Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial comment

sources added by R Jensen 67.176.74.236 22:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

George Washington whiskey

Why does the article state "George Washington, the president at the time, was one such large producer of whiskey.[3]"? To me, this implies that Washington was already producing whiskey at the time the tax began. In fact, the cited article states that Washington's farm did not begin producing whiskey until 1797, and the large distillery was not completed until 1798, 4 years after the whole incident. This is rather misleading, in my opinion. --Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.76.156 (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to have been an attempt at original analysis by an editor unfamiliar with the details. Adherence to no original research is the best way to avoid such mistakes. Thanks for pointing it out the error. I'll remove the false statement. —Kevin Myers 22:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Rated

See below. What was the name, Herman or Harmon? The article fails to mention that George Washington ran one of the largest whiskey still in the US at the time of the rebellion, and personally benefitted from the tax law.Pustelnik (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Herman. Adding what you're describing qualifies as original research without third-party references to cite the claim. Xihr (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Herman Husmband's death, there seems to be some conflict between this article and his eponymous article, which claims he died while on his way home after being released. neither page is citing and specific sources for him though so it's hard to be sure. anyone know? Puckrod (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't contain names or reference to any of the organizers of the rebellion.

Too true! I came here because I couldn't find an article on David Bradford. Guess I'll have to write it. . . . --Michael K. Smith 12:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As the author of a new book on the rebellion (and a still fumbling user of Wikipedia), I can add much info regarding the organizers of the rebellion, as well as other matters, and can do so concisely; I also have concerns about factual errors on this otherwise admirably clear and accurate page, and about some seemingly subtle (and clearly unintentional) failures of NPOV. But I need guidance. My book's POV is not meant to be N -- nonetheless, certain misstatements here, seemingly slight, have interested implications. Quick example: the tax was *not* intended by Hamilton to "pay down" the debt but to build and fund it, a key distinction for both Hamilton and the rebels, at the very heart of founding finance policy and of what the rebels objected to. There are a number of other issues like that. I did try editing the page a while ago and bailed, realizing I was simply not yet Wikipedia-savvy enough to do so effectively, and that my having a new book to promote muddies the waters. I'm perfectly certain, of course, that my book belongs in the refs, but I'm now keenly aware that my certainty is not all that would be required. So: Would it be helpful if I added to the talk page a few specific comments on factual issues? Any thoughts on this would be welcome -- I'm passionate about the topic's startling central importance to U.S. founding history and know that this page has an important place in clarifying that importance for general readers. -- William Hogeland Whogeland 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I also am a new user of Wikipedia and was considering getting my feet wet by editing this article based on a very recent reading of your book. It looks like I should go elsewhere since I imagine you can do a more expert job on analyzing your own book. The points that I found particularly interesting were (in no particular order)your treatment of this as part of a potentially larger secession movement in the west, the relationship of the movement to the revised Pennsylvania Constitution, the benefits to "Big Whiskey" as a result of the tax, the value and necessity of using whiskey as a unit of exchange, and the overall link of the tax to the plight of war veterans and the onging conflict between debtors and creditors. Tom 16:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I think we new users may need guidance in making edits based on info (and analysis) in a new source, especially when the source itself (me) might want to edit the page. (It might actually be more appropriate for you to edit the page than for me to do it.) Mainly I just want to make the thing more NPOV, not engage all the issues in my book; also I don't want anyone to see me as an overly interested vandalizer and take down what I do. The discussion page should be about the page under discussion, not about my book -- so my instinct is to wait and see whether somebody who started or is helping maintain this page wants to weigh in on. But I very much appreciate your pithy description of the main issues in my work! -- William Hogeland Whogeland

I've been on a few months, and I'm a bit addicted. Since March 5, I've logged about 13,000 edits. If you have any questions, please ask me. I've started WikiProject Pittsburgh so that editors with similar interests can get together to work on articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible ad

The suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion also had the unintended consequences of encouraging small whiskey producers and other settlers to relocate to the then-frontier lands of Kentucky and Tennessee, which were outside the sphere of Federal control for many years. In these frontier areas, they also found good corn-growing country and smooth, limestone-filtered water to make their whiskey. this sounds like an ad for bourbon. ReverendG 05:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like the facts and an interesting sidelight to me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Note A Different Perspective:

The Whiskey Rebellion can be considered a gesture of incompetence and inability on the part of the government, as many of the people who were responsible for the insurrection "disappeared" when the army of 15,000 appeared. The disappearance made it harder to [prosecute]] these "criminals" and eventually Washington's army gave up. Also, many votes were lost during this period to the Republicans, as in their quest for justice, the Federalist commanders alienated many supporters, who were later converted to the Republican cause. Russophile2 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Info

I'm finding some inaccurate information in the article. For example, the rebellion was not ONLY in Pennsylvania. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard1.html Here is an account of the Rebellion by the semi-famous economist, historian, philosopher, and author Murry N. Rothbard. He cites two fairly credible sources, Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Steven R. Boyd, ed., The Whiskey Rebellion (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985)

Also, I don't think BWG was president in the 1700s (first chapter error) !

Merger proposed (Tom the Tinker)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was to merge Tom the Tinker into Whiskey Rebellion. --B. Wolterding 08:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Tom the Tinker into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. Since the article on Tom the Tinker is completely unsourced, it might also be that parts of it need to be dropped in the merger since they are not verifiable. Please add your comments below.

Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. He's notable in the sense that he was the leader of a notable Whiskey Rebellion, but obviously from the article there is little relevant to say about him beyond his involvement in the Rebellion and thus warrants being merged with it. Xihr 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whiskey, or Whisky

I believe that the official spelling of American Whisky is without the e.(Lucas(CA) 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

I've found whiskey is more common than whisky. m-w.com lists the former as the priamry spelling, and the latter as a variant. I haven't done a survey of other dictionaries, but you'll probably find the weigh more toward the former than the latter. Xihr 05:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whisky is still the official spelling in the US (although the e is accpetable), The e is for the Irish spelling. Considering, that the Irish weren't as common in america back then, and that Scotsmen, and Ulster Scots were much more common, and were the predominant group on the Frotier, I would say that the most applicable spelling would be without the e (Lucas(CA) 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

There is no official spelling of any word in the US, or in any English speaking country. The English language has no official governing body in contrast to French and Spanish, for example. Moreover, the US doesn't have an official language. Potahto (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in comparison?

"The militia force of 12,950 men was organized, roughly the size of the entire army in the Revolutionary War." WIKI's own page on the American Revolutionary War states, "About 250,000 men served as regulars or as militiamen for the Revolutionary cause in the eight years of the war, but there were never more than 90,000 total men under arms at one time." These numbers are substantially higher than 12,950. (TruthBastion (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)) hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.204.73 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone has messed up while trying to paraphrase a common factoid about the Whiskey Rebellion. Scholars of the Rebellion sometimes mention that the federalized militia force used to suppress the Rebellion was larger than the army that Washington usually had with him during the Revolution. Who ever wrote the line in our article did not understand the details: Washington did not have the "entire army" with him during the Revolution, just the core of the Continental Army known as the Main Army. Thanks for pointing out the error. I'll fix the article. —Kevin Myers 22:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

War bonds an issue?

Was not the cheap purchasing of war bonds by the politically-connected a great issue here? Were not many farmers holding war bonds conned into selling them far less than their value because they were deemed worthless, only to have the government purchase them back at interest all to the delight of "Hamiltonian" speculators who then made a mint and brought on the Whiskey Tax to pay for it? I'm not an historian, but there is something here missing from this tale, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.11.211 (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this comment describes Shays Rebellion, not the Whiskey Rebellion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1patrickhenry1 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, 68.226.11.211 is correct that the origin of the whiskey tax was the desire of certain individuals to have Congress pass taxes that would be directly imposed throughout the states and earmarked for the funding the war bonds that were at the time in arrears, and which some investors had picked up for as little as 10 cents on the dollar. See, for example, Hogeland, William (3 July 2006) "Why the Whiskey Rebellion Is Worth Recalling Now" History News Network George Mason University. --Bejnar (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography and Further reading

Why are there two sections in the article: Bibliography and Further reading? What is the distinction? Should they be merged? --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Further. "Further reading" is a list of sources that should or could be consulted, but are not cited in the article. —Kevin Myers 02:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Bibliography and Further reading

Why are there two sections in the article: Bibliography and Further reading? What is the distinction? Should they be merged? --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Further. "Further reading" is a list of sources that should or could be consulted, but are not cited in the article. —Kevin Myers 02:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the distinction at WP:Further did not apply here, until Kevin Myers cleaned it up. I am glad that Kevin Myers renamed the first section "Works cited" instead of "Bibliography". Nonetheless, the distinction still may be a grey one as some of the conclusions in the lead appear to derive from articles in Boyd (1985), although without citation. The article is much better for Kevin Myers' work. --Bejnar (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your initial question made me realize that there was some cleanup to do there, and that "Works cited" is less ambiguous than "Bibliography". I haven't yet read Boyd's book; if there's anything in this article from that source, it probably comes indirectly from the subsequent books by Slaughter and Hogeland, which draw on Boyd. (Slaughter of course has an article in Boyd's book.) —Kevin Myers 02:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Morison quote

In early editions of his Growth of the American Republic, the historian Samuel Eliot Morison maintained that "Hamilton wished to enforce [the whiskey excise] more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue." This is still a somewhat popular quote because it's so provocative. Sometimes it's even misattributed to Hamilton himself. But Morison frequently revised his work in consultation with other scholars, and by the 5th edition of the book in 1969, he had dropped the phrase while keeping all of the surrounding text (see 5th edition, 1:309-10). Which is good, since the claim does not seem to be accurate. I've therefore removed the quote from this article, just as Morison removed it from his work, as an outdated overstatement. —Kevin Myers 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton's and Rawle's Maniplation of the Court Process

To me, this article represents a radical improvement over the earlier one on the topic and is fair enough all the way, an impressive achievement in itself. When it comes to the controversy over the serving of the writs, however, I object to the description "William Hogeland portays ..." In my notes to The Whiskey Rebellion, I think I make a cogent argument regarding the overwhelming likelihood that Hamilton interfered in court process in order to spark a reaction to process serving. The argument may not convince everyone, but it is more than a portrayal. William Hogeland (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Hogeland argues" revision to the page.William Hogeland (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Reported cases

This following cases are among the reported court decisions concerning the prosecutions of the Whiskey Rebellion members:

• United States v. Vigol, 28 F. Cas. 376 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)
• United States v. Insurgents of Pennsylvania, 26 F. Cas. 499 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)
• United States v. Mitchell, 26 F. Cas. 1277 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)
• United States v. Stewart, 27 F. Cas. 1338 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)

Savidan 17:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A Note on Washington's Review of the Militia

Hey everyone, I was thinking of modifying the paragraph under Militia Expedition to add notes from a commanding soldier, Jonathan Forman. I would like to change it to:

In October, Washington traveled west to review the progress of the military expedition. According to historian Joseph Ellis, this would be "the first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field".<ref>Ellis, ''His Excellency, George Washington'', 225.</ref> Jonathan Forman, who led the Third Infantry Regiment of New Jersey troops against the Whiskey Rebellion,<ref>{{cite web|last=Manella|first=Angela|title=Jonathan Forman Papers Finding Aid|url=http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=ascead;cc=ascead;q1=jonathan%20forman;rgn=main;view=text;didno=US-PPiU-dar198201|publisher=Archive Service Center, University of Pittsburgh|accessdate=4 April 2013}}</ref> wrote about his encounter with Washington: "October 3d Marched early in the morning for Harrisburgh, where we arrived about 12 O'clock. About 1 O'Clock recd. information of the Presidents approach on which, I had the regiment paraded, timely for his reception, & considerably to my satisfaction. Being afterwards invited to his quarters he made enquiry into the circumstances of the man [an incident between a militia man and an old soldier mentioned earlier in the journal] & seemed satisfied with the information."<ref>{{cite web|last=Forman|first=Jonathan|title=Journal of Jonathan Forman, September 21, 1794 - October 25, 1794|url=http://digital.library.pitt.edu/u/ulsmanuscripts/pdf/31735051656100.pdf|accessdate=4 April 2013}}</ref> Washington met with the western representatives in Bedford, Pennsylvania, on October 9 before going to Fort Cumberland in Maryland to review the southern wing of the army.<ref>Slaughter, 215–16.</ref> Convinced the federalized militia would meet little resistance, he placed the army under the command of the governor of Virginia, Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee, a hero of the Revolutionary War. Washington returned to Philadelphia; Hamilton remained with the army as civilian adviser.<ref>Slaughter, 216.</ref>

Though I'm not sure if this encounter is noteworthy enough. Thoughts? Unearthly Stew (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no objections for a week, I'm going to make the change. Unearthly Stew (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Completely un-noteworthy for an encyclopedia article. What important information do you think this routine encounter between Washington and an obscure junior officer conveys to a reader seeking an overview of the Whiskey Rebellion? —Kevin Myers 02:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think having examples of how Washington interacted with the military makes it important enough, especially since it was the "first and only time a president led troops in the field." I think aggregating these types of encounters could lead to greater insight into Washington's role in the overall rebellion. Unearthly Stew (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Unearthly Stew -- it's a highly revealing episode about how important the rebellion was --it's a leadership event like none other in US history. Rjensen (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Philip Vigol/Wigal/Wigle?

The last paragraph of the Militia expedition says this man was arrested. It says his name was Philip Vigol at the time, but was later changed to Wigal. In the legacy section, a distillery named Wigle Whiskey is listed as being named after the man. Anyone have any historical knowledge of the man? A quick google search shows that all three versions are commonly used. The Wigle Whiskey website says it was named after a "Phillip Wigle", but as far as I can tell, the first name only has one "l", so not sure how definitive they are. I didn't change any of the spellings in the article, I just left as is, because I couldn't figure out which spelling(s) are accurate. Maybe some one else knows, or knows where to find out. Brinkley32 (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• I wrote Wigle Whiskey, and struggled with that. For what it's worth, List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States#George Washington lists him as "Philip Vigol (or Wigle)." I've seen a number of different spellings, which is not surprising for that time. I've attempted to clarify by adding a "nb" section Whiskey Rebellion#Notes--GrapedApe (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I've added a neutrality tag to the "Western Grievances" section. I have an issue with three sentences in particular, at the end of the second paragraph: "Furthermore, why should they pay other people's debts? Some states had repaid their war debt. The Federalists were buying support from indebted states with their policy of assumption."

I assume these are arguments made by the protestors, but the wording seems to present the arguments as absolute fact. I'd be perfectly amenable to some slight tweaks, if indeed these sentences do summarize the protestors' arguments. Unfortunately, there is no citation, so I can't tell if we're dealing with a simple case of awkward wording, or if someone has added their personal feelings on the matter. Differing interpretations of the Whiskey Rebellion have some relevance to modern political debate, so I think we should be extra-careful in citing what could be a contentious article. Dpenn89 (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, some states, like Pa. didn't put such a great effort into the Revolution either; preferring to sell their foodstuff to the British army and let Washington's men starve at Valley Forge. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as author of The Whiskey Rebellion--which does have a non-neutral pov!--I entirely agree that the section beginning "Furthermore, why should they pay ..." is confused and baseless, at least as ascribed to the people who became rebels. Whogeland (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Section Four of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States of America

There is no reference in the original article to the actual words of the Constitution of the United States. These words state that the United States government may send help against "domestic violence" "on application of the legislature" of the State concerned, or (if the State Legislature can not meet)on the application of the executive of the State concerned. Neither the State Legislature of Pennsylvania or the Governor of Pennsylvania had requested military aid from the United States government. Therefore the actions of President Washington were clearly unconstitutional - a violation of Section Four of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States.94.5.67.36 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly unconstitutional"??; the rebels where breaking federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Grover Cleveland's military intervention in the Pullman Strike of 1894, although neither the Illinois legislature, nor governor Altgeld requested any help. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this article should take a position on constitutionality--probably not--I agree that the constitutional issues deserve a more fully developed discussion. The President did have the power, as specifically contemplated by the recently passed Militia Act, to raise states' militias to suppress insurrection. He was supposed to have the authorization of Congress, but if Congress was not in session, as was the case in the summer of 1794, he could act on his own, as Washington indeed did. (In my book I argue that Hamilton's timing on serving the writs, etc., was part of an effort to ensure that Congress would not be in session when insurrection broke out--but I wouldn't expect this article to get into that.) It is NPOV, however, to note that what Washington did not have was a legal suspension of habeas corpus, something he could have gotten, given the condition of insurrection, per the Constitution. Nevertheless, Washington didn't ask Congress to suspend habeas (as Lincoln would, years later), so the mass arrests, indefinite detentions without charge, etc., certainly do not seem to have any legal basis. Whogeland (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Western Grievances

The article states that the primary financial grievance was between the large distillers, who would have to pay 6 cents in tax, and smaller distillers, who would have to pay 9 cents. Per what, please? (Pint, fifth, quart, gallon, barrel.)

Also, to put that in perspective (since today that is a trifling amount), what did the average <pint, fifth, quart, gallon, barrel> cost? Was this an onerous tax? If the cost of a given quantity was 10 cents, then yes, since the tax would then effectively nearly double the cost of a small distiller's product. If the cost of a given quantity was a dollar, then no.

2600:1000:B10E:42B5:FEA:794:5B62:D4E0 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Frederick

Casualties

Is there really an edit war going on over the number of casualties in the WR? Prof. Mc (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why "Republicans"?

Does anyone know why the Democratic-Republicans are referred to as "Republicans"? It seems that referring to them by their proper name (Democratic-Republicans) would be both more accurate and less likely to suggest to others that this choice of words is ideologically motivated. Any thoughts before I edit this? Jmedlong (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Members of the party always call themselves Republicans. For example, Jefferson in his famous inaugural address in 1801 said we are all Republicans. In the late 19th century, however, political scientists started calling the party the Democratic-Republican Party, clearly distinguishing it from the Republican party that emerged in 1854. Today (2010) historians normally call the party the Republican Party, and its adherents Republicans. see the talk page at Democratic-Republican Party Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and it's ridiculous that this reads as it does. In plain language, "Republican Party" refers to the contemporary GOP, whereas "Democratic-Republican Party" refers to the party of Jefferson. I understand that Jefferson et al may have referred to it as the "Republican Party," but Wikipedia is a medium where clear communication of factual information as relevant to the reader is more important than pedantic nonsense. Only people with no respect for NPOV would insist upon this article conflating the D-RP with today's RP. Changing.73.128.137.158 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Jefferson and Madison founded a party they called the Republican Party. The modern GOP adopted the name in 1854 in honor of Jefferson. If you are mixing up Reagan with Madison you should not be reading this fairly advanced article. The text is clear enough: "The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party, which opposed Hamilton's Federalist Party, came to power in 1801." Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm shocked that your pedantry has gone so long without correction. The party is called the Democratic-Republican Party. You can even look at the party's article. Your PhD doesn't make you right; it just makes you embarrassed.

[josh] Please forgive: I'm an utter noob on Wikipedia and I may not even be putting this comment in the proper place. Perhaps incorporating the word "republic" would take the political edge off of things. Jefferson saying "we are all Republicans" has a different meaning to the common person today. While we cannot misquote him, what he meant in modern context is "we are all people who support a republic". Again thanks for your patience with a noob. 206.165.221.10 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Josh

No. he and everyone called his party the "Republican party" (the term Dem-Rep was rare). Today's GOP deliberately picked the same name in 1854 because it wanted to stress its Jeffersonian principles. Rjensen (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture

Might I suggest this addition:

The rebellion is foreshadowed in Lin-Manuel Miranda's Hamilton: An American Musical, when Thomas Jefferson tells Alexander Hamilton in a cabinet meeting, "Look, when Britain taxed our tea, we got frisky / Imagine what gon’ happen when you try to tax our whisky."

Aaronwe77 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Once we get started with WP:TRIVIA sections for an article on something this significant, they can grow too huge to be useful. So, no. Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

Alexander Hamilton was a Rothschild agent. His assignment was to re-enslave America to the European money syndicate through debt, as the European monarchies had been enslaved. The tax on whiskey paid the cut the syndicate took as "interest" on money it counterfeited and "lent" to the US govt. Tell the truth. 65.78.23.26 (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

So pathetically slanted! Do you know nothing? Hamilton led the 12,000 troops to VIOLENTLY crush the Vets' uprising. Here's what a peach of a fellow agent Hamilton was: In 1795, banker tool Alexander Hamilton resigns in disgrace when it is discovered that he is sleeping with another man’s wife (Maria Reynolds Affair). . On July 11, 1804, Hamilton is killed in a duel with Thomas Jefferson’s Vice President, Aaron Burr, a political rival whom the arrogant Hamilton had insulted and defamed. 65.78.23.26 (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

New Distillery has nothing to do with the Rebellion

I suggest deleting "In 2012, Wigle Whiskey, the first distillery in Pittsburgh since Prohibition, was founded.[117] It was named after Philip Wigle.[117]" While cited, it doesn't seem to be of even trivial interest to someone interested in the Whiskey Rebellion. Swiss Frank (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 23:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A note to the nominator & any interested editors - This article is MASSIVE. It will take me quite a bit of time to go through everything. Patience, I'll go as fast as I can and still do the job right. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Thanks especially to User:Czar for their redrafting of the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   There are some issues with the references.

   Ref 57: History News Network/Why the Whiskey Rebellion Is Worth Recalling Now/William Hogeland - the URL has changed and needs to be adjusted to the most recent version

   Works Frequently Cited: "The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794: A Democratic Working-Class Insurrection" ->this specific URL needs to be updated to most recent URL and the UGA URL needs to be updated as well.

   Ref #117 - WPXI/Whiskey Rebellion Festival URL needs to be updated.

   Ref #80 seemed to time-out and, anyway, is malformed for purposes of a reference - The www.phmc.state.pa.us URL only points to the general PA Historical marker search page and, as such, is somewhat useless for purposes of verifiability (even though it does give the GPS coordinates of the marker of ?NG: -79.92258, LAT: 40.20015). A better linkage would be to the ExlorePA.Com, which has a direct link to the Whiskey Point marker text along with more explanatory content. ExplorePA.Com qualifies as a reliable source, please refer to their Site History page. Shearonink (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

   The above issues seem to have been mostly fixed-up (thanks to JerrySa1). My point is that it serves the reader well, who wants to verify information stated within a WP article, if the URLs are as up-to-date as possible at the time of the Review. Yes, the URLs do resolve and take the reader to the proper information - but if they are changed internally yet again, the chances that they won't resolve is increased.

   When I ran the Checklinks tool, these are the two remaining problematic results:

   • http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/washington-co-festival-marks-whiskey-rebellion/nDXyD/ isn't completely correct. It resolves to http://www.wpxi.com/news/washington-co-festival-marks-whiskey-rebellion/201550336 and should be updated.
   • http://www.uga.edu/colonialseminar/ is what is in the WP article, it should be rendered as: http://colonialseminar.uga.edu/ .

   Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

   ✓ done czar 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

   All the 'On hold' referencing issues - 2A/2B/2C - will be converted to 'yes' as soon as the 5 verification needed/citation needed templates are dealt with. Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I am able to put some time into this an able to acssss the scientific resources based upon my usual editing activities on scientific articles. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I ran the copyvio tool and am unable to find any plagiarism/copyrights problems.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I need to do some further digging on this particular issue. Presently, I am not sure that all viewpoints are fairly represented. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   I would be more comfortable if there were a separate section dealing with the different attitudes towards the Rebellion. Good, bad, and so on. Past and present scholars, people of that era's opinions on the Rebellion are mentioned within the individual sections but I think a separate section delineating the various specific controversies would serve the article well. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

    Working Done (see below). Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

   Other perspectives of the rebellion are described in the 'Aftermath' section that now appears near the bottom of the article. In this section the reader can get an idea of how the 'easteners' at the time viewed the rebellion. I have included the perspective of a notable, visiting Frenchman on the consequences of the rebellion. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I disagree with the inclusion of File:USA Pennsylvania location map.svg. The dot on the Pennsylvania map showing where Whiskey Point is/was doesn't really convey any particular meaning. Yes, we can tell from the image that this was somewhere in the entire state of Pennsylvania,but the dot is so big on that map... I think a more close-up map of the area, showing where Whiskey Point was/is would make more sense visually. I take it that these infoboxes are used to show Historical markers or locations of places on articles about history and that's a good thing - readers need to know where history took place, but I disagree with the scale. If the image showed where Pittsburgh is and where Monongahela is in relation to Pgh, then that might make more sense to me. Shearonink (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

   There are many images that could be substituted for the ones you don't believe to be appropriate, that won't be a problem. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

   ✓ done. I removed the map. The template's map options are Pennsylvania or Pittsburgh, and we would need something in-between. czar 04:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Many thanks to User:Czar and to User:Barbara (WVS) for all their hard work adjusting the text and correcting various issues that were found in the course of this Review. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

General comments

I am going to put some individual issues in this section. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Counties

Allegheny, Fayette, Westmoreland and Washington counties are mentioned as being important but only one incident - the meeting at Old Redstone Fort - is mentioned as happening in Fayette. What about the other Liberty Poles, like the one at Fayette County's Fort Gaddis? Also, only 2 incidents are mentioned as happening in Washington, none in Westmoreland. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I will need to go over that part of the article more thoroughly. "Incidents" might be the wrong word since much of the activity related to the Whiskey Rebellion happened in small, local organizing efforts (I guess secret meetings) in churches and homes. Aggressive resistance was not as common. Lots of editorials and correspondence related to the non-agressive, non-physical confrontations abounded since these were the only means of communication. Not that this will make a difference, but in the past I have made a special effort to visit the historical sites in our area related to the W.Rebellion and in every instance the site visited was also a site where meetings took place to organize the rebellion. I will have to dig up those references. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Working

Comment. Subsequent edits have taken care of this issue insofar as a GA Review is concerned. I think that this could be an area for future improvement towards a possible WP:FA. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Grains"

The fact that whiskey could be made from rye should be specifically mentioned - it wasn't just corn. Rye was a huge crop on the frontier. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A most excellent point - and it really DOES matter. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Working Done (see below). Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinks and a better description of the grains are now contained in the lead. Apparently whiskey is defined as a beverage of 160 or less proof and being aged in burnt oak barrels. Unfortunately, this is a contemporary definition and I am still searching for documentation from the late 1700s on the constituents of whiskey. Readers would probably find the contemporary definition valuable and I suspect that whatever grains happened to be on hand at the time were turned into mash and fermented for whiskey. Another barrier to finding the specific recipes for whiskey mash at the time are the probable assumptions that 'everyone just knows' and so why would it be documented? So I am still looking... Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Forman

The quote is long enough that it should be set aside in a quote box or something similar. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done

References

I am troubled that the form of the various references do not seem to be in agreement with each other. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is still an issue. There are "cite books", "cite webs", a "cite news" and also parenthetical referencing for Hogeland, Slaughter, Howlett, Chernow, and Elkins & McKitrick's books. The date parameters are not in agreement between the various cite forms. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

By date parameters I mean that the formats of the dates are different, some are in dd-Month-yyyy and some are in Month-dd-yyyy. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency in the referencing style is not necessary for an article to be considered a GA. But glaring inconsistencies can certainly be fixed. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ date formatting resolved. I would prefer to see the refs reformatted with the standard template, but I imagine it is a low priority. czar 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rev War veterans/Western grievances

Wasn't another of the vets grievances was that they hadn't been paid what they had been promised? Also, one paragraph in this section (The main objection to the whiskey tax...) is unsourced. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Will review per your comment. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Working Done. (See below). Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The rewriting of the lead section has taken care of some of this issue. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A description of subsequent 'grievances' is somewhat described in the 'Aftermath' section. Though our job is not to speculate, the pardoning of the 'rebels' is notable and is an example of conciliation on the part of Washington, who did not take Hamilton's advice of making examples of those challenging the powers of the federal government. What I am suggesting is this (I have found no references to support this): the grievances of the vets were partially met by the amnesty granted by Washington. Or perhaps another way of putting it is: "Hey, you might not be happy with your veteran's benefits, but at least you weren't hanged." Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Pittsburgh

I think the scale of the cities of western Pennsylvania is important to mention. After all, the population of Pittsburgh during 1791-94 wasn't a city of thousands...it only had about 400 people in it in 1791. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The article could be better mentioning the population by counties, rather than cities because the participants in the W.Rebellion were growers, not city dwellers. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Working Done (see below) Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

(addressed in the following section) Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Population

I know that sources have apparently repeated the assertion that 7000 people gathered at Braddock's Field ("On 1 August, about 7,000 people gathered at Braddock's Field...") but I think this has to be in error - there were only about 400 people in Pittsburgh at the time...where did all these supposed people come from? Is the figure taken from Clymer's "somewhat exaggerated report greatly influenced the decisions made by the Washington administration"? Also, it seems to me that there is just no physical way for 7,000 people to fit into Braddock's Field.
According to the US Census in 1790 the greater Philadelphia-area had a population of about 43,000 and the overall population of the state was around 430,000, with most of those (obviously, yeah, that's not very exact) being in the eastern half of the state, near the more-settled coast as in Philadelphia. The figure should be described and sourced as "according to [whomever]" I am thinking the source of the figure would have been Clymer (or maybe someone else on the side of the Easterners/Federalists?) and would like a definitive description of where the figure originated. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean, think about it...where did all these asserted people come from? Where did they stay? How in the world did they travel to Braddock's Field? Even if this is accepted as part of the mythology of history, that doesn't mean it is a verifiable fact. Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This content will have to be verified, most certainly. But the total area of the city of Pittsburgh at that time was quite small, a fraction of today's area. I know this because of my own referencing work on a nearby city - Lawrenceville. The '400' is probably a typo, since I have a reference that states that the population of the city of Pittsburg (sic) at that time was 4000. The major route of travel at that time was a path (now Route 41), also called the National Highway which was quite a direct route from Pittsburg to Braddock's field. IF the content is verifiable at 4000 people being there, it will be true because I seriously doubt many city dwellers would have been there anyway - they weren't the ones losing their shirts over the taxation. It would have been the rye growers who populated Western PA, Northern WV and Eastern OH at that time. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I am very familiar with the "National Pike"/Old Route 40. As to the population of Pittsburgh, I'll work on digging up references that mention what the population was - whatever it might have been (I've seen figures less than 1000 but who knows where that comes from as well). And then there's always the 1790 Census...if I could just figure out how to get at the population of a city. The Braddock's Field/7000 number just strikes me as something that I see repeated in sources but no one says where it came from and I am curious about its provenance...my money's on Clymer's "somewhat sensational" report. "7000" sounds a lot more threatening than, say, 2000...if that figure of 7000 insurgents were reported to the national government, it would make sense to get out a 12,000+ military force. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

{{working}}

Comment. The population figures have been dealt with in enough detail for a GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: @Czar: Re: The number of men who were at the Braddock's Field militia gathering (and also Pittsburgh's population at the time...Baldwin's "Whiskey Rebels"/Page 30 states that Pittsburgh's population "was around 1000". A Penn State Journal article: https://journals.psu.edu/wph/article/download/1192/1040 (quoting the census) states that the Census gives the population of "Pittsburgh town" in 1790 was around 376. I took a look at the 1800 Census - that gives the Pitt Town population as being somewhere around 1400. http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/allegheny/census/1800/pg020.txt.) All that being said, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789-1878 By Robert W. Coakley/Page 35 https://books.google.com/books?id=SMmJsJLKmvoC&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false says that the estimates were from 7000 to 15000 & The Whiskey Rebellion: A Resource Manual/Jerry Allan Clouse/Page 25 says that about 7000 men gathered at Braddock's Field and that was about half the population of the males in the region (not just Pittsburgh/Pitt Town(. I still wish the first source for the figure of 7000 militia members could be teased out from the references available to us but that is only my curiosity and beyond the scope or a GA Review. Carry on. Shearonink (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: pinging people after the fact doesn't work; lemme do it for you: @Czar:. Graham87 03:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if that ping was somehow out of order in the order of WP-things, it's just that I realized - as I worked through finding refs and their population figures and putting all that on the page - that what I was asking for 1) was unreasonable in terms of the GA criteria and 2)the figure of 7000 militia at Braddock's Field is indeed possible. I just wanted someone to know I was claiming my wrongness. That's all. Shearonink (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you can get the ping to send when added to a message—just need to resign the same post and add a new line czar 04:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• We write that the 7000 at B Field "proved to be the largest gathering of protesters" but the closest Slaughter gets is, "Never again would the rebellion meet such a fevered pitch; no more crowds of this size and temper assembled to combat their cosmopolitan foes" (p. 188). This would seem to me that it was a peak but not necessary "the largest"... Thoughts? czar 04:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of perhaps stating it as [source] says this number and [source] says that number. Also, I remember other sources characterizing the massed militia at Braddock's Field as being some sort of high-water mark of the westerners' organized resistance to the whiskey tax.... whatever seems best, I think the goal here in terms of the GA criteria is to have sourced preciseness (as much as possible). Shearonink (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll just remove the superlative and we'll be okay. By the way, I verified both sources and they confirm the 7,000 count. Hogeland has a bit more on their origins (our paragraph mostly cites Slaughter) so I can add some of that. czar 22:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hogeland and Slaughter have different accounts here, so I'm resisting the urge to rewrite the section... The former, which is written as a popular history, talks about Bradford as a figure, coming out of nowhere and having immediate regret, calling for the Braddock gathering rather than for the meeting at Parkinson's, as Slaughter writes, with the "n" in Parkinson. In any event, I could add something about how the Bradford rallied the militias, which led to the large numbers despite his countermand, but in that case, there's a whole lot of other detail that I could add too. Let me know if you insist on adding more here or else I'll just mark it  Done czar 05:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Just mark it done - after all, this is a GA Review not a FA Review. Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The content and reference is now contained in the article. Even I was surprised to read that (up to) 17,000 were settled in the region in the 1790s. It is not probable that any Pittsburghers participated unless there were some city merchants who benefited from trading. Even now, you won't find a lot of Pittsburghers attending the numerous local re-enactments of the rebellion...or the Washington, Westmoreland, Wayne or other county fairs in the region. Seems as if the city folks may not have been supportive of the rebellion although at this time, I am speculating. The routes traveled by those participating in the Whiskey rebellion can't be assumed to be the shortest route between the sites of the skirmishes and Pittsburgh. Those traveling to and from the confrontations would travel to each site from all directions - and not from Pittsburgh. A roadmap of the region will demonstrate that each little town, farm and hamlet were and are connected to each other. You can even see this on a quick look on google maps. There at least three ways you can take from point a to point b. If there were a skirmish in Washington County, those who lived within a few days travel would go there. No inns or accommodations were necessary. There was water everywhere. Unfortunately I am slipping into original research here, though I am only trying to establish some context. I am only going to stick to the content and source on a webpage of Western PA history. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this section of the review is resolved but to address the question of the townspeople's support, it's in the pages I mentioned from Slaughter/Hogeland. Going from memory, the rebellion hit a fever pitch at Braddock's Field, and the townspeople/moderates went along less for ideological agreement than for preemptive appeasement to protect their property from the mob. czar 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Great point. If you talk to some of the folks (history buffs) around here, they still seem a little worked up. Or else why would they perform in reinactments? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Image choices

I am puzzled as to why an image of Gallatin - perhaps the amazing 1840s photograph below - isn't in the article (he's mentioned 7 times) when a painting of Henry Lee (mentioned three times) is. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That is certainly an easy fix. Will do. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done

@Catlemur: Much thanks. I had to adjust the caption because Gallatin was not actually one of the tax resisters. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought it would be useful to depict how whiskey is made, for optional context in the early sections. I have this video (File:Making malt whisky- from barley to bottle.webm) but not sure whether it's a great fit. I'm pursuing one more from Mount Vernon, which would fit better for the period. czar 04:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Legacy section

This sentence: "Federalists attempted to restrict speech critical of the government with the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 but, after the Whiskey Rebellion, they no longer challenged the freedom of assembly and the right to petition, according to Boyd." could be more-carefully worded. The implied timeline is a little bit out of whack - I know what it is saying..that even though the Federalists came up with the Alien & Sedition Acts in 1798 (because, after all, they were kind of control-freaks), because of the lessons-learned by the central/Federal Government, those Acts didn't impinge on the right of freedom of assembly or the right to petition. If a casual reader, who didn't know much about the subject were reading that sentence, they might think the Alien & Sedition Acts were somehow passed during the Rebellion. Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

{{working}}  Done Rephrased czar 20:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment

If you fix something up in response to any of my Review points, please ping me, maybe leave a note in the appropriate section so I know you've done some work on the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/GA1 Looking for some help... about whether or not this GA Nomination should be withdrawn. Shearonink (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Due to time restraints, I won't be able to participate in improving the article at this time. I am very optimistic in saying that though not a major contributor now, I will be able to improve this article to the point where it meets the standards for GA status. Fixing those problems pointed out to me seems quite 'do-able'. I've been doing some editing of Western PA history during the past 12 months or so and will be able to use those references that I've found to improve the article. I deeply appreciate the time you have put into this review. Your efforts have not been wasted and I will incorporate much of what you have highlighted into the article. I want to apologize for my lack of judgement in realizing that I did not correctly assess my time restraints at this time. I again want to thank you for your time - I do not take it for granted. You will be seeing my improvements during the next few months, but they will be slow in coming. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Hey. I volunteer to help finish the review to the best of my ability.--Catlemur (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This might take a while - the article has some issues that need to be worked through. Oh, when you fix something please sign the "Done" - that helps me keep track. And thanks for the ping - those are also very helpful for me to keep track that some editing/fixing has been done. Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm also willing to help. I'll read through in the next few days, or {{ping}} if I can be of immediate use czar 03:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation & verification needed templates

Much thanks to the editors who have added these maintenance templates. Just wanted to mention that the issues that they point out will need to be addressed before I can complete this GA Review (even if everything else is in tip-top shape). Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Czar, Catlemur, and Barbara (WVS): (and anyone else listening in...) This GA Review is On Hold until the 5 "verification needed/citation needed" referencing issues are addressed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That I cannot help with, as I do not possess the necessary sources.--Catlemur (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am taking these referencing issues on since they are the one of last hurdles for the GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• One down - The unsourced WC Fields/psychedelic rock record has now been sourced. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Last issues - Citation needed and Verification needed maintenance templates

Yesterday I posted on user czar's talk page about these citation needed/verification needed maintenance templates and referencing issues.

"I looked into that one unsourced paragraph under "Western grievances", that starts with "The main objection to the whiskey tax..." This paragraph was added in one edit and is out of step with the rest of the article. I think it should be deleted, the subject matter is covered in referenced content elsewhere in the article, but in my opinion doing so would constitute a major edit and, so I cannot remove the content. Let's discuss etc. ..."

Since I am participating in the most recent GA Cup I am being very careful about any editing I do to any of the reviewed articles. This particular paragraph probably just needs to be deleted - it is completely unsourced. If anyone objects to its removal I would say that matter would need to be discussed on the article's talk page.

There were two remaining templates. One was in the lead section. In my opinion the reference there is redundant since the material is sourced and appears elsewhere in the main body of the article. I have therefore removed that citation. So the above paragraph is the last thing left to be dealt with. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In my last readthrough I realized that the unsure paragraph had been removed - so that is Done. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boyd 1994

• Boyd, Steven R. "The Whiskey Rebellion, Popular Rights, and the Meaning of the First Amendment." In W. Thomas Mainwaring, ed. The Whiskey Rebellion and the Trans-Appalachian Frontier, 73–84. Washington, Pennsylvania: Washington and Jefferson College, 1994.

Does anyone have access to this Boyd citation? I'm looking to verify the refs but the text isn't readily available. czar 14:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have emailed the editor, W. Thomas Mainwaring to ask him about the text, I'll let you know how it goes.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I received a copy through WP:RX & can share (just let me know) @Barbara (WVS) czar 03:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I would love to see it. The editor never got back to me.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Referencing issue?...

What bothers me are the constant references to Slaughter with no mention of what book is being referred to. We only have a last name and page numbers. These would be fine if the first reference was properly cited, but it is not.--MrYams (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

MrYams: Slaughter & his work are appropriately identified within the Bibliography section as Slaughter, Thomas P. The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1986. Wikipedia articles use a variety of referencing styles, which can be found at Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples, etc. Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whiskey Rebellion. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402135616/http://www.whiskeyrebellionfestival.com/about.html to http://www.whiskeyrebellionfestival.com/about.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for western farmers resistance to whiskey tax.

People must remember most of the farmers in the western regions at this time were poor farmers. Many had fled to the mountain regions of the west to escape the debtors systems in place prior to Shays rebellion. Many were former endentured servants or their children and grand children that knew they would never be given a fair beginning in the eastern regions already being controlled by the new American aristocracy. Whiskey /distilled spirits was one of the only ways for them to get their crops to the eastern markets as roads, rail and canals did not exist yet. So the taxing of distilled spirits was seen as an extra tax put upon the POOR farmers of the western regions. Instead of taxing trade of established wealthy businesses in the Eastern ports this huge tax to support the federal government was thrown onto the backs of poor farmers already trying to hack a living out of the western frontiers. Spgillan (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent point. Feel free to add such content (with references) to the article. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 17:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is biased in that it doesn't give the rebels' side of the story. As I recall:

• The tax was imposed on whiskey in order to put the tax burden on the poor and on Appalachia in particular, because they had little or no representation in Congress.
• The purpose of the tax was to pay officers of the Continental Army their full back pay; none of it was to go to pay enlisted men their back pay.

So it was a tax on the poor, to pay the rich. Philgoetz (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wine and beer?

Re " American whiskey and fruit brandy encompassed almost a third of United States alcohol consumption by 1790 (the other two-thirds was rum)," Perhaps that would be true of spirits, but surely beer and wine existed in the USA at that time? ϢereSpielChequers 13:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Flag

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I noticed that in the infobox on the right of the article, it has a flag listed for the Whiskey Rebellion as belligrents. What is this flag, and why is it being used there? Google does not return any results for the flag.

Thank you, Heyoostorm (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

In the past that flag was attributed to Whiskey Rebellion adherents/belligerents but that is an unproven claim. It is more possible and more highly probable that the flag was Federalist in some fashion - a Federalist flag for some Western Pennsylvanian Federalists, a regimental flag for some portion of the Federal Army, or was created after the Rebellion for some unknown purpose. The symbolism and the materials used are all wrong for the belligerents plus no mentions of the claimed Rebellion flag have been found in sources contemporary to the Rebellion. See File:Whiskey Rebellion Flag.svg for research and further comments. Shearonink (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The main source I've found that refutes the flag's previously-asserted status is: “Whiskey flags: An intoxicating look into a sobering subject.”, written by Richard R. Gideon and published by the North American Vexillological Association in their newsletter - NAVA News, 2000 (Jul-Dec), vol. 33 no. 3-4. (NAVA News was the Association’s official newsletter from October 1967 to December 2017. It was combined with Flag Research Quarterly into Vexillum in 2018.) Links to the article can be found on the NAVA website here and at Old Saint Luke's website (a historic church associated with the Rebellion) here. Shearonink (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If the information on this page concludes that the flag is, in all likelihood not remotely connected to the actual whiskey rebellion, why does it continue to be a part of this page? Doesn't that just perpetuate the historical inaccuracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.249.187 (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

Add in how Alexander Hamilton called it a spontaneous riot. see (Slaughter, Thomas P. The Whiskey Rebellion : Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1988.) Mdoylepstcc (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It is unclear where you want this to be added. —Belwine (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Suggestion: add a reference to the actual law, currently missing:

Tariff of 1791, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 199 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14d:ba86:8d5b:6067:9ec0:17d9:ff1f (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. Graham87 08:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

James MacFarlane's death

He was killed in battle but he doesn't have the killed in action symbol besides his name  † , it should be added Hanfinho (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; done. Graham87 15:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Unlinked shortened footnotes

There are many shortened footnotes that fail to take advantage of the {{sfn}} template, & the full citations are not properly set up to link to shortened footnotes. I hope to spend some time fixing this by imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles as per WP:CITEVAR's Generally considered helpful section. Peaceray (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have resolved all unlinked shorten footnotes. I will continue working on the article to resolve other WP:CITEVAR issues. Peaceray (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggested edit to correct grammar under Western Grievances

I think that "Western farmers who owned small stills did not typically had neither enough time nor enough surplus grain operate them year-round at full capacity" should instead be "Western farmers who owned small stills did not typically have either enough time nor enough surplus grain to operate year-round at full capacity" but I can't edit it. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I made most of the grammatical fixes you suggested, except the removal of "them" (which you might not have intended). Graham87 06:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

Typo. 78.174.52.181 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Graham87 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)