Talk:Gaspee affair

message: The external links section could use a good cleaning.
--71.15.82.100 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding!  This whole page needs a lot of work.  It appears that most of it was simply dumped in from elsewhere, with little organization.
Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The "Historiographical background" section looks very bizzare: Totally unwikified and with some liberal "scare quotes" like "Republican" (?!). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This section appears to be text added by a professional historian. It's quite good, even if a bit too detailed compared to our coverage of the event itself. Hopefully the professor will return at some point to expand the rest of the article. Until then, simply fix up his wiki-formatting as needed. —Kevin Myers 11:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's wikified now, but it's still a little odd. It's not integrated into the rest of the article. And note that it really is historiography, not history, makes it a little out of place here. I would suggest moving into its own article, Historiography of the Gaspée Affair, and just giving a summary here.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: History and historiography can (and often should) be covered in the same article, though it requires a command of the relevant secondary literature that is rarely found on Wikipedia. Now that I've taken a second look, I think the big problem here—apart from the fact that we have more historiography than history—is that the historiography section may be an original analysis of the secondary sources, which is not compliant with WP:OR. An analysis of the historiography of the Gaspée Affair needs to be published elsewhere before we can cover it here. —Kevin Myers 01:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved the historiography section to a new article, Historiography of the Gaspée Affair, as suggested by the IP above, since (a) the section constitutes a massive example of WP:UNDUE, and (b) its lack of references and somewhat essay-ish tone may be easier to deal with in a separate article. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is that from? 

message: I'm not an expert on the British Royal Navy, but I do not believe they used the prefix "HMS" - His/Her Majesty's Ship - at that time. It only came into use many years later, and I suspect HMS has been added to the name by later accretion. It would have been known as "the Gaspée". (I am not confident enough of this to make a change in the text.) Michael of Lucan (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS? 

message: I've never seen Gaspee spelled with an accent mark.  I don't know who decided to add this (perhaps Mr. Historiography?) but it seems to be without any precedent.  Locally, the name is pronounced "Gaspy", with no accent or stress on the Es (and I'm not sure how this accented spelling is supposed to be pronounced).  The accents should probably be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.91.180 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accent? 

message: [moved here from my talk page]
Someone redirected The Gaspee Affair to a new article titled Gaspée Affair.  There was never a vessel named the Gaspée.  In 1768 the Royal Navy commissioned the Gaspee.  Named after a penisula in Canada called the Gaspé.  I do not know where this new spelling is coming from?  You may look in Ngram viewer to see that Gaspé is a word, and Gaspee is a word, but not Gaspée.  I wrote my dissertation on the topic in 2005.  I looked at 352 letters and documents about the Gaspee Affair in the National Archives in Kew Garden in London.  Please switch it back to its proper spelling. StevenHPark (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen several variations of Gaspée and don't really have an opinion on which is right.  I did revert your UNEXPLAINED changes to the name in the text since it was inconsistent with the title of the article.  As far as I can tell, this article has always used Gaspée (with the accent).  If you want to change the article's name, then make the proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I believe you are looking for WP:MOVE. An Admin will look it over and decide what to do. Padillah (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Accent (part 2)

message: HMS Gaspée (1763) redirects here, so as this ship was formerly French, the equivalent French redirect should also redirect here -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are scattered references to the accented spelling, but never in any work focused primarily on the event. The earliest usage I've been able to identify is from 1941. The ngram viewer suggests a single occurrence in a text from the 1830s, but I've so far been unable to find it. It seems very likely that modern sources are simply parroting wikipedia. Here's a graph of ngram usage from 1750 through 2000. Similarly it looks like HMS Gaspee first emerged in the mid-1950s. Some early works refer to the ship as "His Majesty's Britannic Schooner Gaspee", but never "HMS Gaspee" and certainly not the doubly confused "HMS Gaspée". Both HMS Gaspée (1763) and HMS Gaspee (1763) redirect here. I don't see obvious harm in allowing them to persist, no matter their wrongness. --Bhickey (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects [[French ship Gaspée]] / [[French ship Gaspee]]

message: I am no professional historian, but I have been bold enough to assert that Gerald Horne's work is not mainstream and should neither be extensively quoted here nor be in the background section of this article. Thus I have deleted it. Juan Riley (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horne's citation and extended quote