Talk:Nichola Goddard

Interesting note, she appeared in the May 3rd article "Women make their mark" about the changing role of women in war, in the Ottawa Sun[1] (Probably also in other SunMedia papers) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

C*****, can't you vultures restrain yourselves from writing articles like this? Does no one deserve any privacy anymore? Adam Bishop 02:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh? The fact you're reading this implies that you had enough interest to look into facts about her ;) That said, it's not exactly discussing her favourite sexual positions, it's a listing of her ranks and regiment. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that's pretty classy. Anyway, you have no idea why I'm reading this. Adam Bishop 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't think dozens of Captains from the Second World War are listed on Wikipedia, many with even less notability than a country's first female soldier combat casualty ever? shrugs, I admit I have no personal attachment to her, but her having an article in Wikipedia is no different than her having the front page of every national newspaper today. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper... Adam Bishop 02:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Privacy note

Goddard's parents have agreed to speak with the media once (At the University of Calgary today, but asked that they be otherwise left to their privacy - so I (and you!) will try to respect that. On the other hand, her husband Jason Beam seems to be have been rather candid, and the new facts come from him. The question of whether “we”�should listen to a husband or parents of a young woman...well, that opens a beautiful Schiavo-esque can of worms, ugh. Anyways, in my opinion, at the very least her sister’s livejournal is off-limits entirely, otherwise things can be discussed whether or not they’re appropriate. But if you look at most articles on WP, we ‘’do’’ often mention the dictator’s hobbies, or the novellist’s first five wives, etcetera. Such is WP. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

1 RCHA or PPCLI?

I was under the impression she was a FOO for a gun battery and operating with PPCLI trrops as such. I don't think she was transfered.

Motorfix 05:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nichola was a FOO in "A" Battery which was supporting the 1st Battalion, PPCLI. She wasn't actually transferred to the PPCLI. This mission is unique, however, in that A Battery, to my knowledge, has been attached to 1 PPCLI "OPCOM" (Operational Command for those not familiar with mil-speak) instead of the usual OPCON (Operational Control). OPCOM gives far more flexibility to the gaining organization to alter the organization and mission of the attached unit.

She is not the only woman death.

I am editing this article to reflect that she is the first woman to be killed in service since World War 2 as that is correct. It has come out that is the case.

Personally I think it's more notable that she's the first female soldier killed, than "first woman killed in hostilities since the last one". It's not the fact she's female and was killed, but that she was a female soldier. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, this is a very sad event and I like having this article here so people can get to know those who serve to protect us, whether you believe the action in far east is protection. She died with honour we can only aspire to obtain yet I can see that as not a consolation to those who lost her but we can only offer sympathy and an attempt of understanding at times like this. We cannot offer resurrection but we can at the very least apprecate her service and sacrifice.--Kirkoconnell 14:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 13:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

After most recent revission, the artical does not even mention that she is Canada's first female soldier killed. I don't have time to change...can someone else do this! Motorfix 18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does mention it, please read the whole article.- it doesn't need to be in the first section though. Her notability shouldn't be tied to her gender; she was notable for much more than that.Michael Dorosh 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael...my error. that will teach me to skim! However, the fact that she is the first female soldier killed is what is most relavent. The other 15 soldiers killed do not have their own entries on Wikipedia. If she had been a male, this page might not even be here. Motorfix 19:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Then the page should be deleted; either combat fatalities are notable, or they're not. Gender should not be an issue. I'd suggest that the other fatalities should have articles started - and if you check, you'll find that some of them already have.Michael Dorosh 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the page works with the format it is in without changes. The death of any Canadian soldier regardless of gender is of equal tragedy. She was a commissioned officer first, and foremost. And I do agree, that all of our soldiers deserve equal recognition. Motorfix 19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Motorfix on this issue, the reason she garnered so much attention was because she was the first female..., go look at all the other examples on Wikipedia of "first female..."s, they tend to mention it in the opening. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ranks Held

Should this even be here? If She was A Captain, then of coarse she was a 2nd leiutentant. Also, Rank of leiutenant and officer cadet are missing..Not required, I've deleted.

Motorfix 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that in this case they are probably not necessary, it is possible to be promoted from the ranks via CFR; many Captains in the CF have never held the rank of Lieutenant, or of Officer Cadet. Michael Dorosh 19:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GoddardG&Mail.jpg

Image:GoddardG&Mail.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nichola Goddard.png

Image:Nichola Goddard.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Dreamy ^§ 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GoddardG&Mail.jpg

Image:GoddardG&Mail.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Canadian Female deaths - correction needed

Properly speaking, MCpl Griesbach was not a combat soldier; she was a medic. Wording should probably be changed to bring out that differentiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.149.33 (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations

I propose converting this article to use inline citation templates, specifically the cite family - any objections? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)