Talk:Mary Seacole

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay. Rudget (review) 17:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: kuumba 47.44.45.162 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, okay. I'll look for any inconsistencies now. Rudget (review) 09:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   Rudget (review) 10:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No rush, I'll give it another once-over before I do a formal review. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: :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: </div>
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)
replies: text: Thanks, you've been a wonderful GA reviewer to say the least. Regards, Rudget (review) 10:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination

message: 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)
thread_title: multiracial

message: Note 7 onwards.  []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)
thread_title:  Query re Referencing of Jane Robinson's book. 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: She was neither 'black' nor a 'nurse'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  2.97.114.231 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  She is not a real Black Hero

message: 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)
thread_title:  socking? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: moved here till citations are provided:
:
Florence Nightingale had mixed views of Seacole. She was concerned about her sale of liquor to the soldiers, who were already given a large amount in their rations. She did not, however, express her disapproval openly. 
--tickle me 00:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florence Nightingale 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ref date format fix - or not? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Panoramic comment (under Early Life section)

message: 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:  https://media.nationalgeographic.org/assets/photos/000/294/29419.jpg - 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Only known photograph? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is "Nurse" the right descriptive here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please detail how your sources are RS prior to re-adding, and avoid ad hominem attacks. WinstonGroovy (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns over dubious claims and sources

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "After her death she was largely forgotten for almost a century, but was subsequently recognised for her success as a woman." 

message: 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)
thread_title: Infobox photograph - year questioned

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole'' - Duke of Wellington support questioned

message: 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)
thread_title:  She was illiterate and this post consistently states she wrote her book.. when anyone nows she didn't.. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re the 1858 'four-day fundraising gala' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleting contributions 

message: Hi, probably not going to watch this article but just to note for any watchers that I undid edits by  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)
thread_title:  Reversion of edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add David Starkey to controversy section?