Talk:Robert Rogers (soldier)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
Pritzker Military Library WikiProject (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Birth Place[edit]

Some sources incorrectly cite Robert Rogers as being born in Dunbarton, New Hampshire. He was born in Methuen, Massachusetts, and reared in Dunbarton, New Hampshire later, in his youth. --Flask 15:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the updates. --Ahc 13:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The misinformation actually comes from earler local and amateur historians, who often were guessing or trying to claim him for their own. He also gets confused with his father or with Stark, his second in command (a revolutionary war hero). Amazingly enough they were likely to say just about anything, which causes something of a problem today. What totally amazes me is that Rogers is still a local hero, while Arnold is a villain. I guess local citizens still have the memory of the country being saved from the Indians by Robert Rogers. Maybe the romance of the Indian fighters appeals to people, while Arnold was a regular. Rogers was a hero long before Kenneth Roberts got hold of him. Rogers has had some good post-mortem agents and a lot of press. Too bad they couldn't have paid his debts! No, seriously, Rogers' life is more of a tragedy, while Arnold mainly made his own trouble. It all depends on point of view. To the natives, Rogers and Columbus are both devils and the whole story would be written differently by them. --Dave 01:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cecy Rose Portrait[edit]

Hello Cecy Rose. Did you paint a portrait? Good for you, if you did. The only problem is, I don't see it in your link. Am I doing something wrong? Is it actually visible there? I see an invitation to buy it! I believe Wikipedia policy is not to sell stuff on Wikipedia. I notice you don't have any user discussion and have put nothing on your user page. Anyway the link you cite is not accurate, I don't believe. Major Roberts did not wipe out St. Francis, only decimated it some. It continued to be used against the colonists. What do you think? You can leave a message on my discussion page or you can leave one here.Dave 00:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

The article needs some copyediting in the second part, where it also misses wiki links. It could also benefit from a good reordering, and from a better subdivision in sections. GhePeU 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Link A link should be added for Rogers' "A Concise Account of North America" which is available online full text at least at http://www.archive.org/details/aconciseaccount00rogeuoft rumjal 08:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

There is some serious need for copyediting to make the text more neutral. I find this bit particularly odd:

Had he been the man he was, he might have become a leading revolutionary commander. Instead, we read that he was arrested by the local Committee of Safety as a possible spy and released on parole that he would not serve against the colonies. He was offered a commission in the revolutionary army by the Continental Congress, but turned it down on grounds that he was a British officer. He wrote to George Washington asking for a command, but instead Washington had him arrested.

--Saforrest 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I find another sentence in the introduction odd:
His service to the people of New England in their struggles against the indigenous population and the French colonialists is far better known than his later service as a Loyalist during the American Revolutionary War.
What disturbes me is that the sentence takes the side of the people of New England against indigenous people and French. Considering the aggressions against and the killings of thousands of indigenous people by colonialists I don't think his services should stand that naïve and uncritical. --Ben T/C 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The guy was obviously a traitor. Why on earth are you defending him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.248.95 (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • He was more popular than George Washingtion at the time and Washington felt that he was a threat to his command, Rogers was the better soldier. Washington only called him a spy and since Robert was turned down by Washington he had no choice but to fight with the British. Read the book A True Ranger by Gary S Zaboly.(Lookinhere (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
It's history that determines how this article is written, not your personal views. Grsz 11
Gary S Zaboly appears to be an illustrator of children's books, not a historian. Tedickey (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Amazon has three military histories by the same author, so it probably not totally without merit. The Amazon review of the Rogers' book leads me to believe that it probably as biased as the last one that I'm aware of (which was written quite awhile ago). That said, the basic facts are probably as good as you'll find in a published work, and useful for the must needed citations for this article. --Ahc (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Filtering the bias from the basic facts may require a bit of work. Best to balance things by using different sources. Tedickey (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Even basic facts take a while to get. For instance, here are two reliable sources disagreeing about something Robert Rogers did.[1] [2] Tedickey (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd argue that the online source isn't something I would think of as citable; I'd rather stick with peer-reviewed journals. And for a dispute like the one above, I'd go check out a copy of the debated book and re-read it (I haven't read it in 10 years, but it's a quick read). That said, I'm not sure what the point of this conversation is at this point. The original complaint above, which I think still stands, is that the article as written is badly biased. I've been working on that some this afternoon, but there is still LOTS of work needed. --Ahc (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There can be too much of a good thing (some editors choose to cite sources that are not readily available for verification, which allows them to more easily make the sources support their opinions). Finding good accessible sources is the route that I prefer. Tedickey (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seven years war name[edit]

Anyone know the appropriate standard for referring to the Seven years war/French and Indian War? I noticed that in various places both names are used for the conflict. Since French and Indian war is a part of the Seven Years war neither is wrong, but it seems like since Rogers was only involved in the North American part of the conflict it is reasonable to use French and Indian. Overall I think it's more important to be consistent. --Ahc (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mountalona[edit]

Some useful links:[3] [4] Tedickey (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

The book A True Ranger is a complete and concise reference for all details on Robert Rogers.

[1]

  1. ^ [5] Shadow Warriors