Talk:Gorham's Rangers

[Untitled]

Breeze009 wrote on 1/6/2014: Latest edits that were cut and labelled academic "puffery" were explanatory footnotes. They have been restored. Those footnotes were added because numerous people had contacted me, the creator and principal author of this page, about clarifications on various points. Rather than put these extra explanations in the text, these explanations were relegated to footnotes--there for those who want the extra explanation or easily skipped for those not interested. Also, the note about the mistaken identification of the Wampanoag members of the unit as "Mohawk" is crucial to the history of this unit as so many histories of this important company make this mistake, and it obscures the history of the unit's early formation and the origins of its maritime-focus if this fact is omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breeze009 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is a mess. The use of non-standard formatting and citations makes it a poor article. Placing "notes" in the article just makes it worse. The proper approach is to add a section with a section header and reliable source in-line citations. The information is (mostly) fine, the way it has been added is not. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Puffery

"Brian Carroll's resent well-researched article (New England Quarterly, Sept. 2012) disproves this and found that after reviewing surviving muster rolls and other documents relating to the company, not a single Iroquois can be documented as having served in the company."

It may well be that Brian Carroll's "resent" well-researched article is indeed well researched. I suspect it is. It is, however, inappropriate to add such a link or such a description to a ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Breeze009 wrote in response on 1/6/2014 at 3:332 PM PST;

So your solution is taking out entire sections because of minor spelling errors? Instead of just correcting the error or format issue? This is your solution to minor issues? And are you one the "gods" of Wikipedia? Who died and made you boss? Help clean up the format then if you are so concerned, instead of deleting useful content. Sorry if this is "a mess"--in your opinion. I've heard nothing but positive feedback about it since I created it. I also wrote 95% of the copy currently on it. And how exactly is a correction to a common mistake/misnomer "puffery" again? Is noting that George Washington did not in fact chop down a cherry tree an example of "puffery" as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breeze009 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The tags that have been at the top of this page for months represent the criticism of other editors, criticism with which I agree. Several bits of specific advice: Ordinarily we do not add user names to the article pages. When communicating at the talk pages we use four "~" tildes to sign our user names.WP:SIGN Sections are required to cite reliable sources in a standard way. WP:MOS Ownership of pages is discouraged. WP:OWN I have started on efforts to clean this up. Please don't re-add "most famous and effective" without a RS ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)