Talk:Great Swamp Fight

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

Connecticut Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of North America 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: Massachusetts / Rhode Island Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) British Empire This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 19, 2021 and December 19, 2022.

Casualties from Mr. Trumbull's book:

MASSACHUSETTS REGIMENT.

Capt. Samuel Moseley's Company, 10 killed, 40 wounded. Capt. James Oliver's Company, 20 killed, 48 wounded. Capt. Isaac Johnson's Company, 18 killed, 38 wounded. Capt. Nathaniel Davenport's Co, 15 killed, 19 wounded. Capt. Joseph Gardner's Company, 11 killed, 32 wounded. Total, 74 killed, 177 wounded.

He omitted altogether to notice the foot company of Samuel Appleton and the cavalry company under Thomas Prentice.

CONNECTICUT REGIMENT.

Capt. John Gallop's Company, 28 killed, 43 wounded. Capt. Samuel Marshall's Co., 25 killed, 37 wounded. Capt. Robert Seely's Company, 32 killed, 50 wounded. Capt. ... Mason's Company, 40 killed, 50 wounded. Capt. Thomas Watt's Company, 19 killed, 33 wounded. Total, 144 killed, 213 wounded.

PLYMOUTH COLONY FORCES.

Capt. John Gorham's Company, 30 killed, 41 wounded.

Together - 248 killed and 431 wounded

So - 70 or 248 killed???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.160.51 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are used to identify the reliable sources on which an article is based. Since the user who originally posted this list [1] of sources (which includes a book that was most likely written by the user and added solely for the purpose of self promotion) did not add any other content to the page, it is safe to say that no part of this article is based on those sources. Therefore, they should not be cited as such. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know which author you think is self-promoting. Regardless, to get rid off all the valuable references - particularly the primary sources - which are likely the basis for the article, seems unnecessary. In an effort to make the article better, i would put on a tag that indicates the references are not clear and invites in line referencing.--Hantsheroes (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author that is self-promoting is Kyle F. Zelner. User KyleFZ's only contribution [2] to Wikipedia has been adding Zelner's book, Rabble in Arms: Massachusetts Towns and Militiamen during King Philip's War, (and occasionally others) to the reference sections of various pages, including this one. There is no proof that these sources are "the basis for the article", as they were never cited as such by anyone who added content to the page. If they were never used sources for the article, continuing to list them as such would be dishonest. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Great Swamp Fight and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

As WP:3O deals with content issues, not behaviour issues, I can only comment on the content issue in this article, not on the editor's alleged self-promotion over several articles. With this limited scope, I think the inclusion of this book among others in the list is reasonable for this article, and the only slight mistake may be simply the contributor's probable unfamiliarity with WP:LAYOUT. What I would suggest is to retain those additions, but to put them under a Further reading section, separate from the References section, since as Hirolovesswords rightly points out, the latter is being used in this article for those sources that are cited in the in-line citations. If you decide to go that way, I don't believe a tag is necessary, and since tags function to some extent as a badge of shame, I'd recommend against placing one. Stfg (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with moving these books to a further reading section, as it makes clear that these books are not sources for the article's content. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for the help.--Hantsheroes (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly written from a colonist point of view. I changed some egregrious examples of this where the Native attack on a garrison killing 15 soldiers is called a massacre, but the retaliatory attack on the Narragansset village killing 600 villagers including women and children is referred to as an attack on a "Fort". There is still more of this in the narrative where the Narragansett are dehumanized and the settlers given sympathy (description by name of the boy who escaped the attack on the garrison, sympathetic description of the militia casualties recovering). I've tagged the article as it needs a thorough update for neutrality and factuality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information provided in this article is incorrect, such as listing the captain of the 5th Connecticut Company as John Mason (governor), who died years before the battle.

Trogyssy (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct any errors you find. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called portrait is not a portrait, but a demeaning, fanciful caricature of a well-documented leader.

@Dilidor: Nor is the caricature titled, "Portrait of King Philip". Rather, as can plainly be seen on the page from the book, it is titled, "Philip. King of Mount Hope". (Why would an editor revert to a false title?)

I have added sources to both Wikimedia pages regarding the caricature...

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Philip_King_of_Mount_Hope_by_Paul_Revere.jpeg#Summary
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Philip_C_by_Revere.jpg#SummarySunny Clark (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general advisory, and not directed at any one contributor in particular: the Wikipedia Manual of Style explains briefly and simply how to use a comma in dates and places. The relevant sections are MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA. This has been a friendly, collegial reminder. Regulov (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy with respect to commas in places and dates can be found at MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA. There are those who believe that constructions such as "Montgomery, Alabama" are in some ill-defined sense "one unit", and do not require a following comma. These worthies do not, apparently, develop style guides, because such documents advise the careful writer, in emphatic chorus, to close the parenthetical. Now, I acknowledge that language is in a continuous state of fluid change, because some people cannot learn the old rules, and these people simply invent new ways of communicating, and these new ways are in the broadest view absolutely as good as any other; and so the distinction between "lie" and "lay" is lost, and "versus" begets the new verb "to verse", and doubtless in a few decades we'll all be using apostrophes in all our plurals and setting spaces before our question marks, as the kids are doing now. That said, we have a rule here, and it isn't a tough rule to learn.

Dilidor, whom I must not name in section headers or in edit summaries, but whom I am still presumably permitted to name here, is now simply trolling. Dilidor has been advised of the relevant sections of the Manual of Style many times. Dilidor will immediately leap to complain that my "snide tone" constitutes a "personal attack". It is not that. Implicit in my comment is the question whether Dilidor is in good faith, and perhaps struggling to comprehend MOS:GEOCOMMA, or, as I have mooted, undoing my edits in bad faith and with an eye to playing the victim. I admit, then, that I have one way or the other made an insinuation about Dilidor that Dilidor must find unflattering; but since the facts don't seem to admit of an interpretation that casts Dilidor in a better light, I'm not sure the blame falls on me. Regulov (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]