Talk:Lord Dunmore's War

message: Why move this? Lord Dunmore's War is traditional. Septentrionalis 21:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing.  Every source I know of refers to it as Lord Dunmore's War.  Obviously not the references listed here.  I guess that's what redirects are for, right? Mingusboodle (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of war

message: :"The context of the conflict resulted from escalating violence between British colonists who in accordance with previous treaties were exploring and moving into land south of the Ohio River—modern West Virginia and Kentucky—and American Indians who held treaty rights to hunt there. "
The tribes in West Virginia were the Mingo and Shawnee, and they signed no treaty with the British agreeing to give up their lands/ allow settlers into their territories.  Nothing particularly new here- it was a war of conquest between a more technologically advanced and numerous invader and a weaker foe.   The Treaty of Fort Stanwix was simply a figleaf, and the article on the treaty correctly states that the inhabitants of the disputed territories were not party to the treaty.  
If there is no disagreement, the change proposed is:
:"The conflict resulted from escalating violence between British colonists who were exploring and moving into land of present day West Virginia under a treaty that was signed with indian tribes who didn't live there. "
Mak (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV- british settlers 

message: Per the above discussion and those at Mingo and Logan, I have added an  tag. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: Under section Mobilization and movement there is a blockquote from a book (12 lines of text) that doesn't qualify as "fair use" for criticism or commentary - it's used as an expository part of the article, and properly cited.  But citing doesn't excuse a copyvio.  That text has been there a long time, and I'm loathe to delete it without some further corroboration. If it is deleted, we need to fill in there. Anyone?Sbalfour (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted.  Upon review, it is blatent copyvio, besides sheer speculation without any documentary evidence to support it.Sbalfour (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvios? 

message: Lord Dunmore's War is basically the Battle of Point Pleasant, about which there is only about half a paragraph.  There is stultifying detail including primary documents pasted into the article, about the preliminaries, Cresap's War, etc.  I think we can shrink this stuff down by a factor of at least 3, and expand the actual war/battle part.  The article needs revamped for focus and proper exposition.Sbalfour (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's been years, but are you still interested in cleaning this up?  This article has gotten my attention and I have some time to help.  In some other articles we've cleaned up, I've started by simply trying to get everything in some sort of order.  If I can re-arrange things so they're more or less chronological, is that a good place to start? Canute (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in some legwork on this article to make it chronological. Any help is welcome. I'm not the caretaker of the article (no one is). So yes. chronology is a good place to start.  The bare couple of sentences on the Battle of Point Pleasant could be a major section if expanded, and certainly should be. The McDonald's stuff is new to me - did he report to Dunmore? Sbalfour (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of the article 

message: I recently read that part of Dunmore's motivation to engage the Shawnee was to inhibit or obviate any claim(s) Pennsylvania might make in Ohio Country. If anyone has a reference, cite it here, and I'll write up a paragraph, Sbalfour (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to figure out what to call Pennsylvania.  They weren't a belligerent in the war, but they certainly seem to be an antagonist against Virginia stemming from their border dispute.  Pennsylvanians took deliberate actions that made things more difficult for Virginia.  I'm not sure what the right term is. Canute (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation? 

message: Cresap's raids section is the longest in the article, and only minorly relevant. There were two events, and the whole section could be shrunk to a couple of sentences about those, similar to the ones about the preceding Boone party attack. I struggle thru the section trying to divine something singularly important, when there just isn't. Sbalfour (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cresap's raids section 

message: Angus McDonald is listed in the infobox under commanders & leaders, but he is not mentioned in the article.  I have added a brief paragraph about his expedition against the Shawnee, which preceded the Battle of Point Pleasant.  It needs more work. Canute (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that McDonald's expedition is now significantly larger than the Battle of Point Pleasant, so it might have undue weight.  Would it be better to add more details to the small section on Point Pleasant, or spin off details from McDonald's expedition into a new article? Canute (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  McDonald Expedition 

message: A sentence in the Aftermath section calls Dragging Canoe a "renegade."    I know he broke away from the other Cherokee to continue white settlers, and that he received aid from the British in doing so.  But even so, "renegade" doesn't seem like a very NPOV term.  Let me know if I'm wrong. Canute (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  If "dissident" is still too strong, how about "disgruntled"?  His was obviously a splinter group, later called the Chickamauga. Sbalfour (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragging Canoe