Jump to content

User talk:Kevin1776/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
———————————USER: KEVIN1776———————————
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7


I know military history is what you do... but...

Hi, Kevin. Might you have the time and inclination to glance over an article I've just moved into mainspace from my sandbox, Swedish emigration to North America? Don't if you're too busy. I just have an uncomfortable and growing feeling that the American side of it may be full of howlers. It struck me, reading through it, how much more, and more effortlessly, the history of Sweden (my native land) resonates for me, than do the American bits. Not that I'm any kind of historian on either side of the Atlantic, but like everybody else, I've absorbed at least the clichés of my national history, and I guess they're better than nothing. (In a way. In a different way they're worse, of course.) Whereas I came this close to forgetting about the American Civil War. ;-) The article is supposed to address emigration more than immigration, so up to a point it's all right, me having less feeling for US history—for instance, the Swedish Emigration Commission 1907—1913 gets a paragraph or two, and a spin-off article, while the American Immigration Act of 1924 (Good heavens, how can it be called that? Talk about US-centrism!) just barely gets mentioned. That's appropriate, IMO—we, and the whole Internet, have enough articles about IMmigration, this is supposed to be the EMigration. But one would still want all of it to be correct. In terminology, for instance. (America/the US; Swedish-American / Swedish American; etc). Remembering your fantastic Pontiac's Rebellion, I hesitate to ask you to look at this rather thinly sourced effort—for several reasons, I don't intend it for FAC—but, well, there you have it. If you can spare the time? To see if anything jumps out at you? Bishonen | talk 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Illinois campaign, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Boone Grave

I was just reading your article on Daniel Boone - good stuff. I wanted to comment on the location of his grave and elaborate on the story. Yesterday, July 4, I visited the Daniel Boone house in Defiance, MO, and the tour guide related the events that occurred. Boone's wife was buried in the cemetery, and Daniel's wishes were to be buried next to her when he died. When he later died, as they dug a grave along side of her, the diggers discovered loose (coffin-less) bones. It had been a cemetery for a period of time beforehand with unmarked graves and finding existing remains was not uncommon. The diggers reburied the bones they had found, and decided to place Daniel at the foot of his wife (rather than alongside, where the bones were discovered). The group that had disinterred "Daniel" and his wife to move them to Kentucky assumed that he was buried alongside of his wife, hence the mistake. The tour guide assured us that Daniel was still located in Missouri, and confirmed that the cast of the skull of the bones that were moved was examined to have African features, while Daniel had European ones. She believed that that revelation was conclusive as to settling the controversy, though added, that "she was from Missouri" after all. --Calkinsc2 12:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also heard the story about Daniel being buried at Rebecca's foot rather than side-by-side. Unfortunately, I believe that story was not recorded until after the remains had been relocated to Kentucky, so it must be regarded as tradition rather than verifiable history. Makes for a good story though. If you took any pictures of the home, you might consider uploading one and starting an article on the historic site. --Kevin

Thanks

Thanks for taking a look, Kevin! So you don't see any glaring holes in the American context? Like, more needed on the Homestead Act or the Immigration Act of 1924 or whatever? Conditions in, oh, Chicago? Not that I especially fancy doing the research, or want the page longer, as such. I'm well pleased at having managed a non-bloated length for once. Anyway. I suppose those dashes you inserted are en dashes? I thought that was what I had written—I can't really tell the difference, visually—but I guess not. Perhaps I'd better stick with the code (oh, look, the nowiki tags don't work for that, but you know the code I mean), to make sure I get what I intend. So, how do you make your keyboard write en dashes...? Bishonen | talk 19:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

No, I don't see any glaring holes in the American context, but I'm very ignorant about the subject—my knowledge of all things Swedish doesn't extend much beyond Ingmar Bergman ;-) and my knowledge of US immigration history has glaring holes as it is. Reading your article was a learning experience for me.
To get the en dashes via the keyboard, use the buttons on the editing screen belown the "save page" button, just to the right of the word "insert". You probably know that already. The en dash is the one on the left, though they look almost identical when you insert them in the editing window. Hope that makes sense! --Kevin

James Harrod

Thanks for re-rating James Harrod. I thought it was becoming a borderline B article, but thought it a little presumptuous to "promote" it myself. Do you think it stands a chance of ever becoming a GA? I can't for the life of me find a picture of Harrod and one may not exist at all. Acdixon 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article is getting closer to GA & you'll probably be there soon. As for pictures, there's probably no genuine portrait, but you'll probably find a suitable illustration of Harrod or one of his adventures in a late 19th century popular history, which were often profusely illustrated. Looking through an Ohio library catalogue, I found the following entry after searching under subject "Harrod, James":
  • Conquering the wilderness, or, New pictorial history of the life and times of pioneer heroes and heroines of America : a full account of the romantic deeds, lofty achievements and marvelous adventures of Boone, Kenton, Clarke, Logan, Harrod ... / by Colonel Frank Triplett ; with 200 portraits from life, and original and striking engravings from designs by Nast, Darley, and other eminent artists. (Minneapolis : Northwestern Pub. Co., 1888, c1883)
If you can find that book, I'll bet it has a lot of illustrations that would be great for Wikipedia. --Kevin
According to the list of illustrations from Google Books, there is no portrait of Harrod, but the limited preview does show a rendering of Old Fort Harrod that would probably be appropriate. Perhaps I'll get a chance to add that to the article soon. Looks like it would make a good reference for the Harrod article, but it looks like I may have to get it on interlibrary loan from Prestonsburg. Thanks for tracking that down, and please let me know should you ever run across a picture of Harrod. Acdixon 20:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Conspiracy

I did some preliminary research on the Spanish Conspiracy article you requested. Almost all the sources referenced the actions of James Wilkinson during Kentucky's struggle for statehood, but one source you provided takes a completely different turn, talking about a disagreement between Tennessee and North Carolina during the same time period and over the same issues. How broad an article should this be? Should it narrowly focus on the events in Kentucky or should it branch out to cover the similar incident in Tennessee (and possibly elsewhere)? Which is the more accepted meaning of the term? Acdixon 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know much more about it. The brief entry on the topic in Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution focuses mostly on Wilkinson but indicates that the term describes related intrigues wider than just Wilkinson in Kentucky. Boatner's source is S.F. Bemis's Diplomatic History of the United States. --Kevin
Thanks for recommending this as an article to be created. The more I look into it, the more interesting it becomes. Apparently, the conspiracy was wider than just Kentucky, and also involved representatives from the failed State of Franklin in present-day Tennessee. I have started a draft article in my user space at User:Acdixon/Spanish Conspiracy if you'd like to contribute. I plan to focus on the conspiracy in Kentucky, since I have many more resources on that. Then I'll move it into the mainspace and nominate it for DYK, hopefully attracting other interested editors. I may also contact WikiProject Tennessee and see if one or more persons there can expand the Tennessee part of it. This definitely could end up a good or featured article, and I'm really surprised an article doesn't exist already. Acdixon 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you're off to a good start. I'll probably stop in and help. --Kevin

Military history contest

For your outstanding performance in the Military history WikiProject writing contest, I hereby bestow upon you the WikiChevrons. Kirill 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your record is still undefeated! :-) Kirill 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It looks like some other contestants are closing in on me, so I better get busy again! --Kevin

Bozeman Trail

Hi Kevin, I have made another map of the Bozeman Trail. Are you interested in an English version? Please tell me, if you want some changes. Günter.--Nikater 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Günter, sorry it took so long to answer. Your map looks great as always. The Bozeman Trail is outside my area of study, so I can't really say if any changes should be made. I went ahead and added your map to the article. If you decide to do an English version you can change it, but because there are only a couple of German words on your map and those are easily understandable to English readers, you don't necessarily have to do another version -- it's up to you. Cheers! --Kevin

Trails of Tears

Hi Kevin, I finished a new map about routes of the Trails of Tears and locations of battles between 1811 and 1847 in the Southeast (source: Handbook of North American Indians). Are you interested in an English version? Günter.--Nikater 09:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that looks like a great map that will work in several articles. --Kevin
Here is the English version of Trails of Tears. Do you want any changes? Please give your comments. Günter.--Nikater 08:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks very good to me. Personally I'd label the map "Indian Removal" or "Indian Removal Routes" or "Removal Routes", rather than "Trails of Tears", since the expression "Trail of Tears" is usually more specific to the Cherokees and Choctaws and less applicable to some of the other nations. --Kevin
I have changed the label into "Indian Removal". Now ok.? Günter --Nikater 18:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, Günter. I've added the map to Indian Removal. It will probably find its way into other articles too. Keep up the good work! --Kevin

Gorgeous map, nice work. Pfly 05:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Nikater 06:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Did the original map say "Trail of Tears" and you added "Indian Removal"? Alatari (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohio Country

Hi Kevin, I have a new map of your special area Ohio Country. It's a German version but I think you can read the legend. The battles are of the period from 1775 to 1811. My source is the Handbook of North American Indians, History of Indian-White Relations. Please give me your comments. Günter --Nikater 11:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's another fine looking map, Günter. Some comments:
  1. The battle marked "Delaware 1778" refers to, I assume, the siege of Fort Laurens, which took place in early 1779. If correct, then the label should be "Fort Laurens 1779". Revised: actually, now that I look closer, "Delaware 1778" seems to refer to the "Squaw Campaign". Not a battle, but the killing of a few people making salt. Not sure if it's significant enough to put on the map, since there were many such incidents, though not all as notorious. Fort Laurens, which is further southwest, was more significant.
  2. "Fort Blair" should actually be "Fort Randolph", since Fort Blair existed only in 1774-75.
  3. If the date range goes up to 1811, the Battle of Tippecanoe should be on the map. But in that case, you really should put battles from 1812-14 on the map, like the Siege of Fort Meigs. So perhaps the date range is really to 1794 and the Battle of Fallen Timbers, which is fine. Because Ohio became a US state in 1803, after that it's really a different era.
  4. The locations of the Chillicothe attacks need adjusted. These are often confused, even in text books, because Chillicothe was moved so often. The battle of "Chillicothe 1779" is in the correct place on your map. But Chillicothe on the Scioto (marked on your map "1782") was not the site of the 1782 battle (though it was destroyed by Kentuckians in 1787). However, the Chillicothe that was attacked in 1779 was burned in 1780, and a battle was fought a little further north on the Mad River (near present Springfield, Ohio) at the Shawnee town of Pekowee. This is usually called the Battle of Piqua or, to avoid confusion with the modern town, the Battle of Pekowee (or Pekowi). If this is confusing, my short article on Chalahgawtha might help.
  5. The Chillicothe that was destroyed in 1782 was on the Great Miami River, near present Piqua, Ohio. No battle was fought because the Shawnees retreated. The cluster of Shawnee villages destroyed in 1786 was on the upper Mad River, near present Bellefontaine, Ohio.
  6. Other, lesser known actions that you might consider adding to your map include: Battle of Little Mountain (or Estill's Defeat), La Balme's Defeat, Big Bottom Massacre, and the Siege of Dunlap's Station.
Let me know if you have any questions. Keep up the good work! —Kevin Myers 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have finished an English version of the map Ohio Country inclusive your suggested changes. Please give your comments. Günter --Nikater 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Good work in adding those obscure battles. A few notes:
  • The battle of Pekowee was in 1780, not 1782.
  • "Little Mountain" looks too far west. It should be at Mount Sterling, Kentucky.
  • The Big Bottom Massacre appears to be marked, but is unlabeled.
  • The legend should read "Proclamation Line of 1763" (rather than "Proclamations").
  • Also on the legend, "Battles between Indians and US-Americans" should be changed to simply "Battles and massacres", because there were frequently Europeans on the Indian side of the battle, and sometimes non-Americans on the other side (as in LaBalme's Defeat), and some of these actions were not battles.
Good work! —Kevin Myers 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I hope I have corrected all my mistakes now. Günter --Nikater 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The old label for "Little Mountain" is still on the map. Everything else looks good! --Kevin

Tecumseh

The Tecumseh article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't do that sort of article repair anymore. Until Wikipedia gets serious about quality control -- either prohibiting unregistered users or adopting some sort of "stable version" policy -- that sort of damage to articles is never-ending and, for me, too time consuming to combat. Reverting the article to an old version by me is often a good solution. ;-) --Kevin

Charlotania

I found a reference for Charlotania. I put it in the article. Charlotiania is the correct spelling of the proposed territory.Would you please make the change and check out the reference? Thank you-RFD 15:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about this article. I found a duplicate article about the same topic and combined them, with new references. --Kevin
Many thanks for your help.RFD 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Hawk War

Hello. I was referred to you by User:Ruhrfisch. I have been working on improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Black Hawk War. I have worked on the main article, which I noticed you have made many edits to in the past, and on the many related articles. I was wondering if you might be able to help peruse the articles for accuracy, and consistency. Some complaints have arose in the past, they are detailed on various talk page, see Talk:Black Hawk War. Clearly, the main article isn't finished and I am well aware of the major omissions about events following conclusion of the fighting. If you can help, it would be appreciated. You may also be interested in joining on with our little collaboration concerning the war. IvoShandor 06:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a great "little collaboration" page. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to help out right now, but I wish you luck. --Kevin

Battle of Blue Licks

Kentucky was a county of Virginia until 1780, and then 3 counties in Virginia until 1792. George Rogers Clark was an officer in the Virginia militia. The militia officers received their commissions from the government of Virginia until 1792. The country was certainly known as the Kentucky country in much of the literature of the era, however, it is a misnomer to refer to the people as Kentuckians and the land as merely Kentucky until after 1792. Events that happened while the land was still part of Virginia should use that label. Obviously a reference to the fact that the land is currently part of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is appropriate. VirginiaProp 23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As always on Wikipedia, we should use the language that the published scholarly works use rather than invent our own rationale, as you have done. A look at the scholarly literature reveals that it's you against the historians, and here we must side with the historians. Literally hundreds of citations could be made to illustrate my point. From Faragher's Boone bio, just from the pages about Blue Licks: "The men from Lincoln were led by Col. Stephen Trigg, who had remained in Kentucky..." (p. 217); "It was the practice of the Kentuckians to impetuously assume the offensive..." (p. 218); "This was no regular force, however, but a highly irregular band of Kentucky warriors..." (p. 219). Even Boone's contemporaneous report on the battle to the governor of Virginia stated that "sixty six of our Brave Kantetuckians fell...." (p. 224) Other scholars use the same language, because Kentucky and Kentuckians were popular and distinct terms long before formal independence from Virginia. By your rationale, John Filson's 1784 book The Discovery, Settlement And present State of Kentucke was misnamed because Kentucky didn't then exist. ;-) Kevin
The article is still inaccurate and some reference should be made to the fact that the state of Kentucky did not exist until 1792. Further, there are many references that can be quoted on the other side, especially referring to operations by the militia in the Kentucky area as Virginia militia. I am sure that a reasonable consensus can be reached on this issue to insure accuracy and not mislead the reader. Why the <wink>? VirginiaProp 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

Remembrance Day


--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Molly Brant

In the article on Molly Brant you removed the words "role as head of the Six Nations matrons", however on pg. 159 of Graymont The Iroquois in the American Revolution it states: "she was head of a society of Six Nations matrons". BradMajors 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied with an edit to the article. Hope you keep working on the article -- it needs a lot of work. --Kevin
There is a letter from Daniel Claus to Frederick Haldimand (Haldimand Papers) September 6, 1779 where he refers to Molly Brant as "being at the head of a Society of Six Nation Matrons". BradMajors (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you know of a good book which you would recommend on Molly Brant? I am interested in doing a full article, but I can seem to find a book which gives more than belief coverage. BradMajors (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at some online library catalogs, I see a couple of biographies. Neither are from academic presses, and I don't know about their quality:
  • The three faces of Molly Brant : a biography / by Earle Thomas. Kingston, Ont. : Quarry Press, 1996.
  • Molly Brant : a legacy of her own / by Lois M. Huey and Bonnie Pulis. Youngstown, N.Y. : Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997.
You might also want to look into articles from scholarly journals. —Kevin Myers 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter tigre 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Philip Johnston (New Jersey)

While Maj. Gen. William Heath was a prominent American commander at the Battle of Long Island, Brig. Gen. Nathaniel Heard commanded a brigade of New Jersey troops under Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene, so the name was correct. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing names. You want either William Heath or Nathaniel Heard, but not "Nathaniel Heath", the commander you listed. —Kevin Myers 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right. The weird thing is I based the article on a source that never mentioned William Heath, so I have no idea where my confusion came from. I wrote the article after having come across the source while looking up something completely unrelated, so I'd have sworn I'd never ever heard of Maj. Gen, Heath until I looked him up after seeing your edit. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with many of your changes

Your adjustments to The Long Island of the Holston River were too extreme. You could have contributed better to the article instead of renaming it Long Island, Tennessee. It is not Long Island, Tennessee and most historians will agree it is the Long Island of the Holston River. It is in the city of Kingsport in Tennessee. And I highly doubt you have ever stepped foot on the Island itself. You removed books in the Reference section from the article that are about Long Island's history... books I am certain you haven't read. You removed pertinant history, ghost stories and, I believe, are too arrogant with your decisions/methods of tweeking what pages you deem worthy of Wikipedia. (e.g. you call a lot of information garbage) I will be waiting for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.130.182 (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you're upset because I nominated for deletion the page you wrote about yourself, but I think you'll get over it. Your book looks very interesting and I wish you success. Any discussion about the article on Long Island (Tennessee) should be directed to that article's talk page. —Kevin Myers 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Brant

I imagine you've noticed the work that BradMajors has been doing on Joseph Brant-- a nice job of condensing Kelsay's magnum opus to article length. I did some copyediting, and he asked for a review, asking "what needs to be done to "finish" the article". I'm really not historian enough for such a task-- could you take a look if you get a chance? Thanks, Mwanner | Talk 17:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Ruggles Woodbridge

Good catch regarding Massachusetts militia vs Continental Army for Col. Woodbridge. I agree that militia is more appropriate. Regards, ColWilliam (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Canada and the American Revolution

I saw you added the Continental Army officers from Canada into Category:Canada and the American Revolution. I think a better name for this category would be Category:Quebec and the American Revolution. At this time, there is no territory which is officially called Canada. While Canada is a synonym, the formal name for this territory is the Province of Quebec. BradMajors (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Canada is the better name in the category for several reasons. First of all, we don't want to limit ourselves to just the Province of Quebec, since events in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick might eventually find their way into the category. Furthermore, "Quebec" is no less problematic a name than "Canada", because the Province of Quebec today is not the Province of Quebec that existed during the war. Indeed, you have to use the link Province of Quebec (1763-1791) to link to the historic province in question. "Canada" as a broad "geographic expression" works better than the name of a defunct province; we can make the meaning clear in the category description. Plus, it's the language historians often use: Canada and the American Revolution by George Wrong is a standard on the topic. —Kevin Myers 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think whether or not we call this area Quebec or Canada is a major issue and requires some more thought. The term Province of Quebec in 1775 is well defined and has no ambiguity and is not problematic. Since there is no territory formally called "Canada" in 1775 and there is no government of Canada in 1775, the area which is Canada in 1775 is not well defined. I honestly do not know the exact area you are referring to when you say "Canada". If you are using the 1775 definition then it would be anachronism to refer to Nova Scotia as being part of Canada. If you are using the present day definition then it means Fort Niagara is not in Canada. BradMajors (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
One thing to remember is usability. Its too easy to go for being absolutely precise (impossible anyway) and lose the typical learner. (The general bane students everywhere suffering through the textbook world). --Ej0c (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin1776/Archive_3&oldid=1232600560"