of the tale, and she is the subject of books, poetry, and plays. (Full article...)

On This Day… for June 22, 2013

On June 22, 2013, the On This Day… section of the Main Page stated she began her walk on June 22. This is probably not the right page on which to point out this discrepancy (I'm assuming this article has the right date) but I don't know where else I might post this. --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A lot of sources report it as the 22nd. The sources in the article report the 23rd. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Secord. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Secord. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Map

A map would be very useful for this page, indicating the area in question, her journey, etc. 45.72.221.236 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura_Secord/Archive_1&oldid=893062606"