Talk:Schenectady, New York/Archives/2014

Title

Why is the title of this article "Schenectady, New York" rather than just "Schenectady"? There is not an article simply titled "Schenectady" on Wikipedia (other than a redirect page that points here), and if you read the first sentence of the article it becomes evident that Schenectady is a city in New York. It makes sense with things like "Phoenix, Arizona" as "Phoenix" by itself refers to a mythical bird. But that does not seem to be the case here.

The only thing I can think of is that it makes it sound like the movie Synecdoche, New York, which seems like a bad reason to have excess information in the title of the article, and could even be confusing in some cases.

Maybe consider a change?

Bob the ducq (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is no. There is a guideline for naming articles that follows the AP Stylebook. WP:USPLACE In short only the 20 biggest cities in the country's articles are named by the city name only. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

recent additions

Recent additions have created numerous problems including changing Hudson River to Hudson which a bot warned the editor that the change and numerous other articles this editor has done has created this same link to a redirect problem. No information added has been sourced. No, I don't have to cite first and ask, any dubious information may be removed wholesale directly. Much of the worst dubious info is also a POV problem based on editor's contribution list.Camelbinky (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not sufficient explanation for the wholesale reversal of so many changes. What are the pieces of information that you find dubious? For them to be identified and provided with sources it is necessary for you to identify them. The stuff about the editors "POV" is irrelevant, we all have POVs and you have certainly made your own clear here. What matters is that the information is correct, verifiable and represented with due weight. The style issues regarding links and capitalization can be fixed separately from the content issues. Unless you provide and actual breakdown of the specific problems you see with the content I will have to revert again.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't "have to revert again". That's not how BRD works. Take this to AN/I or wherever you feel appropriate but you just declared you will edit war. I suggest you don't.Camelbinky (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You alreayd are editwarring. Unless you engage in actual discussion, by pointing out what it is that you dislike about the version you removed then it is you who is not observing BRD. Reverting and then making personal attacks at the talkpage and calling the version crap is not discussion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The information added is not supported by references, and WORSE it is not factual. I am under no obligation to cite template it all, nor do I have to sit back and let horrible additions be placed nor explain myself. The fact is that policy states it is the duty of the person adding the information to back it up with references or else face the consequences that the information be removed without warning. That is policy, like it or not. Let's just take it to AN/I and see what consensus decides since you wont look impartially at the edits. I've seen this editor do this to more articles and it is getting annoying.Camelbinky (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI does not handle content disputes. If you are unwilling to point out what it is you consider to be "counter factual" you make it impossible to find references for the facts. That is why it is necessary that you actually describe the problems so that others can see what is wrong. As long as you wont or cant do that the rationale for your reversion is a simple - "I Dont like it", which is not a valid argument and not a valid reason for removing text.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Your mistaken as to the reason for removing and what policy states. The onus is on the person wanting to add information to find the references. Massive additions of new information in one edit, with no references, is the very definition of disruptive behavior that should in fact be brought before AN/I as this person is putting that same non-referenced info in several different articles. You cant add info without references and then decide some one else has to template. Policy is clear. Shut up or take this some place else or do as you claim you will do and edit war so then I'll take you to the admins for edit warring as you said you would.Camelbinky (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It took me about an hour to find sources in support of all the claims inserted by Parkwells. I inserted them yesterday. The version you just removed had new content written by my and four new sources. And yes I am right. Noone has a right to remove content and then refuse to explain why. That is disruptive and detrimental both to collaboration and to the encyclopedia. Please do "take me to the admins" if you want to get hit by a boomerang, both for your abrasive attitude and your lack of collegiality. Honestly I always thought you were a reasonable chap, now I am realizing that was an erroneous assessment. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, cut the crap with the backhanded compliment that is actually an insult. I am reasonable, a massive single edit was done, and not just to this article but to multiple other articles with an obvious POV UNSOURCED. It is not the responsibility of the person who is challenging the material to find sources or to put a cite template, I'm sorry but that is the policy! Wholesale removal is preferred to unsourced material! POLICY POLICY POLICY! Fuck, just read the god-damned policy! The editor should have done a piecemeal individual edits and each one could then have been challenged. And he/she did multiple articles with the same crap.Camelbinky (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Delay in adding cites

Sorry for the delay in adding cites to this article, or in getting back to you- as I got into this, I also consulted the Schenectady Massacre article, Canajoharie, Albany and some others related to this place and period, so was probably juggling too much. At the same time, I was working on some related family history, and trying to incorporate these new sources such as the Burke, Jr., which added context for that early history. Given that the Native Americans and fur trade were so critical to much early NY colonial history, I thought some brief context would be useful. I added some cites first to the SMassacre article, but was interrupted by holidays and other issues before returning here. In terms of the details on the Schenectady Massacre, I have replaced the Freepages material with the original John Pearson (1883) county history material from which it was drawn. The Pearson chapter refers directly to contemporary records of both the French and Dutch/English, so it seemed a better, more thorough source than the lists that were on Freepages without the original source cited. Have also just come across a recommended current academic source on the archaeology of Dutch, Mahican and Mohawk early settlements in the Albany area and am reading that to see if it has material related to this article. Have been cleaning up bots on dab links but do not always remove them - the previous bot, which has not been available since July, made it easier. Will follow up with the other articles.Parkwells (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Much of the Burke, Jr. book is available online at Googlebooks, so I added that url so others can read his work.Parkwells (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How many?

On February 8, 1690, the Schenectady massacre, led by France and its Indian allies, resulted in the death of all but 60 of Schenectady's inhabitants.

How many is that? 2? 20,000? Can this be updated to be more specific? 12.147.193.6 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a factual error? My great-grandfather wrote in the 1920's that there were about 60 killed. Several of my ancestors were among those. [1] GeoFan49 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

in the schenectady massacre 62 people died. NOT "all but 60". 148.78.243.25 14:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

62 people were killed, 27 taken captive, and 25 to 30 survived in addition to the captives. It was a small place.Parkwells (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)