Jump to content

Talk:Penn's Creek massacre

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

Start of the French and Indian War

[edit]

Sorry, but the Battle of Jumonville Glen on May 28, 1754 is usually considered the start of the French and Indian War. —howcheng {chat} 03:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng: Uhh...? This was the beginning of the long French and Indian War. King Jakob C2 11:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have no idea who told you that, but it's not even sourced in the article. King Jakob C2 12:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basic date math, sir. If you don't consider Jumonville Glen (May 1754) the first battle, there's still the Battle of Fort Necessity (July 3, 1754), the Action of 8 June 1755, the Braddock Expedition (June 1755), the Battle of Fort Beauséjour (June 1755), the Battle of Petitcodiac (September 1755) and the Battle of Lake George (September 1755). Are you really going to continue asserting that Penn's Massacre is the beginning of the French and Indian War? —howcheng {chat} 15:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the (external) author mean to write something like "This was at the beginning of the long French and Indian War;" presumably she, at least, was aware that the "victory over Gen. Braddock" was part of the French and Indian War. I've temporarily downgraded the MilHist rating, as this clearly needs another set of eyes with a passing familiarity with the conflict to look it over. Choess (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watts Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 June 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Penn's Creek Massacre → Penn's Creek massacre – Per WP:NCCAPS, we would not capitalize "massacre", as it it's not part of proper name, which we assess, per MOS:CAPS, by looking for consistent capitalization in sources. Many books do not capitalize in Penn's Creek massacre (and those that do are mostly doing so for titles and headings). Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to me that sometimes the apostrophe is dropped. "Penns Creek massacre" in these books: [14], [15], [16], [17]. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 June 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. We are most concerned with how the subject is commonly referred to in reliable sources and no one has countered Dicklyon's evidence from the previous RM. Jenks24 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Penn's Creek massacre → Penns Creek massacre – Well, for some bizarre reason, "Massacre" is now in lowercase (why? who knows.) but the official name of Penns Creek does not have an apostrophe. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – It is much more commonly "Penn's Creek massacre" in sources. And looking at books, the creek seems to be more commonly called Penn's Creek, notwithstanding the alleged official dropping of apostrophe. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then should we also rename Penns Creek to Penn's Creek ? My opposesupport is about consistency. --Robertiki (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should check some modern sources (less than 100 years old). You will find that they do not use an apostrophe. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is just one of the WP:CRITERIA; you'd need to look at the others before deciding. Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The U.S. government has a strong policy bias against including apostrophes in official names, based on the notion that they seem to convey an assertion of ownership ([18], [19]). It routinely omits apostrophes from names without regard for longstanding common usage. According to a 2014 article, there is a committee in charge of place names, and it has allowed "only five exceptions: Martha's Vineyard, Mass.; Ike's Point, N.J.; John E's Pond, R.I.; Carlos Elmer's Joshua View, Ariz.; and Clark's Mountain, Ore." The 1802 Pennsylvania Act of Assembly also seems likely to have been motivated more by political considerations than common usage. The result is misleading in a different way, as "Penns Creek", "Pikes Peak", "Henrys Fork", and "Coxs Corner" don't make grammatical sense as an accurate reflection of the etymology. We should be looking for common names in high-quality reliable sources, not official names declared by governments, and we should mostly disregard government sources since their spellings are based more on policy and politics than on common usage. (I tried to look in the Google Ngram viewer but did not find anything for either Penn's Creek massacre or Penns Creek massacre and found only one result for Penns Creek.) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I raised the issue as a matter of curiosity. Sources seem to prefer the apostrophe, at least in the context of the massacre. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location-West Branch or main body of the Susquehanna?

[edit]

The article describes Penn's Creek as being at the location where eventually the town of Selinsgrove was established, on the West Branch of the Susquehanna. But Selinsgrove is on the main river, downstream from the confluence of the West Branch and the North Branch at Sunbury. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to have been some confusion on the part of an editor when reading the sources. The massacre did not happen where the town of Selinsgrove was later established - that was the site of the ambush of John Harris' expedition. The massacre was on Penns Creek itself. I am currently working on going through sources and cleaning up the contradictions in the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn per nominator's request. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Penn's Creek massacre → Penns Creek massacre – There should be no apostrophe in the word "Penns" as neither the Creek nor the massacre are spelled that way; I tried to move it myself but there is a redirect page with the no-apostrophe (correct) title so it wouldn't let me and I don't know how to get rid of that Lilipo25 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Lilipo25 (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did find something maybe interesting in researching this: the Wikipedia entry for Penns Creek says (although the claim is unsourced in that article) that the name of the creek was changed from "John Penn's Creek" in 1802 by an Act of Assembly. But I searched through all the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that were enacted in both the 1801-1802 session and the 1802-1803 session, and there is no Act renaming the Creek. It is named a 'public highway' in one Act, but it appears to already be known by the name Penns Creek by then because there is no mention of "John Penn's Creek" at all. If it was indeed ever officially called that, the name change must have come earlier than 1802.Lilipo25 (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that the 1802 Laws of the Commonwealth provide no clarity on the apostrophe, as it is spelled with it in some places and without in others. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia article for Penns Creek, after which the massacre is named since that's where it happened, has no apostrophe, so spelling it differently here is inconsistent.
  • The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission erected the official memorial plaque to the massacre in Selingsgrove, and it reads "Penns Creek Massacre" with no apostrophe.
  • Both the Snyder County Historical Society and the Union County Historical Society (the Creek flows through both counties) spell it with no apostrophe in their written works that are used as sources in the article.
  • It would thus appear that the historians who specialize in the history of this region are in agreement that it should be spelled without the apostrophe.
Lilipo25 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and its official plaque are government sources. As I mentioned, there is a general government policy in the United States that tries to remove apostrophes from place names. It produces names like "Pikes Peak", which doesn't make grammatical sense because it was not named after more than one Pike although it appears plural. (It was named after Zebulon Pike.) Thus, I would not consider those as sufficiently unbiased on the question, as they are prescriptive rather than descriptive. The link in the article to the Snyder County Historical Society page is a dead link. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gotten to the Memorial section yet to edit it - I still have that section and the "Captives" section to go. I will do Memorials next and replace that link as I do it. Are we sure that Penns Creek once officially had an apostrophe for the government to remove? The earliest mention I have seen of it (this excludes the narrative of the two captive girls, as that was originally written in German) is in the 1802 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Acts of Assembly, and they couldn't seem to make up their minds whether it should have an apostrophe or not. I have not been able to verify the unsourced claim in Wikipedia's Penns Creek article that it was originally called "John Penn's Creek"; everything I find that says so appears to be taken from the Wikipedia article Lilipo25 (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)\[reply]
Update: While researching for the Memorials section, I discovered that "John Penn's Creek" is what it is called on the 1915 granite memorial erected by the Pennsylvania Historical Commission. This is a bit confusing, because it is only called Penns Creek in the 1802 legislation naming it a public highway. It now looks like that the name was changed some time before 1802 and the Commission used the name that it was called at the time of the massacre in 1755 for the memorial. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I officially don't care (and Wikipedia officially doesn't care) whether Penns Creek once "officially had an apostrophe" or not. Please see WP:OFFICIALNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you did because of the comments about government policy, etc. My bad. Then it's largely a matter of opinion as to whether it's more recognizable with or without the apostrophe. I almost always saw it written without while growing up and since, so think it's more recognizable that way, but I respect your opposing opinion. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...then of course, this [20] is from the same publisher. Flip a coin? However, the article should pick one and stick with it, quotes excluded. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was considered previously in two RM discussions in 2016. I refer back what I said at that time, and to what was said by others. Although the US government has a policy of trying to remove apostrophes from place names, Wikipedia does not need to follow that government guidance. I don't notice any major change in the situation since 2016. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity: the first 2016 discussion only considered whether or not the word "massacre" should be capitalized, which is not at issue here. You are correct that the second 2016 discussion did consider the apostrophe. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whilst I agree that the article on the place itself – Penns Creek – should use the currently most common spelling, I would like to suggest that since the massacre was a one-time historical event, the spelling in the article about it should reflect that which was most commonly used at that time. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.129.83 (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – better to stick to the more meaningfully punctuated and historical name, like in Penn's Cave and Hotel, than the one mangled by the government and by the cited specialists. Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia should follow the majority of published sources, which use the apostrophe when referring to the massacre. (Similarly, Wikipedia, and published sources, write of "John of Gaunt", even though the usual English spelling of the name of that city is now "Ghent".) Maproom (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I maintain that Penns Creek without the apostrophe is the more common spelling in the region of Pennsylvania where it is located and I think it would be better to be consistent with the official spelling of the Creek that Wikipedia uses, I don't think it's important enough to continue arguing for if most people feel otherwise. i think it's more important to concentrate on improving the article content itself, so that's where I'd rather continue to put my focus. I respectfully withdraw my request for the article to be moved and renamed. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Fiamh (talk · contribs) 07:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • MOS issue: two images (map and the Fort Granville 1916 Marker) are placed so they break across sections.
Done Lilipo25 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer of the plaque (User: Smallbones) responded below and verifies that it is free use.Lilipo25 (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing issues:
    • There's an issue with some of the sources not linking properly. User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a great tool to see when this is happening.
Done. All are now linking properly. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page numbers missing in some paper sources.
    • What makes Deans 1963 and Leiser 2011 RSes? Local history publications aren't automatically reliable.
    • HMDB needs to be removed because it is WP:UGC. If these markers aren't discussed in reliable sources, omit.
DoneLilipo25 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kessler 2006 looks questionable to me, given the typo in the page and the minor/local nature of the paper. Is this aspect discussed in more reliable sources.
Agreed. This was a holdover from the original author of the article; I had cut out most of the paranormal information that was included already but have now removed that, as well, as I cannot find a more reliable source. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excessive reliance on an eighteenth century primary source (Le Roy & Leininger 1759). It's best to use such sources sparingly and with attribution; e.g. "Le Roy later wrote that ..." These are pretty sensational accounts of violence and it would be best to have secondary sourcing to evaluate if they are accurate or if historians suspect it might be exaggerated.
    • Overall, the article has heavy reliance on older publications. It's very difficult to evaluate the reliability of said publications, and scholarship has probably advanced. Is there really nothing more recent that's been written about this event? For paywalled resources, you can use WP:RX to get journal articles or book chapters.
    • All books need ISBN or OCLC, publisher, and location. Use a consistent ISBN style eg. ISBN 10 or 13 but not both.
Fiamh ISBN numbers only came into existence in 1967 and OCLC numbers in 1979. Unless a book has an edition that was published after those dates, there is no ISBN or OCLC number to include. I have standardized the format of the ISBN numbers on the books that do have them. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lilipo25, OCLC numbers were assigned to older publications. As long as it is held by at least one library it ought to have a worldcat entry. See, for example, this 1904 edition which has an oclc (OCLC 1595429). Fiamh (talk, contribs) 02:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try to provide ISSN, doi, and/or JSTOR id for journals.
    • Popular culture section needs to be cited to independent sources, or else you risk including unimportant stuff that fails focus criterion.
Done Lilipo25 (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All notes need citations.
Done Lilipo25 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrast between Penn's and Penns in jarring. There's no need for both pages to be at the same version, but since it's a valid alternate spelling I'd recommend referring to it as "Penn's Creek" on this page for consistency.
Done Lilipo25 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quaker pacifist roots should be "pacifist Quaker roots" or, even better, "roots in Quaker pacifism".
Done Lilipo25 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done (removed ISBN and publisher but left publication year; if you think the year should also be removed, I can do that) Lilipo25 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fiamh Thank you for undertaking this review. I can make some of these changes over the next few days.
A few quick questions/points before I go to bed:
Can you clarify which image you are referring to in the comment beginning "plaque is nice"? Do you mean the image in the infobox?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. The image that I was referring to is File:Fort_Granville_1916_Marker.jpg.
I just stumbled on this. I'm the photographer of the plaque. Since the plaque was published in 1916 (before 1923), it is certainly out of copyright. Actually it was never copyrighted because back then you needed to use the word "copyright" or "(c)" on the publication to claim copyright. My photo is CC-0. Smallbones(smalltalk) 07:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you state that the popular history section needs to be cited to independent sources, do you mean not to cite the books themselves when including them?
I wouldn't cite the books themselves, but some secondary source that discusses them (e.g. book review or similar). The reason for this is that at least one of these books is self published (Loder) and that is unlikely to meet WP:DUE unless it sold lots of copies and got reviews.
Re "missing page numbers in some sources": Deans 1963 has unnumbered pages and the others that have no numbers are because the citation refers to the book entire.Lilipo25 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.Fiamh (talk, contribs) 03:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penn%27s_Creek_massacre&oldid=1205829920"