Talk:Gnadenhutten massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Second Gnadenhuetten Massacre 2 Inconsistent Dates 3 Not Vandalism 4 Use of the term "aborigine" 4.1 "aborigine" 5 Question about the infobox -- request for suggestions

[edit] Second Gnadenhuetten Massacre

This article describes the Second Gnadenhuetten Massacre, the one in Ohio. The first Gnadenhuetten Massacre took place on the Moravian Mission Gnadenhuetten on the Mahoning in what is now Lehighton, Pennsylvania. On 24 November,1755, during the French and Indian War [the Seven Years' War] native Americans allied with the French attacked the Moravian Mission at Gnadenhuetten on the Mahoning in Pennsylvania and killed all the missionaries and most of the converted Lenapes. The mission at Gnadenhuetten on the Tuscarawas was named for the mission in Pennsylvania. Sadly both suffered the same fate.

Yes, if anyone ever writes an article on the first massacre, it should be titled Gnadenhütten massacre (1755), and a link to it added to the top of this article. The second massacre is much more famous and should use the present, non-disambiguated title. —Kevin 17:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent Dates

Some of the dates on this page don't seem to match. In fact, there is a date that talks about 1872, which is about 90 years after the event supposedly occurred. Perhaps somebody can get this fixed. Ctifumdope 01:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• 1872 is when the monument was built....I sincelery doubt they built the monument the day the Indians were killed.

MrGater 11:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Vandalism

The substitutions of “aborigine” &c weren't vandalism. “Indian” is a term rejected as offensive by a large number of those to whom it is applied (since, after all, they are not from India). “Native American”, on the other hand, implies that people can be born in this country and yet not be native; it was a term selected to imply a greater legitimacy to the presence of aborigines than that of the descendants of immigrants. “Aborigine” is a perfectly appropriate term, as may be seen by consulting a dictionary. Gamahucheur 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that "Indian" is confusing, I'm surprised the Native American, indigenous people or even the First Nations that the Canadians use isn't preferable to an equally confusing word that, despite it's origin, it far more commonly associated with the land down under. --they might as well change the reference on the main page ;-) Bobak 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My first concern in the remarks above was to answer Mr Myers' inappropriate charge of vandalism. It may be possible to find a better term than “aborigine”, and use of “indigenous” at some points would at the very least be equally as good. WHat is plain is that “Indian” and “Native American” are worse. (Your reference to “First Nations” should bring to mind yet another problem with “Native American”.) Gamahucheur 19:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the term "aborigine"

While synonimous with "native" or "autochthonous" the word "aborigine" simply is not used in reference to Native Americans, but rather smacks of Australia. The repetition of it in this article, in particular, gives the impression that this user is trying to impose the usage of this term. The reality is that most Native American individuals and organizations not only accept but use "Indian" in preference to other terms. In fact a Google search for "Munsee Indians" will bring up a huge number of sites, most if not all being neutral or sympathetic in their stance towards the tribe. At least until there is a consensus among Native Americans and scholars on related subjects that "Indian" should not be used, the word remains perfectly acceptable. And in any case, when it comes to language, Wikipedia should reflect current usage, not try to establish new usage on the basis of political correctness. This is akin to the policy against original research. Therefore, I am changing "aborigine" to other terms.

P.S.: Lest I be accused of racism, let me say I am partly of South American Indian ancestry. Wfgiuliano 19:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your declaration “simply is not used in reference to Native Americans” is simply false; the term “aborigine” is not popular, but precedence for its use in reference to aboriginal Americans is easily found. Again, other terms may be found, some of them clearly equally good, I wouldn't fight for “aborigine” in opposition to such terms; but “Indian” and “Native American” are both problematic. All though Wikipedia may inevitably be mobocratically ruled, while it aspires to be a legitimate encyclopaedia it shouldn't be comfortable with “Indian” simply because a great many indigenous Americans are. And “Native American”, again, was introduced largely to insinuate a lesser legitimacy for non-indigenous native Americans. Gamahucheur 20:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, I should have said "not normally used." My other points remain, though. If you feel that strongly that "aborigine" is the best term to describe the first settlers of the Americas, you should take direct action to promote its usage, such as contacting tribal governments and suggesting they adopt it. But I don't think that arbitrarily changing more accepted usage in a Wikipedia article is a legitimate way of doing that.Wfgiuliano 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First, your other points failed to address any of my points. Second, I certainly don't confine my efforts to Wikipedia, though they would be more futile than incorrect if I somehow did. Third, the changes that I made were in no way arbitrary. Gamahucheur 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that a quotation, specifically the one in the caption of the monument photo, had also been changed from "Indians" to "Aborigines". Changing a quotation, if done purposefully, amounts to lying.Wfgiuliano 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also under "External Links" where it cites "The Gnadenhutten Massacre of Christian 'aborigines'" and Weslager, C. A. "The Delaware 'aborigines'". New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1972. Wfgiuliano 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, those two changes were made in error in a macro-edit after Mr Myers trashed my first edits (in which these mistaken substitions were not made). Gamahucheur 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "aborigine"

I note the BBC just to-day using the term “aborigine” in reference to indigenous Americans: “Totem returned to Canadian tribe” from the BBC Gamahucheur 02:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why ÜMLÄÜT?????#--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the infobox -- request for suggestions

I recently added an infobox to this article, but when doing so and ever since I have been perplexed as to the appropriate wording for the "Result" field. Although it seems that one is supposed to state in this field who won the "victory", it does not make sense to me to speak of a victory here since the event was obviously a case of mass murder. Does anyone have any ideas as to how to improve the wording of this field? Thank you -- Polaris999 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)