Talk:Gnadenhutten massacre

message: 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)
replies: text: I decided to call it the Gnadenhütten massacre (Pennsylvania). Cmacauley (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Gnadenhuetten Massacre

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Dates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not Vandalism 

message: While synonymous 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 part of South American Indian ancestry.
Wfgiuliano 19:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 encyclopedia 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Use of the term "aborigine"

message: 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)
thread_title: "aborigine"

message: 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)
replies: text: A short discussion about massacres and infoboxes was held here. The best idea seems to be not to use fields designed for battles (such as "commanders" and "combatants"), and just give the death toll in the "result" field. I've made changes to the infobox to reflect this. —Kevin 09:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the infobox -- request for suggestions 

message: In "The Winning of the West", vol 2, chapter 5, Theodore Roosevelt gives this account of the massacre, which differs slightly from the article and contains additional detail:
Eighty or ninety frontiersmen, under Williamson, hastily gathered together to destroy the Moravian towns. It was, of course, just such an expedition as most attracted the brutal, the vicious, and the ruffianly; but a few decent men, to their shame, went along. They started in March, and on the third day reached the fated villages. That no circumstance might be wanting to fill the measure of their infamy, they spoke the Indians fair, assured them that they meant well, and spent an hour or two in gathering together those who were in Salem and Gnadenhutten, putting them all in two houses at the latter place. 
Those at the third town, of Schönbrunn, got warning and made their escape. As soon as the unsuspecting Indians were gathered in the two houses, the men in one, the women and children in the other, the whites held a council as to what should be done with them. The great majority were for putting them instantly to death. Eighteen men protested, and asked that the lives of the poor creatures should be spared; and then withdrew, calling God to witness that they were innocent of the crime about to be committed. By rights they should have protected the victims at any hazard. One of them took off with him a small Indian boy, whose life was thus spared. With this exception only two lads escaped.
When the murderers told the doomed Moravians their fate, they merely requested a short delay in which to prepare themselves for death. They asked one another's pardon for whatever wrongs they might have done, knelt down and prayed, kissed one another farewell, "and began to sing hymns of hope and of praise to the Most High." Then the white butchers entered the houses and put to death the ninety-six men, women, and children that were within their walls.
His sources include: Heckewelder's "Narrative of the Mission of the United Brethren," (Philadelphia, 1820), and Loskiel's "History of the Mission of the United Brethren" (London, 1794)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Peardew (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theodore Roosevelt's account 

message: Despite the fact that this article is about a specifically American incident, and that here we rarely ever use "aborigine" to refer to Native Americans (eve if it is technically better in context, that being neither here nor there...), the English language Wikipedia is as steadfastly UK dominated as ever, therefore, "aborgine" will continue to be used, no matter how out of place it is. Jersey John (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Use Arguing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gnadenhutten massacre. 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/20130121011231/http://traveltusc.com/files/gene/gnaden.pdf to http://traveltusc.com/files/gene/gnaden.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified