Jump to content

Talk:Pequot War: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Update HIST 2010 Early U.S. History assignment details
Update HIST 2010 Early U.S. History assignment details
Line 19: Line 19:
}}
}}
}}
}}

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Pellissippi_State_Community_College/HIST_2010_Early_U.S._History_(Spring_2022) | assignments = [[User:Mbe2001|Mbe2001]] | start_date = 2022-01-18 | end_date = 2022-05-05 }}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

Revision as of 01:50, 9 February 2022


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jkappss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topics

Interesting War. Oddly though, the indigenous pop. put up a larger fight than generally thought.

This is one of the most biased articles I've ever seen; one can almost envision the author foaming at the mouth as he wrote it. -Unsigned comment by Wouldn'tyouliketoknow (03:33, 1 July 2006)

Reverting

Someone removed a gigantic chunk of this article with no discussion. I'm reverting back to the previous version, but will reinstate the constructive edits made after his vandalism. Kafziel 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I regret not having noticed the vandalism before making minor changes. On the plus side, the article's listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America can be upgraded; the short version was barely a stub, but now it's B-class at least. rewinn 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has too many links. Example: Pequot is linked 56 times, every single time they are mentioned. Isn't it enough with a few times? Its actually frustrating to read... Shauni 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow! It sure does! I've started a cleanup in stages, and it should be looking much better in a little while. Kafziel 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The new version of AWB seems to be having problems. I'm quitting for now, but I've made a lot of changes and I'll make more later. Kafziel 21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! Done! Wow, that had an insane amount of overlinking. It still needs a good copyedit for grammar and content, but at least the blue links aren't overwhelming anymore. Kafziel 14:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Much better. :) The article needs a cleenup, though, as it numerous times repeats itself (How made times do we need to know that it is the colony Massachusetts Bay?) I'm not sure why the etymology is included... I left it out of the norwegian translation I'm working on. Shauni 13:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"total war"...

"This was the first instance wherein Algonquian peoples of what is now southern New England encountered European-style warfare. The idea and reality of total war was essentially new to them."

I don't think using the term "total war" in this context is appropriate. The concept of "total war" in Europe is a 20th century idea, although it has some roots in the French Rev. wars of the 1790s with the first mass conscription. Traditionally, massacring noncombatants was NOT considered appropriate behavior in European warfare (and in Europe, this included most males as well as women and children, since only specialists like nobles and mercenaries fought). It still happened, especially when mercenaries ran out of control (ie sack of Antwerp, Magdeburg, sack of Rome in 1527), but it was considered shocking behavior at the time. Nor was massacring noncombatants unknown among Native Americans, although I'm not sure what the evidence is in the New England area. user o287213454289siy

I agree, the wording is not to the best interests of the article. I would not find it totally acurate to state that it was total war, which would seem more reminiscent of Sherman-style warfare in the Carolinas, not neccessarily the Pequot War. ForgottenHistory (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed vandalisms and addded cite check

I removed a few hidden vandalisms, fixed a couple of typos, and added a cite check banner. I think the A. Cave reference under #5 is bogus, but this needs to be confirmed. Other parts of ref #5 seem suspect. Ethan a dawe (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--- Another vandalism - look at the years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.241.6 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea on the origin of the Depiction?

Does anyone have any idea where the depiction in the Article is from? It could improve a description of it. ForgottenHistory (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This article should be tweaked

The sentence 

"After the Pequot War, the native were too scared to rise up against the colonists" Is not scholarly and depicts the Indians of New England has scared of the Puritans, but this is highly debatable and is an opinion, not a fact. It makes the Indians sound weak and subservient which many of them were not at that time. Also There needs to be some mention of the aftermath of how the English actually put the Pequot survivors under their protection and how the Pequots helped the Colonists in King Philips war. Without this information the article is very one sided.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.137.18 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; "too scared" is inappropriate. Sentence rewritten. Not sure whether mention of the role of the Pequot in King Philip's War is appropriate here. Needs references, in any case. Chcurtis (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dempsey and Wagner

I think their book is 2003. Also, there should be more detail than just "they took issue with events". What were their conclusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.72.120 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wording unclear

"the English colonists of the Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Saybrook colonies" You're missing an "and" before "Saybrook." I'm going to go ahead and add it. Rosekelleher (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pequot War/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The Pequot and their traditional enemies, the Mohegan, were at one time a single socio-political entity. Anthropologists and historians contend that sometime before contact with the Puritan English, the Pequot were split into the two warring groups, with the split resulting over profit sharing and market rights to gaming casinos.[4] I this statement for real...market rights to gaming casinos as part of the origins of the Pequot. This is twisted history.

Last edited at 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pequot War. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of casualties

This article was recently edited, so it describes the number of casualties as greater than 5 million. Is this statement accurate? Jarble (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was vandalism. Another editor has reverted it. —Dilidor (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pequot_War&oldid=1070742833"