|WikiProject United States History||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 9, 2008, June 9, 2009, and June 9, 2012.|
The external links section could use a good cleaning. --220.127.116.11 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- No kidding! This whole page needs a lot of work. It appears that most of it was simply dumped in from elsewhere, with little organization.
What is that from?
- This section appears to be text added by a professional historian. It's quite good, even if a bit too detailed compared to our coverage of the event itself. Hopefully the professor will return at some point to expand the rest of the article. Until then, simply fix up his wiki-formatting as needed. —Kevin Myers 11:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's wikified now, but it's still a little odd. It's not integrated into the rest of the article. And note that it really is historiography, not history, makes it a little out of place here. I would suggest moving into its own article, Historiography of the Gaspée Affair, and just giving a summary here.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- History and historiography can (and often should) be covered in the same article, though it requires a command of the relevant secondary literature that is rarely found on Wikipedia. Now that I've taken a second look, I think the big problem here—apart from the fact that we have more historiography than history—is that the historiography section may be an original analysis of the secondary sources, which is not compliant with WP:OR. An analysis of the historiography of the Gaspée Affair needs to be published elsewhere before we can cover it here. —Kevin Myers 01:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have moved the historiography section to a new article, Historiography of the Gaspée Affair, as suggested by the IP above, since (a) the section constitutes a massive example of WP:UNDUE, and (b) its lack of references and somewhat essay-ish tone may be easier to deal with in a separate article. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the British Royal Navy, but I do not believe they used the prefix "HMS" - His/Her Majesty's Ship - at that time. It only came into use many years later, and I suspect HMS has been added to the name by later accretion. It would have been known as "the Gaspée". (I am not confident enough of this to make a change in the text.) Michael of Lucan (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen Gaspee spelled with an accent mark. I don't know who decided to add this (perhaps Mr. Historiography?) but it seems to be without any precedent. Locally, the name is pronounced "Gaspy", with no accent or stress on the Es (and I'm not sure how this accented spelling is supposed to be pronounced). The accents should probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Accent (part 2)
[moved here from my talk page] Someone redirected The Gaspee Affair to a new article titled Gaspée Affair. There was never a vessel named the Gaspée. In 1768 the Royal Navy commissioned the Gaspee. Named after a penisula in Canada called the Gaspé. I do not know where this new spelling is coming from? You may look in Ngram viewer to see that Gaspé is a word, and Gaspee is a word, but not Gaspée. I wrote my dissertation on the topic in 2005. I looked at 352 letters and documents about the Gaspee Affair in the National Archives in Kew Garden in London. Please switch it back to its proper spelling. StevenHPark (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Steven Park
- I have seen several variations of Gaspée and don't really have an opinion on which is right. I did revert your UNEXPLAINED changes to the name in the text since it was inconsistent with the title of the article. As far as I can tell, this article has always used Gaspée (with the accent). If you want to change the article's name, then make the proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The article had the proper name from 2005-2010 when it was redirected to this new article with the incorrect spelling. How does one make a proposal? To have this switched back to the way it should be? StevenHPark (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Steven Park
Any progress on getting this changed back to the correct spelling? I have seen two recent articles take their spelling (incorrectly) from this Wikipedia entry instead of relying on 240 years of published scholarship...we need to fix this back soon! It does not even match other Wikipedia articles (e.g. Gaspee Days Committee) Steven Park — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenHPark (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note the two major, authoritative 19th Century published works on the Gaspee (Staples and Bartlett) do not have an accent. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_documentary_history_of_the_destructi.html?id=HhkaAQAAIAAJ http://books.google.com/books?id=Xr80AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bartlett+Gaspee+Affair&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XDWqUODCPOmn0AGV_YDoDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Bartlett%20Gaspee%20Affair&f=false
Please note that the two major unpublished dissertations of the 20th century (Park and DeVaro) do not have the accent. Park, S. H. (2005). The burning of HMS gaspee and the limits of eighteenth-century british imperial power. University of Connecticut). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 221-221 DEVARO, L. J., JR. (1973). The impact of the gaspee affair on the coming of the revolution, 1772-1773. Case Western Reserve University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 359-359
Please note that the Gaspee Days committee, that is committed to preserving the memory of the Affair, does not have the accent.
- I believe you are looking for WP:MOVE. An Admin will look it over and decide what to do. Padillah (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, as far as I can tell, the accent mark *only* appears here on Wikipedia, and nowhere else. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)