Talk:Pequot War

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

An event mentioned in this article is a May 26 selected anniversary.

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]

Links

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

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]