Talk:Laura Ingalls Wilder/Archive 1

Early life and marriage

Regarding "Mary Amelia, who later in her life became blind because of a stroke..." according to the Little House books, she goes blind due to Scarlet Fever, not stroke. Is there a reference somewhere that indicates otherwise? 70.54.76.251 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From Mary Amelia Ingalls- Biography - at LaurasPrairieHouse.com: http://www.laurasprairiehouse.com/family/maryingalls.html "When Mary was fourteen years old, she became severely ill. Her illness, which is variously described as scarlet fever (in the books) and meningitis, resulted in a stroke which caused Mary to go blind. Laura then became Mary's "eyes", describing everything around them to her sister." Bullydog2 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to add, if anyone knows the facts, why Laura never had any more children. It seems strange given she married so young and clearly could have children. I suppose it might be just bad luck. She did seem to have her fair share of it. 12.43 12 September 2008

        Laura did have a son who died a few days after birth, as described in The First Four Years.

This section needs serious revisions - there should be a separate section for differences between her life and the books. We also need some detail about her other writing - she had a newspaper column before writing the Little House series. It would also be great if we could add some historical perspective to the article - maybe a bit about homesteading and manifest destiny or such.

Is there a wiki editor who could review this article, so we could make it (eventually) a featured article? Myfireescapeismybackyard (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Early Life and Marriage" section discusses Wilder's entire life, through her death, but makes very little mention of her career. The "Farm Diversification" section discusses her later life, then makes mention of her career as if the reader is already familiar with it. There needs to be an "Early Life" section, followed in consecutive order by "Farm Diversification", which should discuss only her Missouri Farm, followed by career, which should discuss only her career. The "Retirement" section seems unnecessary or poorly titled, as Wilder wrote all of her books during her so-called "retirement". This section also spends too much time disucssing Lane. Overall the article is very awkward and hard to follow, it is in need of serious editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.140.24 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Way, way too much about daughter Rose

This article seems very heavy with information on Rose then is helpful in a page about Laura Ingalls Wilder.

It's not possible to tell Laura's story without frequent mention of her daughter Rose for two reasons:

1) Laura did not keep daily diaries or journals, and also did not save much of her correspondence. As a result, there are big "gaps" in the narrative of her life. Rose, on the other hand, fanatically saved and filed almost everything in addition to keeping detailed daily journals. After her death, her literary executors requested her correspondents to return letters they received from her. As a result, Rose's archives must frequently be consulted to get some idea of what was going on in Laura's life.

this argues for a separate article about Rose, not having the majority of this article be about Rose! David W. Hogg (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

2) Rose was a major factor in Laura's writing career. She had the connections in the publishing industry, and edited many of Laura's pieces long before anyone had even imagined the "Little House" series. When work did begin on the series, she was involved in many ways, though I do not believe that she is the "real" author of the books.

RogerInPDX 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)RogerInPDX

again, this argues for a separate article about Rose. David W. Hogg (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Its still a little "Rose Heavy" towards the end. At least 3 sections begin by speaking of Rose, rather than Laura. I understand their stories are intertwined, but could someone make this article from the Laura perspective a little more (perhaps some of the 'Rose' mentions could be changed to "her daughter" or "Laura's daughter" 202.161.15.89 09:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the article is about "Lane" (ie, Rose). This is not appropriate. If so much needs to be said about Rose, this article should end much earlier, with a reference to the Rose Lane article. Indeed, the fact that the majority of the article is about Lane makes the article impossible to skim or skip around in -- when you skip down to "retirement" or "celebrated author" (two things that a casual reader might do), you are presented with stuff only about Lane!. David W. Hogg (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I had to check at least several times to make sure I was still reading the article on Laura Ingalls Wilder. 173.164.207.26 (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Mr. Hogg enjoys critiquing others work without any other contribution. This seems to be an extremely common practice in the Wiki World, many Wikis begin with an average Joe or Jane starting an article because none exists for a given topic. After being repeatedly berated and brow beaten the originator leaves the Wiki, from there it may or may not be continued, and often is vandalized and/or abandon. The point being there is an overwhelming amount of people willing to whine, berate and critique, but few who help by doing anything constructive to the actual article. Of the last 20 or so people I have looked up in the Wikipedia most have been vandalized and remain so weeks later because no one has an interest in trying to figure out how to please everyone, thus the project becomes an abandon one. As for this article, it has been explained ad nauseum we would most likely have never had the slightest clue who the Ingalls family were had it not been for Rose. The Ingalls family would be just another family who moved about, had children and died. End of story. Instead thanks almost exclusively to Rose we have a rich and wonderful history of what it was like to live in the Midwest in the 1800's. So if the article has a Rose slant there is great reason for it, she is the documenter of this otherwise stranger named Laura Ingalls Wilder. So expecting this article to conform to the Wiki Standard means it should be a brief if not non-existent Wikipedia article with Rose listed as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.209.222 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're perfectly free to get all butthurt and start throwing around accusations of vandalism, but that doesn't make Hogg's points any less valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.35.29 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency of name references

This article refers to Laura Ingalls Wilder and Rose Wilder Lane by their given names but the article on the latter uses their family names. Could somebody make the call and fix this? --Kenji Yamada 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that surnames should be used, per WP:NAMES. If no objections here, I will fix it in about 12 hours, provided another editor doesn't get to it first. --Mechla (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent references to "Laura" have now been changed to "Wilder," and subsequent references to "Rose" changed to "Lane." Almanzo's given name remains, as it's needed to disambiguate him from his wife. There are still a couple spots where the two women are referred to by full name, such as the sentence describing Wilder's death. I did not remove those, as it would have changed the tone of those sentences too dramatically. Cleanup by another editor is welcome, as I might have missed a "Laura" or two --Mechla (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Family Tree

Here's a family tree I put together, perhaps it can be included somewhere. My suggestion would be to make a template out of it, for ease of inclusion.

Charles Phillip Ingalls

Caroline Lake Quiner

James Wilder

Angeline Day

Mary Ingalls

Caroline Ingalls

Freddy Ingalls

Grace Ingalls

Older Wilder child

Older Wilder child

Older Wilder child

Older Wilder child

Younger Wilder child

Laura Ingalls

Almanzo Wilder

Rose Wilder

Unnamed baby boy

Here are the names of Almanzo's sibilings : Laura Ann, Royal Gould, Eliza Jane, Alice M., (Almanzo), Perley Day (83.20.29.155 19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

ancestry

She is a part of the Delano family, which meens her family is of royal blood. Some one should put a link to the family tree, http://www.archive.org/stream/royaldescentcolo00gage#page/12/mode/2up I tryed to but someone marked it as spam. I think it would help people trying to find out her family tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlukus (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it mean her family was of "royal blood?" The Delanos were rich, but royal??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.179.21 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That expression means that there's royalty somewhere in their ancestry. From Merriam-Webster Online: blood, definition #3:

c :  relationship by descent from a common ancestor :  kinship

d :  persons related through common descent :  kindred

e (1) :  honorable or high birth or descent (2) :  descent from parents of recognized breed or pedigree

See also Royal descent : § United States:

Royal descent is now recognized as not infrequent among residents of the United States, as in other countries.... According to American genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, an expert on royal descent, most Americans with significant New England Yankee, Mid-Atlantic Quaker, or Southern planter ancestry are descended from medieval kings, especially those of England, Scotland, and France. William Addams Reitwiesner documented many U.S. descendants of Renaissance and modern monarchs. Some Americans may have royal descents through German immigrants who had an illegitimate descent from German royalty.

To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Acreage

For consistency, should not area in terms of acres be given in SI units as hectares? Or, if area is to be given in square kilometers, should not acreage be given in terms of square miles? One or the other, one would think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgranzeau (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I made the change. The article Homestead Acts uses acres and hectares.Tomsv 98 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wilder Estate

The end of the article mentions that Rose's heir got control of the manuscripts because of "Bumping the will." I have no idea what this means, and a quick Google search only brings up this Wikipedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricandersen (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC). Ric 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)ricandersen

I agree - I googled it as well with no results other than this wiki mention. Let's delete. If the individual who posted that information comes back with a source for that term we can add it back in. The basic storyline that accompanies the term is correct, so I'll leave that. Jeeper275 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The controversy over the estate remaining with Roger MacBride is important. I was surprised it was not mentioned in the 10 Aug 2009 issue of The New Yorker, which just says "[Rose] bequeathed her literary estate to Roger Lea MacBride". Searching the web I did managed to find the a press release from the Missouri Attorney General's office when filing the suit, in which "the board asked to have the library declared the sole and legitimate beneficiary of Wilder's estate." (Unfortunately the AG's web site only has news releases from this year so you have to dig it out of Google's cache. It would be great if someone could find an actual legal reference for the lawsuit.) I did find one article published in School Library Journal stating that the settlement was only over Little Town on the Prairie and These Happy Golden Years rather than the entire series of books---significant since those are not the most well-known---and that the amount of the settlement was $875,000. (I very much doubt that a public institution like a library could actually avoid disclosure of the settlement amount, so this too should be verifiable.) Rcalhoun (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Political persuasion

Rose Wilder Lane is a well-known libertarian. Is there any information regarding Laura Ingalls Wilder's political beliefs? Oakbranch8 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in the Rose Wilder Lane entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.35.29 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Television portrayals

I can't believe there isn't a mention in the lead, or a link in the article, to the television adaptations that have been made. This is the biggest cultural reference to the author and her books and there's virtually nothing in the article to reflect that. 24.4.253.249 10:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My thought on this is that there have not. so far as I know, any television portrayls of the author, Laura Ingalls Wilder. There have been portrayals of the character Laura Ingalls, who is based on, but is not the same as, the author. The books are considered historical fiction, not autobiography. There are links from the articles on the books. Dsmdgold 00:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If one searches through all of the revisions of this Wiki you will find it did once reference the Television show, it was deemed by others it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.209.222 (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

perhaps a mention that the series is loosely based upon the books (VERY loosely). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.35.29 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Well, the reference is back there now--and looks very good in the second sentence of the lede of the article. It looks very good, if I could say so myself. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Rose Wilder

The article seems to be confused about its subject. Much of the material about Rose might be profitably moved to a Rose Wilder article. While Rose is an important part of her mother's life, other details (such as where Rose lived in a particular year and her success as an author) would appear to be more relevant in her own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article seems to be as much about Rose Wilder as Laura Ingalls Wilder; in places it is not even clear which of the women is the subject. Uranographer (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is still a problem, 2½ years later. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources?

There is a conspicuous lack of footnotes or other sourcing for the many assertions in this piece. It even includes unconfirmed musing about the authorship. Nicmart (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC) How is it conspicuous? Everything with very few exception, we or anyone knows about Laura Ingalls Wilder comes from her daughter who is referenced.

I found a source about Laura Ingalls Wilder in the Wisconsin Historical Society that I would like to add but am relunctant because of the possibility it would be deleted or edited out for what reason.Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do, as long as you reference your source it will likely remain, most of the editing and removal is done and over with, as the critics who do nothing but critique an delete have abandon this Wiki and moved on to other articles.

"Celebrated author" section

Sentences like "Laura had an extremely competitive spirit going all the way back to the schoolyard as a child, ..." do not seem very encyclopedic to me. It reads more like fan mail. --Law Lord (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Description of Laura's spirit and character is very relevant to her Wiki profile. The books do tell a story of a determined and competitive young lady, however it was not considered "good manners" for her to openly display her competitiveness. --Thorlaug (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2008(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.111.229 (talk)

I quite agree. Anyone very familar with the books, as well as a good biography of Laura, such as John E. Miller's "Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder" is left with no doubt that a statement such as "Laura had an extremely competitive spirit going all the way back to the schoolyard as a child" is perfectly accurate - and hence, very salient to the article. 69.54.207.13 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the sentence read, "According to the books, Laura had an extremely competitive spirit going all the way back to the schoolyard as a child, ..."? Or even better, "According to John E. Miller, Laura had an extremely competitive spirit going all the way back to the schoolyard as a child, ..." See, the problem here is that without citing anything at all, it is only an opinion. If you can cite a book specifically, then it is more fact based. Just reword the sentence and we're all good.MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 02:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dwellings inconsistency.

Under Early life and marriage, 6th paragraph the first sentence reads, "In 1894, the hard-pressed young couple moved a final time to Mansfield, Missouri... They named the place Rocky Ridge Farm" then second to the last sentence in the same paragraph it says, "Barely able to eke out more than a subsistence living on the new farm, the Wilders decided to move into nearby Mansfield in the late 1890s and rent a small house." This makes no sense for 2 reasons. 1. The couple didn't have to move to "nearby Mansfield" because they were already in Mansfield. 2. I thought the farm was their "final" move, since the first sentence said so. Now it says otherwise. I have no idea about the facts here, so I can't fix it, but someone should. It needs to flow so that it doesn't sound befuddled. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 02:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The farm was in the rural Mansfield area. So in the sense that Mansfield was their last hometown, the former is correct. But they did live in more than one house while at Mansfield (the house in town as well as Rocky Ridge), so the latter is correct as well. It probably could be worded better, though. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Laura Ingalls was a nice well behaved girl i ever meet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.68.238 (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Serious, uncorrected problems in focus and logic need fixing

(interjection) This section continues at least two previous sections. -P64 ...

• #Way, way too much about daughter Rose (2006-2011)
• #Rose Wilder (2007-2011)

1. There is a lot of good info here about this American author and pioneer icon.

2. Serious deficiencies in this article pointed out nearly five years ago have not been corrected. Most notably to me, this article title is Laura Ingalls Wilder, not Rose Wilder Lane. Lane should not be discussed interchangeably with her mom. Nor should Wilder's husband. These are basic rules of focus, organization, and clarity.

3. It's fine to include a section on whether Lane co-wrote or ghost-wrote her mom's stories. That does not mean the article can suddenly become about a mom/daughter joint project where the two people are discussed interchangeably and the daughter's life is explored immediately following section headings for the mom. The title of that WP article would need to be something like "Laura and Rose ... Joint Authorship of Children's Book Series on American Pioneer History." Or just put it in the WP article on Lane.

4. I am placing the confusing tag in the hope someone who helped author this article or anyone who cares and has time will fix these glaring problems.

5. This article needs to be about the subject of article title. Anywhere Lane is mentioned, she needs to be explicitly distinguished from her mom, and her role in her mom's work or her mom's life specifically articulated. Also inherent in this mess is the basic pronoun reference issue.

6. Overall, there's way too much info about Lane (and also placed in an unclear way) in this article.

7. If someone wants specific guidance, I'm willing to give suggestions.

8. To respond to the contributor whose feelings were hurt by previous criticism of the article, he's right in a way. Most people who have contributed lots of hours to a WP article and were never thanked for what they did correctly but only criticized for what they did wrong, real or alleged, probably felt that way.

The reality is MOST of this article was written well and probably correctly. The editors took a lot of time because they cared.

However, the problem rel the insertion of info about Lane in an unclear way and where it doesn't belong really detracts from that time and effort, from all those hours spent to inform about this great author who deserves the place of honor she holds in American pioneer history.

Somebody please honor the subject of the article by fixing this.

9. One device that might be helpful in fixing this is a Wikilink in this article to the relevant section in the daughter's WP article. If someone wants to do that and needs help, let me know. Paavo273 (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You may or may not know this, but listing a bunch of problems and then expecting OTHERS to fix these problems is not usually the way that changes get done on Wiki. I agree the article has problems. I agree with many of your points - specifically the page spends WAY too much time talking about Wilder and Elmanzo, but some of the edits will need a razor cut rather than wholesale deletions since there are items that need to come out within stuff that needs to stay. So usually the person with the most interest should make the edits - that would be "you". Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hi and thanks for the fb. 'Cannot say how things usually get done. 'Don't have that breadth of experience rel bazillions of articles and edits on WP.

However, I can say what the basic rules for WP editing are. Another big prob here, which is a reason I won't touch it, except to delete it if it doesn't get fixed, is wholesale lack of sources. That violates WP:Verifiability, one of WP's cornerstones.

There is no rule that a person who points out rules violations must do the edit. I'm not a delete-happy editor. (If I didn't think valid sources existed and/or it wasn't contentious material, I'd leave it alone--my rule, not WP's) In this case, sources on point almost certainly DO exist. So they need to be used and cited.

Whatever the facts are--who helped whom; whether Lane built her folks a house they didn't want, lost their money in the stock market crash, actually wrote the Little House... books and made her mother a "gift" of full authorship of them, or not; etcetera--this is all quite personal and/or contentious material. Therefore, if any editor thinks it belongs in the article, then when you include it, be sure to have brought your source citations with you and place them in-line in your writing. For NOW, I'm only adding original research tags, not deleting.

If whoever wants to keep this stuff in the article has sources but doesn't know the technical end of how to cite sources, I'd be happy to help. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Paavo273 I hope that you did not think I was poking at you or disparaging your opinion. However, I've seen a long list of people make "this page sucks" comments and then never grace the page again. As such, I applaud your attempts to get the scissors out. It will obviously take a little work since as I said, items that should go are imbedded in things that should stay. That being said, I would suggest that you not just limit your work to tagging - these tend to just clutter the page and end up being either deleted or ignored (or someone waits a couple years and deletes the entire section as OR and no one wants to wait two years). Instead, if you see something that is glaringly OR, I would strongly suggest that you just delete it. If someone vocally disagrees ("Hey! The citation is right here!"), then they can simply revert the edit and add a ref. If you do it in small bits - 2-3 sentences at a time - edit after edit then it won't be a big deal to revert JUST the section that someone disagrees with. I'm not trying to tell you what to do - you clearly understand how Wiki works. Just giving you my 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hi Ckruschke. Thanks for the additional ideas. You're right: The tags make a mess. I do want to see this article improved. But 'don't know when I'll get to it myself. ('Have some other WP projects on my list ahead of this one.) I'd be happy to help another editor with the technical end of it. A couple things that might be of use to improving this article:

1. I discovered that much of the unsourced, and problematic 'cuz too much about daughter, material is lifted word for word from a dubious source (Reference #14) [1]. I challenge that source as not scholarly; it appears to be an info page of a commercial (i.e., bookseller) site with no author. In any case, it's no solution to just cite that source in-line wherever it's used the way it is now. WP is not about copying and pasting. If that is even a valid source, which I doubt, WP and other rules of writing dictate that quotes need to be used sparingly and with quote marks. (Another possibility is that the WP article is actually the chicken and that "source" the egg; and whoever cited that source was not aware. Let's face it, WP gets copied without attribution A LOT. Geez, this gets ridiculous after awhile.)

2. I discovered a credible source (a researched book) partly available online that even includes page numbers (so material could be properly cited), so if someone has time and interest, it's available right on your desktop. [2] It covers the same material. I'd suggest using this source and #3 below to REPLACE the info in the problematic sections. That's where I would start if I ever get to it. And there are probably lots of other good online sources.

3. Another scholarly book partly found online is [3] (I thought that one didn't show page numbers, but they're showing up now.) Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Super! Let me see what I have time to do in the coming days. With your advice above, I think I can make some inroads. Maybe you can continue to keep an eye on this page and if/when any edits pop up, you can take a look and see what you think. I have no problem giving sections that appear to be largely OR a major haircut - I'd rather work to improve a page and get slapped later than ignore it and wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting. I know some people cry about lost content, but if its content that should have never been there what have we really lost? Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hi Ckruschke, Thank you for your time and fine efforts in removing the most serious serious "chaff" from this article! It should be a lot more manageable to work with now. Query: Are you planning to revise the "Little House books" section of this article any further? It overall plus the mention of the daughter elswhere where Wilder should be the focus is what really caught my attention in a negative way originally. If you're working on that or planning to, I will of course defer to you. If you don't have any specific plans rel that section, I might re-do that and frankly any other section you're not planning to revise that mentions Lane's name w/o sources or in an inappropriate way. (Don't get me wrong: I have no desire to stifle discussion of Lane's role in the mom's work, but it needs to be appropriately introduced, not hog this article, and be SOURCED. It should primarily be in the Lane article and/or some other article. My info suggests that those two sources I linked above plus William Holtz are three of the main scholarly works on the subject; if I make changes it would be w/ inline citations to some or all of those three, replacing the unsourced stuff.

I think the statement in the Little House franchise intro (referenced below by P64) is a more accurate and appropriate length of statement rel the collaboration. But it doesn't appear to be sourced either; less of a problem to me since not controversial.

(Miller analyzes book by book the two women's roles from start to publish. Holtz as I read him describes an ongoing "catfight." It seems to me some of that may have been unnecessarily sensationalized, especially by reviewers of his work, who I don't think are especially reliable sources compared to the "original" secondary source, i.e., Holtz's book.)

Please let me know. Or if additional edits of yours are pending, I'll see 'em soon. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have anything else planned at this time - although I might continue going through it if I have more free time. I had a few moments and got rid of the worst of the OR nonsense. Someone just needs to go through section by section and make sure the text is correct AND written coherently. Of course that takes much more time than my hack and slash... Thanks for the positive feedback. Ckruschke (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The franchise article Little House on the Prairie (see next section) should say a little more about Laura & Rose, perhaps one good sentence with a formal reference. The book series article (see next section) should say more, perhaps much of that whose coverage is disputed here. --P64 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Media franchise

Little House on the Prairie is a media franchise article, not a book/novel or book/novel series article.

I fixed the targets of one lead and one infobox link to the book series article List of Little House on the Prairie books (where Little House books now redirects; either "Little House on the Prairie series" or "Little House series" might be a better name). At the same time, I added three more section hatnotes. If i clerk correctly, this biography now includes two links to the media franchise article --from sections 7.1 and 8 here to sections 4 and 5 there, both using template {{further2}}. There is no simple link to the franchise article as a whole, iicc.

Offhand I think the franchise article includes too much about the book series relative to other facets of the franchise. It refers to the book series as a main article, needs to summarize the main article detail more severely. But I think it should say more about the role of Rose Wilder Lane (previous section). --P64 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Revised above (underscore).

The franchise article refers to the series article in a {{main}} hatnote (noted yesterday, above) that appear in section 2, which is the preface to a series of subsections 2.1 to 2.8 that cover the Laura books individually. (It and the series article both skip Farmer Boy featuring the childhood of husband Almanzo.)

Both the franchise article, sec 2.6 and series article, sec 6 cover Little Town on the Prairie under that heading. Both link that book article in {{main}} hatnotes. They seem to be identical with contents a one-line introduction followed by about 60% of the book article, Plot section.

That is a lot of repetition. --triplication. --P64 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Merged Retirement section

The statement "Lane's successful career led her to assume increasing responsibility for her aging parents' support" is best I can tell not a true representation of what the research says happened and also IMHO not relevant. (It appears Lane was far more worried about HER finances than the folks were about theirs.)

I merged what mattered from the Retirement section with another section. (Added & revised by Paavo273 (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

Rel new revisions

As noted before by me, and by others over a period of years, Lane occupied too great & confusing a place in this article.

Also, I believe the "controversy" is semantic rather than substantial. Moreover, it IMO hurts both writers' legacies. Lane is quoted by Miller as a self-diagnosed "manic-depressive" (Miller: Becoming LIW p. 180) & describes her as "suicidal" (p. 200, 205), subject to great personal upheavals. This doesn't diminish Lane's contribution to the LH books or her great success as a writer in her own right. Nevertheless, her copious inflammatory diary entries s/b taken in context of her health, her frame of mind, her disrupted lifestyle, & esp. her lifelong "Mummy" issues when making them.

Any reader can make up her/his own mind ab. Lane's role by comparing 1st 4 Years, exclusively Laura's work, to the other books or by doing his/her own thorough analysis of Laura's original manuscripts versus the published books, as Miller 2008 suggests s/b done instead of Holtz's cherry-picking. (See IMHO a more thorough NPOV treatment foretold by Miller in his intro to Becoming LIW, p.1-6 available online: [4])

Laura freely donating her manuscripts upon her death is what brought all this so-called controversy up. If Lane weren't both Laura's daughter and an accomplished writer, this w/b all a total non-issue, i.e., if it was just an editor at the publishing house making revisions. Also, probably if it weren't for all the "juicy bits" from Lane's diary that sell books to a certain readership.

Holtz seems an unquestioning apologist for Lane and appears intent on portraying LIW in a negative light and accepting Lane's version. There just doesn't appear to be any record of LIW's version. IMHO, probably because she loved her child as mothers do, and had the sense of propriety (and probably shame) to keep her family's dirty laundry private. Other LIW scholars take major issue with Holtz's book, so there are lots of cites to rebut him.

In her diaries, Lane actually paints a much less flattering portrait of herself than of her mom! The WP-enforceable ground on which I deleted material is that it was UNSOURCED--for a real' long time.

Update: 'Added back some of the controversy stuff with cited additional info. (Added and revised by Paavo273 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC))

Hi Ckruschke. Thanks for your FB and the edit. I've cut some of it away. IYO is that an improvement? What about the original, uncited opinions I added back? 'Course, Miller and Holtz aren't the only two players on this. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

All looks good (to me). The sentence "The existing evidence (including ongoing correspondence between the women about the books' development, Lane's extensive diaries, and Laura's handwritten manuscripts with edit notations) shows an ongoing collaboration between two talented and headstrong women." probably needs either a ref or a "needs citation" flag.

Fictional and real chronology

"the publisher had Laura change her age in Prairie because it seemed unrealistic for a [one- to] three-year-old to have memories so specific as her story of life in Kansas." I specified Prairie and Kansas for clarity while editing with another focus (reducing repetitive wikilinks, placenames, and personal names; streamlining some phrases). I am now uncertain of that specification.

Here I stopped editing material corresponding to Big Woods, Prairie, and Plum Creek for clarity of the fictional and real chronology (although I added two {clarify} tags concerning jargon) and continued only for the main focus (reduce repetition; streamline). Our text continues "To be consistent with her already established chronology". I think this refers to chronology established by the previous publication of Little House in the Big Woods (so I specified Prairie and Kansas re her publisher's concern above). We also say that Plum Creek, where she is fictionally seven to nine, is set from 1871 to 1874 when she was really about four to seven. This all makes sense to me only if Big Woods established her age but not the dates; she used roughly true dates in Prairie (or Plum Creek if that was her first use of dates) but made herself much older; thus she advanced the date of her fictional birth and the Wisconsin tenure by a few years.

If I am right about some of this, "To be consistent with her already established chronology" should be revised for clarity to specify fictional chronology/age(?) established by the publication of Big Woods. But this needs attention from some editor who knows. I may have mis-inferred, and previous editors may have made some substantial error here --section 2.1 prior to "The family next moved to Burr Oak", concerning the real chronology (to late 1876) or fictional chronology (three volumes to Plum Creek) or their relation.

P.S. We do not even hint why Big Woods was published first, which seems unusual because the true story does not begin there. Our book article Little House on the Prairie (novel) says nothing about any of this and provides little background of any kind. Our Little House in the Big Woods does cover some --with implications to me that differ from implications of what we say here-- but nothing about how or why that part of the story was published first.

--P64 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi P64, Thanks for improvements you made to this article. On a further careful reading of the Move to Mansfield section, I changed my revert back to exactly how you edited it, as I see now you were right on there, esp., e.g., raising issue ab. whose home was gifted to L&A. I also added a citation tag; this article still has a ways to go on that. As to the paragraph above this one, I still think it reads more smoothly the way it was before. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

LIW's age in photo, date of photo, and use of circa

Hi P64. Thanks for your improvements to the LIW article. Could you please identify what "guideline" you refer to rel the use of circa. As per the WP article on Circa and other authority, the term typically refers to dates, not so much ages. Paavo273 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I did mean WP:MOSNUM#Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates instruction to use 'c. ' (with a dot and a space) or template {{circa}} (which displays 'c.' in various formats, never 'circa' and so on) rather than "around, about ... circa, ca, ca., approximately, or approx." You are right that that pertains to dates.

The latest edit summary isn't relevant. Circa doesn't mean "may be off by one", nor do any of the other words. I don't believe any of them is more or less precise, as your edit summary implies that approximately is less precise.

I don't like the long word approximately rather shorter about, around or circa, and don't know that any guideline supports it, "approx." is worse so the long word is ok with me.

--P64 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming Survey: Request for participation

What would the fellow editors of this article say to referring in this article to Laura as "Ingalls Wilder" for all references to her (not counting of course where the context calls for the use of her first name)? It appears she is known universally by these two names. Whatever she actually went by during her life, which I don't know, is IMO of somewhat secondary importance.

Please post here what you think as well as your reasoning if applicable. Thanks in advance for your participation. (The only WP guidance on point I can find is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Subsequent use, which specifies use last name unless there could be confusion with other people having the same last name. IMO there's a strong argument that she is KNOWN by all that know her by her COMPOUND last name, NEVER except perhaps in this WP article as "Wilder" alone.) Paavo273 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree - for similar reasoning to what you have stated above. I did not previously make this change as the page had only used "Wilder" and I did not want to make wholesale changes.Ckruschke (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

• Agree - for similar reasoning to what you have stated above. Skates61 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bess vs Beth

Can anyone provide additiional referernces or documentation about this issue? One of the common diminutives for Elizabeth is Beth along with Lizzie or Betty. The book cited clearly shows that Almanzo used the short form Bess or Bessie. I believe that this form also appears in his will but I did not look for the reference for that. Here are two other web articles about the same thing.

1. Wilder Women
2. Fun Facts

I never watched the TV program but I believe that they used the name Beth for some reason.Nyth83 (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Multiple redundant changes to subheading re Pa and Ma Ingalls's last move

1. If, as in this case, usage sounds unpolished or awkward, it may most likely be that the user needs to become familiar with the English conventions on point, and then the usage will no longer seem awkward. The same can be said of nearly any technical usage rule, e.g., lie/lay, who/whom, predicate nominative pronouns, etc. Not knowing English conventions is hardly an excuse to insist on not using them. That's how nearly all plurals are formed in English--by adding s or -es. And to form a possessive, add 's for singular and ...s' for plural. These rules are pretty basic, not controversial, not subject to debate. Not according to WP's style guide or any other authority.

2. To the most recent anonymous IP editors' credit, unlike previous "corrections" that changed from correct usage to wrong usage, this latest change is not wrong grammatically per se. Two problems however: It's wordy for a heading. And it also d/n accurately cover the material under it. See, e.g., WP:Section headings. The family including Laura DID continue to move, except for Pa, Ma, and Mary.

3. Not sure why plurals and possessives of names give Americans such grief; it's one of the most straightforward rules in English. If anyone thinks these rules are well-followed, try drive down your street and write down what the signs in peoples' yards say; then compare to the rules. 'Doesn't seem to get much better for the college-educated classes either.

4. The point is with these standardized rules and conventions, we're supposed to be aiming for the king's English, not so much avoiding correct usage 'cuz we're not familiar with it. Paavo273 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As already stated, this is not an issue of grammar; it's an issue of fluency of wording, which a non-native speaker of English is probably unfamiliar with. (The "King's English", for example, applies to British pronunciation, not American grammar or wording.) As several editors who have reverted Paavo's wording have expressed, "The Ingallses' last move" sounds horribly awkward, at least to native speakers of American English. The only thing wordy here is Paavo's pretentious, condescending, and unnecessary diatribe. WP:OWN seems to be an issue. 32.218.34.201 (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:) Paavo273 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Paavo273: Make that "what the signs in people’s yards say", not "peoples’". "People" is the everyday plural of "person" (you'll only see "persons" in legalese or other formal usage). You've been misled by your own inaccurate statement

And to form a possessive, add 's for singular and ...s' for plural.

That applies to regular plurals, which are formed by suffixing "-(e)s". But for a plural without that suffix, the possessive form is normally made with "’s", just as for the singular: "the men’s room", "the women’s room" (compare the regular "the ladies’ room"), "the children’s playroom", "the geese’s flight".

To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Corrections" have made article unreadable

This article - which I visited due to a complete gap in my knowledge about the books and author (pointed out by Google's birthday image) - is a classic example of Wikipedia Popular Subject Article Editing Destruction.

From the talk page, it seems clear that there was originally too much Rose - and so someone wiped all of them, and so later in the article there are references to Rose's past success as a writer, but prior to that, the only reference to Rose is her birth !

Other sentences have so many uses of "they" that you are not sure which people are being referred to (the one about the deed to the house, for example).

Overall, after reading the article, I need Sherlock Holmes to piece together the remaining bits into the actual life of this person.

Can I coin a term "Crowd-crushing" ?

162.205.217.211 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Technically, since this article is about Laura, Rose's bio would be on her own page.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Naming

Different sections of this article refer to the subject as "Laura" or "Wilder". I found this slightly confusing. Is there a reason for this (like a distinction I am missing)? Which one should I use when editing? Thanks!Happysquirrel (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question! After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms", or by a pronoun. For more detailed guidelines, see MOS:NAMES--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laura Ingalls Wilder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070210135806/http://www.wisconsinhistory.org:80/topics/wilder/index.asp to http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/topics/wilder/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

re: "sourcing" copyright law

i have included in the text, links to the relevant wikipedia articles about copyright law, term duration, & public domain.

an author who died more than 50 years ago is public domain in countries that have a copyright term length of 50 years pma or less (for published works); this is a Q.E.D..

all works first published pre-1923 are now public domain in the u.s.a.; also a Q.E.D..

how exactly do you suggest that we provide additional "sourcing" for this information? o__0

Lx 121 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been long established that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself and that adding commentary that is based on a rationale extrapolated from Wikipedia or other sources is original research. So you need to find a source that says that her works are public domain in some countries and that her pre-1923 works are public domain in the U.S. 32.218.33.196 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

then i suggest/invite you to copy the relevant sources from those wikipedia articles, until you are satisfied. it is not "extrapolation" to say that 'the published works of an author who died more than 50 years ago are public domain in countries where copyright expires 50 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF AN AUTHOR'. that is a Q.E.D..

you might also note that i have added links to a canadian website that legally hosts copies of these works as public domain in canada (PMA-50). i could add at least 3 other sites that host add books from the series (2 cdn, 1 south african). Lx 121 (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

also; you seem to know a hell of a lot about wp for an "anonymous editor"; i invite you to login? especially in light of your "any tom, dick, or harry" comment. Lx 121 (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"i suggest/invite you to copy the relevant sources from those wikipedia articles"

Uh, no - The burden for providing sources is on the editor adding the information. Also, you seem to be fond of ad hominem attacks. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. Some IP editors have been editing far longer than you have and know more than you do about Wikipedia policies. 32.218.33.196 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"uh no" - i've made my case; the published works of AN AUTHOR WHO DIED MORE THAN 50 YEARS AGO are public domain in countries WHERE THE TERM OF COPYRIGHT IS 50 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF AN AUTHOR OR LESS. that is an obvious truth. you are the only person in this situation (out of at least 3 editors) who feels the need for additional sources to "prove" this.

& as for "ad hominems", you are the one who started down that path, with your "any tom, dick, or harry" edit comment. & you still haven't offered any good reason for hiding behind an anon-ip when you are clearly (& have claimed to be) an experienced editor. Lx 121 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Ingalls Wilder. 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/20080415103722/http://www.liwms.com/ to http://www.liwms.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)