Talk:Shays's Rebellion

Private Militia

I found a source that talks about the rebellion, in the source they include a picture of a militia carrying a flag. I do not know the exact flag, was this the flag used by the private militia? Should the private militia have its own page? I feel like we should have some way to separate the state units from the privet army, while they are on the same side, I feel like they should have specific icons or flags. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

See my reply at WT:MILHIST#Units in Shays Rebellion and let's keep the conversation there, if that's alright? But I'd like to copy my comment here too in case someone finds this comment in a few years. I'm pretty sure that's the Forster Flag? See Flag of the United States#Revolutionary War and [1]. I'm not sure that painting you've linked is historically accurate.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did more reacherch and saw the milita in the painting were Shaysites. I still think there should be a way we can say that Benjamin Lincoln what working with the milita and not the state government. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you think Benjamin Lincoln’s Private Militia is notable for its own Article? LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin Lincoln's Private Militia
Country	United States
Allegiance	United States
Type	Private Militia
Role	Protect Massachusetts from Shaysites
Size	3000
Engagements	Shays' Rebellion
Commanders
Notable commanders	Benjamin Lincoln

Made an example: LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

An infobox is not an example but you can try to write a draft-article so we can judge it. With enough independent, reliable sources, off course. The Banner talk 23:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2024

Shays' Rebellion → Shays's Rebellion – The s is needed for the singular name possessive per MOS:POSS. Sources have it both ways plenty, so there's no reason not to conform to our own guidelines here. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating n-gram… having grown up learning my American History in the 60s, 70s and 80s, I never encountered “Shays’s”… and the n-gram supports that it was overwhelmingly “Shays’” back then. Yet it does seem to have fluctuated back and forth over time. As for how we should present it now?… don’t care. Have fun storming the castle. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what value the n-gram is. Paging through Google Book search results for different terms yield many works appearing in all result lists, regardless of the spelling in the title, if it appears there. For example, the Richards book "Shays's Rebellion", which is extensively cited here, is a prominent result when search for either "Shays' Rebellion" or "Shays's Rebellion". That said, there appears (anecdotally my impression) to be a general editorial trend toward the use of "Shays's" in recent publications.

I will also note that MOS:POSS didn't always say what it says now, one of the reasons this article has continued at "Shays'". Magic♪piano 14:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it didn't always say that, but with multiple discussions over many years, that's where the consensus converged to. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Well...as the MOS:POSS page states,

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

The s is not necessarily needed, the "S'S" may be preferred in certain situations. My preference is that in this situation it is not needed and I'd rather treat it with common sense, not attempt to follow it, and call this the occasional exemption. If this were an RfC, I'd say Oppose. Shearonink (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"Needed" only by style guidelines, including our own MOS and pretty much every other modern style guideline since Strunk & White 1978. There's nothing special about Mr. Shays that makes his case different from the other names ending in s that all these guidelines talk about, is there? How does your common sense think otherwise? Your preference and your commonsense should be related to guidelines if possible. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The current way is about 4x as common on government websites. [2] 2,210 results vs [3] 355 results Llacb47 (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Since both ways are common, there's no reason not to follow WP style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The title & its possessive is supposed to be rendered according to editorial consensus. The MOS & the possessive guideline is just that - a guideline. The MOS is not engraved in stone - it changes and is malleable according to editorial consensus. It's not necessarily a must or a we'll all be thrown in Wikipedia purgatory if we don't agree that Shays's is what the title of this article absolutely must be. While this issue is under consideration I think how the name of this event has been historically rendered should be given some weight. So far as I am aware, the term "Shays' Rebellion" is much more common in the research and in the historical documents than "Shays's Rebellion". Shearonink (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

So you're just going to ignore the evidence from book n-grams? Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything and I'm not making this personal. I posted my thoughts on this talk page as this matter interests me. If the editorial consensus of this discussion is for Shays's or Shays' so be it. Shearonink (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

But you wrote that 'So far as I am aware, the term "Shays' Rebellion" is much more common in the research and in the historical documents than "Shays's Rebellion". ' This ignores the evidence presented. I guess we can just take it as you not being very aware? Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion about how to title this article. I see I was mistaken. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. There is no unique reason to make a "magical exception" to MOS:POSS and WP:CONSISTENT in this (or probably much of any other) case. It's simply not material that many older people like to omit the final s after the apostrophe in possessives than end in s (or an /s/ sound, or either an /s/ or /z/ sound, or older than a certain period, or whatever obsolete "rule" they are following – pretty much every old style guide, including the ones I grew up with, that favored dropping such a terminal s provided contradictory reasons for wanting to do it). English writing changes over time, and our manual of style reflects the practices prescribed by the majority of current academic-leaning off-site style guides (i.e., it follows the reliable sources on modern English usage in an encyclopedic register), and when it cannot do that (e.g. when such sources still conflict), it aims for consistency over strange exception-making that is likely to confuse some users (and confuse various editors into trying to impose a consistency in the opposite direction).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)