Talk:Fort Assinniboine

STUB
This is a "stub." I don't know how to designate it as such. I've sent an e-mail to the people who have the web site linked to this page suggesting they write an article under this heading. In the meantime, maybe someone else will write something. --66.41.35.227 01:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Changed
Changed the Candanian Task Force tag to United States due to this being an United States fort.--Oldwildbill 13:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Useful but apparently inappropriate links

 * The Fort's TripAdvisor PageThis is fundamentally for tourism; however, it is especially useful because the fort is a relatively new site to public tours and this gives visitors something of an unbiased view of what other visitors think.SAS1964 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This group page is a local's effort to raise some awareness of the fort.SAS1964 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Fort's Facebook Page

This is the closest thing to an official page that the fort currently has.SAS1964 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Fort's Chamber of Commerce Page

This is a vetted historical resource.SAS1964 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Montana Forts of the Old West

This is a very extensive collection of primary source material and an amazing research tool.SAS1964 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA) Collection of Fort Assiniboine Records

This is from Fort Benton which houses some of Montana's best museums and research facilities including the Schwinden Library and Archives, and the Joel F. Overholser Historical Research Center.SAS1964 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fort Benton's Entry For Fort Assinniboine

FortWiki has scholarship I'd not found elsewhere.SAS1964 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FortWiki Entry

I do not understand how removing this link enhances the article.SAS1964 (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The official link to Hill County & Beaver Creek Park


 * Hi SAS, The NWDA source may be OK in some contexts, but first read WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR. On wikipedia, we prefer secondary sources overall (there are exceptions, but read the guidelines linked here).  For the rest, here's the problem: per WP:RS: many of these sources are of dubious reliability save for very limited circumstances.  Facebook is virtually never viewed as a reliable source for anything.  SItes such as TripAdvisor, travel blogs, message boards, and the like are also virtually never deemed suitably reliable because they are unverifiable and often contain material that is simply opinion and thus doesn't pass muster as a "neutral, third-party source." (See WP:NPOV)   Legends of America is a commercial site and does not provide any verification for its content (If it were footnoted and such, it would move from a "no" to a "maybe." ) Generally, a "wiki"-anything will raise eyebrows because, as here, anyone can edit and at best these sources might lead you to THEIR sources.  The tourism sites (Chamber of Commerce, etc.) are in a gray area; they aren't ideal, as they are frequently puffed up with PR stuff and of dubious accuracy, but may have limited usefulness.   Government sites are often OK as an RS, but not as a generic external  link not related directly to the topic of the article, such as the Beaver Creek Park link.  See: WP:ELNO.  Sorry, but I'm just the messenger here.  WP:RS, WP:V and related policy and guidelines will help you understand what is and is not OK on wiki.   Montanabw (talk)  23:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a HUGE help to a relatively new editor. Learning to edit Wikipedia has been overwhelming. I think it may be worthy of a classroom course. I wonder if a certification process might help new editors avoid degrading the creators' intent. Omitting primary sources and prohibiting original research leaves me with very little reliable material from which to draw. Perhaps I need to publish my research more traditionally and try to inspire someone else to take the article from here. I work REALLY hard to remain neutral. In fact, that effort has led me to qualify many things I share on my tours (saying, "I've been unable to verify some things, which I'll call 'legends' during our tour today,"). This qualification has resulted in me not being able to elaborate very much on things people are quite interested in. I wonder if the Montana Historical Society can be counted as a reliable tertiary source. If they can, I can include the informational plaques on display here. So far I haven't found a textbook entry on the fort. If we can leave the links here on the talk space, I will look carefully at each and try to sort out what is reliable and what's sensational.SAS1964 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, I was once a tour guide for a historic building, and recall a fair amount of debate over how to handle assorted legends and anecdotes. FWIW, I just had a proposal accepted to teach an 8-hour, non-credit course on wikipedia editing through my local adult ed program. (I hope I get signups!) I would ABSOLUTELY encourage you to publish! (though read WP:SELFPUB before you do) As for the rest, primary sources aren't completely forbidden, but you are definitely not supposed to put your own spin on them (see WP:SYNTH) MHS material generally is considered reliable. That said, Museum plaques, like historical markers, are kind of a gray area, but if you can attribute the source, they sometimes pass muster.  (example: File:Goodkin sign.jpg as a source for File:Goodkind Block.jpg, though I should have taken an image of the whole marker with the MHS citation on it.  I did a better job for Temple Emanu-El (Helena, Montana) with File:Temple_Emanu-El_sign.jpg, but didn't need the sign because I found the same material in books).   Montanabw (talk)  08:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Assinaboine
Some time ago I found an old map on-line that names the place Fort Assinaboine with the Fort Assinaboine Indian Res. nearby. AMCKen (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)