Talk:King's Daughters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Warning

To whoever keeps trolling on this page, if this continues, I will block the entire range you edit from. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Leaving two references for people to see

Looking at the talk page history there seems to have been an edit war which has at this point led to an empty talk page even though it dates back to October 2005; which is about 2 years. To avoid such things take a look at it and learn from the past. YoSoyGuapo 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The "edit war" you describe has simply been a random series of troll posts that added nothing to the discussion of the article and in many cases were simply vandalism. They were removed for that reason.
The first link you listed is already part of the "External links" section. I will add the second one. -- Couillaud 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French prostitutes

If there is at least one prostitute among these fine young ladies then we are no longer speaking of "Rumors and urban legends." The article claims only one was "charged"; that hardly aquits these pure-woolly "women." -- previous unsigned remark was left by 132.211.195.143 19:04 30 October 2007 (UTC)


This is a bogus and racist troll. You have been leaving such unwarrented remarks on the Talk page for a long time, and have been warned before about leaving such. Unless you wish to identify yourself and actually produce documentation that there were French prostitutes who were shipped to Canada, please stop with your irrelevant vandalism.
Here is the first troll you started:
These "women" were prostitutes; so much for the fwench "pure wool" garbage; nothing pure here. When your ancestors were prostitutes, as is the case of the fwench Canadians, it is curious how the decedants describe themselves as pure! -- previous unsigned remark was left by 132.211.195.73 17:55 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This edit kept being removed, as it was irrelevant, unproven (not even vaguely supported by any documentation), and racist. You kept putting it back until an Admin warned that he would block your entire range if you continued. I have notified WKnight94 that you've returned with the same trolls as before.
Your edits are being reverted as vandalism. I have clarified the "Rumors" section to show from which of the three already-cited books the story of Catherine Guichelin derives, and have made it absolutely clear that it has no relevance to your incredible and unprovable theory.
-- Couillaud 14:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You know. All you have to do is google King's Daughters and Prostitutes. There you will see that articles do come up. For example. [1] . There is though another group in nambia that are prostitutes that call themselves kings daughters [2] YoSoyGuapo 02:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


And you're both a couple of trolls who know nothing about the King's Daughters of French Canada. You can google a neo-Nazi site and use it as a source to dispute anyone who argues about racial equality, or who believes the Holocaust happened. That's what you're doing right now, YSG, and I'm not playing this game. --Couillaud 03:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not troll and there is no need for the name calling or personal attacks If you look at this article you'll see that there is a group of prostitutes that do call themselves the King's Daughters [3] . YoSoyGuapo 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


You are STILL trolling, and you're still stalking me. You're arguing that your cited article about a recent event in Africa supports racist remarks made about French women of the 17th century. Do it again, and I'll file the complaint against you.
The Discussion page is meant to discuss merits of the article, and all you do argue "issues" irrelevant to it.
---Couillaud 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually you have stalked me. [4] . This edit proves it! I don't know any racist remarks about French women in the 17th century, nor do I care. You made a comment that something was unproven. I replied on the talk page that all someone has to do is google king's daughters and prostitutes and they can find a source. The same way I found a source that stated that there were a group of prostitutes in Namibea that referred to themselves as King's Daughters. So how is that trolling? It is simply helping others learn about references. YoSoyGuapo 04:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok: all the links provided so far continue to confirm that the King's Daughters this article refers to were not prostitutes. The Namibian group calling themselves "King's Daughters" doesn't in any way support that these women were prostitutes, but it does support that some think or thought that they were, which is what the article says. So anyone wanting to change the article, the burden is on you to find reliable sources for that claim. Even then, the notion that the women were not prostitutes will have to be at least included, possibly as the dominant viewpoint, given the souces that exist for that claim. Mangojuicetalk 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said that the King's Daughters were prostitutes. Someone else did. I suggested that someone find reliable sources. I actually created another article that deals with another group known as the King's Daughters, but they are in Namibea. YoSoyGuapo 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. For all who read this, YoSoyGuapo has already once had one indefinite ban for disruptive behavior, and I already have an ANI complaint against him for this and two other actions of his in the last day. And I wish to point out one more time, THIS page is where we are supposed to discuss the merits of the article, NOT your personal opinions. That is the reason I deleted your first comments anyway: they were irrelevant to the merits of the article itself. -- Couillaud 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request made to Admin

I have asked an admin to step in and clear all comments to this page and freeze it afterward, since all comments currently being made are irrelevant to the article itself, and are just a continuation of the trolling remarks that led to the first warning by an admin. --Couillaud 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to your request, I have restored the section and left a response. Although there may be an ongoing pattern of raising this issue over and over, the issue is not irrelevant to the article, and it is generally considered poor form to remove the comments of others. Really, this problem is easily handled by demanding reliable sources and following Wikipedia policy. Troublesome users can be handed blocks. Mangojuicetalk 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline Citations

Greetings,

Not having access to the sources, could the person with the sources inline cite this article. Some of this really needs to have that. spryde | talk 16:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the term "inline sources". Could you elaborate? The facts of the article in its original form (which I did not write) were drawn from three definitive books on the subject, one of which I own, and two of which are in a nearby public library. I used the Gagne book as a reference to my additions. All are cited at the end rather than clutter the article with 18 references to the same sources. Is it preferable to footnote the same source multiple times?
As for the reference to Namibian prostitutes (an unrelated and obscure topic that no one considered worthy of discussion before), there is one googled article cited by another editor.

-- Couillaud 16:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted about the Nambians. A great example of inline citations would be Htdig. Note the use of the ref tag and the references tag down at the bottom. spryde | talk 16:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I added one inline citation, to show how it's done. Inline citations do not have to be given for every sentence, so they won't ultimately be too repetitive. Mangojuicetalk 22:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)