Talk:Fort Mifflin

Underground storage

The History Channel recently aired a program that touched on Fort Mifflin. "Freemason Underground". Cities of the Underworld. Season 1. Episode 10. June 25. {{cite episode}}: Check date values in: |airdate= (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
The program shows a recently discovered (August 2006) series of underground rooms near the wall of the fort, which they are calling casement 11.
The narrator speculated they may have been originally designed during the forts construction for ammunition storage. But, based on inscriptions on the walls, they were used as a prison during the American Civil War, including a prison for William H. Howe, the only man hung at the fort during that war.

This appearance is also discussed on the Old Fort Mifflin Historical Society webpage (http://www.fortmifflin.com/?q=node/1448) And see (http://bvcwrt.home.comcast.net/newsletters/signal-flag-2006-12.pdf) page 6 for a writeup of the discovery.

I'm not sure exactly how to incorporate this information into the article, so hopefully someone will make an attempt. If not I'll make an attempt when I get a chance. - Occasional Reader 02:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Be my guest. ----evrik ^(talk) 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The information provided in the show is bogus. It has ZERO basis in historical fact. Just because some uninformed person said or wrote something doesn't make it FACT, it makes it OPINION. Two very different things.

Every army drawing from 1800 on shows Casemate 11 clearly noted. According to the site master plan done by John Dickey, (which was based on the research of the Historical American Building Survey + his own research at the National Archives & other sources), the building was a Labratory (a place where cannon charges were assembled), built between 1794-8. It was considered unsatisfactory (too wet) and abandoned before the Torpedo Casemate was constructed.

I personally researched the Howe case when I was the founding Executive Director of the Fort. I wrote a play based on the trial of Wm Howe. He was an illiterate who could not read nor write in his native language (German) let alone English. His English was so poor, that the Army provided a translator for him at his trial. Howe was kept in the Guardhouse (a building since torn down). For those truly interested in the FACTS, all they need to do is to go to the National Archives and research the court records, they are all there. Robert Alotta wrote a book called "Stop the Evil", which discusses the Howe case; and cites all facts as well.

Unfortunately, "Freemason Underground" is a hoax. --Lucerne96 (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucerne96 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

William H. Howe was born William Henry Hauck, and was a third or fourth generation American of German descent. He was the son of Heinrich Hauck and his second wife, Catherina Bartmann. William's family goes back to the early 1700's in Montgomery/Philadelphia county. His wife, Hannah Schoener, also descends from the earliest German settlers in Montgomery county and some of the wealthier families of the area. Ironically, Hannah's family is connected to another post-war execution story. Her great-aunt, Anna Maria Schoener, was married to George Spangler, who was tried (by Maj. General Benedict Arnold) and executed in Philadelphia for lending aide to the British during the occupation of 1777-78. It is likely that German was William's primary language, having been raised in a long-established German community. I might question, however, the description of him as illiterate. Americans were, by and large, far more literate in the early 1800's than they are today. Furthermore, census records beginning in 1840 inquired about the school attendance of members of the household, and beginning in 1850 the census noted members of the household who had attended school within the year and those who could not read or write. On the 1850 census, at the age of nine, William is noted as having attended school during the year, and no indication is made that his mother, Catherine, or step-father, Charles Schoener, are unable to read or write, so we can presume that they were both literate. On the 1860 census, the year of William and Hannah's marriage, they are both listed as literate. These records indicate that William did receive at least some formal education in his youth, although considering the nature of his community it was likely he was far more fluent in German than in English. For those interested in William H. Howe from a genealogical perspective, I've set up a website for him that includes all of my research: www.williamhhowe.freesitespace.net.

Karyn Van Kainen Continuum Genealogy Research Services —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.9.136 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

on paranormal section

Paranormal activities reports are the classic case of WP:fringe I don't think they add anything here, the sources are unreliable, and the editors who are adding this are just pushing a particular POV. I suggest that they look up the rules on adding this type of stuff, and then come back and we can have a nice discussion on why it can't go in here. If that fails we can go to some sort of dispute resolution. Smallbones (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fort is well known for apparently being haunted, it seems fair to mention it in the article. The paranormal can be covered in a neutral manner, for instance see Clifton Hall, Nottingham. Nev1 (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I found the paranormal stuff in Clifton hall to be quite overblown, claiming things that were not in the unreliable sources. I left in the 3 reliable sources and trimmed a great deal. "Paranormal events" are by definition unverifiable (correct me if I'm wrong), all we can report is that a reliable source claims that somebody claims that... When it gets to the level of an unreliable source claiming that somebody claims that she didn't see anything but heard unnamed people claiming that... (as was in the Clifton article) then we MUST remove it. Smallbones (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It has sourced material. Removing sourced material just because something is "unreliable" (personal opinion) is not a valid reason when it's sourced. Gune (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS particularly the section on extremist and fringe sources. I've also listed this at the Reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#On_ghosts_at_Fort_Mifflin. I'll remove the section in a few days if I don't hear anything reliable about these sources being reliable sources. Smallbones (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Name source

Can someone add the origin of the Mifflin name? I suspect is it was named for Thomas Mifflin, but haven't a source to back it up. --J Clear (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the same suspicion, but I do not have any source, either. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A Jstor search for "Fort Mifflin" and "Thomas Mifflin" in the same document turns up 13 results. I can't access them so have no idea what they say (it may just be a case of overlap) but someone else may be able. I was the one who added the Liggett reference, but I don't recall it mentioning the etymology of the name. As Thomas Mifflin was in Philadelphia in the late 18th century, it seems more than likely the fort was named after him (or perhaps his family?) although I can't find a source for it. Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but it might be worth contacting whoever looks after the fort. They might be able to point the way to useful sources. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a reference; it's worth noting that there's a preview of the Dorwart book on Google. It could certainly be used in the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

haunted buildings

This section presents the idea that the fort is haunted almost as a matter of fact. Other wikipedia articles emphasize that such claims are allegations. The POV of this section should probably be tweaked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.147.86 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)