Talk:Dade battle

The incident in which Major Dade's command was all but wiped out by the Seminoles has historically been known as the "Dade Massacre". John K. Mahon, in History of the Second Seminole War, perhaps the most authoritative secondary source on that conflict, calls it "the massacre" (Revised Edition 1985, P. 106). -- Donald Albury 11:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of Indians

How many Indians participated? There is a discrepancy between the number in the text and the infobox. KnightLago (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Blacks

The Trail of Tears page says the Seminole fought alongside blacks in this battle. Can that be mentioned/ expanded on here? Ericaparrott (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Change of title proposed

While "Dade Massacre" is a commonly used name for this event, it was a battle not a massacre and the event is also called the "Dade Battle." In the interest of accuracy, I think we should re-title the article "Dade Battle." It's not POV anymore to call Indian victories "massacres." We used to call it the "Custer Massacre," now it's the Battle of the Little Bighorn. This article should be held to a similar standard. Any objections? Smallchief (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that the word "massacre" is not a particularly accurate description ("ambush" would better fit the bill, imo), it's the most commonly used name for this event as seen here. I also have a quite extensive collection of Florida history books and it's pretty much exclusively called "Dade's Massacre" in both scholarly and popular text. This article title should be changed back with a redirect to cover both alternatives. --Zeng8r (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that accuracy and a neutral point of view are more important than commonly used names. If you go back a few decades, you will probably find "Custer massacre" the most common term for what is today called the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Both the Battle of the Little Big Horn and the Dade battle were battles, not massacres. The term "massacre" implies that the Seminole committed what we today would call "war crimes." I notice also that the state of Florida commemorates the battle with the name Dade Battlefield Historic State Park, not "Dade Massacre."Smallchief (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't disagree with your reasoning; in real life, accuracy is more important than a commonly used name. However, that's not how Wikipedia naming conventions work, as you can read here WP:TITLE and more specifically here WP:NPOVNAME, which specifically uses the Boston Massacre as an example. Taking into account Google search results and general usage, it's pretty clear that the previous article name should be restored despite its shortcomings. Zeng8r (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your politeness in discussing this, but I'll still disagree with you.

Accuracy: "Boston Massacre" is an exaggeration, but the event did have some characteristics of a "massacre." The Dade battle has zero characteristics of a "massacre." It was a confrontation between two groups of armed men. Perceptions have changed -- and are changing -- with regard to the name of the event. The state of Florida calls the site a "battlefield." I can also cite, if you wish, at least one source published by the U.S. army that calls it a battle not a "massacre."

Chauvinism: When a common name is offensive to a significant number of people, Wikipedia doesn't use that name. An example is calling the aboriginal peoples of the United States "Native Americans" instead of their common name of "Indians." Wikipedia in its wisdom has decided to use the term Native Americans to avoid offense and controversy. The term "Dade massacre" belittles and minimizes the Seminole struggle to retain their land and culture. It implies that the battle was a gruesome crime against humanity, rather than reflecting reality.

We have over the past few decades corrected many of the chauvinistic names given to conflicts between Native Americans and whites. I have no doubt, for example, that 50 years ago the article Raid on Deerfield would have been called "Deerfield massacre" (and, in fact, it was more of a "massacre" than the Dade battle because non-combatants were killed and taken prisoner). The Raid on Deerfield has a lengthy section describing precisely why it once was called a "massacre," but today is not. The same reasoning applies here. The name "Dade massacre" is chauvinistic.

Conclusion. In summary, the name Dade massacre is rendered obsolete by modern interpretations of U.S. history. That the name has not yet totally changed in popular parlance is a function of its obscurity in American history rather than the merit of the term "massacre." It's time past due for Wikipedia to call the Dade battle what it was: a battle. Smallchief (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, I understand and generally agree with what you're saying; I teach history and often have to explain the chauvanistic and sometimes purposely misleading use of names and words in historical context. But even though I don't use the term "indian" to describe Native Americans, we still learn about the French and Indian War, because that's what the conflict is almost universally called in the U.S. That's the reasoning behind the Wikipedia policy in situations like this (again, please read WP:NPOVNAME). Article titles should reflect the most commonly used name for an event / topic / whatever, NOT what we think it shoud be called. Only when enough documented independent sources start using a new name can the title be changed here. Zeng8r (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't argue with you that the traditional name for the battle is "Dade massacre." However, the best recent and authoritative sources correctly call it a battle:

The US government calls it the Dade Battlefield National Historic Landmark;

The Florida state government calls it the Dade Battlefield Historic State Park;

And, the top two books on the subject for sale on Amazon (both scholarly) call it a battle: Dade's Battle, Florida, 28 December 1835 by Michael G. Anderson and published by the U.S. Army's Combat Studies Institute Press (2019), and Dade's Last Stand by Frank Laumer, published by the University Press of Florida (2008) which calls it "Dade's Battle" on the back cover.

It's probably unproductive to continue this conversation, however interesting. If you want to pursue this, perhaps the dispute over the title should be referred to the appropriate Wikipedia forum. Smallchief (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)