Talk:Peter Lebeck

WP:BIO (December 2022)

I think that the notability of this person is well-presented, though it has been challenged by @Onel5969:

• As per WP:BASIC: There is only one primary sources used for Lebeck's life, and that is the epitaph found carved into the tree. Every other source is by definition secondary, with the possible exception of oral histories recorded in diaries (which are never referenced directly, I may add.) More on these below. Lebeck is less notable for his actual life (of which practically nothing is known about) and more for his infamy as an early white settler of California who, for whatever reason, captured the imagination of valley denizens for more than a century.
• As per WP:ANYBIO:
  • Lebeck has entries in biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias focusing on the American West, notably Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography (1988) by Dan L. Thrapp. While not biographical dictionaries per se, Lebeck is mentioned in practically every place name and geographic dictionary for California, and for the US more broadly as Lebec, California is named for him. See American Place-names (1970) by George Stewart, California Place Names (1969) by Erwin Gudde, or Historic Spots in California (1966) by Mildred Hoover et al. To be completely clear, these all discuss the person of Peter Lebeck and not merely the town named for him.
  • Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. Significant attention is given to Lebeck in many histories of California, as he was believed for a number of years to be the first Anglo-American in the San Joaquin Valley. For example, Cullimore 1949. Not referenced in the page, Romantic Cities Of California (1939) by Hildegarde Hawthorne also devotes a relatively substantial section to Lebeck (not merely a passing mention, I should say.) Of course, Wood 1954 is a monograph dedicated entirely to Lebeck's life and afterlife in the San Joaquin. See also A memorial and biographical history of the counties of Fresno, Tulare and Kern, California (1892) by Myron Angel. Stories on Stone: a book of American epitaphs (1954) by Charles Wallis also devotes a sizeable section to Lebeck and his gravemarker. There are surely others which I do not have access to at the moment, but these are the ones I have on hand.

I think this is more than enough to establish the notability of the subject (or if it is preferred, the landmark his grave became). If there are any further doubts I will do my best to address them. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 21:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Since no one seems interested in defending the notion this article doesn't pass WP:NBIO, and I've added a whole new swathe of secondary sources I initially thought would be superfluous but make the notability more clear (biographic dictonary, placename encyclopedias, et al) I'm going to go ahead and remove the template from the page now. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 09:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Currently not eligible for DYK; may be renominated if it is ever brought to GA status.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the only thing known for certain about Peter Lebeck is that he was killed by a bear in 1837? Source: "The only certain information known about him is that he was killed by a bear, probably a California grizzly, and buried underneath a valley oak in 1837."
  • Reviewed:

Created by Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk). Self-nominated at 12:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Peter Lebeck; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• General eligibility:
• New enough: - Article is not new. Neither has it been expanded by 5 times, nor has it been promoted to GA. Qualifications for DYK nomination are unclear.
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - See above.

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Pending.
Overall: Article and hook are fine. I'm just confused about why this has been nominated for DYK. It is not new, has not been expanded recently by at least 5 times, and has not been promoted to GA. May I please ask the nominator on what qualification they based this nomination on? (Also, upon further review of the article, I've found citation problems.) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24:: Put simply I wasn't aware of the DYK "new" criteria until long after I had finished the page for the most part, thought I'd try anyway after "revamping" the page as much as I could in the past couple days -- I'd expand it 5 times if I could, but there's literally nothing more to add here as far as I know. The main monograph by Wood tries very hard to stretch it out to book length to the point its noticeable, when there's really not that much to be said...he got killed by a bear and has a French-sounding last name. What referencing problems do you mean by the way? I'll fix them if you point them out.MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey there. No worries. Regarding the citation issue, let me take that over to the talk page for Lebeck, where discussion would be more on-topic. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

DMY or MDY?

I tidied up some of the dating in this article per MOS:DATERET and MOS:DATEUNIFY, but wanted to know if the creator or whoever has worked the most on this article intended to use DMY dates instead of the more typical American MDY? No biggie either way. Just wanted to make sure that my edits changing MDY to DMY were correct and noticed that this article inconsistently uses both dating formats. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I intended DMY, that's just my personal preference for encyclopedia entries in general. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure. Thanks! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing page citations

I added the template for this already, but just to repeat, a number of book citations in this article do not indicate which pages are being referenced. This is important because it is difficult to confirm cited information without them. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Finished, went through all my sources and found pages or removed superfluous citations. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 07:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)