Talk:Rebecca Hammond Lard

Cheers.

• I have rewritten and copy edited the article and expanded a bit. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Justice007. It looks great! --Davidholmer (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure.Justice007 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Justice, would you mind doing another copy edit for me... I'm having trouble getting it to look right after I added the new content. Greatly appreciate it if ya could! David Holmer 18:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidholmer (talk • contribs)

• More later or any other day.Justice007 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Justice! --David Holmer (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Updating Biography and Family

Picked up two great reference books at the library with great biographical info. Was trying to implement these new sources today, but with everyone's work from three projects, the updates are conflicting. Could editors wishing to help work in other areas and sections, while I make my changes? I really appreciate everyone's work, and would love to have you help after I finish implementing these new sources. Thanks! --David Holmer (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

When you are getting ready to start a major update to the page, you could use the {{In use}} tag at the top of the page to let others know you are working on it. Then just take it off when you are finished with the editing. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Joanna. I will do that from now on. --David Holmer (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment Improvement

The last sixteen hours of work that I did on this article was to bring it up to C-class according to WP project quality scales. I formatted it after Walt Whitman. I would like to see these improvements remain. I do NOT want this article to just be maintained at the STUB-class level... The whole point of editing is to IMPROVE! --David Holmer (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume, was this really heading toward B-class... your comment is going to make me cry... that is the nicest thing I have heard in quite awhile on here. Thanks! --David Holmer (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

G, look at the previous edit of mine and compare and make a 3O decision for us. Justice is done, and I really want the best for this article. Thanks --David Holmer (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• That ok, I was mistaken,your version has been restored.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Justice --David Holmer (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

More Improvements

For the Poetry Project:

Content from papers and internet course instruction in Poetry, which use Rebecca Lard as a part or main subject of discussion would be a valuable inclusion. These sources bring up a subscription page to Microsoft Word, as I don't have this on my computer. There may be some great content in this area.--David Holmer (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For the Indiana Project:

Content from sources on Indiana divorce during the 1820s would be a valuable inclusion. Also, content sources on the native people of Indiana. --David Holmer (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For the article in General:

Images of the river banks of the Ohio river; Images of the Solomon's Temple, if it is still standing there; and an image of her tombstone would all be valuable inclusions.--David Holmer (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Other possible Areas of Improvement:

• The War of 1812 was happening during the creation of her "Miscellaneous Poems"
• She stood her ground and became a schoolteacher against her husband's wishes = First wave feminism begins this century

--David Holmer (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand him

Spanglej edited the article without clarifying on the talk page, in edit summary no clarity too. I thought may be he made mistake to remove the work that made the article C-status. He reverted saying no mistake. I do realy not understand him and don't want to create edit warring.I am tired of that kind-----, so I give up Justice007 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Don't give up. My edit was made because 1) the article says she was "the first poet in Indiana." This is obviously a nonsensical statement, whether supported by a source or not. This might mean she was given the role of First Poet (akin to a poet laureate or the like) but I promise you that people were writing and reciting poetry before her. I did put this in the edit summary. 2) "Her poems are valuable information of the life, thinking and behaviour of the early people in Indiana". We are writing an encyclopaedic entry, not a hagiography or a piece that sets out to promote her work. The source given does not support that her work is 'valuable'. If she wrote extensively about the lives of indigenous first nations in Indiana and Vermont then it would be worth adding a cite for that. None currently given point to that. 3) The lead in a fairly short article such as this, usually points to the main reasons for her notability. It isn't generally a potted history of where she was born, died etc. 4) A full 20 line poem is quite a lot to include. We are encouraged to use small chunks of primary material and limit our quotes. Wikisource is available for full texts out of copyright. I would say that the article is still solidly a C class; it looks just fine to me, assuming that the sources do support the text. You'd want to be a bit careful not to over rely on primary texts as the article may wander into original research. So well done to you all for working up the article to this point. I'm happy to discuss my edits further. I have no axe to grind. Best wishes Span (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes that is the way to explain edits, I agree on that piont,no problem. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason 1) is nonsensical to YOU is because you do NOT speak ENGLISH. Anyone with a Kindergarten education in America will tell you what the "first" in English means. It is NOT nonsensical; in fact, it IS the essence of notability! Your disregard of the source, is ludicrious. The INDIANA BOOK OF RECORDS is the very pinnacle of what is and is not notable and discerns who/what can use the title of "first". You are a FOOL to say that you can assure us about others writing poetry before her. Where is YOUR proof of this. I demand to see it! We are talking about the very FIRST people of Indiana, which were NOT colonists... that's the other side of our country. You have no Idea of what youare talking about and your editing has actually turned an educational article into nonsense, calling Indiana a colony. Get a book and learn American history while you are learning your English! 2) HER WORK IS IMPORTANT is SUPPORTED BY both iNDIANA AND vERMONT GOVERNMENTS AND uNIVERSITY SOURCES. That is a statement used by universities who use her work. You are NOW disregarding GOVERNMENT and EDUCATION sources... Have you even read WP: guidelines??? 3) The lead is the same as WALT WHITMAN... perhaps you would like to hack and destroy that article also... Guess what, you can't its protected!!! 4) IGNORAMOUS... that is a 5 page poem not 20 lines, what Justice put in there was a condensation... Why are you destroying what you OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING about??? And you did NOT discuss ANY of your edits BEFORE making them as per Justice's complaint.

I am reverting this back due to complete editor's disregard to WP guidelines, disregard to American history, disregard to English usage, and complete backlash to the American people, who he obviously DOES have an axe to grind.

Justice, please be WP:bold. Your first instinct about not understanding him was enough to undo his damage. Protect this article, it is C-class now, but can easily be a B class with improvements, NOT destruction! --David Holmer (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am blamed by someone that I create everywhere edit warring,(which is not the truth) anyhow, that's why I am avoiding for some time. The article will be again according to reliable sources. Justice007 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the truth at all. I appreciate your editing! I can understand your need to avoid. I have had to do it twice myself at the stress from the DR article. Glad to have you back maintaining this one! --David Holmer (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• No problem.Justice007 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First poet

Although Cavinder does call her the first poet in Indiana he does caveat that with "she is believed to have written the state's first book of poetry" (my emphasis) - that's somewhat different to a definative statement that she was the first poet. Perhaps an adjustment is needed to clarify this? It doesn't detract from her notability just makes the article say the same as the source that is being relied upon.

And there is some flowery language in here; "after fitting herself by self-culture using great natural ability because of limited schooling" Can you put that in plainer English and back it with a source? Who says she had great natural ability? I'm guessing it means she became a teacher despite a lack of schooling herself but relied on her own talents. NtheP (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have added the suggested passage to the subsection of the article.Justice007 (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference to "On the Banks of Ohio" as being the definitive first publication of poetry in Indiana is re-worded to "is recorded as" to show NtheP's interpretation of source as being non-definitive. Thank you. --David Holmer (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with current interpretation... 1) "became a teacher" suggests a process. This is NOT the intention of the source. We cannot change or re-interpret sources that is original research and against WP policies. 2) "lack of schooling" suggests that she did not have adequate schooling. This is not what the source had intended. "Limited schooling" refers to the lack of schooling available NOT the short-comings of an individual. 3) "relied on her own talents" IS what was intended, but I need to check with source to be sure it isn't the exact wording used per copyright violation. --David Holmer (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wording of "great natural ability" changed to "relying on her own talents" per NtheP's comment and verifying source against copyvio. Reverted rest of statement back to proper interpretation until better solution is discussed. NtheP, was this the flowery part you were talking about? If so, solution is found. Thank you. --David Holmer (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"She is believed to have written the state's first book of poetry" is not my interpretation of Cavinder but a direct quote from his book. If a source can't be conclusive then neither can the wikipedia article.

Thank you for supplying a source for the line "after fitting herself by self-culture using great natural ability because of limited schooling" I still think "fitting herself through self culture" is extremely poor wording and needs reworking. Was the situation this - Due to the limited access to schooling in Woodstock, Lard did not undergo any training for teaching but at age 15 started to teach relying on natural ability rather than formal education to support her? If you consider that is OR or synthesis then fine in which case I would leave the entie sentence out and just state that aged 14 she started to teach, assuming that can be verified.

The next section contains this sentence "continued to teach, being her chief occupation as she has done for many years, in Woodstock". Apart from the use of has rather than had, it's an unwieldy constuction "her main occupation in Woodstock continued to be teaching" reads a lot more easily to me. NtheP (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir--already been changed.

Your welcome. "Fitting yourself through self-culture" is a phrase used modernly to describe the preparation needed to begin home schooling which reflects the same preparation used in the eighteenth century. It is the most accurate description for what the source describes in detail. We could replace "fitting" with "preparing and equipping" that would be accurate since the verb fitting implies both the mental and physical. It would take even longer to accurately explain "self-culture". But, the English encyclopedia's language is condensed and precise. We are going in the opposite direction of what an Encyclopedia would go. Instead of focusing on changing wording to make an article longer, we need to be looking for more content!

NO the situation was this - Due to the limited schooling available, Lard began her teaching career at the age of fourteen. Now, the source also describes how she was able to do this, which I think is very useful to include because 1) it gives in-depth detail and content as to her life and work, which is ALWAYS included in encyclopedia if available and sourced, which this is. Although the source goes into this detail, what is missing is other types of details like: was she teaching in a school, in a home, did she have a class, was she a tutor, what was her pay. THESE are things we need to be focused on finding for MORE content and article IMPROVEMENT. Changing words does not improve the article, and deleting what we already have with verifiable sources IS destructive to the article.

The paragraph is about her family, and this sentence is constructed as a bridge for the gap in years between the marriage (first sentence) and the move (third sentence). In discussion, your sentence seems fine, but between the first and third sentences. The whole paragraph becomes disjointed and sloppy. I do see a problem with the comma and the phrase as she has done, which is peculiar and unneeded. --David Holmer (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cavinder

From Cavinder, Fred D. "The Indiana Book of Records, Firsts, and Fascinating Facts":

"The first poet in Indiana was Rebecca Lard of Vermont, who moved to Indiana in 1820."

"Although facts of her life are sketchy, she is believed to have written the state's first book of poetry, The Banks of the Ohio, published in 1823."

These are TWO distinct records in this book. The first is the "first poet" and is definitive. The second is the "first book of poetry" which seems non-definitive because of wording "facts of her life are sketchy" and "believed"

• The fact about her being a poet is NOT what is referred to as being sketchy.
• The fact about her being the first poet is NOT what is referred to as being sketchy.
• The fact that she was from Vermont is NOT what is referred to as being sketchy.
• The fact that she moved to Indiana in 1820 is NOT what is referred to as being sketchy.
• The fact that the state had a first book of poetry is NOT what is referred to as being sketchy.
• The fact that this first book was "The Banks of the Ohio" is NOT what is referred to as being sketchy.
• The fact that "The Banks of Ohio" was published in 1823 is NOT what is referred to as being sketchy.

A "Book of Record" is similar to that of an encyclopedia. Only verifiable sources are used and stated in it. Whatever is considered as sketchy is omitted, or NOT included, just like here in Wikipedia. We are only told that "facts about her life are sketchy". The indecision is in WHO wrote this first book of poetry...

The "Book of Record" records it as "she is believed to have written the state's first book of poetry"

It is obvious from five other sources in the article that she submitted the 5-page poem as "By a Lady". It has also been verified by multiple sources that this "Lady" was later identified as "Mrs. Rebecca Lard". (Perhaps, this is what was referred to as sketchy)

The whole discussion in regards to the statement that she was NOT the first poet of Indiana is wrong. This has nothing to do with the second part of the record book, being the "first" book of poetry, which is used to support other editors arguments that she was NOT the first poet. Mis-interpretation was also made about its publishing in Indiana... it was NOT. Multiple sources have it being published back in the colonies. (They were one of the first people in Indiana, the pioneer life was VERY different from the colony life in American history) And, the doubt in accuracy of the "Book of Record" or Cavinder's accuracy of who is the "first" is ludicrious. The whole point of "Books of Records", dictionaries, encyclopedias, and similar reference books is to pride themselves in being the MOST ACCURATE record available. It doesn't matter how many editors canvass and consensus against American history, you can't change facts. --David Holmer (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is why Justice asks us to post discussions here before vandalizing the article and/or creating lies and mistruths about the article. It is a simple request that I have honored and consider to be a good practice. The editors who object are those who first come here by a WP:canvassing and have sole intentions of being disruptive and not improving this article. --David Holmer (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

Just throwing this out there... Does anyone feel we have enough sources to start a subsection in the article about controveries? I was thinking about 1) Controversy over authorship of "On the Banks of the Ohio" brought to light over recent discussions. Source - Cavinder calls it "sketchy" and "believed to have been written" Many other sources record the submission as "by a Lady" and later identify that lady as "Mrs. Lard". 2) Controversy over the spelling of the surname: has continually been spelled "Lard" from sources spanning over the centuries up to fifty years ago. New spelling exists on records after 1950 and the new tombstone. We have multiple sources for the original spelling. We only have two sources using the Laird spelling, but the family uses it in their genealogy websites (not included because of not being independent) however, a picture of the tombstone can be downloaded as strong proof for the later. Another interesting sidetrack is the same mis-spelling controversy in Bolton over fireman Laird and character Lard. Agin, just a suggestion. --David Holmer (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)