# Talk:Mary Seacole

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)
kuumba 47.44.45.162 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
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
Seacole returned to Jamaica in 1825. unreffed
 Done Rudget (review) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
traveled in the Caribbean "elsewhere in" perhaps -Jamaica is in the Caribbean
 Done Rudget (review) 09:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Seacole was rightly concerned pov I think
Y Copy-edited. Rudget (review) 08:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
white leg surely must be linkable to something?? Deep vein thrombosis?
 Done Linked to thrombosis. Rudget (review) 09:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
blue plaque section unreffed
 Done Rudget (review) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Note comments seem pointless, say it in the text, or leave it out
 Done Rudget (review) 08:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
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): 
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)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrittneyJ28. Peer reviewers: Jcross323, Takirajohns83.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 article 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)
Also the first mention of Robinson in this article doesn't give any context or explanation of who Robinson is.
Tabbipix

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) 

She was neither 'black' nor a 'nurse'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  2.97.114.231 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)  

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)

moved here till citations are provided:

[[File:Florence Nightingale.png|thumb|upright|left|Florence Nightingale had mixed views on Mary Seacole; while she recognized Seacole did good work in the Crimea, she also accused her of intoxicating soldiers{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}}.]]
Florence Nightingale had mixed views of Seacole{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}}. She was concerned about her sale of liquor to the soldiers, who were already given a large amount in their rations{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}}. She did not, however, express her disapproval openly.
--tickle me 00:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I changed this because it was giving the error "Check date values in: |date=". Was this right? In doing so I have thrown away a tiny bit of information - that is, that the date is estimated rather than claimed to be guaranteed accurate. If I should have done differently please advise -I'm a bit rubbish at this! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The West Indies were an outpost of the British Empire in the late 18th century, and the source or destination of one-third of Britain's foreign trade in the 1790s. Britain's economic interests were protected by a massive military presence, with 69 line infantry regiments serving there between 1793 and 1801, and another 24 between 1803 and 1815.
I take the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on its relevance to the subject of this article by suggesting it be reduced to what details applied in her lifetime, which was the last 10 years of the period this paragraph covers. I would stop short of deleting the entire figures about British regiments stationed on the island, as their presence, through her father's participation, contributed to her existence.Cloptonson (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The article states that the photo of Mary Seacole is the only one known. There's another one which comes up if you google, this one:   - is it not her? (Is that how you use the <ref> thingy?)
Apologies if I do anything the wrong way on here, I think it's my first time using my Wikipedia login to actually ask a question and it's a little daunting. Thanks, Helen. Helenvroche (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is nearly a decade out of date.  It was announced in 2009 that a second portrait photograph - the one that you linked - had been found in a scrapbook, among photographs of other military subjects, in the library at Winchester College.  See: this. 31.72.192.110 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A modern reader seeing the word "nurse" may well imagine the type of medical professional we are used to these days. Mary Seacole was nothing of the sort as in her case it is an anachronism. Nursing was not systematised until well into the second half of the 19th-century by Florence Nightingale and her like. Mary Seacole, schooled in remedies by her mother/grandmother, like millions of other women through the centuries, could more precisely be described as a "healer". But then, what was her motivation in following the troops to Crimea? She set up a Mess and was a jolly good landlady who made the men feel tons better on booze and incidentally dispensed some of her home-spun medicine. That does not turn her into a "nurse"! It is a Misnomer --Po Mieczu (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, it's a ridiculous Euro-centric view to claim that Mary Seacole wasn't a "nurse". It's Eurocentric to claim that nursing only began with Nightingale. The origins of the History of nursing pre-date Nightingale. In fact, Nightingale is a "modern" nurse, as highlighted in the article on History of nursing in the United Kingdom. Seacole came from a long tradition of Jamaican "doctresses", who "nursed" (yes, that word "nurse") many British soldiers and sailors back to health in the disease-ravaged Caribbean. They include Seacole's mother, as well as Cubah Cornwallis and Sarah Adams. These doctresses practised hygiene long before Nightingale took up the campaign to introduce hygiene to British nursing. These doctresses used herbal remedies at a time when 18th European doctors employed practices such as leeches in their medical practices. Cornwallis, for example, "nursed" (that word again!) back to health famous sailors such as Horatio Nelson and Sailor Bill (the future William IV). Are you saying that nurses were a lower class of being that were not empowered to "heal" sufferers? I don't accept that. To say Seacole was not a nurse is an example of nonsensical Euro-centric contempt for any practices that are not of European origin. Mikesiva (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Unmitigated nonsense. This is an article written in English. In 21st-century English, the word 'nurse' has a particular meaning. You might as well claim that ancient Egyptian astrologers were 'scientists', because to say otherwise would be 'Eurocentric' (yes, that's one non-hyphenated word). Your claim is wokiness on turbo. And of course, she wasn't 'black', either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.114.231 (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 
I do not accept that only white, European people can be nurses. The history of nursing itself goes beyond Europe, and encompasses the world at large. There were many nurses in colonial Jamaica who deserve to be recognised. She was of mixed-race, and therefore entitled to be called "black". Your use of the made-up phrase "wokiness" displays the anti-black agenda you clearly seem to hold. Anybody who's unfamiliar with the contribution of non-white people to nursing should read the History of nursing.Mikesiva (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Typical Wiki propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  2.97.114.231 (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (note: "unsigned" template added after subsequent comment)

Who wrote the above rubbish sentence?
I see the anti-Seacole brigade is ramping it up again. Seacole was mixed-race, and therefore it's quite right to call her black. She followed in a long line of Jamaican "doctresses", who "nursed" British soldiers and sailors back to health. There it is...that word "nurse" again. Anybody who's unfamiliar with the contribution of non-white people to nursing should read the History of nursing. Since Helen Rappaport uses the term "nurse" to describe Seacole, it should be used in the opening sentence.Mikesiva (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Who is this WinstonGroovy who's been going around removing "nurse" from every paragraph in this article, without raising the issue here? All of my references to Seacole being a nurse have been referenced properly. I'm going to reinstate them, and put in additional references. Any changes need to be discussed here, in this talk page first.Mikesiva (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A user(s) is adding this source: https://www.uwl.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Academic-schools/College-of-Nursing-Midwifery-and-Healthcare/Web/PDF/Elizabeth%20Anionwu%20Papers/MarySeacole_jan%2010Nov2014.pdf as "evidence" for "nursing" qualification and a variety of other claims that are not evidence in the source text. Importantly, in the source, it states at the end of the article: "Conflict of interest Drs Corry STARING-DERKS and Jeroen STARING are owners of the recently discovered Mary Seacole letter." Since the "letter" is the cited evidence for claims of nursing qualification, the source has effectively disqualified itself as a WP:RS reliable third-party source. Please "#dobetter" and add these claims back into the article only if there's a reliable source. Also, it's good practice to gain consensus on this talk page before making contentious and thus far unverifiable claims. Blessed peace to all. WinstonGroovy (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's absolute rubbish! One of the sources provided links to a number of academic articles and journals by historians who all accept that Seacole was a nurse. The other reference was to the leading historian in pre-Independence Jamaica. So, where is your evidence that Seacole is not a nurse? Is that what you consider "unverifiable"? Are you more qualified to talk about the history of Jamaica than Clinton Black? I have a PhD in the history of Jamaica from the University of Southampton. What's your qualifications in Caribbean history? Since you've failed to give any reason why references to Black should be removed, I will be reinstating them. I have now included more specific academic journal articles that reference Seacole as a nurse.Mikesiva (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please detail how your sources are RS prior to re-adding, and avoid ad hominem attacks. WinstonGroovy (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
My academic sources are listed in my references. Black, Messmer, Parchment and Anionwu are all academics. Kindly reinstate them. Do not remove them unless you have good reason to do so. And you clearly do not.Mikesiva (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the word "nurse" be used to describe Mary Seacole? WinstonGroovy (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It's awkward, because she does not have the relationship that Florence Nightingale has to the establishment of the nursing profession in Britain. People are invited to think that she was a 'nurse' in the Crimea, like Nightingale (whose actual success in the Crimea has been open to question), whereas in fact she was an hotelier, running an hotel for officers and also supplying comforts to the sick and wounded of all ranks. And her background was as an hotelier. She was maybe what traditional communities call a 'wise woman' who was good with people and understood some reliable folk cures. What she actually knew about hygiene is hard to say, but, until Lister's ideas of antiseptics gained acceptance at the end of the nineteenth century, orthodox 'medicine' was fairly lethal because doctors wouldn't wash their hands ('A gentleman's hands are always clean') and didn't understand what Pasteur and Lister revealed to be the microbial origins of infection. So a 'wise woman' of common sense and experience like Seacole might be just as much use as someone who claimed to practise orthodox medicine, possibly more so. Not really what we now mean by a 'nurse', though. The great chef Alexis Soyer did an immense amount for the welfare of troops in the Crimea, including the provisioning of hospitals, and his cleverly designed field stove remained in British Army use till the 1990s, but nobody calls him a nurse. Nor is there any statue of him in London. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The blue plaque and the Whittington Hospital plaque depicted in the article describe her as a nurse, as do the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the cover of her biography by Jane Robinson, and the BBC. - Station1 (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Now that this issue has finally been resolved, I will continue to add academic references which attest to Mary Seacole being a nurse.Mikesiva (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Support as she was in fact a nurse, even though this term was not yet solidified.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC) strike sock
Support, since there are reliable sources which depicts her as a nurse. Idealigic (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What does "success as a woman" mean? How would it be measured? Was Mary Seacole more successful as a woman than other women of the time, or even of all time?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.121.132 (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 
Valid point. Whole sentence needs reframing. It's caught up in the artificial conflict between Nightingale and Seacole. Seacole is rightly restored to history. We just need a better summary. Petrosbizar (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed! Mikesiva (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
In British culture, "success as a woman" during her era and some time after until greater female emancipation, tended to be considered to be marriage and motherhood. She was a wife but did not progress to be a mother, so the phrase is better not used.Cloptonson (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I question the "c.1850" dating given to the photo of Seacole in the infobox as she appears to be wearing medal-less ribbons of the four Crimean War decorations she claimed - but was never apparently recordedly awarded - and took to wearing after that war which did not begin until 1853 nor end until 1856. If they are provable to be ribbons of the medals, then this dates the photo to no earlier than 1856 by which year she was already 50 years old and more likely to look as she does in the photo. (In the other photograph dated 1873 she is shown wearing apparent miniatures of three of the decorations with attached medals.)Cloptonson (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if this was merely repeating what is known to have been written in her memoir, but I question the inclusion of the Duke of Wellington's name among the list of supporters of her Crimean War effort fund raising. It is wikilinked to the first Duke who in fact had died in 1852, the year before the war began. If any Duke of Wellington did contribute, it was most likely to have been the Iron Duke's succeeding son, who was himself a Lieutenant General in 1854 in the British Army, but saw no campaign service. I suggest a check out for anyone with access to the memoir.Cloptonson (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am pleased to note that in the talk page on the article about her statue, KJP1 has given me a few links to sources that show, inter alia, the 2nd Duke was one of the arrangers of a reception for her after her return from the Crimea, and he was still alive at the time of the second fund-raising collection for her in 1867.Cloptonson (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The book wasn't written by her the narrative is suggesting it was and the sources are not even checked 🙄 2A00:23C6:EE22:A701:9A6:5028:25CE:69E3 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

In the lead we are told of 'a four-day fundraising gala' that took place on the banks of the Thames in 1858 which 80,000 people attended. This claim is not sourced, and more oddly, there is nothing about this event in the body of the article. Is it confusing it with the 1857 'Seacole Fund Grand Military Festival' which 40,000 people attended? The locations are not the same, so I'm a little confused. If its worth being in the lead, its worth being in the body of the article surely. LastDodo (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not delete large sections of this article without discussing them here. I will be reinstating them. For example, it is important to outline in the main article on the early life and background of Seacole, the tradition of folk medicine, hygiene and herbs in the career of the 18th Jamaican doctress. Also, in the Controversies section, Lynn McDonald has an unchallenged claim that Seacole did not pioneer nursing. The next paragraph, referencing the nursing tradition of Jamaican doctresses, refutes that statement. It should not be deleted for that reason alone.Mikesiva (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, probably not going to watch this article but just to note for any watchers that I undid edits by 131.104.23.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which were either uncited to reliable sources, or WP:POV.  Mostly they seemed to reference either maryseacole.info, a website that doesn't seem to say who's behind it, or works by Lynn McDonald, if they had citations at all. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I found this article via the David Starkey entry, I heard his name on a podcast & looked him up. His article notes that he criticized an "overemphasis" (per him/the article, not my words, I am unfamiliar with the issues) on Seacole in British history. Since that seems rather prominent and is included in his piece, should it be added to the section here? JamesG5 (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are uncitede statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. This isn't as bad as other articles I have noticed, but I think it should still be properly cited.
There is information that is too detailed for a Wikipedia article. For example, her exact address is listed in the various places where she lived, which isn't necessary. By removing unimportant details, the reader can discover the most important aspects.
Some paragraphs and sections are quite long. The lead can probably be trimmed down a paragraph. The "In Central America, 1851–54", "Crimean War, 1853–56", "Back in London, 1856–60", and "Recognition" sections should be trimmed or broken up with more headings. Some very long paragraphs should be trimmed or divided.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)