Talk:Battle of Fort Oswego

message: Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1
:I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Any input would be very much appreciated! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: request for peer review, Battle of the Thousand islands

message: My suggestion for putting Results in the results line of the infobox (rather than interpretation of results, such as who we think the victor was) is that is seems that when possible, we might state what the actual outcome was.  While there are lots of way to win a battle (e.g. casualties, delaying/divert/distract enemy) in this case we can clearly state that the french caputured the fort.  Why not just put the result of battle in the result box?  -Gomm 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This of course ignores the fact the the "Result" field was specifically created for "X victory" descriptions (Whether this is an interpretation, as you claim, is a highly debatable matter. The term is fairly ubiquitous to the writing of military history), a fact borne out in thousands of other articles. If you want to question this practice, be my guest, but please do so here before arbitrarily applying a new standard in only one article. Albrecht 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Put '''Results''' in the '''results''' line 

message: Hello
One short comment: while this article has references, much of them are coming from Parkman whose writings are not considered today by professional historians as reliable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.29.139 (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Parkman's writings are not without issue.  The issues I've seen ascribed to his writings are mainly of bias (racism and anti-Catholicism, specifically), although I know that Francis Jennings takes issue with instances of his misuse of sources.  That said, it doesn't mean what is cited to him here is necessarily wrong (or biased, since some types of bias can be edited out).  Like most 19th century sources, his works ought to be checked when possible against those of more modern writers. Magic♪piano 16:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much reliance on Parkman 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Forts in 1750.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Forts in 1750.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion