Jump to content

Talk:Lower Shawneetown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lower Shawneetown. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP archeological district, possible merger

[edit]

Hi, I just noticed a new link arriving from here to Lower Shawneetown Archeological District, an extremely short article that i created long ago, without much info. The exact location/area of the archeological district is not publicly available, but it is presumably in Lower Shawneetown. Hey, it seems to me that it would probably better for that article to be merged to a short section here, or to some location here. If someone would like to implement that, I say go ahead! I wouldn't mind being pinged or otherwise notified. Or discuss? --Doncram (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I can do it, after I read the guidelines on WP:Merging. Cmacauley (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge accomplished. Feel free to correct any errors or omissions. Cmacauley (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the Fort Ancient site and Lower Shawneetown should be two different articles, since they were inhabited at different times by different people. I found the combined article a bit confusing, so I think others might also be confused. Kevin1776 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this, and it seems appropriate. The Fort Ancient site information is now located under Bentley Site. Cmacauley (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image misidentified

[edit]
Conference between French and Native American leaders around 1750 by Émile Louis Vernier.

This image currently in the article is misidentified. It's actually this image, depicting a scene from 1764 in Pontiac's War. That's a British soldier in the hat, not French. Kevin1776 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Shawneetown's abandonment

[edit]

Hale and Wheeler-Voegelin give differing explanations for the town's abandonment. Without seeing Wheeler-Voegelin's text, which I have no access to, I am assuming that she bases her theory entirely on Croghan's statement that "during the French war, they abandoned [the town] for fear of the Virginians, and removed to the plains on Scioto." I would be interested to know if she provides any reason why she thinks Hale was mistaken in his statement that the town was destroyed by floods.

In examining the two statements, I'd like to point out that the town was destroyed by flooding in 1753, so it seems likely that the river might flood again in 1758. On the other hand, a raid from Virginia seems less likely, given that the Virginians had not been raiding Native American communities in the Ohio Valley. The only significant raid on an Indian community during the previous years had been the Raid on Kittanning in 1756, which was executed by a Pennsylvania militia with great difficulty and only moderate success. A town the size of Lower Shawneetown (1200 to 1500 population, with perhaps 400 warriors) would have been a more ambitious target than Kittanning requiring a sizeable military expedition to travel several hundred miles. Croghan of course knew the Shawnees at Lower Shawneetown very well and his statement can't be refuted, but as he offers no other details, I believe that flooding seems to be a more probable explanation for the move. Cmacauley (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, Hale doesn't even think the town was abandoned in 1758. He actually wrote, "A few years later (1763 to 1765) a very extreme, if not unprecedented flood in the rivers swept off the greater part of the town, and it was never rebuilt at that place...." I'm not sure how our article came to say that Hale wrote it was abandoned in November 1758. If you ever get ahold of Wheeler-Voegelin's books, you'll find them a treasure trove of information. Her works are scholarly, citing probably every known mention of the town in primary sources. Hale's book, old-fashioned pre-professional history, is not suitable as a reference on this point.
The Virginians launched a big expedition against Lower Shawneetown in 1756, which may be what Croghan was referring to -- especially alarming because the Virginians had recruited 100 Cherokees in the effort. Led by Andrew Lewis, it's usually called the "Sandy Creek Expedition," and it turned out to be a false alarm for the Shawnees, because it turned back before reaching the Ohio. Kevin1776 (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. I can see that Hale was clearly mistaken, as other sources confirm that there was no town there in 1763 to 1765. I've made an edit to correspond with this. Cmacauley (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad we got that sorted out. Kevin1776 (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lower Shawneetown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately tagged.

  • What makes chriswig.com a reliable source? You use it for FN 40, "Annosanah: A Novel Based on the Life of Christopher Gist". As far as I can see you only use this to source the image of Gist and its caption; can you source it directly to Emerson's? It might be accessible via Google Books, for example.
  • FN 42 is "Andrew Lee Feight, "Lower Shawnee Town and the Flood of 1753," Lower Scioto Blog , posted on December 24, 2007". This isn't enough information for a reader to track down the source, but in any case if it's a blog it's not a reliable source.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • donchesnut.com (FN 22) -- looks like someone's personal genealogy site.
    • rosscountyhistorydepot.edublogs.org (FN51) -- appears to be a blog
    • vahistoryexchange.com (FN 54) -- it looks as if this is user-contributed information
    • graphicenterprises.net (FN 55)
    • rootsweb.ancestry.com (FN 59) -- another genealogy site
    • werelate.org (FN 64) -- genealogy site
    • swcp.com (FN68)
    • miles2gobeforeisleep.com (FN 75)
  • The link to this document looks like it's just a retyped document. Is yumpu.com a reliable source for this sort of thing? It appears that it hosts some magazines, and is presumably reliable in that it reproduces a reliable source, but this doesn't appear to fall under that heading. You cite yumpu.com for FN 33 for example, and that's fine as it's clearly just reproducing that magazine.

I'm going to pause there, before reviewing the text, since if many of these have to be removed it might change the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Mike Christie, for starting this GA review. I will work on replacing these sources, as they are clearly not reliable. I will have more time to address this during the coming week, and I look forward to your help in revising this article. Cmacauley (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I'll check back with you in a week or so to see how it's going. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmacauley, just checking you are planning to work on this. There's quite a bit to do to fix this article; it might be better if I fail this nomination, and then you can fix it at your leisure and renominate when ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie: I will be working on it today and tomorrow. I did clean up the references you flagged, am working to sort out another reference issue I discovered. Please proceed with GA review and I will make every effort to respond to your recommendations. Cmacauley (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; will check in in another week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cmacauley, just a note to say I've struck some points above. I see you've left some of the sources in that I questioned above -- can you say why you think those are reliable? Or do you plan to remove them? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I missed these two refs--definitely not reliable--and they are now deleted. Sorry, I was focused on other cleanup. Cmacauley (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above is struck; thanks for taking care of those. The sources added are reliable, and Earwig finds no issues.

  • The lead mentions the Portsmouth Earthworks but there's no mention of them in the body except in the murals.
  • The lead is a bit short for an article of this length; can you expand it a little? Two or three paragraphs of the length of the current first paragraph would seem reasonable.
  • "Lower Shawneetown became a center for commerce and diplomacy, "a sort of republic" populated mainly by Shawnee, Iroquois, and Delawares." A quote should be followed by a citation no later than the end of that sentence.

More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added description of the Portsmouth Earthworks in the archaeology paragraph at the end. Added a ref for the "sort of republic" quote. Fleshed out the lede a bit, let me know if you feel that more is needed. Cmacauley (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "The size and diversity of the town's population attracted both French and British traders, leading to political competition between France and Britain to influence the community at the start of the French and Indian War." Before the French and Indian War as well, right? Per the narrative in the article body?
  • "both the British and the French became increasingly concerned about Lower Shawneetown and other growing Native American settlements in the region": why were they concerned? And is it relevant to this article?
  • I don't see the quote from de Blainville in the source cited (FN 22).
  • "would have resembled those of the Fort Ancient inhabitants": I see Fort Ancient is linked lower down; it should be linked at first mention, but I think a reader new to the topic needs an inline few words of explanation.
  • "Chartier persuaded about 400 Pekowi Shawnee to leave Pennsylvania and migrate south": judging from the rest of this section, Chartier went with them. If so I think it would make the narrative clearer if we say so: perhaps "Chartier persuaded about 400 Pekowi Shawnee to leave Pennsylvania with him and migrate south".
  • "After this Chartiers took the [French] flag": we have "Chartier" elsewhere; is this a typo? I see it's repeated later in the quote.
  • "This is what yours sends you": I don't follow this.
  • "if the French could bring them back": does this refer to the Pekowi Shawnee who had left Pennsylvania? If so it's confusing because the introduction to the quote says Chartier was addressing the "leaders of Lower Shawneetown", not just the 400 who had recently arrived.
  • "Chartier's Shawnees": perhaps "the Pekowi Shawnee he had brought from Pennsylvania".
  • In the section on Gist's visit, we mention Croghan and Montour as if the reader already knows who they are, and only give their full names and link to their articles later.
  • "On 4 August, 1752, Trent met there with a group of survivors of the raid on Pickawillany": I think we should give a bit more context -- we have been given context about the competition between the French and English for trade in the area, but without following the link the reader won't realize the raid is relevant to the politics.
  • "bears, otters, cats, précans (possibly raccoons), and roe-deer": is "(possibly raccoons)" Bonnecamps' words, or those of the source quoting him? If it's not Bonnecamps' words it should be in square brackets, not parentheses. Similarly for "(proposed a military alliance)" in a later quote.
  • There's a little bit of jumping back and forth in time in the "Commerce with English traders" section -- we get Trent's meeting on 4 August 1752 before we get his meeting on 29 June 1752. I can see this might be because you're assembling certain material in certain sections but if there's anything you can do to avoid this it would be beneficial.
  • We have quite a few quotes, so I think we should try to eliminate ones that aren't high-value. I think the Donehoo quote could beneficially be eliminated, for example. The long A. Gwynn Henderson quote under "Legacy" could probably be removed too, and you might look through to see if there's anything else. The early quotes are great for providing colour, so perhaps we can cut one or two of the later ones. Perhaps also cut Seaver?
  • "In 1753, Governor Duquesne sent over two thousand French and Canadian troupes de la marine to the south shore of Lake Erie": casual readers won't know the troops came from New France (as I assume they did), or indeed where New France was. Perhaps "from New France (in what is now eastern Canada) to the south shore..."?
  • "It is Address restricted". I think we could cut this. If this were an article specifically about the Archaeological District we might feel obliged to explain why we're not giving the address, but as it is I don't see a need.
  • The "See also" section doesn't need to include anything that's linked in the article itself.
  • What makes nativetech.org a reliable source? And if we keep it the citation should be formatted a little better.

Spotchecks:

  • FN 10 cites "On 1 September, supplies were sent to this force from Fort de Chartres in Illinois, escorted by one hundred infantry under the command of Captain Demazilière and Lieutenant Portneuf": verified.
  • FN 16 cites "In 1750, the Ohio Company hired Christopher Gist, a skilled woodsman and surveyor, to explore the Ohio Valley in order to identify lands for potential settlement, and to undo any French influence lingering after Céloron's expedition. He surveyed the Kanawhan Region and the Ohio Valley tributaries in 1750–1751 and 1753, following the trail of Céloron through the Ohio country, visiting the same Indian towns the French expedition had visited and meeting with chiefs". It looks to me as if "undo any French influence" became a goal after Gist met with Montour and Croghan; the source doesn't say that that was one of the purposes for which he was hired by the Ohio Company.
  • FN 22 cites "He instead invited them to visit his encampment to hear an announcement. The next day, a canoe bearing a white flag approached Céloron's camp, and Shawnee and Iroquois leaders from Lower Shawneetown met with Céloron. They apologized for the shots fired at the French delegation, saying that they had feared that the French were planning to attack the town": I don't see this in the given source.
  • FN 34 cites "Among Longueuil's officers was the young Pierre Joseph Céloron de Blainville, who returned to Lower Shawneetown in 1749." Verified.
  • FN 13 cites "The area adjacent to the town was rich in natural resources: a mosaic of mixed hardwood forests, flat grassy plains, canebrakes, salt and clear freshwater springs, home to deer, bear, elk, and bison. Wild plants and nut-bearing trees were abundant, and chert-bearing bedrock and clay river banks provided essential materials for tools and pottery." Almost identical to the source; needs to be completely rewritten.
  • FN 9 cites "In the town center on the Ohio side there was a 90 feet (27 m) long council house": verified.
  • FN 8 cites "The Shawnee name of the town was not recorded, but scholars believe it may have been "Chalahgawtha" or "Chillicothe," both Shawnee words meaning "principal place"": most of this is not in the source as far as I can see.
  • FN 14 cites "In the summer of 1749 Pierre Joseph Céloron de Blainville, leading a force of eight officers, six cadets, an armorer, 20 soldiers, 180 Canadians, 30 Iroquois and 25 Abenakis,": this can't be verified because there are no page numbers on the citation.

I'm reluctantly going to fail this. The number of sourcing questions means all the sources should be gone through and re-verified, and that's more than should be done at GAN. I think at least two or three quotes need to be removed, which will require some new text to review, and there's a list of further issues to address above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lower_Shawneetown&oldid=1208604223"