Talk:Madame Montour

message: I have been watching this article for awhile and have a couple of comments. I think the flow of the article would be better served if some of the sub headings were rethought. Example: First marriage/second marriage sections seem to be arbitrary; there are no certain records of any formal marriages available but there are recorded comments regarding a number of "marriages of custom". I might add an edit as follows " It is also recorded that from late 1706 for a period, she was the companion of Étienne de Veniard, Sieur de Bourgmont  and may have had one child in this relationship." but, where to add it? Secondly, I think that the reference section needs to be cleaned up and placed in the more editable situation in its own section rather than intersperced in the text. Having said all this; it is a good article on its way to becoming better. Cheers! --Stormbay 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make any improvements that are needed. The arrangement is chronological because the sources were chronological as well. I just wish that there was more agreement on what happened in her life. This lack of information is one of the sad results our history. Dincher 04:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Improvements 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: *I copied this here from Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the page should be the name that the subject is most well known by.  The sources cited on the page suggest that the title in use is the most widespread, as does the google hits, which, while not absolute as a determining factor, are several times more numerous under the first name than the second.  Redirects can be made for the others.  As for making a french version of he page, you can do that at fr.wikipedia.org.  Celarnor Talk to me 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am copying this to the article's talk page. I note that the online English-language version of the Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry spells her name "Elizabeth" and says as its second sentence The given name of this woman is not definitely known. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erronous Title on a page - editing do not allow to correct 

message: Two & a half years ago, Dincher asked me to take a look at this article. Better late than never! I hope there are still some people watching this.
The article has some problems, due to the use of some unreliable sources, from both the web and old books. I know the contributors were having trouble finding sources at the time. Google Books has greatly expanded in the last couple of years, of course, which has enabled me to at least glimpse some modern scholarly sources. That brief review leads me to the following observations:
#The article has the wrong name. Madame Montour was not named Elizabeth Catherine Montour. Her actual name appears to have been Elizabeth (aka Isabelle) Montour. The current name probably results from the conflation of Elizabeth Montour with Catherine Montour, a relative.
#The proper name for this page is "Madame Montour", since that's the name she was known by, both by historians and her Anglophone contemporaries, and because of the uncertainty of her actual identity.
#We cannot be sure who Madame Montour really was. Historian William Hunter put to rest many old legends when he concluded that she was probably Elizabeth Couc, born in 1667. More recently, however, historian Jon Parmenter has argued that "Madame Montour" was certainly not the Elizabeth Couc  born in 1667, but was instead her daughter or niece. This explains why we have two possible birthdates nearly two decades apart: these are dates for two different women.
#Madame Montour was never married to Roland Montour. He was one of her descendants.
#Beware of using the term "translator" to mean "interpreter". Apparently, a translator works with the written word, whereas an interpreter does it orally. I make the same mistake sometimes.
I'll be happy to make some revisions and add some notes & sources to the article, once it's moved to "Madame Montour". Cheers! —Kevin Myers 05:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: Simplified Montour family tree
Not all marriages and children are shown. The names in green are possibly Madame Montour.
This is preliminary. I have a couple of sources to consult before this can be added to any articles. But please comment if it doesn't look right or doesn't make sense. The chart is supposed to convey something potentially confusing: that there are two candidates for "Madame Montour", and thus two candidates for Andrew Montour's mother, as well as three possible candidates for the mother of French Margaret. Make sense? If not, maybe the article text, when updated soon, will help. Another approach would be to have two (or three) different trees, one for each interpretation. Comments? —Kevin Myers 07:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all of your work on this so far - I can follow the chart as it is. My concern is that someone less familiar with Madam Montour and her convoluted family tree might have trouble following it, but I guess that also depends on the caption / explanatory text provided. Should I ask some other users who are unfamiliar with the topic to look at this and weigh in? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but let's wait until after I update the article text this weekend. I think my next update will better clarify things for brand new readers. —Kevin Myers 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good - I was also wondering if Catharine Montour should also be listed as Queen Catharine? Not sure if Quenn Esther should be included too (probably a sister of (Queen) Catharine). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 14:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the "Queens". I think the modern consensus is that Esther was not a sister of Catharine. Back in 1961, Paul Wallace said that it was "doubtful" that Esther was French Margaret's daughter. In her 1996 genealogy, Barbara J. Sivertsen said that Esther was only a Montour by marriage, and not related to Catharine and her kin. So it complicates things a bit to get her on the tree, but it's probably a good idea, since people will want to know how she fits in. —Kevin Myers 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I've enjoyed working on this, and was surprised to find a smattering of modern scholarly articles about her and Andrew, thanks to a focus on "cultural brokers" or "cultural intermediaries" by certain academic historians in the 1990s. I was hoping that some historian might have also turned his or her gaze upon French Margaret or Catharine Montour, but I haven't found anything of significance yet. —Kevin Myers 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really looking great. Thanks for all of your hard work on it, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible family tree chart 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Madame Montour. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921133421/http://www.srbc.net/docs/IndianNamesDataChart.PDF to http://www.srbc.net/docs/IndianNamesDataChart.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified