Wikipedia

Talk:Greenbrier County, West Virginia

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Editing?

edit

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.


General Cleanup

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Made several changes and additions to the article tonight, including rearranging sections to comply with the WikiProject standards, as well as adding material on the Beech Ridge Energy Project, Schools, County Government,and some "see also" and external links. There is additional work to be done, including upgrading the county government section with the names of current elected officials,and perhaps a little information on their responsibilties. Also, we need to add a section on the economy (and probably move Beech Ridge there). May also want to add some info on the local controversy over the windmills. The History section could also be fleshed out, to talk about the springs, perhaps, and particularly to add a section on the Greenbrier and its rich history, including early medicinal use, use as a military hospital, internment of foreign dignitaries during WWII, the Bunker, presidential and congressional visithttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamps, etc. Also CCC camps, The Greenbrier Railroad, history of logging, Meadow River Lumber Company? --Cmichael 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

History

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I like the history section overall, but I do think we should rework the Indian Wars section to bring it into compliance with NPOV requirements. While I believe it is true that the County was basically uninhabited prior to the coming of the Europeans, I also believe that Greenbrier County, like most of West Virginia, was part of the "Kentucky Territory" that most of the native Americans, by treaty, considered to be a hunting ground. Their agreement with each other was that all would share its resources, but none were allowed to establish permanent settlements here. The arriving European settlers faild to respect that tradition. The current wording kind of makes it sound like nobody was using it, so the Europeans moved in, then the cranky indians started attacking them. In truth, I think the Europeans' moving into the area was tantamount to raiding the natives' refrigerator, and consequently they acted in defense (here and elsewhere). So, if we're going to refer to white fighters as "heros," then we should cite native Americans who fought valiantly as well. I'll have to find my references for that, however, before I change the article. Any thoughts? --Cmichael 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eckert writes historical fiction!

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Please be aware that Allan W. Eckert's The Frontiersmen: A Narrative (2001) -- cited extensively in the history section -- is a work of historical fiction. It therefore contains much speculation and invented quotations. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I actually did some searching on the web, and while I do find criticism of Eckert's writing style, I can find no credible claim that his work is fiction. If you are going to make that claim, please cite it. Meanwhile, I'll roll it back. Thanks. Cmichael (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The citations are the reviews mentioned in the Allan W. Eckert article (Publishers Weekly, etc). Ill roll it back again. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Also, The Frontiersman is categorized as a "historical novel". See here for example. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

As you say, Alibris does, in fact, categorize it in that way. However, Worldcat calls it a "biography." Google Books lists it under "Biography and Autobiography." Frankly, I doubt that any of those services put any serious effort into determining what category the book really belongs in, beyond reading the back cover.
I don't find the references in the Eckert article to be very useful, as they both point to book reviews that are nearly 20 years old, and are not available to me. (See my note at Talk:Allan W. Eckert for my thoughts on that. Additionally, at least two of them seem to be describing another of Eckert's books, rather The Frontiersman.
According to Amazon, The Frontiersman cites 10 other books, and is cited itself by at least 5, so it may perhaps be reasonably well researched.
Finally, in reading the narratives of criticism of Eckert that I have been able to find, the gist seems to be that he may be inexact in quoting historical figures (eg. creating conversations based on historically factual background). I can find no claims that his work is otherwise factually inaccurate. This might call the Blackfish quote into question, but would not otherwise effect the text of our article, I don't think. If you do think some of the "facts" in our article are incorrect, then I would encourage you to replace them with more accurate, better cited "facts" for everyone's review.
Having said all of that, I'll see if I can't track down some of Eckert's own sources and try to match our account up with them. That might take some time. But I am more interested in creating an accurate, properly sourced encyclopedia article than I am in either attacking or defending Eckert. Cmichael (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. I would definitely take the quote-in-quotes out as it is fake. Professional historians are not impressed with Eckert unless some of them like reading his "historical fiction" works. You can tell that by the fact that no one ever quotes him in an academic history book/article... Or even a popular history book. I'm adding an "unreliable source" tag to the article. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you enjoy throwing stones, then have at it. But, it would probably be more helpful if you would simply correct whatever you think is inaccurate, (citing your sources, of course), since you seem to be knowledgeable about the subject matter. Cheers! Cmichael (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree it should be corrected. Unfortunately, that would probably entail taking out most, or all, of the Eckert material. And there won't be much of anything from other sources to replace it. (We whites managed to obliterate early oral Indian history pretty thoroughly.) But better to have a very short history section than one filled with novelistic invention masquerading as history. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Greenbrier County, West Virginia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Greenbrier County, West Virginia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenbrier_County,_West_Virginia&oldid=1201194703"