Talk:Zealand, New Brunswick

I opened this talk page for Zealand, New Brunswick, in the hopes of establishing cooperation with the proper structuring of this article. Recent reverting has violated Wiki policy of “verifiability, not truth”.

The policy reads: “One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.”

To this end I suggest we rebuild the article citing sources with numbered footnotes, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing personal opinions. I look forward to working with everyone. Fiddlehead 12:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fiddlehead — The use of a flock of numbered footnotes is a bit disconcerting. One could also put the source right into the text, as I have done in the Inglewood, California article. There are many ways of sourcing an article. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

When performing cleanup on this article I noticed some SHOUTING. Shouting is anytime someone puts words in all caps in order to draw attention to their statement. Shouting should be avoided. Also, I noticed sentences such as, “This is also very well documented and fact.” Cited sources should be used in place of this sentence. As a courtesy to future editors please check your spelling. This article is riddled with spelling errors. Finally, in the spirit of working together, please read previous edit comments to see why your edit was modified and always leave edit comments of your own. Thanks. Fiddlehead 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice any shouting in the edit comments. Can you provide a link to what you are talking about? Was the shouting actually included within the body of the article? Just wondering. GeorgeLouis 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the shouting is in the body of the article. This is the link you requested. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zealand%2C_New_Brunswick&oldid=82129472 Fiddlehead 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You bet. What a mess that version was. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding forward however not the intention. I am almost shocked to read the comments above by Fiddlehead. As to speaking to the facts it is Fiddlehead that might want to consider his sources. We have cited well documented facts only to have them removed constantly in the hopes of creating more discussion. We have checked out thoroughly Fiddleheads sources only to find that they are not well interpreted. My hope is that he will check them out. There is not one single valid source for the claim that is made by him stating that Gould Crouse was responceable for nameing our community. The work of the Historical Society does not recognize poor interpretation as such is the case not only from the Crouse Book that he cites as a reference but other books as well.I am personally a fan of the Book however it is riddled with mistakes. The facts speak for themselves. That is not the Societies fault. I can understand fully the disappointment of learning a new truth and not having it line up with the previous thought. However. Is not that what we should all be looking for? If I did not know any better one would almost summise that Fiddlehead is the author. True or False? Just curious. I agree with cleaning the site up however getting the facts through to Fiddlehead seems to be the problem. You have my IP address. Drop me a line and we will be glad to provide you with additional information as well as discuss your views for the sake of this article. If you wish to write or rewrite the article that is OK with us. Just stick to the facts and not the suggested facts as before. There is overwelming proof that you have not seen yet. All of the societies works and holdings are destine for the NB Archives and Museum in the future. We took a look at the George Lewis Site in Inglewood. That is a very well put together site. We could do well to be simalar. I also must remind you that many Canadian words are spelled different from the American words. ex: Centre, Center, Favour, Favor etc etc. This is a Canadian Community remember. Rep. Zealand Historical Society. User:Zealand Historical Society

I have been sitting on the sidelines, but since User:Zealand Historical Society also wiped out my edit with his/her mass deletion, I thought I would give my two bits. Zealand Historical Society made a serious allegation that Fiddlehead was citing poor sources, so I decided to actually check out one of the sources that got deleted. I picked #10, "Fellows, Robert F. `Community Place Names in New Brunswick, Canada’, 1998, page 274". Here it is:

"Zealand […] named New Zealand by Gould Crouse whose father came from Zealand in the Netherlands".

I also noted something not mentioned in the citation and that was this publication was published by Associates of the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick. This citation couldn’t look more legit. Personally I think the prior [version] of the website looks more professional than Zealand Historical Society’s [version]. 24.22.248.242 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fiddlehead. Your source that you just quoted is a source that is quoting the Allan Rayburn Book. That as you know describes the founder as a Possibility. and even states that in the book. I have the actual book here if you wish I can post the exact quote here for you. Also read the source of the sentence. I am also familiar with that book. I visit the Archives frequently and have had many discussions with Archivists. They are at a loss for how much of their work gets missquoted and misshandled. Especially writers. That is not really there fault however it does leave for some awful mixups. Frankly I like very much the way that you are forming the article. In the beginning I was even so polite so as not to remove your work saveing a disscussion about your sources. Take a look back. This going back and forth is ridiculous as I am sure you will agree. I just ask that you quote sources of historical and not modern backrounds. Many people are trying to sell books these days and modern day books seem to have agendas. That does not mean that they are wrong. They just cite poor sources. I would suggest that you might want to delve into the question of the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Land Company a little more. Here is a great place to start. Professor Bruce Elliots site http://history.earthsci.carleton.ca/company/history/history.htm This site details with Maps and documents the history of the Company. The rest will be easy to put together. I must appologise for my frustration. My personal research along with many others have come up with some very interesting documents. I also suggest that you visit or contact the staff at the archives. They are most helpful in these matters. provideing you speak to a historian there. You also stated I notice that the term Hanson Settlement was a local phenom of sorts by a few locals. Please be advised accordingly that nothing could be further from the truth. Locally the area has been even today called by the name. That is not anybodys fault just a fact of the times. Even the church as such recognised the area as that by referring to it from its documentations. Lets work together and get this right. I can relate to your frustration on so many levels. I have no doubt that Gould Crouse was a fine man however it would be irresponcable to assign him such a title when in fact another was to thank. It would also not be very honouring to him either nor the Crouse's Family. I will be the first to jump on the band wagon no matter who our founder is assigned to. We just want to know as close to the truth as possible. We thouroughly check all sources for their sources. That is why we need original documentation not somebodys guess based on somebodyelses guess. I am sure that you can see what I mean. Zealand Historical Society. User:Zealand Historical Society

RE: the Question of shouting

Reminder: Some sources when quoteing from actual written documentation spell with CAPS. This is not shouting when the actual quote is being quoted from a book source that has it written as such. Example: ‘’ Quoteing from the section begining on Page 9, THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLACE NOMENCLATURE OF NEW BRUNSWICK By W F Ganong ‘’ To Page 10 that lists a nameing time frame period, numbers 1 thru 7 . Then to page 28 where we find Period number 7 named: 7. The present and future of the place nomenclayture of New Brunswick ‘’ It was designed for the reader to pay closer attention to the sentence of importance or the subject of the source quote. The internet chat rooms use the term more frequently SHOUTING, because one is in a two way conversation. by the way which is correct. Written articles in book form use caps for a different reason all together. Zealand Historical Society. User:Zealand Historical Society

UPDATE RE: Philip Crouse. It would be in the interest of this article to asertain with certianty and documented historical proof, Whether or not, within a proper degree of certianty, Philip Crouse, actually did come from the province of ZEELAND in the Netherlands. The Historical Society has been in touch with the Geonames-Toponymes Names board for Canada in Ottawa, Ontario Canada and Allan Rayburn the Author of the Book Geographical Names of New Brunswick, which has been quoted in this article. Neither body has presented any documentation on the validity of Gould Crouse being this communities namer. We are also awaiting upon some other responces accordingly from some other source claimants. At this point in time nobody seems to have any documented proof of that claim. If anyone can or could produce some documented evidence please feel free to do so here in this forum. It would be greatly appreciatted. We earnestly could then look much closer at the question of Gould Crouse with that information. Zealand Historical Society 11:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting this article.

Assuming that Fiddlehead no longer wishes to write this article. It is certianly past the allotted time allowed for him / her to make the necessary changes. If that is the case, We would like to post our intentions to do such, pending a final thought or answer from Fiddlehead. Our community deserves as much and we look forward to a clean and co operative collaboration with all. --Zealand Historical Society 13:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this article to Fiddlehead's last version. Your edits are still accessible through the page history; I encourage you to rewrite them in a more professional, encyclopedic tone. However, until then, I feel this version is more appropriate for visitors to read.
Please understand I am not trying to step on anyone's toes here.
- Penagate 12:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Penagate. The intention here in this article from the very beginning, was to present a factual based article with the KNOWN facts concerning this community based on historically recorded information. We also desire an article that tells others of our proud history. By taking a look back through the logs you will see that whenever a line was changed from Fiddleheads poorly interpeted information. It was his intention that nobody else could write or correct his fiction. We are certianly not faulting him for that, however a more civil way of handling that, could of taken place. What seems to be going on here obviously, is that this article is more about the Crouse family rather than the community. Most of our members are Crouse,s. We can say hear with 100% confidence that there is no supportable documentation found to date by either this historical society or any other body that can verify what as Fiddlehead so unknowingly stated, that Gould Crouse, his ansestor, was responcible for naming this community. Please understand here that it was in the beginning Fiddleheads intention to support the claim made in the Crouse Book. A thorough investigation has found in fact that the information was created to support a claim made in a book about the Crouse Family based on a book. After checking with personally the books author even he could not state where that information had come from. It appears that it was suggested to him as he can confirm. Nobody in our Society including our Crouse family members desire a false statement about our community to be left alone to become fact over time. Such a statement is ridiculous for any community as a whole to except and claim to others. You are not stepping on any toes here Pengate. We simply want you also to be aware of the facts concerning this issue. Removing the Gould Crouse claim for now, I would hope that you may agree, would be in order. We have contacted several Professionals to rewrite this article with the known facts integrated. The problem also exhists that some people try to change them based on their concepts. That becomes futile when all the evidence is there for them to see. Thankyou for what you have done in the article. It certianly does look more professional. I notice that you are a new user. Yes or No??? --Zealand Historical Society 12:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the politics surrounding this, but unsubstantiated claims such as the one you describe don't belong in the article. I'm glad we seem to agree on this.
Not a new user, by the way. penagate _{[talk|contribs]} 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Penagate. Your # 1. Zealand Historical Society 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this article to Penagate's last version, adding back a minor edit. Don't take this personally, Zealand Historical Society, but you have strayed from the purpose of Wikipedia. It is clear from the article's history, and your statements on this discussion page, you have taken "ownership" of this article, not allowing others to participate unless you approve of their content. It is an easy trap to fall into. Please read Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles for further explanation.

Again, please don't take this personally, but you are clearly violating Wikipedia's policy of "no original research." Please read Wikipedia:no_original_research.

Finally, and I am really not trying to pick on you personally, it must be pointed out that even though you don't agree with cited sources, or even if you are positive you have the "correct" answer, you must follow Wikipedia's policy of "verifiability, not truth." Even if you don't like or concur with a cited source you must allow them to remain. It is really poor form to remove cited sources, as you have done recently. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiablity.

Please understand this is not a personal attack. We all just need to work together, within the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, with the goal to build richer content for all to enjoy. Mary Pelk 1:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mary. I think that you may have innocently misunderstood the intention in the article that is the subject of these changes. If you would look back into the original scripts from the beginning you should clearly see that it is indeed not I nor my intention to Quote: take ownership of this article.. Please understand the position here being taken as one of getting the known facts by not just myself but by the whole historical community who now except the facts as I have intended for them to be portrayed. I take no offence to your effort however I would ask that you pay attention to the original article which was in err. Both factually and in content. Actually I agree with what you state above and obviously no one person owns any article. Be assured that I am aware of that. Everything that I originally wrote has been proven historically with documents. The source line in question claiming that Gould Crouse was the founder of our community is the problem. That has been proven incorrect. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. Hopefully that is part of what Wikipedia's is all about. Presenting facts. and not guesses based on nothing. I am sure that you do understand that. If you wish to straighten the article up, so to speak, please add the fact that the community of Zealand was named by an official of the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia land company. That holds true for all other communities that were located upon that companies land holdings at that time. That is not my opinion that is an established well known fact. It also has been written about historically. ::: As for me not agreeing with cited sources, You should be advised that several other historians as well as myself have been in contact with the source writers whom have been quoted and they also agree with these findings. Everybody makes mistakes including myself and these source writers. To there credit they agreed with the findings. If you wish, I have the original correspondence here and I would be glad to share that with you as proof.

Finally Mary, correct me if I am wrong, however If I understand you correctly from you opening statement, Whether articles are incorrect or not, the first come is the first served, and whether they are correct or not in their content nobody may add to or suggest changes. I find that hard to except that facts can be overlooked simply for order! Please except my apology for coming off as trying to own the article. 99% of our community all ready know our history. We simply want it portrayed truthfully so that others can know our background. Just below it says: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Thanks Mary. (Zealand Historical Society 3:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)