Jump to content

Talk:Quinnipiac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

[edit]

I live in New Haven, CT. Very near a black stone with some historical references about Captain CHARLES H. TOWNSHEND coming from England in the XVII hundreds and changing the lives of the Quinnipiac Indians for ever.....The stone is placed on a little park around 900 Townsend Ave....TOWNSEND AVENUE...not TOWNSHEND...why is the difference in the spelling? Is this street name refering to someone else rather than the British captain Charles H. Townshend?

According to The Streets of New Haven - The Origin of Their Names (ISBN 0943143020), it was named after "the TOWNSEND family that had lived there since 1798. [...] The reason for the difference in spelling is that Capt. Charles Hervey Townshend elected to put the h back in his name, according to English custom, but he did so after the street has already been named." -- StAkAr Karnak 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least a few dubious claims in this article. While one possible interpretation of the name 'Meriden' is 'pleasant valley', no other article I've ever read claims a conclusive origin of the name. I've also never heard it claimed to be of Indian origin. There is a Meriden in the West Midlands, England, the country that gave us many Connecticut town names (Cheshire, Wallingford, Durham, etc.) 69.0.54.177 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quinnipiac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quinnipiac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs significant editing/review by impartial editors

[edit]

At face value, this seems like a reasonably well-written and surprisingly thorough article. Unfortunately, the merits of the article largely begin and end in the enjoyable writing style. From an encyclopedic perspective, there are a number of very real issues with the text which beg for some pretty heavy-handed revision and oversight. It's honestly remarkable that anybody rated this a B-class article, because it definitely doesn't meet that criteria.

First of all, inline citations are grossly lacking throughout much of the text, so little or none of the myriad claims presented there as fact can actually be readily fact-checked (WP:VER). Most "sources" are presented in an entirely unconventional fashion for Wikipedia and, again, many aren't directly linked to any of the claims they supposedly support. Furthermore, in tracing what I could, a great deal of this text seems to draw its authority from just a single source: an archived website (acqtc.com) that has been offline for over a decade now (as of 2019) and which asserts countless claims about the topic that don't readily appear to be supported in any other available, published works (WP:RS). This doesn't necessarily mean the claims are false, but offers more than enough ground for sensible skepticism and some reconsideration of how much of those claims legitimately meet the criteria for verifiability and source reliability that is expected of Wikipedia content. The potential for many of the claims in this article to be purely speculative or represent original research (WP:OR) is extremely high, which is especially concerning considering the volume and detail of information that is offered.

I'm not personally going to take action on the article (at least I don't plan to at present) because my inclination would be to delete a great deal of the information on the grounds that much of it is not supported enough to be considered as having encyclopedic authority. There seems to have been a number of editors who've worked on this article that are perhaps more familiar with topic than I; maybe they can be more precise and sparing in their eventual repairs. I simply submit this analysis for consideration of future editors. —Jgcoleman (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At face value, it's honestly remarkable that anybody would complain about an article's rating in the first place, much less NINE YEARS after it had been so rated.
That said, putting up a list of complaints and not acting on them is pointless, as you're not being a part of the solution. You've raised an issue, you should take ownership and (working with others if anyone joins in) remedy it. Markvs88 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this article wasn't something that I had come across nine years ago; I literally browsed here for the first time a couple days ago. That it has had an undeserved rating for nearly a decade is hardly my fault, nor does it, in any way, suggest that such a rating is justified.
In my experience, deletions of large blocks of unsubstantiated, unsupported and possibly purely speculative text -which is really what I feel this article needs- tends to end up in edit wars with editors who are maybe a bit too lenient with their interpretations of verifiability and source reliability standards. Numerous people have worked on this article over the years, none of whom seem concerned about these glaring issues. I've made several hundred edits in Wikipedia across a broad range of articles; I can be spared the lecture. Not every single overhaul of every massively deficient article need be owned by the individual that happens upon and identifies the need, especially if it's an article that he or she doesn't plan to continue working with in the future. We all take on what we have time to take on. I had time/investment in this article to leave a one-time, objective analysis for reference by future editors who might be more invested and have the time to delve in deeper than I. It would be hard to make the case that that's "pointless", even if it's not to your liking. —Jgcoleman (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really? Even doing the most stringent reading of the article quality grading scheme shows that this is at least a C class article. Is this anywhere near being an GA? IMO, no, and I chose to give it the B nine years ago due to the following reasons:
  • a) because this is an article where I am not a subject matter expert and so I personally cannot draw on a large body of knowledge to dispute it, only go by Wiki standards and confirm the extant sources,
  • b) the fact that the article does have a number of inline citations that cover the major parts of the article. Further, I do not see anything that strains credulity or is an egregious uncited claim.
  • c) most importantly, this article's Bibliography section is VERY large and could well substantiate any part of it, and much of it is not on the Internet. It's worth noting that the section conforms to CITEHOW.
So... if you want to rate it down to a C, go for it. Just put the checklist here on the talk page with whatever "no" sections made plain, and list the specific deficiencies.
Look, I don't disagree with you re: the deletion of the unsubstantiated/unsupported tracts. I regularly do this myself, and agree it's often the way to go so long as said tracts have had CN/section tags for at least a month or so. I have personally have not done so on this article for those three reasons above.
Again, in my opinion your perspective is not wrong, but no one is going to care about it in the future, either (at least in my experience). Best wishes, Markvs88 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is all nonsense.

[edit]

You talk about 'sub-sachemdoms' as if they were a real entity. That's laughable. If there ever was a case of imposing inflexible categories on the vague and tenuous, this wiki page is it.

For God's sakes, may no student ever for a moment bother to remember any of this page's bogus nonsense.2601:181:4600:A8C0:0:0:0:ED62 (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this article is mostly fantasy. I began removing some (much of which was sourced to the highly suspect Iron Thunderhorse), but this article likely going to need wp:TNT. Yuchitown (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Finally got time to rewrite this article based solely on published material. Yuchitown (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Here's a link to the article when it was at its peak of original research furnished by Iron Thunderhorse and his followers in the unrecognized, cultural heritage group Algonquian Confederacy of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council. Yuchitown (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quinnipiac&oldid=1200226722"