Contents

Talk:Mystic massacre

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 26, 2012, May 26, 2016, May 26, 2018, and May 26, 2021.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Connecticut Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of North America Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article needs serious wikification. In particular, citation to sources and npov'ing. rewinn 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone deleted the worst of the material. 216.254.10.236 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue about whether it was or wasn't a genocide. The fact is that the article has a whole section of scholars debating that point, and as such, it deserves to be in a category related to genocide. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we will be applying this policy to ALL organized, attempts that eliminate 800+ or 3-5,000 based on racial and national basis? I have had to have this debate in other articles when simply applying, peer reviewed academically respected multiple sources. With 3-5,000 people killed in 1804, in the course of two months eliminating the entire ethnic and national group of French creoles. Revenge doesn't de-genocide a legal framework. It is a charged word and personally the Jamestown massacre COULD be discussed as "genocide", however genocide requires specific intent, targeting of substantial parts...essentially theoretical intent, while we have other articles, that clearly demonstrate a crime of genocide in whole...by ANY standards related. This precedent SHOULD be reenforced. I am a genocide prevention activist, and try to decipher the gravity of genocide with modern times. I suggest the term "genocide" be avoided until the creation of the United States, (as the "Trail of Tears", and the Jamestown massacre of indians are clearly within the realm of the concept but not the legal framework. Ac220404 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find your arguments persuasive, or even on topic. As far as I can tell, you have not even attempted to address the points raised by Themightyquill. This is not a discussion of the Jamestown massacre, it is not a discussion of any other article or topic. Dlabtot (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New England States committing genocide? ( they also enslaved pequats to help them) Next they will accuse the blue bloods of having all white swim clubs ! Sen. Whitehouse & fellow blue bloods? 47.205.83.213 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mystic massacre/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.

Last edited at 19:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Can it be addressed in the article--as claimed on many websites--whether this massacre was the true "First Thanksgiving"? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(3 years later) Can it be addressed in the article--as claimed on many websites--whether this massacre was the true "First Thanksgiving"? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest strength of the article is its neutrality in writing as well as its reliability of sources. Although the article discusses a pretty event, the author does a great job of providing neutral commentary to the event. As a reader, I was able to gather what happened without finding myself swayed in one direction or the other. Additionally, the sources that the author pulled from all seemed to be quite reliable. The sources were mostly books and sometimes journals from libraries such as JSTOR.

An opportunity that I see is an expansion of each of the sections. Although I will discuss a deletion of a particular section in the next paragraph, I think as a whole, the author has laid out some very relevant sub-sections to the massacre. The content that the author has chosen to write on seems to be pretty balanced – not leaning too heavily towards a pure narration of the massacre nor towards a narration heavy on discussions surrounding the massacre. If the author can elaborate on each of these sections, they will find themselves with a very strong article. Another opportunity I see is a change in the wording of the sub-heading “as genocide”. This sub-heading was not very clear to me in the lead and despite being a very strong and necessary section, a better-worded title such as “Debates On the Magnitude of the Massacre” might strengthen the article.

The biggest room for improvement, in my opinion, is a rearrangement of the lead section. Although the lead section is very clear and While I think the account by John Underhill is very important and pertinent, I wonder if that account warrants a section for itself. Perhaps a better decision may be to split up the quotes among the “massacre” and “as genocide” sections? Or, if the author wishes to allocate a separate section for this, perhaps the author could gather more first-hand sources and make a section of “first-hand narratives/accounts”. I think doing so would strengthen the structure of the article and eliminate an awkward break in between the article sections.

I enjoyed the part when the author included a discussion on whether the massacre should be classified as a “genocide” or not. I think including dialogue such as this one that shows conflicting thoughts on a prevalent issue is very helpful and I will definitely consider adding such dialogue to my own article. Geec22 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jakobfree1. Peer reviewers: Charleston Baker, Kdotlamar39.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]