Jump to content

Talk:Roanoke Colony

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.177.244.25 (talk) at 20:01, 7 March 2015 (→Beechland). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Recent news articles

The following New York Times article may be of interest to editors updating this article:

Emery, Theo (May 3, 2012). "Map's Hidden Marks Illuminate and Deepen Mystery of Lost Colony". New York Times. Retrieved May 3, 2012.

TJRC (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also a similar article in the Telegraph which may be illuminating. EdwardLane (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism?

I don't know if cannibalism is a likely theory, considering legends of the wendigo and the strict taboos on it, the idea that a large group would do something like that seems unlikely. Kman5552 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will delete the reference to cannibalism unless someone has a good reason not to. The citation is "Stager, Lawrence 'An Investigation into the Roanoke Colony' in the Harvard Alumni Magazine retrieved 8/17/09," but a search for "Stager" at harvardmagazine.com results in only two (unrelated) hits. Stager is Dorot Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University and Director of the Harvard Semitic Museum, so claims about Native American cannibals would seem outside his bailiwick in any case. Other searches only point back to this article. It's not my area of expertise, so I'll wait for a response here first. Just saying the cite can't be verified. Giordanob (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Giordanob (Additional note: even if the cite were to be verified, I note that the Harvard Alumni Magazine is not an academic publication. Giordanob (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)giordanob)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I deleted this reference. Giordanob (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)giordanob[reply]

wild three headed dogs?

The last line of the 2nd paragraph of "White returns to England" Soon a pack of wild three headed dogs appeared, and everyone fled for their ships. The citation says nothing about it, and three headed dogs are abnormal. Nathan czh (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a nonconstructive edit by an IP. Completely uncited. Fixed now. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current Research

Anyone who is at all interested in The Roanoke Colony should go here : http://lost-colony.com I cannot believe no one has caught this..the research being done by East Carolina University with regards to this is the only current relevant scientific information regarding the colony..they have been working on this project for many years now and I don`t understand why it hasn`t made its way into the main article. --Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been in the External links section for a very long time. —howcheng {chat} 03:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true but apparently no one has looked at it..none of the information is in the articleLonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an opportunity for you. Happy editing! —howcheng {chat} 02:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

anyway the evidence is pretty much out there..apparently they moved inland about 50 miles which is what they said they were going to do and established a settlement there..I will do an edit but im not an historian and wish someone more qualified would do it..there is also a group of people on Hatteras doing research i think its the Croaton Archelogical Society and they`ve found some cool stuff but they haven't really published anything as far as I know and they are just jumping to the conclusion that all the colonist moved to Hatteras..people have been saying that for years with no real evidence although they are finding a lot of mixed Indian/English artifacts down there now..anyway ill work on an edit unless someone comes up with something--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK..I`ve been bold...I have edited the article to include the Beechland Hypothesis..I realize this is a very incomplete edit however I am asking the powers that be not to revert it..if you look at the source material it has been very thoroughly researched and this hypothesis is not only the only modern attempt to finally solve the riddle of the so called " Lost Colony " but it is by far the most researched and academic..again I am not an historian however with regard to this subject I know what I`m talking about...local people in the area have maintained for centuries that they are the decedents of Native Americans and the original settlers from the old world..not just the Roanoke colonist but whoever washed up on the Outer Banks.

I will attempt to finish editing this article and make it more complete..I understand that what I`ve written so far has not really been properly referenced although the information is there..someone more knowledgeable than myself should be doing this with regard to referencing and quality of writing..I am having a lot of trouble understanding how to reference these articles as I am not particularly computer literate however as I`ve already stated the information that is available regarding this subject is extensive and should be included in the article.

The inclusion in the article regarding many of the previous attempts to explain the supposed disappearance of the colony should be eliminated..most of these beliefs were never more than crackpot ideas that no one ever took seriously..there was a writer back in the 1950`s who wrote a pamphlet stating that the colony was on Cedar Island which no one believed but it made a lot more sense then saying they reverted to cannibalism or tried to sail back to Europe without a ship..these sections should be taken out of the article and I intend to do so within a reasonable amount of time if there are no objections. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the footnotes where you asked for them..they are in the articles on the lost colony website Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I improved the footnotes..I will continue to do so as long as my edits are not deleted..I am not an historian but I will do my best Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beechland

The edits leave all of the work to the reader. The work cited is a master's thesis, which (courtesy of the internet) can be argued to have been published (see website). However (see requirements) master's theses are not in general peer-reviewed (a better source is needed) TEDickey (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The work is rarely mentioned, for instance this gives 10 hits. One is a blog. The others are essentially the publication(sic) information. TEDickey (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section refers to "extensive research" and "research group". I see only one author listed, and only one work (the comment about syphilis appears to be in context something used by the source) TEDickey (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t really understand what most of what you`ve said means..again I am not a scholar..I have lived in the area for years and read everything I could on the subject..the website [ http://lost-colony.com ] is a collection of papers by different people not a single thesis..it seems to me that the information is accurate and should be include in the article and that at least some of the myths regarding the Roanoke Colony should be deleted..again I am not an historian...someone that knows what they are doing should do this not me..also the article is turning into a series of non-chronological edits that should be consolidated in my opinion. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified a few of my references. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to be to be largely a mixture of original research and fringe theories. The section is full of weasel words trying to make it sound like these theories are more widely accepted, "extensive research", "argued by the research group", "moreover it has been argued". All meaningless unquantifiable terms often used to try buttress a fringe theory. This section has been assembled by one editor, using sources that are collected on one fringe website [1]. There is as far I can find no information on who exactly this "The Lost Colony Center for Science and Research" is. Their biggest claim to anything seems to be that they have a 700 member mailing list and have purchased some buildings. I think this fringe theory should be removed from the article until someone can demonstrate a more wide spread acceptance by legitimate peer reviewed accredited researchers. 71.52.213.43 (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no effort by the person making these edits to deal with sourcing this beyond a single unrelaible source, I have been bold and removed the section in question. 71.52.209.48 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK..you removed my little addition which was all based on academic research via East Carolina University..what original reseach? It was all just a very short paraphrase of other peoples referenced research..nothing in it had anything to do with me..you leave in the Dare Stone story..as well as all the meaningless conjecture that has has accumulated over the years some of which are not referenced at all..I knew someone would....people have been saying they went to Hatteras for years to promote tourism..I`ve heard all the ghost stories..all the crackpot theories since I was a kid..I suppose you know all about the Cedar Island theory too right? Did you read any of the source material? It was all referenced by educated professionals..you haven`t even signed your post..I never claimed to be a historian or even a writer for that matter but this is crap..the research out of ECU is the only scientific enquiry into the colonies fate using modern historical analysis such as GPS DNA testing etc..and yet none of it is included in the article..not to mention that they did what someone should have done years ago which is trace the land deeds and god forbid interview the people who live there and claim to be their descendants...if this is a fringe group why is their website listed as an external source? If you bothered to read any of the information on it yourself you would probably get it through your head that it`s pretty obvious they ended up on the Alligator peninsula eventually Gum Neck and points west..on the other hand maybe it`s better they just stay lost. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and someone..probably whoever removed my edit removed the source material [ http://lost-colony.com ] Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your long rant has nothing to with the issues presented by two separate editors to the fact that this is all fringe science that has not be covered in any reliable sources. While there are countless other fringe theories those all have been covered by numerous reliable sources. And yes I removed the link to the fringe site Lost-Colony. Please read WP:OR, WP:Fringe, WP:V, and WP:RS and base your arguments on policy not on how you personally feel. 71.52.211.241 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
generally agree: I don't see any substantive followup to my comments on the Beechland edits. TEDickey (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A more specific example this study and sources pretty much define point by point what is not considered reliable scholarship see Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship. It's an isolated study, it has not been peer reviewed, no third parties have covered it, it's not cited by any other scholars. 71.52.211.241 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but you keep in that they may have gone to the Chesapeake Bay...they may have been lost at sea...they may have been captured by the Spanish...why is any of that even in the article? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on until you at least acknowledge that you have read and understood the above criticisms of your sourcing for this section of the article. Not going to get in a giant roundabout debate with you. Address the issues as presented or move on 71.52.211.196 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no I am not going to go away..or " move on "

I did not add the link to the lost-colony website..it was already in the article when I first read it..it was already there..the information in the various articles seemed accurate and researched..I did not understand why the link was listed but none of the information was in the Wikipedia article..that did not make sense to me as I said in this talk session..I also said I didn`t have a clue how to reference any of the information..the ECU team has never said that the colonist ended up at Beechland...neither did I...it is a theory...in my opinion probably true...I haven`t seen any more reliable information regarding what happened to these people..nevertheless it is strictly a hypothesis..if you read any of what they have written hopefully you would understand that the reason why they presented their findings in the way that they did was to allow the reader to form their own opinion and gather more information.

If you have some kind of information regarding these people`s fate why don`t you share it? What is it about this theory specifically that you object to besides you think the people who are studying it are a "fringe group" ? I understand rules are rules but half of what I`ve read on Wikipedia is poorly referenced or not referenced at all..in this article the bit about sailing back to England comes to mind..how in the world do you consider any of this original research on my part? isn`t there a rule that says you`re supposed to sign your post? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another long rant, and still nothing based in policy. Last reply until you actually reply to the issues outlined above and base you reply firmly in Wikipedia policy. 67.8.42.4 (talk) 18:47, 3 March

2014 (UTC)

I replied..you ignored me...I told you I didn`t want to edit the article..someone else put the lost-colony reference in which was relevant but you removed it..i did not engage in original research in the article..nor am I a weasel however you don't consider that a personal attack..I was simply trying to improve the article not suppress relevant information as you have..instead of improving the article or saying anything relevant about the beachland theory you fall back on procedure the way a lawyer would devising a rhetorical argument caring nothing for the truth..what is your true motivation for doing this? Have you carved out a nice cushy academic career based on what? If you think the locals killed them why don`t you just say so? Where is your evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.214.100 (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you target my edit? Why is the section on sailing back to England in the article without a single reference? I mistakenly forgot to sign a talk page post once and heard about it from Wikipedia..why won`t you sign yours? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Lost Colony DNA Project

Result of AFD (merge with Lost Colony DNA Project ) more than enough info in article to perform merge Ridernyc (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger completed per AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adult male/female ratio

The names of adult male and adult female colonists are shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonists_at_Roanoke. It's apparent that the ratio is 85:18 or nearly 5 to 1. Such a ratio might have led to adultery, conflict, and perhaps violence, leading to the elimination of colonists who had specific skills that were essential to keep the colony going. I realise that references on the topic might be non-existent, making it impossible for anyone to write it up, but think it's important to at least mention the discrepancy between the sexes so that readers could consider the implications for themselves. Akld guy (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beechland

The Beechland Hypothesis should be in this article..no one has ever stated it as fact, other than myself, that I know of, although I believe it is true, I did not state that in the article. People on the Outer Banks take this issue personally..I know I do..because they are constantly being told they are wrong about their own history..I apologize for being overly emotional about this but the person or persons who targeted my edit apparently did not even bother to read the source material which contrary to what was said consisted of multiple documents written by different people all of whom are much more knowledgeable about this than me. This is why I didn`t want to write about it in the first place..I put three or four lines in that were relevant..sourced as best I could, then deleted, justified by what I perceived and still perceive as a plethora of rhetoric..no one believes the dare stones were real and yet they are still in the article.

It`s my opinion that whoever did this has an ulterior motive..either they have their own theory which they want make sure gets accepted as fact or they are simply coming from an elitist attitude that somehow only specific classes of people are entitled to an opinion..I see this all as a continuation of the racist attitudes white people have always had against native americans nothing more..in the end all these articles just end up saying the same thing..that the colonist were wiped out by the Carolina Algonquians because lets face it..they were all a bunch of blood thirst savages standing in the way of civilization..if you bother to read any of these articles you might find there is a wealth of information available that suggest that the colonist probably survived as a result of establishing long term relationships with the Hatteras and/or the Croaton.

My point is the Beechland hypothesis is the only reasonable theory regarding the fate of the Roanoke colony at this time..it`s not necessarily the truth but if you have read as much as I have regarding this issue for as long as I have you might come to believe that it is the only theory that seems to makes any sense..at the very least that it should be considered..I have researched this for almost 50 years and I was very surprised when I first read it as most of what I`d read up to that point was obviously speculation and at best inconclusive..on the other hand as I began to study these artcles and seek out related sources it became apparent that at least the person who first published it as a theory Philip McMullan seemed to know what he was talking about. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.244.25 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Lonepilgrim. This was all gone over above and you still are simply ranting and not providing a single valid source or policy based reason for conclusion of this fringe theory. 72.188.95.203 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t know what to say to you or why you believe that..I don`t understand a word you said in your criticism of my edit although I did my best..there is no point in me adding anything to the article because you are just going to take it out..you could at least read the information that was presented and respond to it here..maybe we would both learn something. 66.177.244.25 (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors have explained the issue to you numerous times. You don't get the answer you want so you refuse to hear it. It is a disruptive pattern with you as you have displayed on several talk pages such as your featured article rant on the Arthur Phelps talk page. [3] People have repeatedly taken time to clearly and consistently explain things to you and you answer them with rants and accusations. I once again warn you that if you fail to make policy based arguments on talk pages you will find yourself explaining your actions to admins. Tired of the same exact circular conversations with you. It was clearly explained to you why lost-colony.com is not a valid source, yet you come here once a month with a new rant and post the same exact link. 72.188.95.203 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that I am not going to be able to use it in this article..what I`m asking is your opinion about the information in the lost colony center articles..not the source..it is a fair question. 66.177.244.25 (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roanoke_Colony&oldid=650338879"