This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Welcome to the Talk page for the History of Virginia article.
Could this be added, Virginia Military District. Newbie222 6 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
Is this image copyrighted? [1] Falphin 7 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)
Would it be appropiate to add an introductory paragraph or two to this article? ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
After all the work done in African American and social history, it's disappointing to see so little recognition here - from the colonial period through the 20th century, there is little notice given of African American contributions to the state, their culture, and why they needed a civil rights movement in the mid-20th century. Much work needs to be done to supplement the article.-- Parkwells 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be too much in this section; a separate article would be better. -- Parkwells ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC
This article in its current state is so bad that it scares me. I am terrified at the man power and hours it would take to make this article presentable. Large swathes are repeated from other articles. Other areas are redundant. There is little organization. A total of 20 poorly formated references for over 90kb of text. The lead is nine paragraphs long. I wish this could be a useful portal to other topics, but right now its just a sink hole for random uncited information. Compare with the History of Minnesota, a featured article. I don't know if it is worth flagging sections, let alone marking phrases that need citation, due to the massive amount of rewriting likely necessary.-- Patrick Ѻ 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Working on reducing Bruton Parish Church to appropriate role, also on Williamsburg, early church, etc. SLowly.-- Parkwells ( talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous IP recently changed the length of time Native Americans have inhabited the area from 3,000 years to 16,000, but with no citation. I'm not an expert who can determine which number is right, so I've reverted the edit until someone links to a credible source. justinfr ( talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
An editor has inserted that Lincoln called for troops, and Virginia therefore seceded. This was in all good time as the convention was called in November and Virginia seceded in early February 1861. However, in those days, the new president didn't take office until March. It seems to me that a WP:RELY footnote is needed since this "fact" is not generally known. The Fort Sumter unpleasantness, regarded as a cassus belli by the North, didn't occur until April. Student7 ( talk) 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article currently has 54+ footnotes (some are multiple). On 34 pages. This is okay but is certainly not well-referenced. It was once acceptable to throw stuff in a baseline article just to get something out there and claim it was in some "external" reference, but unfootnoted. I suggest that time has passed for this article. IMO, people inserting new material should not do that "top of their head" fashion, expecting people including foreigners and schoolchildren, to "go along" with whatever is claimed. Editors should cite printed or web material. This is particularly true for superlatives: "best", "least", "most", "highest", etc. These should not be left to the reader's imagination that "it must be true", the 11 o'clock news has said so repeatedly. An encyclopedia should be held to a higher standard than "heard on the street." Student7 ( talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to move the section on "William & Mary". While related to religion in the colony, its significance is broader, and the paragraph seems to more clearly relate to the move of the capital to Williamsburg (see influence of students), and that it could be re-noted in the religion section. Is there any opposition or agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Riley ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
When I discovered this article page, I found that the early history and social history was rather well covered (save for the Civil Rights movement). However, post-Revolutionary economic and industrial history is greatly lacking, as well as representation of broad trends in the Shenandoah, Appalachia, Southside, and Central Virginia. I am going to attempt to boost that, and general coverage of post-Civil War/Reconstruction/Readjustment history, so parts may appear staccato and sparse for the time being, with several areas marked "expansion needed." There are also significant areas of comments where the changes are being construction. I hope this project does not offend, and that people will be willing to help with or support this. Please let me know if there are any problems. Morgan Riley ( talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently noticed that the section on the Annexation moratorium was deleted. While I was not involved in writing it, I disagree with the assessment that it was minor (it is arguably one of the more significant issues in Virginia politics and constitutionalism in the late 20th century to the present), while at the same time I agreeing that it was unsourced. If and when I can find the sources to support the propositions in there, I propose returning it. Morgan Riley ( talk) 01:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
If the reader gets through the lead, which is a bit long IMO, s/he is faced with an overly large TOC. Don't think s/he's going to read much past that. Really need to shorten it somehow, which may not be trivial. Two columns? Can't really truncate too much. Fork material/reorganize? Needs something.
One suggestion above was to fork the religious subsections. I'm not sure this is totally a negative. If it is spun off, it can be more easily referenced/linked from other articles. (I don't have candidates). It would have to be summarized here. I think the latter is the main problem. I'm not convinced that its importance would be diminished by forking, or that it is considered "expendable" because it is forked. Student7 ( talk) 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I have taken the solemn act of removing the maintenance tag for User:Vaoverland, due to the unfortunate news of his passing. Thank you for all your hard work, sir, and may you rest well! Morgan Riley ( talk) 05:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The lead (not sure why it has to be in lead BTW) says that slave owners took advantage of slave women, which is true. Household slaves. But it gets much worse than that. Overseers (on larger plantations) were told (I have no reference here) to ensure that "the slave women stayed pregnant", to ensure a large population, some of which might be sold off. Some of the overseers undoubtedly "helped out." Not a nice situation. A lot less "friendly" situation than household slaves, which was probably bad enough. (Mary Chesnut refers to the household slave situation incidentally) Student7 ( talk) 23:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Needs more neutral tone in Civil War and Reconstruction sections. In addition, given how much has been written about VA, there is an over-reliance on one source for most of the Reconstruction content. More contemporary sources need to be used. Parkwells ( talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I reworked the introduction to four paragraphs in an encyclopedic summary style per WP:LEAD. Generally, I tried to preserve each point of previous editors. the biggest change is less detail, more summary phrasing. I tried to give major dates for developments every 50 years or so. We are talking 400 years. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 01:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The article states : "The name Virginia came from information gathered by the Raleigh-sponsored English explorations along what is now the North Carolina coast. Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe reported that a regional "king" named Wingina ruled a land of Wingandacoa. Queen Elizabeth modified the name to "Virginia". Though the word is latinate, it stands as the oldest English language place-name in the United States." However, elsewhere on this site, under "List of U.S. state name etymologies", we have : ""Country of the Virgin", after Elizabeth I of England, who was known as the "Virgin Queen" because she never married." The latter is, I think, more commonly accepted. Gwladys24 ( talk) 13:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
"Some ministers solved their problems by encouraged parishioners .." Probably should be "Some ministers solved their problems by encouraging parishioners .."
I created a new section, 'Virginia history on stamps'. There are three readily available on Wikimedia commons. The 'state flags of the united states' series is not yet uploaded there, which I believe has the image of the Colonial Capitol at Williamsburg on the Virginia stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW - Seems a recent edit was reverted in the History of Virginia article without an edit summary or explanation by Rjensen - the reversion may (or may not) be *entirely* justified - my position at the moment is flexible - the reverted edit was as following:
Copied from the History of Virginia article ( updated w/ Pula refs)
October 9, 2014On June 30, 1619, Jan Bogdan and other Slovak and Polish artisans conducted the first labor strike [1] ( first "in American history" [2]) for democratic rights (" No Vote, No Work") [2] [3] in Jamestown. [3] [4] [5] The British Crown overturned the legislation in the Virginia House of Burgesses in its first meeting [6] and granted the workers equal voting rights on July 21, 1619. [7] Afterwards, the labor strike was ended and the artisans resumed their work. [1] [4] [5] [8] [9]
References
- ^ a b Pula, James S. (2008). "Fact vs. Fiction: What Do We Really Know About The Polish Presence In Early Jamestown?". The Polish Review. 53 (4): 477–493. Retrieved October 8, 2014.
- ^ a b Holshouser, Joshua D.; Brylinsk-Padnbey, Lucyna; Kielbasa, Katarzyna (July 2007). "Jamestown: The Birth of American Polonia 1608-2008 (The Role and Accomplishments of Polish Pioneers in the JamestownColony)". Polish American Congress. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
{{ cite web}}
: line feed character in|title=
at position 82 ( help)- ^ a b Odrowaz-Sypniewska, Margaret (Jun 29, 2007). "Poles and Powhatans in Jamestown, Virginia (1606-1617)". Bibliography Sources. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help)
|publisher=
- ^ a b Badaczewski, Dennis (February 28, 2002). Poles in Michigan. Michigan State University Press. ISBN 978-0870136184.
- ^ a b Staff. "Spuscizna - History of Poles in the USA". The Spuscizna Group. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
- ^ Staff (2014). "The House of Burgesses". Ushistory.org. Retrieved October 8, 2014.
- ^ Obst, Peter J. (July 20, 2012). "Dedication of Historical Marker to Honor Jamestown Poles of 1608 - The First Poles in Jamestown". Poles.org. Retrieved October 7, 2014.
- ^ Smith, John (1624). "VII". [[The Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles|The generall historie of Virginia, New England & the Summer Isles, together with The true travels, adventures and observations]]. Vol. 1. American Memory. pp. 150–184. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
{{ cite book}}
: URL–wikilink conflict ( help)- ^ Seroczynski, Felix Thomas (1911). Poles in the United States. Vol. XII. Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
Comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
BRIEF Followup - an academically responsible
JSTOR ref (w/ many footnotes) supportive of many of the historical details re the
Jamestown Polish craftsmen is at the following =>
[1]
Hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 20:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Drbogdan's recent addition of the Barbour article to his list of references makes me wonder whether or not he read it. It does not support the assertions he attaches it to as a reference. Specifically, for one thing, Barbour finds that we do not and cannot, from reliable sources, know the names of the Polish and German (or possibly Dutch, but not Slovak) artisans in question. For another, Barbour dismisses as nonsense the contention that those artisans conducted anything resembling a labor strike for civil rights. (Pula disagrees on that score, but Barbour is clear and emphatic, so it's absurd for Drbogdan to cite him in support of his account of the strike.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
FWIW - I may be out of my depth (and present interests) w/ some of this material, but it seems there may be some worthy material being discussed that may be worth adding and some other material that may have been added that may not be worth keeping - please understand that, for my part, I am *not at all* opposed to *any* needed upd/rv/mv/del/ce/etc of *any* of this material - we may owe it to Wikipedia readers to try and get the material as well grounded as possible of course - at the very least for me, a learning experience re some new and (imo) very interesting materials (& methodologies) - thanks greatly for that of course - I may try and help w/ this but, understandably, may be somewhat limited in what I'm able to present - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 18:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to @ Rjensen: for his recent addition to this article. An institution as vital as horse racing to the society of old Virginia definitely needs to be discussed in the article. I'm uncertain, however, about a couple of sentences.
The first is this: "The slaves were allowed to watch and help with the horses as well." Although I haven't checked the source, and this may be exactly what it says, the sentence seems inadequate for a couple of reasons. On the one hand, the paragraph mentions gambling by planters and "ordinary farmers", but this description of the slaves' participation in horse racing omits any reference to gambling by them. I can't cite a specific source off-hand, but surely instances of gambling among slaves are well attested throughout the period of slaveholding. And while cash is certainly not necessary for gambling, it's universally acknowledged that American slaves routinely possessed cash from various sources (including tips, wages for extra work, presents, and the sale of goods produced during "free" time). I know of no reason to believe that Virginia was exceptional in either respect. One would accordingly presume that slaves also bet on Virginian horse races, either with freemen or separately. In this context, the absence of any mention of gambling by slaves suggests a tacit assertion of some kind. It seems to me that the assertion, if there is one, ought to be made explicit, if the evidence will support it, or else the suggestion of it eliminated.
On the other hand, the sentence seems to me greatly to devalue and diminish the role of slaves in the breeding, care, training, and racing of horses during the period. I confess that I have no specific knowledge on this topic, but I am aware that slaves frequently engaged in highly skilled occupations (often to the chagrin of free tradesmen); and that after Emancipation, even during Segregation, when black people were routinely denied access to prestigious work that they had been encouraged to pursue as slaves, African-Americans continued to play important, if subordinate, roles in the equestrian world. I would be very much surprised to learn that black Virginians under slavery had not routinely served as blacksmiths, farriers, grooms, and drivers (all skilled occupations, requiring considerable craft and knowledge of the horse), and, less commonly, as breeders, trainers, jockeys, and even horse-doctors. To assert that "slaves were allowed to watch and help with the horses as well," implies (unintentionally on Rjensen's part, I'm confident) that these workers were not seriously engaged in the rearing and racing of horses, but were merely "allowed" to "help", as little children are allowed to "help" with household chores that are really beyond their capacity. If I'm right, the article should pay proper respect to the slaves' role in this important social institution. If I'm wrong, it should make explicit the slaves' exclusion from any meaningful participation in horse racing, without the present (unintentional) appearance of condescension.
The other sentence I have doubts about is,
This sentence seems a bit garbled (perhaps partly because of typographical errors), and the idea it seeks to express (as I gather) requires more development if it's not to depend on unspoken preconceptions about the subject. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've made some fairly extensive changes, mostly to the early sections of the article. I trust most are self-explanatory and will be acceptable to others. I combined two separate subsections concerning conflict between English and Indians. I changed references to "Native Americans", usually to "natives", because of the political implications of the former. The New World at the time was indeed broadly referred to by Europeans as "America", and I'm sure its native peoples were occasionally referred to generically as "Americans"; but there was no country known as America, let alone a political entity called by that name. The term "Native Americans" refers to the conquered remnant of the original population of what is now the United States, and is inextricably tied up with their modern status and condition, especially in the Twentieth Century, when the term was first widely adopted. As far as the English were concerned, the country was called Virginia, and the indigenes were either "Indians" or Paspaheghs, Monacans, Powhatans, Nansemonds, etc. The citation of sources in all the sections I revised is quite inadequate in general. I checked a couple of the references to Web sites and found that the links were dead. I deleted one and tagged the other.
Similar revisions should be made to the corresponding parts of Colony of Virginia, which I'll do if I get time.
As is true of many, if not most, Wikipedia articles, probably because of the piecemeal way they're usually written and revised, this article lacks internal flow and consistency. Sections and sub-sections are not parallel, and contents often don't match headings. Content is often repetitive. Topics are strangely juxtaposed. It would be a great service if somebody with more time than I have would reorganize and reconcile the article from stem to stern. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@ MPS: has restored (and since revised) a sentence that I had deleted, concerning a claim that there is archaeological evidence of settlement at Pocahontas Island about 6500 B.C.E., which appears to conflict with the statement preceding it, that Rountree and others have established three thousand years of settlement in Tidewater. There need not be an actual conflict, if the two sources were using two different sets of data; and, after all, it's fairly likely that there were human beings in the area more than ten thousand years ago (the Virginia Department of Historic Resources says over 17,000); but the Pocahontas Island claim just doesn't seem to have reliable documentation. The source given for it is an historical highway marker, which I don't regard as a Reliable Source. The DHR ( http://dhr.virginia.gov/HistoricMarkers/, search "Pocahontas Island") gives the following references for the marker: "Mary Ellen Bushey and Ann Creighton-Zollar, et al, African Americans in Petersburg (1994). Pocahontas Island Historic District nomination form Preservation Virginia, 'Pocahontas Island Historic District.' Whsv.com (15 May 2014)."
The full citation of the Bushey paper is
which makes me think it's not a peer-reviewed work. In any case, it's not a likely source for the claim regarding ancient inhabitants. The historic-district nomination form is on the web at http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/Petersburg/123-0114_PocahontasHD_2006_NRfinal.pdf, and, while very interesting, and apparently well-documented (extensively documented, at least), is not the source of the 6500 B.C.E. claim. That leaves "Whsv.com", which is a Harrisonburg, Va., TV station's web site. It's not archived on the Wayback Machine, and the present site doesn't appear to contain any information on Pocahontas Island. A web search has not turned up any independent support for the Pocahontas Island claim.
I think it would be best to lose the Pocahontas Island claim, and really the Rountree claim as well (since it doesn't take us very far back), and to replace both with a summary of the DHR's account, assuming it's as reliable as it looks (I haven't read it through or investigated its sources). The article, Pocahontas Island, Virginia should also be revised accordingly. (The historic-district nomination form might furnish a good basis for more extensive revision of that article.) I've already spent more time on this than I could really afford, but maybe MPS or somebody else will have time to follow up on what I've done here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of Virginia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
We have an editor who insists on stating " there was continued conflict with natives east of the Alleghenies" in the 18th century. No sources. Rjensen ( talk) 14:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
If you have some source stating there was no conflict with natives east of the allegheny ridge after the year 1700, I don't think much of it because it is painting a false picture. In the year 1700, the Virginia colony had NO effective control above the fall line. Fort Christanna was built in 1717 west of the fall line. They only acquired up to the Blue Ridge (not the Alleghenies) in 1718 from the Seneca, who continued to maintain the Shenandoah Valley (east of the Alleghenies) as a military zone in their wars with the Catawba as late as 1743. In 1743 the Six Nations were on the verge of wiping out the Virginia Colony over the Shenandoah dispute when it was resolved by a payment to them. If you don't know the history of this country, t is easy to find quality first hand sources nowadays to enlighten you. The removal of the factual information I added about Bob Benge in the western counties until 1794 is either systemic bias against western counties, or plainly obstructionist against improving this article with bonafide factual information instead of the usual Junior World Book "The red man rolled over with no contest" 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 14:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The IP is correct, unlike the history of Latin America, the Woodland Indians of eastern North America played the Europeans and Amerindians off of one another for the better part of two hundred years. Of course, Virginia stretches west to the Mississippi River until 1792 (Kentucky) and north to the Ohio River until 1863 (West Virginia). Its expansion by settlement is sometimes by conquest with Amerindian allies (early on with the Rappahannock against the Powhatan), mostly by negotiation and purchase. There is no interest in slighting the western counties of Virginia with representation in the House of Burgesses. — However, — also, — there is only interest in sourced material.
A quick survey reveals, Dabney notes in Virginia: the New Dominion (1972 p. 72, 78), Indian warfare became “less oppressive” during the reign of William and Mary. Spotswood’s advanced trading posts were at the Fall Line, when the King in Council repealed the Indian Act of 1714 and the House of Burgesses made no effort to continue the initiative. Heinemann recalls in Old Dominion, New Commonwealth (2007 p. 78-80) Virginia’s defensive response during the Carolina Yamasee War in 1715. Andrews reports in Virginia: the Old Dominion (1937 p. 190, 208) Spotswood negotiated a treaty with adjacent tribes and with the Six Nations of the Iroquois in 1722 following raids.
In 1744, Iroquois raiding parties against Cherokees were caught at Balcony Falls in Rockbridge County and dispersed. They ceded their rights to the Valley of Virginia west to the Ohio River. (Heinemann, p.92)The three-year Anglo-Cherokee War followed the end of their British alliance against the French in 1761. There was three years of Pontiac's War following 1763. Cornstalk’s uprising in 1775 led to Lord Dunmore’s War.
BUT, The Cherokee War of 1776 stub is also without sources, and may be removed. It notes that following the peace treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the Chickamauga Cherokee band led by Dragging Canoe continues raiding until 1794. You can help Wikipedia with sources. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
In the section where it talks about Spotswood's ' Knights of the Golden Horseshoe Expedition - could an admin please add to that, that none of the English were even certain about what lay beyond the Blue Ridge at that point (1716) as few had ever ventured that far? The article on the expedition should persuade you I am not inventing all this myself. Thanks, 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 15:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
When the freeze is lifted, should we try for this proposed language: "In 1716, Governor Alexander Spotswood led the Knights of the Golden Horseshoe Expedition into previously unsurveyed regions, reaching the top ridge of the Blue Ridge Mountains at Swift Run Gap(elevation 2,365 feet (721 m))."[33][34] --- ? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
RV [6] the vandalism that sparked the page protection. 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 23:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@ 71.127.128.222: IP 71.127.128.222 has again deleted a section without sourcing, claiming it is only POV and racism [7]. The passage reads:
Ultimately, many Virginians were caught up in the resulting French and Indian War that occurred 1754–1763. According to a recent state history: In Virginia, too, the frontier interrupted into violence and terror. Many decades of relatively peaceful relations with the Indians had completely broken down by mid-1755 as nearly all native groups had gone over to the French....Raiding parties hit settlements and Frederick, Augusta, and Hampshire counties and then moved south into the long-settled areas of Halifax. Several hundred Virginians were killed or captured, and many more...fled east. [1]
- ^ Ronald L. Heinemann, et al. Old Dominion, New Commonwealth: A History of Virginia, 1607–2007 (2008) p. 96
(a) What is at issue? raiding parties? former peaceful relations? Native-American tribal alliance with the French against Virginians? Attacks in Frederick, Augusta and Hampshire Counties? Virginian losses or subsequent out-migration?
(b) What alternative sources are to be brought forward to justify removing the passage?
(c) Removal without justification or discussion on this Talk page will be construed as vandalism by most observers. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Does it really say "nearly all" native groups had gone over to the French? I certainly hope not because as far as Virginia history is concerned I don't know who that would be other than the Shawnee. Perhaps if it said "Shawnee Nation" rather than "nearly all native groups" it would look less biased. 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 14:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You are playing games here on the talk page to achieve your desired, deceptive misleading word sophistry on the article itself. We all know what the tribes are of Virginia. You could even make a list of the tribes of Virginia. then go down that list and count how many of those tribes of Virginia, joined the French in that war. The factual answer is you will find only ONE of the tribes on that list of Virginia tribes who joined the French, and all the rest of them did NOT. But clearly that factuality does not fit in with your agenda to make it look like "nearly ALL" tribes joined the Fench and then come here onthe talk page and say "Oh - but see, we weren't talking about Virginia THAT TIME when we said "nearly all", we were talking about Ohio and Quebec. And since we are so well informed on the topic, we also get to make the rules on what racial pov to give the article, and to belittle and demean anyone who notices what were doing with regard to Virginia Indians, as being of substandard intelligence. Because we just HAVE to do that. We're wikipedia. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 12:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
As we have no moderator in this forum, I take it upon myself to call an unruly participant to order. The anonymous user behind the IP address 71.127.128.222 has abused this forum and Wikipedia long enough, with his or her unsourced assertions and contradictions, personalities, and scandalous accusations. She or he has, incidentally, made some reasonable-sounding claims, but obstinately refuses to do the "homework" he or she enjoins on everybody else, and back those claims up with citations to published authority. Whoever questions the anonymous user, or fails to defer to his or her marked POV, is subjected to condescension, personalities, or worse. It's pointless and counterproductive to try to engage such a person in constructive debate, who clearly has no use for the cordial give-and-take of scholarly discussion. We should treat her or him like any other troll, until we see clear evidence of a change in attitude. A good start, in my opinion, would be for him or her to observe some of the basic courtesies of Wikipedia, such as creating a named user account and user page, citing sources, and presuming good faith in others. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Help me out here. Let me know what the controversial assertion I've made is that you're having trouble believing sourcing. and i'll do my best to show you the source. be specific - not just vague 'everything you said must be wrong because you aren't playing the source game with dotted i's and crossed t's" that makes everyone want to puke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I got a perfect firsthand source for you: James I original 1606 charter granting all of those occupied territories to his favored fiefs. You can read right in there how he says all those lands were legally his because the occupants had no right to hold them, and he claimed them as up for grabs and his for the taking. This proclamation is what all of the jingoistic 'Virginia extended to the pacific and to the ohio' attitude or pov that permeates this article, finds its basis and justification in, barbaric as it might seem in modern times, to continue claiming all these areas where no Englishmen actually ever set foot were legally Virginia "on paper" because King James decided the nations already there had no claim. 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Regards, 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 14:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Dont expect me to play by some silly rules you dictate on what my source should refer to.— well yes, in a reputable sourced encyclopedia, a source reference must refer to the subject of the text. I concur with including the nomadic Westos in the Virginia narrative for the twenty years or so that they were nearby Virginia 1640-1660, sourcing Gallay, if you care to do the work. But as you see in the Wikipedia article on them, most of their historically significant career is along the Savannah River (see your sources, Bowne and Gallay 2002) before they were "extinguished".
I'm sorry, I hadn't checked the IP range for a while. Too late to block him although it's tempting to strike all his comments above. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of Virginia/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.
This page is a little to complicated |
Last edited at 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Any interest in creating a Timeline of Virginia article? A few other U.S. states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here are some sources:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)-- M2545 ( talk) 06:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Virginia. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wm.edu/niahd/journals/index.php?browse=entry&id=4965When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Virginia. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Welcome to the Talk page for the History of Virginia article.
Could this be added, Virginia Military District. Newbie222 6 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
Is this image copyrighted? [1] Falphin 7 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)
Would it be appropiate to add an introductory paragraph or two to this article? ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
After all the work done in African American and social history, it's disappointing to see so little recognition here - from the colonial period through the 20th century, there is little notice given of African American contributions to the state, their culture, and why they needed a civil rights movement in the mid-20th century. Much work needs to be done to supplement the article.-- Parkwells 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be too much in this section; a separate article would be better. -- Parkwells ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC
This article in its current state is so bad that it scares me. I am terrified at the man power and hours it would take to make this article presentable. Large swathes are repeated from other articles. Other areas are redundant. There is little organization. A total of 20 poorly formated references for over 90kb of text. The lead is nine paragraphs long. I wish this could be a useful portal to other topics, but right now its just a sink hole for random uncited information. Compare with the History of Minnesota, a featured article. I don't know if it is worth flagging sections, let alone marking phrases that need citation, due to the massive amount of rewriting likely necessary.-- Patrick Ѻ 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Working on reducing Bruton Parish Church to appropriate role, also on Williamsburg, early church, etc. SLowly.-- Parkwells ( talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous IP recently changed the length of time Native Americans have inhabited the area from 3,000 years to 16,000, but with no citation. I'm not an expert who can determine which number is right, so I've reverted the edit until someone links to a credible source. justinfr ( talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
An editor has inserted that Lincoln called for troops, and Virginia therefore seceded. This was in all good time as the convention was called in November and Virginia seceded in early February 1861. However, in those days, the new president didn't take office until March. It seems to me that a WP:RELY footnote is needed since this "fact" is not generally known. The Fort Sumter unpleasantness, regarded as a cassus belli by the North, didn't occur until April. Student7 ( talk) 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article currently has 54+ footnotes (some are multiple). On 34 pages. This is okay but is certainly not well-referenced. It was once acceptable to throw stuff in a baseline article just to get something out there and claim it was in some "external" reference, but unfootnoted. I suggest that time has passed for this article. IMO, people inserting new material should not do that "top of their head" fashion, expecting people including foreigners and schoolchildren, to "go along" with whatever is claimed. Editors should cite printed or web material. This is particularly true for superlatives: "best", "least", "most", "highest", etc. These should not be left to the reader's imagination that "it must be true", the 11 o'clock news has said so repeatedly. An encyclopedia should be held to a higher standard than "heard on the street." Student7 ( talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to move the section on "William & Mary". While related to religion in the colony, its significance is broader, and the paragraph seems to more clearly relate to the move of the capital to Williamsburg (see influence of students), and that it could be re-noted in the religion section. Is there any opposition or agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Riley ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
When I discovered this article page, I found that the early history and social history was rather well covered (save for the Civil Rights movement). However, post-Revolutionary economic and industrial history is greatly lacking, as well as representation of broad trends in the Shenandoah, Appalachia, Southside, and Central Virginia. I am going to attempt to boost that, and general coverage of post-Civil War/Reconstruction/Readjustment history, so parts may appear staccato and sparse for the time being, with several areas marked "expansion needed." There are also significant areas of comments where the changes are being construction. I hope this project does not offend, and that people will be willing to help with or support this. Please let me know if there are any problems. Morgan Riley ( talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently noticed that the section on the Annexation moratorium was deleted. While I was not involved in writing it, I disagree with the assessment that it was minor (it is arguably one of the more significant issues in Virginia politics and constitutionalism in the late 20th century to the present), while at the same time I agreeing that it was unsourced. If and when I can find the sources to support the propositions in there, I propose returning it. Morgan Riley ( talk) 01:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
If the reader gets through the lead, which is a bit long IMO, s/he is faced with an overly large TOC. Don't think s/he's going to read much past that. Really need to shorten it somehow, which may not be trivial. Two columns? Can't really truncate too much. Fork material/reorganize? Needs something.
One suggestion above was to fork the religious subsections. I'm not sure this is totally a negative. If it is spun off, it can be more easily referenced/linked from other articles. (I don't have candidates). It would have to be summarized here. I think the latter is the main problem. I'm not convinced that its importance would be diminished by forking, or that it is considered "expendable" because it is forked. Student7 ( talk) 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I have taken the solemn act of removing the maintenance tag for User:Vaoverland, due to the unfortunate news of his passing. Thank you for all your hard work, sir, and may you rest well! Morgan Riley ( talk) 05:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The lead (not sure why it has to be in lead BTW) says that slave owners took advantage of slave women, which is true. Household slaves. But it gets much worse than that. Overseers (on larger plantations) were told (I have no reference here) to ensure that "the slave women stayed pregnant", to ensure a large population, some of which might be sold off. Some of the overseers undoubtedly "helped out." Not a nice situation. A lot less "friendly" situation than household slaves, which was probably bad enough. (Mary Chesnut refers to the household slave situation incidentally) Student7 ( talk) 23:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Needs more neutral tone in Civil War and Reconstruction sections. In addition, given how much has been written about VA, there is an over-reliance on one source for most of the Reconstruction content. More contemporary sources need to be used. Parkwells ( talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I reworked the introduction to four paragraphs in an encyclopedic summary style per WP:LEAD. Generally, I tried to preserve each point of previous editors. the biggest change is less detail, more summary phrasing. I tried to give major dates for developments every 50 years or so. We are talking 400 years. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 01:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The article states : "The name Virginia came from information gathered by the Raleigh-sponsored English explorations along what is now the North Carolina coast. Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe reported that a regional "king" named Wingina ruled a land of Wingandacoa. Queen Elizabeth modified the name to "Virginia". Though the word is latinate, it stands as the oldest English language place-name in the United States." However, elsewhere on this site, under "List of U.S. state name etymologies", we have : ""Country of the Virgin", after Elizabeth I of England, who was known as the "Virgin Queen" because she never married." The latter is, I think, more commonly accepted. Gwladys24 ( talk) 13:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
"Some ministers solved their problems by encouraged parishioners .." Probably should be "Some ministers solved their problems by encouraging parishioners .."
I created a new section, 'Virginia history on stamps'. There are three readily available on Wikimedia commons. The 'state flags of the united states' series is not yet uploaded there, which I believe has the image of the Colonial Capitol at Williamsburg on the Virginia stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW - Seems a recent edit was reverted in the History of Virginia article without an edit summary or explanation by Rjensen - the reversion may (or may not) be *entirely* justified - my position at the moment is flexible - the reverted edit was as following:
Copied from the History of Virginia article ( updated w/ Pula refs)
October 9, 2014On June 30, 1619, Jan Bogdan and other Slovak and Polish artisans conducted the first labor strike [1] ( first "in American history" [2]) for democratic rights (" No Vote, No Work") [2] [3] in Jamestown. [3] [4] [5] The British Crown overturned the legislation in the Virginia House of Burgesses in its first meeting [6] and granted the workers equal voting rights on July 21, 1619. [7] Afterwards, the labor strike was ended and the artisans resumed their work. [1] [4] [5] [8] [9]
References
- ^ a b Pula, James S. (2008). "Fact vs. Fiction: What Do We Really Know About The Polish Presence In Early Jamestown?". The Polish Review. 53 (4): 477–493. Retrieved October 8, 2014.
- ^ a b Holshouser, Joshua D.; Brylinsk-Padnbey, Lucyna; Kielbasa, Katarzyna (July 2007). "Jamestown: The Birth of American Polonia 1608-2008 (The Role and Accomplishments of Polish Pioneers in the JamestownColony)". Polish American Congress. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
{{ cite web}}
: line feed character in|title=
at position 82 ( help)- ^ a b Odrowaz-Sypniewska, Margaret (Jun 29, 2007). "Poles and Powhatans in Jamestown, Virginia (1606-1617)". Bibliography Sources. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help)
|publisher=
- ^ a b Badaczewski, Dennis (February 28, 2002). Poles in Michigan. Michigan State University Press. ISBN 978-0870136184.
- ^ a b Staff. "Spuscizna - History of Poles in the USA". The Spuscizna Group. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
- ^ Staff (2014). "The House of Burgesses". Ushistory.org. Retrieved October 8, 2014.
- ^ Obst, Peter J. (July 20, 2012). "Dedication of Historical Marker to Honor Jamestown Poles of 1608 - The First Poles in Jamestown". Poles.org. Retrieved October 7, 2014.
- ^ Smith, John (1624). "VII". [[The Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles|The generall historie of Virginia, New England & the Summer Isles, together with The true travels, adventures and observations]]. Vol. 1. American Memory. pp. 150–184. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
{{ cite book}}
: URL–wikilink conflict ( help)- ^ Seroczynski, Felix Thomas (1911). Poles in the United States. Vol. XII. Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
Comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
BRIEF Followup - an academically responsible
JSTOR ref (w/ many footnotes) supportive of many of the historical details re the
Jamestown Polish craftsmen is at the following =>
[1]
Hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 20:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Drbogdan's recent addition of the Barbour article to his list of references makes me wonder whether or not he read it. It does not support the assertions he attaches it to as a reference. Specifically, for one thing, Barbour finds that we do not and cannot, from reliable sources, know the names of the Polish and German (or possibly Dutch, but not Slovak) artisans in question. For another, Barbour dismisses as nonsense the contention that those artisans conducted anything resembling a labor strike for civil rights. (Pula disagrees on that score, but Barbour is clear and emphatic, so it's absurd for Drbogdan to cite him in support of his account of the strike.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
FWIW - I may be out of my depth (and present interests) w/ some of this material, but it seems there may be some worthy material being discussed that may be worth adding and some other material that may have been added that may not be worth keeping - please understand that, for my part, I am *not at all* opposed to *any* needed upd/rv/mv/del/ce/etc of *any* of this material - we may owe it to Wikipedia readers to try and get the material as well grounded as possible of course - at the very least for me, a learning experience re some new and (imo) very interesting materials (& methodologies) - thanks greatly for that of course - I may try and help w/ this but, understandably, may be somewhat limited in what I'm able to present - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 18:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to @ Rjensen: for his recent addition to this article. An institution as vital as horse racing to the society of old Virginia definitely needs to be discussed in the article. I'm uncertain, however, about a couple of sentences.
The first is this: "The slaves were allowed to watch and help with the horses as well." Although I haven't checked the source, and this may be exactly what it says, the sentence seems inadequate for a couple of reasons. On the one hand, the paragraph mentions gambling by planters and "ordinary farmers", but this description of the slaves' participation in horse racing omits any reference to gambling by them. I can't cite a specific source off-hand, but surely instances of gambling among slaves are well attested throughout the period of slaveholding. And while cash is certainly not necessary for gambling, it's universally acknowledged that American slaves routinely possessed cash from various sources (including tips, wages for extra work, presents, and the sale of goods produced during "free" time). I know of no reason to believe that Virginia was exceptional in either respect. One would accordingly presume that slaves also bet on Virginian horse races, either with freemen or separately. In this context, the absence of any mention of gambling by slaves suggests a tacit assertion of some kind. It seems to me that the assertion, if there is one, ought to be made explicit, if the evidence will support it, or else the suggestion of it eliminated.
On the other hand, the sentence seems to me greatly to devalue and diminish the role of slaves in the breeding, care, training, and racing of horses during the period. I confess that I have no specific knowledge on this topic, but I am aware that slaves frequently engaged in highly skilled occupations (often to the chagrin of free tradesmen); and that after Emancipation, even during Segregation, when black people were routinely denied access to prestigious work that they had been encouraged to pursue as slaves, African-Americans continued to play important, if subordinate, roles in the equestrian world. I would be very much surprised to learn that black Virginians under slavery had not routinely served as blacksmiths, farriers, grooms, and drivers (all skilled occupations, requiring considerable craft and knowledge of the horse), and, less commonly, as breeders, trainers, jockeys, and even horse-doctors. To assert that "slaves were allowed to watch and help with the horses as well," implies (unintentionally on Rjensen's part, I'm confident) that these workers were not seriously engaged in the rearing and racing of horses, but were merely "allowed" to "help", as little children are allowed to "help" with household chores that are really beyond their capacity. If I'm right, the article should pay proper respect to the slaves' role in this important social institution. If I'm wrong, it should make explicit the slaves' exclusion from any meaningful participation in horse racing, without the present (unintentional) appearance of condescension.
The other sentence I have doubts about is,
This sentence seems a bit garbled (perhaps partly because of typographical errors), and the idea it seeks to express (as I gather) requires more development if it's not to depend on unspoken preconceptions about the subject. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've made some fairly extensive changes, mostly to the early sections of the article. I trust most are self-explanatory and will be acceptable to others. I combined two separate subsections concerning conflict between English and Indians. I changed references to "Native Americans", usually to "natives", because of the political implications of the former. The New World at the time was indeed broadly referred to by Europeans as "America", and I'm sure its native peoples were occasionally referred to generically as "Americans"; but there was no country known as America, let alone a political entity called by that name. The term "Native Americans" refers to the conquered remnant of the original population of what is now the United States, and is inextricably tied up with their modern status and condition, especially in the Twentieth Century, when the term was first widely adopted. As far as the English were concerned, the country was called Virginia, and the indigenes were either "Indians" or Paspaheghs, Monacans, Powhatans, Nansemonds, etc. The citation of sources in all the sections I revised is quite inadequate in general. I checked a couple of the references to Web sites and found that the links were dead. I deleted one and tagged the other.
Similar revisions should be made to the corresponding parts of Colony of Virginia, which I'll do if I get time.
As is true of many, if not most, Wikipedia articles, probably because of the piecemeal way they're usually written and revised, this article lacks internal flow and consistency. Sections and sub-sections are not parallel, and contents often don't match headings. Content is often repetitive. Topics are strangely juxtaposed. It would be a great service if somebody with more time than I have would reorganize and reconcile the article from stem to stern. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@ MPS: has restored (and since revised) a sentence that I had deleted, concerning a claim that there is archaeological evidence of settlement at Pocahontas Island about 6500 B.C.E., which appears to conflict with the statement preceding it, that Rountree and others have established three thousand years of settlement in Tidewater. There need not be an actual conflict, if the two sources were using two different sets of data; and, after all, it's fairly likely that there were human beings in the area more than ten thousand years ago (the Virginia Department of Historic Resources says over 17,000); but the Pocahontas Island claim just doesn't seem to have reliable documentation. The source given for it is an historical highway marker, which I don't regard as a Reliable Source. The DHR ( http://dhr.virginia.gov/HistoricMarkers/, search "Pocahontas Island") gives the following references for the marker: "Mary Ellen Bushey and Ann Creighton-Zollar, et al, African Americans in Petersburg (1994). Pocahontas Island Historic District nomination form Preservation Virginia, 'Pocahontas Island Historic District.' Whsv.com (15 May 2014)."
The full citation of the Bushey paper is
which makes me think it's not a peer-reviewed work. In any case, it's not a likely source for the claim regarding ancient inhabitants. The historic-district nomination form is on the web at http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/Petersburg/123-0114_PocahontasHD_2006_NRfinal.pdf, and, while very interesting, and apparently well-documented (extensively documented, at least), is not the source of the 6500 B.C.E. claim. That leaves "Whsv.com", which is a Harrisonburg, Va., TV station's web site. It's not archived on the Wayback Machine, and the present site doesn't appear to contain any information on Pocahontas Island. A web search has not turned up any independent support for the Pocahontas Island claim.
I think it would be best to lose the Pocahontas Island claim, and really the Rountree claim as well (since it doesn't take us very far back), and to replace both with a summary of the DHR's account, assuming it's as reliable as it looks (I haven't read it through or investigated its sources). The article, Pocahontas Island, Virginia should also be revised accordingly. (The historic-district nomination form might furnish a good basis for more extensive revision of that article.) I've already spent more time on this than I could really afford, but maybe MPS or somebody else will have time to follow up on what I've done here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of Virginia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
We have an editor who insists on stating " there was continued conflict with natives east of the Alleghenies" in the 18th century. No sources. Rjensen ( talk) 14:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
If you have some source stating there was no conflict with natives east of the allegheny ridge after the year 1700, I don't think much of it because it is painting a false picture. In the year 1700, the Virginia colony had NO effective control above the fall line. Fort Christanna was built in 1717 west of the fall line. They only acquired up to the Blue Ridge (not the Alleghenies) in 1718 from the Seneca, who continued to maintain the Shenandoah Valley (east of the Alleghenies) as a military zone in their wars with the Catawba as late as 1743. In 1743 the Six Nations were on the verge of wiping out the Virginia Colony over the Shenandoah dispute when it was resolved by a payment to them. If you don't know the history of this country, t is easy to find quality first hand sources nowadays to enlighten you. The removal of the factual information I added about Bob Benge in the western counties until 1794 is either systemic bias against western counties, or plainly obstructionist against improving this article with bonafide factual information instead of the usual Junior World Book "The red man rolled over with no contest" 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 14:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The IP is correct, unlike the history of Latin America, the Woodland Indians of eastern North America played the Europeans and Amerindians off of one another for the better part of two hundred years. Of course, Virginia stretches west to the Mississippi River until 1792 (Kentucky) and north to the Ohio River until 1863 (West Virginia). Its expansion by settlement is sometimes by conquest with Amerindian allies (early on with the Rappahannock against the Powhatan), mostly by negotiation and purchase. There is no interest in slighting the western counties of Virginia with representation in the House of Burgesses. — However, — also, — there is only interest in sourced material.
A quick survey reveals, Dabney notes in Virginia: the New Dominion (1972 p. 72, 78), Indian warfare became “less oppressive” during the reign of William and Mary. Spotswood’s advanced trading posts were at the Fall Line, when the King in Council repealed the Indian Act of 1714 and the House of Burgesses made no effort to continue the initiative. Heinemann recalls in Old Dominion, New Commonwealth (2007 p. 78-80) Virginia’s defensive response during the Carolina Yamasee War in 1715. Andrews reports in Virginia: the Old Dominion (1937 p. 190, 208) Spotswood negotiated a treaty with adjacent tribes and with the Six Nations of the Iroquois in 1722 following raids.
In 1744, Iroquois raiding parties against Cherokees were caught at Balcony Falls in Rockbridge County and dispersed. They ceded their rights to the Valley of Virginia west to the Ohio River. (Heinemann, p.92)The three-year Anglo-Cherokee War followed the end of their British alliance against the French in 1761. There was three years of Pontiac's War following 1763. Cornstalk’s uprising in 1775 led to Lord Dunmore’s War.
BUT, The Cherokee War of 1776 stub is also without sources, and may be removed. It notes that following the peace treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the Chickamauga Cherokee band led by Dragging Canoe continues raiding until 1794. You can help Wikipedia with sources. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
In the section where it talks about Spotswood's ' Knights of the Golden Horseshoe Expedition - could an admin please add to that, that none of the English were even certain about what lay beyond the Blue Ridge at that point (1716) as few had ever ventured that far? The article on the expedition should persuade you I am not inventing all this myself. Thanks, 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 15:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
When the freeze is lifted, should we try for this proposed language: "In 1716, Governor Alexander Spotswood led the Knights of the Golden Horseshoe Expedition into previously unsurveyed regions, reaching the top ridge of the Blue Ridge Mountains at Swift Run Gap(elevation 2,365 feet (721 m))."[33][34] --- ? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
RV [6] the vandalism that sparked the page protection. 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 23:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@ 71.127.128.222: IP 71.127.128.222 has again deleted a section without sourcing, claiming it is only POV and racism [7]. The passage reads:
Ultimately, many Virginians were caught up in the resulting French and Indian War that occurred 1754–1763. According to a recent state history: In Virginia, too, the frontier interrupted into violence and terror. Many decades of relatively peaceful relations with the Indians had completely broken down by mid-1755 as nearly all native groups had gone over to the French....Raiding parties hit settlements and Frederick, Augusta, and Hampshire counties and then moved south into the long-settled areas of Halifax. Several hundred Virginians were killed or captured, and many more...fled east. [1]
- ^ Ronald L. Heinemann, et al. Old Dominion, New Commonwealth: A History of Virginia, 1607–2007 (2008) p. 96
(a) What is at issue? raiding parties? former peaceful relations? Native-American tribal alliance with the French against Virginians? Attacks in Frederick, Augusta and Hampshire Counties? Virginian losses or subsequent out-migration?
(b) What alternative sources are to be brought forward to justify removing the passage?
(c) Removal without justification or discussion on this Talk page will be construed as vandalism by most observers. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Does it really say "nearly all" native groups had gone over to the French? I certainly hope not because as far as Virginia history is concerned I don't know who that would be other than the Shawnee. Perhaps if it said "Shawnee Nation" rather than "nearly all native groups" it would look less biased. 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 14:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You are playing games here on the talk page to achieve your desired, deceptive misleading word sophistry on the article itself. We all know what the tribes are of Virginia. You could even make a list of the tribes of Virginia. then go down that list and count how many of those tribes of Virginia, joined the French in that war. The factual answer is you will find only ONE of the tribes on that list of Virginia tribes who joined the French, and all the rest of them did NOT. But clearly that factuality does not fit in with your agenda to make it look like "nearly ALL" tribes joined the Fench and then come here onthe talk page and say "Oh - but see, we weren't talking about Virginia THAT TIME when we said "nearly all", we were talking about Ohio and Quebec. And since we are so well informed on the topic, we also get to make the rules on what racial pov to give the article, and to belittle and demean anyone who notices what were doing with regard to Virginia Indians, as being of substandard intelligence. Because we just HAVE to do that. We're wikipedia. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 12:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
As we have no moderator in this forum, I take it upon myself to call an unruly participant to order. The anonymous user behind the IP address 71.127.128.222 has abused this forum and Wikipedia long enough, with his or her unsourced assertions and contradictions, personalities, and scandalous accusations. She or he has, incidentally, made some reasonable-sounding claims, but obstinately refuses to do the "homework" he or she enjoins on everybody else, and back those claims up with citations to published authority. Whoever questions the anonymous user, or fails to defer to his or her marked POV, is subjected to condescension, personalities, or worse. It's pointless and counterproductive to try to engage such a person in constructive debate, who clearly has no use for the cordial give-and-take of scholarly discussion. We should treat her or him like any other troll, until we see clear evidence of a change in attitude. A good start, in my opinion, would be for him or her to observe some of the basic courtesies of Wikipedia, such as creating a named user account and user page, citing sources, and presuming good faith in others. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Help me out here. Let me know what the controversial assertion I've made is that you're having trouble believing sourcing. and i'll do my best to show you the source. be specific - not just vague 'everything you said must be wrong because you aren't playing the source game with dotted i's and crossed t's" that makes everyone want to puke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I got a perfect firsthand source for you: James I original 1606 charter granting all of those occupied territories to his favored fiefs. You can read right in there how he says all those lands were legally his because the occupants had no right to hold them, and he claimed them as up for grabs and his for the taking. This proclamation is what all of the jingoistic 'Virginia extended to the pacific and to the ohio' attitude or pov that permeates this article, finds its basis and justification in, barbaric as it might seem in modern times, to continue claiming all these areas where no Englishmen actually ever set foot were legally Virginia "on paper" because King James decided the nations already there had no claim. 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Regards, 71.127.128.222 ( talk) 14:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Dont expect me to play by some silly rules you dictate on what my source should refer to.— well yes, in a reputable sourced encyclopedia, a source reference must refer to the subject of the text. I concur with including the nomadic Westos in the Virginia narrative for the twenty years or so that they were nearby Virginia 1640-1660, sourcing Gallay, if you care to do the work. But as you see in the Wikipedia article on them, most of their historically significant career is along the Savannah River (see your sources, Bowne and Gallay 2002) before they were "extinguished".
I'm sorry, I hadn't checked the IP range for a while. Too late to block him although it's tempting to strike all his comments above. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of Virginia/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.
This page is a little to complicated |
Last edited at 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Any interest in creating a Timeline of Virginia article? A few other U.S. states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here are some sources:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)-- M2545 ( talk) 06:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Virginia. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wm.edu/niahd/journals/index.php?browse=entry&id=4965When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Virginia. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)