Talk:Treaty of Casco (1678)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

deleted 2013 "cleanup" marking. The language certainly doesn't seem unencyclopedic to me. It doesn't appear that there have been any extensive changes since 2014, I'm going to "be bold" as Wikipedians of the past were instructed and take it down. I'm also not going to sign, and get into another edit war. If you feel sufficiently motivated to reverse my decision, go ahead, I don't care so much as to get into another ugly confrontation, which is about all I ever have got over fifteen years of editing.

Frankly I'm also tempted to get rid of the "sections" and combine everything into a single section, because there is so little documentary evidence that exists, not even the treaty itself, there's not likely to be significant future contributions (arbitrarily I'd say nothing over 5000 bytes, as everything since 2009 is well under that limit).

Following my previous post mentioning lack of enough content for sections, I've looked up the 1703 Treaty of Casco, which is "structured" this way, and merger of the two articles seems wise.