Talk:Battle of Fort Oswego

request for peer review, Battle of the Thousand islands

Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1

I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Any input would be very much appreciated! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Put Results in the results line

My suggestion for putting Results in the results line of the infobox (rather than interpretation of results, such as who we think the victor was) is that is seems that when possible, we might state what the actual outcome was. While there are lots of way to win a battle (e.g. casualties, delaying/divert/distract enemy) in this case we can clearly state that the french caputured the fort. Why not just put the result of battle in the result box? -Gomm 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This of course ignores the fact the the "Result" field was specifically created for "X victory" descriptions (Whether this is an interpretation, as you claim, is a highly debatable matter. The term is fairly ubiquitous to the writing of military history), a fact borne out in thousands of other articles. If you want to question this practice, be my guest, but please do so here before arbitrarily applying a new standard in only one article. Albrecht 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Too much reliance on Parkman

Hello

One short comment: while this article has references, much of them are coming from Parkman whose writings are not considered today by professional historians as reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.29.139 (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Parkman's writings are not without issue. The issues I've seen ascribed to his writings are mainly of bias (racism and anti-Catholicism, specifically), although I know that Francis Jennings takes issue with instances of his misuse of sources. That said, it doesn't mean what is cited to him here is necessarily wrong (or biased, since some types of bias can be edited out). Like most 19th century sources, his works ought to be checked when possible against those of more modern writers. Magic♪piano 16:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. My remark, however, was made because precisely in a number of references in this article Parkman is used alone, whithout confronting his informations with that of more recent historians - Fred Anderson or Guy Frégault for example. Nester is much less used than Parkman, for instance. This said, and to be consistent with Wikipedia good practice, I am conscious that it would be preferable in fact that I actually expend this article rather than complain about its imperfections. I wanted, however, to make sure the initial writers of this article would not complain about the eventuality Parkman-related information or references should be modified or even removed in order to improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.29.139 (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The article on the siege of Fort William-Henry is better sourced, I think this article could be improved in the same way concerning that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.29.139 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Forts in 1750.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Forts in 1750.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)