Talk:Indian massacre of 1622/Archive 1

Archive 1

Talk

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Proposal  :	Indian massacre of 1622/Archive 1 → Jamestown massacre
Rationale :	Less ambiguous name.
Proposer :	David Kernow 18:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

• Support as nom. David Kernow 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - much clearer name --Aldux 17:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

emphasis

I would like to point at some expressions that are too lofty in my opinion and sound a little bit like in a fairy tale:
- "...until their death or ransom years later." >that doesn't describe a historical fact but emphasizes the imagined suffering of the people and is a subjective interpretation about the future treatment of the slaves
- "However, this proved to be a serious lack of understanding of the mindset of the English colonists and their backers overseas." > The lack of understanding and the mindset cannot be proven by any historical evidence but are a subjective psychological interpretation of both the thoughts of the Indians and the mental attitude (mindset) of the colonists
I think that these passages show too much emotional underpinning toward the historical situation. The easiest way in my opinion is to erase the cited passages because they both don't describe historical facts and are subjective non-proven interpretations. I hope my own phrasing in this comment is not too rude (and comprehensible) since I am no native speaker. Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.87.197 (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Background" Section of this article is particularly poorly written. I can give it a few days then take a stab at it.== (Copyediting) == The current article shifts from past to present tense, etc. We do need an article on this event, however. Maybe someone else can get to it before I can.

Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia....Vaoverland 10:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted the merge of this and the former Jamestown Massacre article about the same event. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 07:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Verification for "Jamestown Massacre"

This event is listed at List of events named massacre (formerly simply "List of massacres') as "Jamestown Massacre". That list has undergone a revision of inclusion criteria, and now demands multiple reliable sources to substantiate that the word "Massacre" is used by as part of an accepted name for the event. Unfortunately, I can not find any in a quick google search. So I am posting here to ask for your assistance, since it is likely that the editors to this page will be familiar with the sources. Please note that a source that mearly discribes the event as being a massacre is not enough. It has to substantiate the NAME "Jamestown Massacre" or some close variant thereof.

I also note that this article does not give a citation to verify the alternate name. It should.

Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at a Google Book search. Many of the resulting terms refer to this event as the "Jamestown massacre."--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of Good Friday in 1622

Two calculators I have consulted say that March 22 was a Tuesday, so I'm guessing that Good Friday could not have been March 22 as the article states, but possibly March 25. http://www.ely.anglican.org/cgi-bin/easter says that under the Julian Calendar, Good Friday was April 19. By the Gregorian calendar: March 25. Wouldn't April 19 be the most likely date? I note also that an extinct website has plenty of info http://web.archive.org/web/20070403133147/http://www.jamestowne.org/massacre.htm Alpheus (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that under the Julian Calendar, under which England and her colonies were still operating at the time, New Years Day fell on March 25. The attack technically took place in 1621. It is more appropriate to use the mixed-style date format to depict this: March 22, 1621/22. Sometime between October of 1622 and January of 1622/23, Richard Pace petitioned the Jamestown council for permission to return to his plantation to re-fortify it following the attack. (see "CCLX. Richard Pace. Petition to the Governor and Council in Virginia" Susan Myra Kingsbury, editor. Records of the Virginia Company, 1606-26, Volume III: Miscellaneous Records, p. 682), therefore the attack could not have been March 22, 1622/23. Somewhere along the line, people got sloppy and just started using the Gregorian date when indicating when this attack happened. Note that contemporaneous accounts do not mention Good Friday, but rather "on the Friday morning (the fatal day) the 22 of March" (see [George Sandis' account, as related by Edward Waterhouse]). March 22, 1622 was indeed on a Friday if you take January 1 as New Years. The idea that the attack fell on Good Friday seems to have been added later. See Jamestown at 400: Caught Between a Rock and a Slippery Slope. --Glen Mark Martin (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)--Glen Mark Martin (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Attack" instead of "Massacre"

I wanted to get people's feelings about the use of the word "attack" instead of "massacre" at least in the body of the article itself. I would then suggest that there be a way to redirect to this page if the term Attack of 1622 is used instead on other pages. The reason I bring this up is because it is my feeling that while the term is technically accurate, especially when coming from the English perspective, I think it is too one sided. What I mean is that when the Virginia Indians were attacked by the English it was rarely, if ever, called a massacre-usually it was called a battle or war. And yet when we are talking about the Virginia Indians attacking the English it is automatically called a massacre. That seems unfair to me as again it makes things too one sided and skews things. Does anyone else have any thoughts on at least changing the word massacre to attack in the body of the article if not entirely? Sarah1607 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And the term "Indian massacre" is ambiguous - is it the massacre OF the Indians or BY the Indians? Also the section:

By 1609, Colony of Virginia governor John Smith began sending raiding parties to demand provisions from local indigenous settlements.[citation needed] These raiding parties burned down settlements that refused their demands, and frequently stole provisions, leading to resentment of the colonists and precipitating the conflict.

It begins with Smith sending the raiding parties to attack indigenous settlements but ends with the colonists' resentment.

The whole article is really poorly written by a person or persons lacking sufficient English writing comprehension. It needs to be at least "rephrased" and corrected to make more sense. Garrymo (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of cited section

A user recently removed a section from the article that had a cited source. I have since added the section back into the article. I also wanted to include the section in question here so it can be discussed, if anyone has thoughts on its need for removal, editing, etc:

"At first, the natives had been more than happy to trade provisions to the colonists for metal tools,[citation needed] but by 1608, the colonists had created a bad reputation for Englishmen among the Indians, as they tried to prove their superiority and civilization[citation needed] by isolating the Indians and burning down houses and destroying food supplies.[3] Such acts of violence that the Englishmen performed against the Indians resulted in a lack of food supply among the English colony, as the number of natives willing to engage in trade with them quickly diminished.[citation needed]" Sarah1607 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I wasn't the one who removed the section, but I was about to do the same until I found the issue being discussed here. As mentioned, the passage lays some heavy allegations against the colonists: they "earned a bad reputation among the Indians" by "isolat[ing] the Indians, burn[ing] down houses, and destroy[ing] their food supplies." Allegations of this sort, which are highly POV, kind of fly in the face of the traditional view, and need to be backed up. So POV is the first problem. The second is that it appears to be deceptively sourced.

After reading the source provided, I can find nothing that even remotely suggests the "bad reputation" or other naughty colonist behavior as a catalyst for the conflict, or as anything at all. It simply isn't there. Maybe I overlooked something though. Can you provide a quote or a more pinpointed cite (as opposed to simply citing the entire article)? Thanks. Ex0pos (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I never looked into the citations myself at the time, which is the main reason I posted all this here. However, the basic information is correct. I will add though that I too have an issue with the phrasing used in this section, which is why I would highly recommend editing it. It seems like a better citation is needed as well. In the end what's said here is correct as the colonists did burn down the Powhatan's villages and in some cases their food supplies as well in response to them refusing to give more food to the English, which was because they were unable to because of sever droughts. There is also first hand accounts where some colonists knew the attack was warranted because of how they had been treating the Powhatan people, the same people whose food had saved their lives. When I get a chance I will look into better sources and editing this section, which I would have done before but did not have the time - not that I have a lot of time now either though, lol. I will make the effort as someone else has commented on the section now.Sarah1607 (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the delayed reply. But thank you for your timely reply. I would not be surprised at all to learn of colonists engaging in atrocities. But, if Wikipedia hopes to be encyclopedic, things that are not common knowledge must be reliably sourced. Ex0pos (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries here, as it is I have been unable to edit this with a better source yet. Since I agree that a reliable source and editing is needed here I still intend to fix it. Hopefully it will not take me too much longer to fix all this, but either way I will do it at some point - you can count on that.Sarah1607 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The question here seems to be whether the English burned down the Indians' homes and food supplies. This fact should not really be any question, because the primary sources written by the English themselves at the time, and are still readily available, leave no room for doubt that they did exactly this. However another user here states that "allegations of this sort are POV and fly in the face of the traditional view". I don't know what "traditional view" he or she is coming from, but it is evidently one of the "whitewashed" revisionist accounts that ignores the primary sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the information is not questionable at all as there are plenty of reliable and readily available sources that back it up. This is probably the main reason I never looked into the citation of this section. Either way while I do not agree that this section's allegations "fly in the face of the traditional view" I do have some issue with the wording. Basically I think the citation can be improved and so can the wording, though at this point I must admit that my issues with the wording are fairly minor.Sarah1607 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I really hope someone will fix the language of this section. We are going on two years and apparently nothing has been done. I did feel that there is a bias in the language of this opening section. Maintain the factual information but let's tone down the attitude. Craig, 22:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.144.130 (talk)

Theodore de Bry or Matthaeus Merian ???

(cur | prev) 00:37, 15 October 2008 206.174.72.185 (talk) (9,349 bytes) (Theodore de Bry was not artist of drawing; he wasn't even alive. Matthaeus_Merian is artist) (undo)

Hi there,

On 15 October 2008, the "IP" 206.174.72.185 replaced in the legend of a picture Theodore de Bry by Matthaeus Merian, with the comment :

Theodore de Bry was not artist of drawing; he wasn't even alive. Matthaeus_Merian is artist

In most of the other "interwiki'es" it is still Theodore de Bry and not Matthaeus Merian. Can someone control this ?

I will try to post a "talk" in most of the other "interwikies".

Thanks

81.164.184.23 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian massacre of 1622. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080724094320/http://www.apva.org/resource/other/sandys.pdf to http://www.apva.org/resource/other/sandys.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved and changed name

Changed name from Indian Massacre of 1622 toPowhatan attackof 1622 as this accords with the majorityof RS. I find no mention in the literature or popular culture of Indian Massacre of 1622, but do find Powhatan attach and Jamestown Massacre. Jamestown massacre is not descriptive because most of the attacks and deaths took place elsewhere's in the James River community. Indian massacre is ambiguous the title could mean an attack on or in the country of India,or a massacre of Native Americans. The word Indian is considered by many to be racist or at least pejorative.Oldperson (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Jamestown Massacre or Genocide

"The Powhatan then grabbed any tools or weapons available and killed all the English settlers they found, including men, women, children of all ages."

So the intent was to destroy an ethnic group, so this would classify as genocide. So the page should be renamed to Jamestown Massacre or genocide. Fixerr23 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your point is well made, but we need someone else – in print, after being edited or reviewed by other people – to say this. That source would need to be reliable per the rules of our encyclopaedia. Prove a link to that on this talk page and we'll very happily consider it. — Trey Maturin™ 21:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

But what if no one with credibility prints that, the page remains inaccurate, and inconsistent with other wiki pages?

That seems like a rigged system. Fixerr23 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to change the other pages if you can provide a reliable source there. If the other stuff is unsourced, you can tag the disputed phrases with {{cn}} to request a citation, or remove the disputed unsourced material with an edit summary explaining that it is unsourced. — Trey Maturin™ 23:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that point is not well made. They were killing settlers not because they were English, as far as I can tell, but because they were usurpers. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)