Talk:Rocky Mountain Fur Company

Merge proposal

 * I propose that Ashley's Hundred be merged into this article. They are both short and refer to the same topic. KudzuVine (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that this was done, but I think it should have been the other way around: Ashley's Hundred should have been maintained, with Rocky Mountain Fur Company redirecting to it.  Ashley's Hundred was the first and more significant contributor to history.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree; no one outside of a few specialists in the history of the fur trade has heard of Ashley's Hundred; the Rocky Mountain Fur Company is a well-known historic entity. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this merge was correctly done.   Montanabw (talk)  00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, well maybe with your sudden interest in the fur trade, you could find a source that says Kit Carson was once affiliated with the company. I'm at a loss on that one.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am interested in Montana history, seems that the fur trade article debate spilled over here. I was simply tweaking the lede to reflect the article body text; remove Carson if that info in the body of the article was incorrect, I didn't put it there. I added a "cn" tag for your convenience.  As for your other assertion, truly no one has used "Ashley's hundred."  I have pointed out to you that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are wikipedia policies, I am merely the messenger.   Montanabw (talk)  18:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not my assertion, it's a basic fact. That everyone uses "Rocky Mountain Fur Company" for the three prior partnerships does not make it correct usage.  "Ashley's Hundred" really isn't correct as the name of the company, it was basically a nickname for the men he hired.  But it makes more sense to have an article called "Ashley's Hundred" that discusses each partnership and how the name "Rocky Mountain Fur Company" came to be.  A redirect from "Rocky Mountain Fur Company" would take readers to an article that accurately reflects the history, even if the preceeding article didn't.   Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, when "everyone" includes a number of eminent historians with PhDs and such, this article is clearly WP:PRIMARY. I would suggest you go back and read WP:OR. Or take it to a dramaboard. Montanabw (talk)  19:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's enough WP articles around that need upgrading I'm not going to bother trying to edit one that I don't agree with the basic premise of how it's set up. If you want it improved, sounds like you have the resources you need at the Montana Historical Society to do so.  If you think I should, take your little WP: hammers and get out of my way. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Capstone-Fur Trade
— Assignment last updated by Turtleduck71 (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)