Talk:Pottawatomie massacre

NPOV: Killing vs. Murder

changed "murdered" to killing. As "murder" suggests wrongdoing. His actions, although illegal at the time, can be considered heroic by others & it could be considered an act of war. "Killing" is more neutral & the charges & common name will elude nough to it, IMO. --Duemellon 18:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• that is incredibly rdiciulous, killing children in the middle of the night after dragging them from their house is murder. do you want to rename all the serial killer articles so that 'murder' is not there anymore?

The term "murder" reflects the charges, therefore I see it as an appropriate word even if it is loaded. Also, "shot and killed in righteous retribution" feels a bit too long to put in. Kumlekar (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pro-slavery?

You indicate that Potawatomie was merely the first time that "pro-slavery forces were doing the bleeding". Don't you mean anti-slavery forces? It was Brown that was involved in the Potawatomie massacre. Johnor 22:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Children-Killing?

John Brown did not kill children; James P. Doyle's sons were full grown. He didn't commit infanticide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipjiverobot (talk • contribs) . +thats simply a blatant lie. go read a history book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs) .

Also present at Cato's court [in April 1856] were James P. Doyle, who sat on the grand jury, and his oldest son, the twenty-two year old William, who served as bailiff. Both would be murdered, along with William's twenty-year-old brother Drury, by Brown's band at Pottawatomie.

— David S. Reynolds, John Brown, Abolitionist p. 154

In the cabin James Doyle, his wife Mahala, and their six children lay asleep. A sharp rap on the door drew Doyle out of bed. He asked the identity of the caller and was answered by a man asking directions to Allen Wilkinson's house. As soon as Doyle opened the door to explain, five armed men barged into the house. The leader, John Brown, who wore a straw hat and a black cravat, announced that they were from the Northern Army and were taking Doyle prisoner. Mahala Doyle, bursting into tears, cried to her husband, "Haven't I told you what you were going to get for the course you have been taking?" He grumbled, "Hush, mother, hush." She watched in horror as the invaders led him and her two oldest sons, William and Drury, out into the night. She begged him to spare her sixteen-year-old son, John, and they did, knowing that he was not a member of the proslavery Law and Order Party, as the others were. As terrified as she and the young children were, they could not have imagined the atrocity that was about to happen.

— David S. Reynolds, John Brown, Abolitionist pp. 171-172

All of the victims of Brown's band were full-grown men. Radgeek 01:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Controvery section NPOV?

I have tagged this as NPOV since reading through it, it seems a certain amount conclusionary and uncited, though I'll freely admit I haven't looked in depth, this was more because an IP user appeared to be having problems with it and I wanted to move the discussion here instead of into the realms of personal attacks, edit warring etc. --pgk^(talk) 10:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported Statement

I think there's an error in the article. In the second paragraph of the Introduction, it states that two men were killed at the Sacking of Lawrence. I'm doing some research on the event at Lawrence, and I can't find any evidence that anyone was killed there. The article doesn't site any reference for the claim.

"""" Jeff Smith

Spelling error?

I changed prarie to prairie. Please change it back if I am incorrect. Sorry if I am doing this wrong, this is my first edit.

Date

The article says that these events occured in 1756. The entire set of events that Bleeding Kansas consisted of happened in the mid-nineteenth century. I am changing 1756 to 1856.

Discrepency

The article states, "The company consisted of John Brown, four of his other sons — Frederick, Owen, Watson, and Oliver — Henry Thompson (his son-in-law), Thomas Winer, and James Townsley, whom John had induced to carry the party in his wagon to their proposed field of operations," then states, "The three men followed their captors out into the darkness, where Owen Brown and Salmon Brown killed them with broadswords," adding a name of someone who is not listed as in the compay. 24.28.165.165 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Sandra

Aftermath?

I fully expected a description of what happened after the massacre -- were Brown and his men hunted? Was there a trial?--Jrm2007 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which Brown is which?

This article is very poorly written. As an Australian, this article's usage of the terms (Brown) Snr and Jnr is very annoying. The authors assume that the reader knows which particular Brown is being written about. I really want to undertand this story, er, it seems like it might be important. Could some literate American english speaker please edit this article to make it comprehensible to the world down under?

And - following current trendy lines of fashion - "Thanks"

POV in Role and motivation section

I added a POV tag because the section seems to be written to the standard of an encyclopedia. It rather seems to be written like an essay in that it presents arguments made by the "opponent" and then disproves them. Most of the information seems to be sourced which suggests the base of the section is alright but I feel it needs to be rewritten. 67.240.112.10 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)67.240.112.10

Requested move

Pottawatomie Massacre → Pottawatomie massacre – Per MOS:CAPS; caps are not necessary here, as it's not a proper name; sources typically use lower case. Dicklyon (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nom – per MOS:CAPS (see section below on book evidence) and for consistency with other article titles in its categories (e.g. Category:Mass_murder_in_the_United_States). Lacking any evidence that it's a proper name, or treated as such by sources, WP style is to use lower case. Many recent moved discussions have affirmed that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an absurd argument. That category is extremely broad, and includes many titles that are purely descriptive and constructed for our own purposes, and rightfully decapitalised, such as 2010 Appomattox shootings. This title is not comparable to those descriptive titles, because it is the common accepted name for a historical event, and is capitalised by our fellow encyclopaedias. By its nature it cannot be a WP:NDESC title, because the word "massacre" is not a neutral description. If we were to rename this article "1856 Pottawatomie killings" or something similar, that'd be WP:NDESC, and hence would not demand capitalisation. RGloucester — ☎ 06:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose – Caps are absolutely necessary here per WP:ENGLISH and WP:MOSCAPS. Almost always capitalised in sources. Above editor is on a mass unilateral decapitalisation campaign, which I am in the process of reverting. RGloucester — ☎ 04:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your link to "sources" is a single web page that capitalizes it. Look at the books that don't (majority lowercase if you discount the e-Study pseudobooks). And there's nothing at WP:ENGLISH to suggest overriding MOS:CAPS in such cases. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:UCN: "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used". We are writing in the encyclopaedic register. Per MOS:CAPS, we use capitalisation when it is necessary. It is necessary here to maintain the encyclopaedic register, per WP:UCN. We are not a rag paper, and given that the Britannica capitalises it and that the Encylopedia of African American History capitalises it, we must too. Please note that WP:UCN is a policy, whereas MOSCAPS is only a guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The title of this article has all of the characteristics of a proper name -- it refers to a specific event at a specific time in a specific place. What else do you need? It seems like a very bad idea to initiate this action when the issues relevant here are being debated for 30 different articles, as a result of the initiator of this proposal, at Talk:Watts Riots. The consensus there appears to be running heavily against the originators position. The decision there, where the Lawrence Massacre is one of the 30, is relevant here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This one came first. The 30 came later. The issues are the same: no evidence in sources that this is a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support—since capping is minority usage, and our guidelines say to cap only where necessary. No necessity is evident here. Tony (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Book evidence

See common lower-case usage in books. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And summary book n-gram stats showing dominant lowercase even before trying to exclude counts of titles and headings: [1]. Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that Ngrams search shows capitalisation as being dominant since the late 1980s. Anyway, an Ngrams search is useless here because it does not weigh the value of the sources in question. RGloucester — ☎ 06:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's very simple: MOSCAPS lays out, in effect, two tests

For downcasing, all that MOSCAPS requires is either (1) a demonstration that the capping is not consistent in sources; or (2) that capping is not necessary. Let's not even go to the second test here: Dick's link abundantly shows not just a little inconsistency, but a lot of inconsistency. Case over. Tony (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You've yet to tackle the importance of the encyclopaedic register, which WP:UCN demands. UCN is a policy, whereas MOSCAPS is only a guideline. Regardless, maintaining the encyclopaedic register requires capitalisation here per the Britannica, therefore making it "necessary". RGloucester — ☎ 02:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Also note MOS:MILTERMS: "Accepted full names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Leipzig, Boxer Rebellion, Action of July 8, 1716, Western Front, Operation Sea Lion)". This is one such name. In addition, MOS:MILTERMS says "Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page". There are no absolute tests. The MoS is not a straitjacket. There clearly is some "uncertainty" here, and talk page consensus will determine what to do. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But you keep ignoring the principle that that section starts with: "The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized." Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:UCN is not a policy, but rather a strategy in support of the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY criterion, and it will not be in any way "violated" by following MOS:CAPS. The title will be no less recognizable if in lower case, just as it is in many books. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:UCN is policy. Read the top of the page "this page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus". You're not following MOSCAPS. You are going against its recommendations. You are also not weighing sources correctly, meaning that you are ignoring the question of the encyclopaedic register. "General rule" does not mean "hard and fast rule". There may be other considerations, which MOSCAPS allows for. RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The policy says to consider the WP:CRITERIA when choosing a name. We do that, and with no interference from MOS:CAPS which says our style is to avoid unnecessary capitalization. There is no indication in sources or else where that caps are needed in this case. Many good sources use lower case. Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Our fellow encyclopaedias use capitalisation. UCN says to consider the encyclopaedic register. Large amounts of sources use the capitalisation. "Accepted full names..." should use capitalisation. This is one of those. Capitalisation is certainly necessary, here, if we are to maintain our stature as an encylopaedia in line with WP:UCN. RGloucester — ☎ 06:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Our fellow encyclopaedias use capitalisation." I'm not sure that they all do, and so what if they do? Maybe we should close WP down.

  "Large amounts of sources use the capitalisation."—you mean "Large numbers of", I guess. But the evidence indicates that they are in a minority.

  " "Accepted full names..." should use capitalisation." What is a "full name", then?

  "Capitalisation is certainly necessary, here, if we are to maintain our stature as an encylopaedia in line with WP:UCN."—Again, why don't we close the site down and send everyone to Encyc. Britt.? The idea that "stature" has anything to do with capitalisation is very strange. Why? Tony (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)