# Talk:Jane McCrea

The article states her body was exhumed in 2003 to determine the cause of death....but nothing further is mentioned.  I take it this means the exhumation was inconclusive?  --Stéphane Charette (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Google to the rescue.  Answer my own question:  "The Mystery of the Second Body - A forensic investigation of Jane McCrea's final resting place"  --Stéphane Charette (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The historian Publius Virgilius Lawson in his book "Bravest of the Brave, Captain Charles De Langlade" mentions that Jane's body was exhumed and found that there was never anything dug into her scalp like a tomahawk.  Maybe this was the 1822 exhumation it talks about, and possibly later on someone took her head to hide any evidence or contrary evidence to the tales of her being scalped.  It also mentions in the book, that she was shot by her own people three times while on the back of the horse as her captors were getting away, and that they had leaned sideways on the horse as they were being shot at and were not hit. Timjaco (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Could we get a reference here? Later in the entry McCrea is depicted as a Loyalist with Loyalist ties, this seems contradictory. Should the unsubstantiated claim of patriotism be removed?
Lemonjuice1020 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Her family was on the Patriot side; her fiance was a Loyalist.  I suspect her politics is unknown. Magic♪piano 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that people in the USA have more access to OCRed books on Google Books than people in the rest of the world?
Graeme374 (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Presumably.  Most books published before 1923 that are in Google Books are available in full view to US users. I have no idea how widely they're available elsewhere. (I used the Google Books copy of Baxter in working on this article.) Magic♪piano 12:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
They are not. Perhaps you are also unaware that Google Books receives commission on all sales of books via links from its pages. It lists ‘related books’ in the hopes that you will buy these.
Graeme374 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

We also know where Google got its books from.  We don't know where you got yours from, or whether you made substantive modifications to it.  As a researcher, I prefer to work with page images from reputable sites; that way I know what I'm getting, and things like OCR errors just aren't an issue. Magic♪piano 12:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"see WP:ELNO, particularly points 4, 5 and 11; feel free to discuss on talk page"
MagicPiano,
What exactly is the objection under points 4, 5 and 11?

The site you link is at webs.com, a personal web hosting service (invalid per point 11).  The external link policy also excludes other sorts of "personal" web pages (point 5).  I don't know your connection to the page you are linking, but if it is of your creation, you are, by linking to it in WP, arguably attempting to drive traffic toward it to make advertising revenue (point 4). Magic♪piano 12:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe webs.com is a hosting service for paid or free web sites for any legal purpose.
The wiki definition of Personal web pages: "are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than on behalf of an employer or institution."
The site in question is not a personal web page unless it was created by Lieut. Digby.
The 'price' of a free web site is advertising either of the host or otherwise.
Graeme374 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I.e. anyone can set up a page for any purpose.  So this is a "personal page" of "Lieut. Digby".  I did not realize people who had been dead for several hundred years could set up web pages, or have accounts with Google Ad Services. Magic♪piano 12:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Graeme374 (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
MagicPiano,
Why did you label an edit as 'undid' when you actually made a change to a link which had been to Google to one to archive.org? This is misleading.
Graeme374 (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary explained what I did.  Perhaps not as fully as it might have, for which I apologize.  The point remains that this work is readily available from reputable repositories.  I'm not prepared to do the work to validate your claims that the linked page contains an "improved" version of the text from what is availabe either at Google Books or Gutenberg, which are versions adequate for the task here. Magic♪piano 12:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: A brief look at the text leads me to believe that, if this text was proofread, the proofreader did a lousy job.  It looks to me like it still contains nontrivial OCR errors.  (Or is "Yorktovvn" where Cornwallis surrendered?) Magic♪piano 12:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The document at archive.org has not undergone a proofreading process to become a reliable Gutenburg Project document. Perhaps you should at least examine the quality of the document you now wish to link. The OCR is of poor quality: there are no pictures; the tables are unrecognizable; date numerals, page numbers, footnote numbers often produce garbage as do any broken, smudged or acid stained letters as well as any of the French or German words or names with accent marks.
Where does Cornwallis surrender at archive.org?

Where Cornwallis is said to have surrendered in the copy presented at archive.org is irrelevant (but, on page 412, the same page I looked at in your text, it is clearly readable to me as "Yorktown").  You made a claim that the copy you link had been proofread for OCR errors.  I merely cited this as one data point that your claim is probably false (tell me, who is "James Phinnry Baxter", found IN LARGE FONT in your copy?  If you did the proofreading or HTML formatting, you should be embarrased right about now).  I make no claims about proofreading or correctness of the versions I link, but page images are available (at least to some) at both sites.  If you want to make claims that your version is somehow an improvement, you should cite some specific examples of such improvement, but I don't particularly care. I have found texts published through Google and the Internet Archive perfectly adequate for my contributions to WP.  Your page does not appear to be a substantial improvement: I don't know if or how it was modified from sources whose reputation I can judge, so to me it's as reliable as a site like myrevolutionarywar.com (i.e. not at all). Magic♪piano 12:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I have linked to an image of the specific page cited at archive.org. The images at least can be read.
Graeme374 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES (difficult as wiki likes to run lines together & doesn't like indenting)
p2 archive.org:
2 The Campaigns of Carleto7i and Burgoyne. 
may know nothing of his family tree, of the time or 
place of his coming or going, or indeed of any sub- 
sequent events of his life, we shall regard him with 
confidence and respect. The regiment of which 
Digby was lieutenant was organized in 1755,' at a 
time when the French with their savage Indian allies 
were attacking the American frontier settlements, 
rendering a war between the mother country and 
France unavoidable. 
At the time of its formation it was called the 
55th, but Governor Shirley^ of Massachusetts, and 
Sir William Pepperell^ had each formed a regiment 
called respectively the 50th and 51st, which after the 
war were disbanded, and the gap was closed by 
lowering the numbers of the regiments above them, 
by which the 55th became the 53rd. At the time 
when the English colonies in America were demand- 
ing from the home government what they conceived 
to be their rights, the 53rd was garrisoned in Ire- 
land, from whence it was ordered to Canada to take 

^ Vide Historical Record of the 53rd Regiment (Cannon), 
Rondon, 1834. The uniform of the regiment was: "Cocked 
hats ; red coats faced with red, lined with yellow and orna- 
mented with yellow lace ; red waistcoats and br-eeches and 
white gaiters." 
- William Shirley was governor of Massachusetts from 
1 741 to 1756, and was prominent in the war with the 
French. 
^ Sir William Pepperell was a colonel of militia, and dis- 
tinguished himself at the siege of Louisburg in 1745, for 
which he received the order of Knighthood. He died in 
1759. Vide Life of, by Parsons, London, 1856. 

p2 webs.com:
2 The Campaigns of Carleton and Burgoyne.
may know nothing of his family tree, of the time or
place of his coming or going, or indeed of any
subsequent events of his life, we shall regard him with
confidence and respect. The regiment of which
Digby was lieutenant was organized in 1755,1 at a
time when the French with their savage Indian allies
were attacking the American frontier settlements,
rendering a war between the mother country and
France unavoidable.
At the time of its formation it was called the
55th, but Governor Shirley2 of Massachusetts, and
Sir William Pepperell3 had each formed a regiment
called respectively the 50th and 51st, which after the
war were disbanded, and the gap was closed by
lowering the numbers of the regiments above them,
by which the 55th became the 53rd. At the time
when the English colonies in America were
demanding from the home government what they conceived
to be their rights, the 53rd was garrisoned in
Ireland, from whence it was ordered to Canada to take
-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—

1 Vide Historical Record of the 53rd Regiment (Cannon),

London, 1834. The uniform of the regiment was: "Cocked
hats; red coats faced with red, lined with yellow and
ornamented with yellow lace; red waistcoats and breeches and
white gaiters."

2 William Shirley was governor of Massachusetts from

1741 to 1756, and was prominent in the war with the
French.

3 Sir William Pepperell was a colonel of militia, and

distinguished himself at the siege of Louisburg in 1745, for
which he received the order of Knighthood. He died in
1759. Vide Life of, by Parsons, London, 1856.

I have marked some of the obvious problems in red. Pick a number at random and I will compare the pages.
You have made repeated claims about the sources that you prefer; that they are "reliable".
The Google books I have seen do not show the OCRed text, so you do not know if a search has failed to find a word because it is corrupted unless you manually search the document images.  It is obvious by looking that the archive.org OCR has much corruption particularly in the areas I mentioned "there are no pictures; the tables are unrecognizable; date numerals, page numbers, footnote numbers often produce garbage as do any broken, smudged or acid stained letters as well as any of the French or German words or names with accent marks" plus all superscripted letters in abbreviations.
I did not claim that the version at webs.com was perfectly proofread only that the archive.org version was not proofread.
Graeme374 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A partially proofed edition is also not particularly useful: what if I was searching for "Yorktown" and the only instance of it was "Yorktovvn"?  As far as missing images, I have no idea what you're talking about.  (These images are also available at Google Books.)
The links I provided are reliable for reasons you haven't addressed.  I know where they came from.  The library that scanned them is identified, and I can see the actual page images.  I cannot do either of these for your edition.  I do not know what you changed, and cannot judge whether it matters or not.  I do not rely on OCR text for anything.  You claim that OCR problems lead to failed searches.  So do non-standard spellings and misspellings that are typical of 18th and 19th century works, especially journals of this sort.  These complicate my searches much more than do OCR errors in building search indices, and are furthermore things you shouldn't be "fixing" without clear editorial notice that you have done so.
Since we are repeating ourselves, I have mentioned this at the external links noticeboard. Magic♪piano 13:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I will explain the logic of a point above.
1) The site in question is not a personal web page unless it was created by Lieut. Digby.
2) Lieut. Digby died long ago.
3) Therefore the page was not created by Lieut. Digby.
4) Therefore the page is not a personal web page.
I apologise for assuming that points 2 to 4 were obvious from point 1 and your knowledge of Lieut. Digby.
Graeme374 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no.  I thought my previous comment on this was obviously sarcastic.  It's trivially obvious that it's not a personal web page of Lt. Digby. The page is a "personal page" of whoever controls the page editorially.  Feel free to argue this point at the noticeboard. Magic♪piano 02:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I had not realised you wish to treat the OCR and the images at archive.org as one document. I have been treating them as separate documents, which they are.
Your arguments might be more persuasive if they were consistent.
You seem to consider it irrelevant that the OCR at archive.org is not proofread but that the OCR at webs.com should be perfectly proofread. The OCR at archive will give all and more failed searches than the OCR at archive.org. The images at archive.org cannnot be searched at all. The webs.com document links to the images at archive.org more than once; very useful for corroboration purposes.
The pictures are in the images at archive.org but not in the OCR at archive.org (not even the poor quality images that are in other OCRs at archive.org when an image is made with settings that are best for OCR).
Of course a seacrh will fail if you use a modern spelling where an old spelling is used (or if you use an American spelling where an English spelling is used). This is the same for both OCRs.
Let me repeat that Google Books only makes the OCR & images available to a specific target audience.
May I also point out to all readers that it was I who linked to the specific page cited at the images at archive.org.
If you wished to have this discussion at external links noticeboard it would have been more convenient to have done this instead of your invitation "feel free to discuss on talk page" in your edit label at 00:53, 30 August 2011.
Graeme374 (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't introduce the issue of OCR quality issues -- you did.  I have consistently maintained that I use page images and not OCR text (modulo whatever mechanisms Google and Archive use to perform text searches).  Any discussion I've made of OCR quality issues is to rebut your specific claims about having somehow improved something, and that this somehow privileges your page to be used here.  It doesn't -- regardless of the validity of your OCR-related arguments, the page still violates WP:ELNO, something that you are free to try to rebut at the noticeboard. (It wasn't at all clear that the noticeboard was necessary at first, but it is now.) Magic♪piano 02:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jane McCrea. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216155155/https://www.plymouth.edu/magazine/issue/winter-2006/the-mystery-of-the-second-body/ to https://www.plymouth.edu/magazine/issue/winter-2006/the-mystery-of-the-second-body/
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) 02:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to take the opportunity to say that this warrior society wasn't immune to civil disobedience. Next, the common term 'native' is erroneous as it confuses more people than informs. [1] Religious or non-religious nativity aside, the separation of church and state is the proportional representation found in a representative gov. where 'obedience to the law is liberty.' What constitutes a state within the United Nations (something the Vatican doesn't achieve because of representative gov. and something the Iroquois Confederacy does) and the ability to form relations with other gov. ultimately results in ignoring demographics.
In terms of demographics, atheists are almost neutral arbiters in that they are native to their territory but not because of the people that share common atheism. They can represent a state as long as they have a gov., populace, surveyed lands, and the ability to make relations with other gov. In Ian Morris' book 'Fate of Nations,'he label 3 unique qualities that measure the fate of a nation: social organization, ability of science or war, and discovery of energy. These people were not from a different religious sect but rather part of different states. The Tripartide gov. of the Haudenosaunee is designed not only to have neutral agencies (they were good at espionage), but also paved the way for feminism, anti-fascism, along with the unmovable right to peace, to righteous economy, allowing the power to bind laws. To claim that the Huron-Wendat warrior society represents our gov. is deeply disturbing and has been attempted in Cherr Valle, and, more recently, in Oka.

Ability is nothing without opportunity.
A perception of religion and science caused the Chenow allies to be massacred, but to be honest, war is a capacity to protect just as much as religion or atheism gives you the right to. My edit and reason for editing is also an ability to reach higher standards of leadership. 208.96.66.213 (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is not consensus on the use of "Native American", either among historians or among peoples so designated.  The only source you link above doesn't seem to have anything to say on the subject, and the rest is just your opinion.  (What it has to do with improving an article on Jane McCrea is beyond me.) Magic♪piano 01:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, you seem to understand the difference between a Huron and Iroquois then. I'm sorry for the lack of references although, may I ask  what your native tongue is? Does the territory define it? 'In some countries, the term native language or mother tongue refers to the language of one's ethnic group rather than one's first language.'|On article: First Language. So if my child is born in Argentina and learns Spanish, would he still be a Native American, or just a Native speaker of Spanish who also happens to be a Native of Argentina, but is Native American.
Now here's the bombshell reference you want: |Following Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, it is now considered that a 'state' must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. As a division of the British Empire, Canada's international relations were handled by Britain when the League of Nations was founded and it did not meet these criteria. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy did.
So, am I just a Seneca Indian whom belongs to a people who understand what a state is before native Europeans who call themselves native |Caption under the video., or am I only native under special circumstances when talking about war? -- especially our historic rivals?
You're smarter than this. 208.96.66.213 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Being closely pursued she endeavored to escape by running around a tree, but the Indian stopped and she ran into his open arms. She was taken to Canada and treated quite well; was assigned to the duty of cook for her captors. She returned at the close of the war, and after the death of her husband, married Peter Dunckel, her fellow captive. When taken prisoner she left a baby six months old, which was overlooked by the Indians.(Note: we are splitting up the original long paragraph here).
|This wasn't Brant's men, but we're not arguing about that are we? |Beaver Wars : 1660s.. |Ben Franklin.
|Dictionary: Native American. Basically states 'indegenous people' from North America, or 'of, relating to, or characteristic of Native Americans or any of their languages.' |The subsequent adjective relates: 'of where people are found' rather than being native born to a land or in to do with nativism (politics). So basically, what I'm getting at is 'MagicPiano' believes there is no 'consensus' that will allow readers to distinguish a Huron from an Iroquois. So is this article about political nativism or about a woman who got killed by 'natives.' NundayowannaSeneca (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You might try reading what I wrote, rather than making assumptions about my meaning.  I said, "My understanding is that there is not consensus on the use of "Native American", either among historians or among peoples so designated."  This says precisely nothing about (1) whether or not I am capable of distinguishing the differences between various native groups, (2) whether or not I think others are capable of understanding the distinction, or (3) whether or not I think there is "'consensus' that will allow readers to distinguish a Huron from an Iroquois".  Considering you have edited the article to read "Jane McCrea was [killed by a] society", I suggest you take your concerns about my English ability and look in a mirror.  She was (presumably) killed by an individual (not a "society"), and the article lead should reflect this.  My reversion of your edit was predicated mainly on your poor writing (which I even indicated in the edit history), and not on your designation of the societal affiliation of the individual(s) responsible. Magic♪piano 13:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Poor writing? Only on Wikipedia have I been accused of that. Anyway, let's take this into more civil domains. I apologize for offending you in any way. Hopefully we can get through this with minimal 'opinions' as this is a very serious article I take very deep reconciliation with. What I meant by warrior society is that the job of a neutral arbiter is to find transparency in politics or consensus (law). I know some people think the rule of the majority wins but it is not always the case (take the U.S. elections for example). In modern or Medieval times where constant warfare was apparent, warriors or soldiers who were constantly commissioned had very little to no say in what makes law (in most gov. the rule of law isn't neutral in that they don't understand the idea of separating church from state), so, they had the ability to be transparent and weren't considered part of the righteous economy, nor the socialism involved. What I'm saying is, is that there were in fact warrior societies within many Iroquoian and Algonquian nations who understood Tripartide gov. or proportional representation. |We both need to stop this useless bickering. 208.96.66.213 (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)