This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article was created or improved during the Women and Law edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in September 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
I've lightly c/ed the article, feel free to disagree with any or all of my comments that follow. Overall, great work!
are census records reliable? see WP:PRIMARYCARE, which states that "Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." I'd think the census falls in that category.
Just as it may be difficult to determine if a subject in a newspaper article, journal article or book is the subject? One weighs the evidence, evaluates it based on what else is known — hardly "impossible" (in fact, I would postulate that that statement in the guideline is completely false. It may be impossible would be more accurate). The McGill Law Library says she was "born in 1887 in Alexandria, Glengarry County, Ontario" and Bergeron says "Née en Ontario le 6 juin 1887, elle épouse Samuel Gilbert Langstaff en 1904". There are precisely two births in that place in 1887, except the other one died at birth. The one who did not die, was born on 6 June. The record given shows the parents names. The Law Library article says she graduated from Prescott (Ontario) High School and the The Windsor Star 1914 says she was a native of Prescott and married at 17. Searching Prescott residence for 1887-1904, only one entry is returned and that person is the same age and has the same parents as were listed in the birth record from Alexandria. There is only 1 Annie MacDonald who married in Prescott in 1904. Per the marriage record, she was 17 and had the same parents as listed in the birth record. She also married Gilbert Samuel Langstaff, her later surname and the spouse's name contains all the names given by Bergeron. I think you see that each of the records confirms the information in the previous record. No conclusions are required, no original research. The records say what they say and it all works together to confirm each record refers to the same person. So yes, I think the records are reliable, based on an evaluation of their totality. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, Thanks for the response. While I understand what you're saying, I've never come across census citations in a ga before, so I hope you don't mind that I've asked this question at WP:RSN for a second opinion. It's nothing against you or the article, I just want someone more qualified than myself in this aspect to comment. Eddie891TalkWork15:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
"the law excluding women from practicing law" was there a specific law excluding women? Clarify, because earlier you day that there were no barriers to her admission; this seems like it would be a big barrier.
The difference is that she could attend school, i.e. no barriers to education; but she couldn't practice/work as a lawyer. (The source pretty much makes clear that there wasn't a law which said women were barred specifically from working as lawyers, but the court interpretation of the law was it intended to exclude them) SusunW (talk)
"bachelor of arts" here you don't capitalize the degree, but you capitalize "Bachelor of Civil Law" above. Standardize
"her husband separated" in the lede, you say her husband abandoned her
Done Added Latur who says he left her "Madame Langstaff a en outre élevé seule sa fille, son mari ayant quitté le domicile familial." SusunW (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Her husband migrated in 1905 to New York City, with another woman whom he claimed to have married in 1904" I thought it was unknown where he was
She didn't know where he was. Records show otherwise. He was 22 per their marriage record, name was listed as Gilbert Samuel Langstaff. A search for his name with a birth date from 1881-1883 results in a birth record, showing the same parents as his marriage license with a birth date of 14 October 1882 and the name Samuel Gilbert Langstaff born in Grenville County, Ontario. The 1901 census for his father in that same place shows his parents had only two children, Samuel G. age 18 and William age 16. The New York Naturalization shows that exact birth date and born in Ontario, as well as states his wife's name is Nellie, they arrived 1 November 1904. The census record shows Samuel G. and Nellie, had been married 5 years in 1910. He is the only Samuel or Gilbert Langstaff born between 1881 and 1883 who appears in any record from 1882 to his death in 1938 in New York. Again, no OR required. The information in each record confirms the information in the other records. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
"With his encouragement in 1911, she wrote to McGill University's Faculty of Law" was the encouragement, the writing, or both in 1911? I'd recommend rephrasing as "With his encouragement, in 1911 she wrote to..."
"she should begin attending lectures" the source says that he said "It would be better for her to attend the lectures" and that she began attending with "no serious objections having materialized". To me that does not read the same as 'should'. Perhaps "she could begin..." Maybe you could clarify on what you think would be the best phrasing? If you think it's fine as it stands, I'll defer to you
To me could only means it was possible for her to do it. It would "better for her" indicates that there is some compelling reason, i.e. should. However, perhaps "ought to" is an acceptable compromise? SusunW (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Vowing to continue the fight" again, that's very nice writing, but I'd suggest gutting it, as it doesn't really contribute to the encyclopedic aspect article
"next legislative session of the National Assembly of Quebec" add what year/month the next session would be as it's a new section and will help readers keep years straight.
"later Jacobs & Phillips and still later Phillips & Vineberg" do you have years at all?
Really surprisingly hard question. This says Lazarus Phillips joined Jacobs' firm after serving in World War I (p. 53) Eureka! [1] 1st, 1920; 2nd 1945. DoneSusunW (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
"in Quebec was suspended" suspended by whom? presumably the advocates or the legislature?
"Becoming the assistant to the other senior partner, Senator Lazarus Phillips" do you have a year for this?
Leger, in The Gazette says she was his assistant for 60 years, but that is impossible, as she retired in 1965 and he didn't join the firm until 1920. Mossman, p. 110 has a quote from Lazurus Phillips that says she was Jacobs' "alter ego" until his death and continued to serve as his [Phillips'] "right arm" until she retired. He doesn't actually say when she began to work for him, whether she served them both at any time, or whether she served one after the other. Logic says she assisted whoever needed her, when they needed her, but there isn't a source that says that, that I am aware of. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
"should be allowed to do the same" implies that women should be allowed to work in women's occupations. perhaps you mean "should be allowed to work in men's occupations"
"Unfortunately for Langstaff, the law required that candidates" MOS:UNFORTUNATELY, be careful of editorializing. While we can all sympathize with Langstaff's struggle, the article does seem to border on editorializing in a couple places (most of which I think I cut out in my c/e).
SusunW, Thanks for all your work, and the article is very nicely done. I spot checked the references, no problems emerged, prose is fine, there's no copyvio, images are all appropriate and licensing is fine, so I'll place this on hold pending a second opinion on the sourcing. Eddie891TalkWork18:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Eddie891. I've said that on here for years. Context matters. I really appreciate your help with the article. She's my oldest nomination still pending, so am glad to have her done. SusunW (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
there has been further discussion about the reliability of census records; Slatersteven thinks that it is never reasonable to infer something... Eddie891TalkWork13:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Eddie891 I answered him. No one is inferring anything. It does not appear as if he understands the question. In every single instance of gathering sources for an article, one must look at them and evaluate whether they refer to the same person and whether the information is likely to be true. It doesn't matter if the source is a census, or a news article, or a scientific journal. If one is talking about apples and the other oranges, then they cannot be used to draw conclusions and infer they refer to the same thing. On the other hand, if 5 sources give information that is similar, it is likely the information they contain is accurate (or they are all repeating the same mistake) and can be stated in the article as the information is represented in the source. Evaluating the source isn't inference, it is logic. SusunW (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
SusunW (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Done SusunW (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)