Talk:King Philip's War

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

topics[edit]

Some of the tribes mentioned deserve their own articles and links. For others, we need a grouping that will allow short descriptions within some longer article, something like Indians of New England.

The town links also need to be checked and / or updated. In the 17th century, the collonial names we are used and some don't to didn't fit. Providence Plantaions went on the become Rhode Island. Massachusetts was officially divided into Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth Colonies, and claimed jurisdiction in New Hampshire and Maine. Though Connecticut would later emerge, many settlers in 1675 considered themselves to be expatriots of Massachusetts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LouI (talk • contribs) 15:12, September 6, 2003 (UTC)

Convert to Puritanism or die?[edit]

The bit about forced conversions on the sometimes enforced threat of death need some reference, it does not seem plausible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leandrod (talk • contribs) 18:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I, on the other hand think it seems quite plausable considering how poorly the Colonists treated the Native Americans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs) 15:32, December 15, 2005 (UTC)
You on the other hand seem to forget the war was started because a native christian was assassinated for being christian. But "White Man Bad" amirite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8800:6f00:2585:5518:2614:2872 (talk • contribs) 04:17, November 25, 2019 (UTC)
The main article doesn't seem to mention forced conversion anymore. rewinn 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Europeans have practiced forced conversion for over fifteen hundred years. It's entirely plausible. 69.248.95.22 22:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Book Award winner "Mayflower" by Philbrook that came out a year or two ago is a pretty exhaustive account of the period from the Mayflower's voyage through King Philip's War. Philbrook doesn't spare the Pilgrims or Puritans from criticism; but there aren't any examples of forced conversions. Indeed, many colonists distrusted "Praying Indians" and opposed other colonists efforts at prosylitizing and converting the native population. As a practical matter, it would have been difficult to "force" Indians to convert by the sword since they were a mobile population and not tied to ghettos or fixed towns like Jews (or Protestants in France), etc. They could simply leave, or pretend to convert and then flee at the first opportunity. It is remarkable that most converted Indians maintained their faith even when the Puritans, in the war's latter stages, started capturing and sending many to the West Indies as slaves. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn[reply]

The Pilgrim and Puritan settlers essentially forced conversion to Christianity on Native Americans. They forbade Native American communities around the area which is now New England from practicing their religion and conducting traditional rituals; "no Indian shall at any time pawwaw, or performe outward worship of their false gods.."
"...(anyone) deniing the true God...shalbe put to death" ("The Earth Shall Weep", James Wilson, p95)
Contrary to the idea that Native Americans at this time were a traveling people, they built solid communities in areas verbally negotiated with neighboring tribes. They, for the most part, stayed with their community in that given area, and only moved on if resources were exhausted. Very few tribes traveled continuously, and those that did often returned to the same place, their home, at given seasons, or when the area had recovered from the damage of farming that settling had caused.
Native Americans had strong, prosperous communities, and agreed to "praying towns" only to appease the English settlers. Very few Native Americans truly converted. They could not "simply leave" as they would be abandoning their home, their land, their family and their community, and would likely find themselves at the mercy of European settlers and without the support of their fellow tribesmen and women.
In this article, the war is described as being started by the bitter Metacom's conspiracy to rise up against the English settlers, however there is evidence that the supposed conspiracy that he planned to begin an uprising against the English settlers was deliberately fabricated by the puritans as a pretext to wipe out Indian settlements and to resume conquest of the Indians.
The puritans took control of Indian land, resources and peoples, with blatant arrogance and self-righteousness. (Allymaxwell (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
There was no forced conversion. It was punishable by death for anyone, settler or Indian, to blaspheme, but this does not ammount to forced conversion by any arithmetic. Look, I understand your Christophobic counter-culture rage, but please stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.195 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the puritans of Plymouth had no problem ejecting and forcibly converting catholics, thus other christians, that they would do it to pagan natives is no great stretch. If you intend to paint this likely historical event as hatred of christ or christianity, kindly go hang yourself to a cross somewhere where people will give a damn, preferrably Calvinist Geneva. 216.252.78.183 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The information about forced conversions has long been gone from this article, so there is no point in discussing it here, unless you're planning on putting it back in. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahican or Mohegan?[edit]

This article mentions the Mohicans, but that term could refer to either of two distinct groups: the Mahicans or the Mohegans, which are commonly confused with each other. We need to clarify which group is being referred to in each case, and correct the Mohican link, which currently goes to a disambiguation page. I don't have the knowledge or sources to do the correction myself. --Wechselstrom 06:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the book, Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick, Mohegan is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.164.200 (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I understand the mistreatment of the Native Americans by the colonialists, and I for one am hugely in favour of the Natives on any discussion on this topic, but we are an encyclopaedia, and surely should write like one. "Direct result of the English rapacity for land" is not neutral language, and the entire article is POV. Jdcooper 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a disappointly simplistic explanation of the causes. It was far more complicated than that, both a civil war and a war against the English, and a really blunt example of why trade balance matters. --iMb~Meow 03:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to npov edit this. Similar problems arise throughout WikiProjectNorthAmNative and it's all solvable. I just npov'd the former "Surrounded" section, but there's more to do.... rewinn 01:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the neutrality that wiki needs to have. Personally I think this conflict was inevitable, and lets not forget that the native Americans started this war and the colonists had a number of brutal acts done against them by the Indians as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.50.172 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I see a whole bunch of sources being added to this article, with no particular indication where or if they are being used. This article would greatly benefit from inline citations (for example, the <ref> system) to show where the analyses are coming from and to alleviate concerns that this article may contain original research. --iMb~Meow 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article suffers from editors using too many primary sources, and thus doing OR (Original Research), against WP policy. They are supposed to rely on secondary sources, and even the secondary sources used here are dated: 1904 and 1954? More recent histories, such as that by Jill Lepore, which won numerous awards, give a fuller account of the conflict from all sides with more NPOV. Such works should be used here.Parkwells (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

The subsection Population: two views says that the indigenous population was "significantly larger" than the colonist population. But author Nathaniel Philbrick in his new book Mayflower says that there were about 20,000 Indians and about 50,000 colonists in the area by 1675. Is there a published source for the current statement in the article, or should it be updated? --Blainster 04:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though we do need a citation, I would hardly think of Philbrick as the last word on the topic. See Jill Lepore's review in the New Yorker about six months back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.135.14 (talk) 07:00, January 30, 2007 (UTC)
Nobody "knows" the population of Indians in 1675 and the guesses differ by orders of magnitude from a few thousand to a few tens of thousand. When they finally counted the Indians in a 1680 census they only came up with about a 1,000. The Indian casualties, as recorded by the colonists, would appear to be about the same as the colonists as each side "won" and "lost" various battles. Going through the different battles its posssible to come up with a few hundred colonists killed--600 is plausible. Where the 3,000 Indians killed comes from is not attributed and is probably an exaggeration unless it includes deaths by disease or some other unlisted calamity. The colonial New England population in 1675 can be gotten with a reasonable certainity from colonial records at 50,000 to 60,000. A "best guess" would be that the colonist probably out numbered the Indians 10:1 or more. That's one of the things that indirectly lead to the war as colonial population growth lead to the "need" for new land as the colonial population doubled in roughly every 25 years. On the other side the Indians desire for iron age tools like kettles, tomahawks and flintlocks was getting harder and harder to meet as they stripped the land of fur bearing animals to trade. D'lin 07:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Tag?[edit]

  1. Is the article still deserving of the "Neutrality in Dispute" tag?
  2. If so, what elements are in dispute? Surely we can fix that! rewinn 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work[edit]

This article still needs work, especially for one on subject which is so important. The disparity of power that had already been established between Native and European peoples of this time period could be better conveyed through non-POV narrative than by veering from encyclopedic standards. Also, the narrative is a bit convoluted and it is difficult to discern that “a, b, & c” were on one side and “x, y, & z” where on the other. I’m putting this article on my to-do list and will make improvements soon. Happy Holidays. House of Scandal 00:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article still needs work. In the section labeled "Battle of Bloody Brook," the last sentence is ungrammatical and makes no sense. The reference links are not working so I was unable to determine what was meant by the last sentence. Since the section is so short, I have copy/pasted it in its entirety here:
"The Battle of Bloody Brook was fought on September 12, 1675, between English colonial militia from the Massachusetts Bay Colony and a band of Indians led by the Nipmuc sachem Muttawmp. The Indians ambushed colonists escorting from Deerfield to Hadley. They watched at included 79 militia.[26][27]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.131.165 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different begining to the war[edit]

I have this statmen which gives a reasn for the start of King Phillip's War.

Death Notes- First incidents of King Phillip's War at Swansea in June 1675. On the 23rd of June, it is said that, John Salisbury killed an Indian who "was pilfering his house". Indians returned the next day and killed him and his father. When troops arrived, from Boston and Plymouth, on the 28th of June, they found the heads of the murdered Englishmen set on poles at a place called Keeamuit ( now Warren, RI ) Accounts of these incidents vary but it is generally accepted that the first victims of the war were "John Salisbury, William Salisbury, Gershom Cobb, Joseph Lewis, John Ives, Robert Jones, and John Fall, Nathaniel and William Lohun".

-I found this statement at the local historical society done by a local historian from the Mass. area. Bcody 02:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Lepore's history of the war, published in 1998, would be a better source, rather than picking from a primary source. Parkwells (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate Treatment of Aftermath[edit]

It appears that this article still hasn't freed itself from the triumphalism of the Puritan historical tradition. While it is true that the New England Indians were practically wiped out as a result of King Philip's War, the Puritans were also substantially harmed, nearly ruined, by the war. As pointed out by Francis Jennings toward the end of his book The Invasion of America: The Cant of Conquest, the weakened Puritans, now having to depend on the British government for protection, particularly the aggressive, aristocratic governor of New York Sir Edmund Andros, soon lost their independence altogther with the revocation of the charter of Massachusetts Bay in 1684 (enforced 1686), and they never got it back, even when Andros was deposed. At the same time, an Anglican church was established in Boston for the first time, and new religious freedom ended the Puritan monopoly on religion that had persisted 1629-1686. This was followed by the collusion of the Puritan clergy in the Salem witchcraft delusion, an attempt to recover their lost power which backfired and discredited them forever. This was all direct fallout from the ruin of their enterprise in King Philip's War. While the Puritan ethos undoubtedly contributed to the later character of the United States, the Puritans themselves were thoroughly discomfited and lost everything they had held dear. JimBDavis 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with editors using dated secondary sources (1904 and 1954) and relying too much on primary sources. Recommend Jill Lepore's award-winning history of the war, published in 1998.Parkwells (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wamsutta[edit]

I'm posting a link to a picture

[IMG]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m70/lzthomas/Image019.jpg[/IMG]

that is in Halifax, Massachuseets, mentioning the capture of Wamsutta at that site. It is on the north end of White Island road, off Route 58 (Monponsett street). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halmass (talk • contribs) 15:58, April 5, 2007 (UTC)

The estimations are off by a few thousand...[edit]

although it's not verifiable, most sources say that the losses inflicted on both sides was about 20,000, not 3,600. That may seem steep, but the author even said "the war was one of the costliest in American history." 24.28.27.57 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen NO reliable source indicate anywhere near the casualties you mention. The colonial casualties of around 600 are pretty well known, down to even the individual names in most cases as they kept pretty good pay records, town records etc. The Indian casualties are a much greater unknown since they and the colonials kept essentially no records on Indian casualties before or after the conflict. There are no reliable estimates of even how many Indians there originally were. I suspect most of their casualties would be due to disease as it continued for about the next 150 years to severly reduce their numbers. D'lin 12:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eight in Seven?[edit]

Can somebody explain the logic behind the following sentence in the introduction: " Colonial historian Francis Jennings estimated that nearly 8 in seven overall among the Indians and 30 in sixty five among the English were killed." How can nearly 8 in seven be killed? I guess technically, 7 is "nearly 8", but that is a stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakboy (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sassamon[edit]

I was just reading a book about Indian names of place in Middleboro, Carver, Lakeville, and Plymouth - and it indicated that when Sassamon was murdered, they found his body under a frozen cove in Assawompset Pond in Lakeville. There was some significance in terms of the death and a related naming somewhere in the pond I think, but it escapes me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.16.80 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian servants[edit]

I added a paragraph about the regulations governing the interactions between colonists and the Native Americans in Hingham, but it might perhaps be better moved elsewhere in the article. Thank you.MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indians?[edit]

I changed all references of "Indians" to "Native Americans"... any objections? Binarypower (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good idea, the reference of "Indians" is totally inaccurate. Good job  : ) Skazer (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read that it was socially okay to refer to Native Americans as Indians. The Europeans called them Indians not just because Columbus was lost, but also because the Americas were called the West Indies while India was the East Indies. Hench the term West India company and East India company. I think for the most part it is not offense to the natives Americans but not every tribe is the same so it's hard to tell. Until I can find a source that I can site (the book is in my house somewhere) I would have to agree with calling them Native Americans, epically because of the link to the Native American page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.30.141 (talk) 17:00, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

"Killed 6 out of 13 settlers"? Really?[edit]

I find it hard to believe that the war killed 6 out of 13 "settlers," because the word "settlers" implies the entire population, including the women, children, and people who didn't leave home. "Colonial soldiers" would be much easier to believe. I am similarly dubious of the 7 out of 8 Native Americans figure.Fluoborate (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember if you read closely, it is only an estimate, so could be wrong and is not accurate. Skazer (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
King Philip's War was a nasty, bruital conflict. Both sides practiced an especially savage "total war:" they razed settlements to the ground and didn't make any real distinction between combatants and non-combatants. If you read Mary Rawlinson's firsthand account, her village was sacked and all the women and children were either killed or taken captive; this practice was consistently employed by the Algonquian forces throughout the conflict. Similarly, when the "Swamp Fight" occured, the settlers killed scores of Indian women and children alongside the indian fighters. When you consider how many settlements were sacked, and the hunger and privation that followed from the economic chaos the war caused, the near annihilation of the allied tribes and decimation of the settlers suddenly seems quite possible, if not the obvious outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.214.128.6 (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bacons Rebellion[edit]

I deleted a reference to Bacon's Rebellion which stated Bacon's Rebellion left the southern colonies "tied down" as a reason that the northern colonies had no support from the south. The two incidents coincided; the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion arguably lasted nearly into 1677. Regardless of this fact, the lack of aid from the south had much less to do with the rebellion than the fact that the puritan settlements were greater than 400 miles away. Furthermore the southern colonists and the Native Americans were escalating conflict at the time. The colonists in the south had neither the manpower, the time, nor the financial resources to aid the northern colonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrwillis (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

censored/censured?[edit]

Section "Religion", paragraph 3 says "Contact between the English colonists and Native Americans was carefully proscribed: those who violated regulations governing the interaction between the two were censored." I am pretty sure that should be "censured", but I know nothing of the subject matter so I might be wrong. Maproom (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. John Mason[edit]

It seems to me that somewhere in this article Capt. John Mason should be mentioned at least once. He figures prominently in the Nathaniel Philbrick book Mayflower. Mason, formerly of Dorchester, Mass., led a group of several hundred Connecticut settlers on an attack on a Pequot settlement at present-day Mystic, Conn. Mason, a professional soldier, was eventually promoted to the rank of Major General of the Connecticut colony's militia forces. In later accounts, Mason was often referred to as the "conqueror of the Pequots of Connecticut." Married to Anne Peck, the daughter of Rev. Robert Peck of Hingham, Mass., a prominent Puritan rector who later returned to his home parish in Norfolk, East Anglia, when Cromwell came to power, John Mason was a pivotal figure of the time. On the basis of his exploits in King Philip's War, he became a prominent power in Connecticut. Setting aside the morality of Mason's actions, it seems to me that he should be accorded a mention, at minimum, in an encyclopedic account of the war. I will try to add him in here somewhere when I get a chance. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little background on Mason from the NEHGS Register. There's plenty more on google books. [1] MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pequot war and Mystic Massacre[edit]

This article seems hellbent on defending the Puritans, making no mention of either the Pequot War or the Mystic Massacre in the "Background" section. The relationship between Native tribes and English colonies is summed up this way: "Prior to King Philip's War tensions fluctuated between different groups of native people and the colonists, but relations were generally peaceful." If you read the articles on the Pequot war and Mystic massacre, a very different picture emerges.

Also, the "Disease and War" section contains only one source, which establishes that many scholars believe the epidemics were brought to the Wampanoag by fisherman before the establishment of Plymouth. The rest of the section attempts to raise doubt about the widely held position, but provides not a single source. In addition, the section's argument is illogical. It starts by establishing that there were widespread epidemics in what is now New England. It sights the widely held belief that fisherman spread the disease before the Plymouth colonists arrive, and sources this. It then raises doubt about this, arguing that native people might already have had disease, but provides no source for this (Original Research?). The next paragraph is where the non sequitor comes in. The next paragraph begins with this: "Clues pointing against this theory include the arrival of The Pilgrims on The Mayflower, who arrived in Massachusetts in perfect health. Yet half of the Pilgrims died within weeks after coming into contact with Native Americans." Assuming this unsourced statement is correct, this proves nothing. The opening of the section says either fisherman brought disease to the Natives, or they had disease all along. How does the health of the Mayflower Pilgrims cast doubt on either of the two theories?

The glaring oversight in the "Background" section, in conjunction with the "Disease and War" section, make this article POV, in my opinion.72.78.166.2 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article is POV and relies too much on early sources, ignoring the award-winning work of Jill Lepore and others who provide a wider and more complex look at the war. The article should not just be about body counts in various battles.Parkwells (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

METACOMET'S VISIT TO SCHAGHTICOKE NEW YORK[edit]

The 'Colonial Comeback' section infers that in January 1676, Metacomet (King Philip) travelled into upstate New York to seek an alliance with the Mohawk Indians. This isn't accurate. I believe that at that time, Metacomet and many of his warriors actually travelled to the Mohican (Mahican) Indian village of Schaghticoke, in the Taconic Hills of New York, hoping to get the Mohicans to join them in their war. The Wampanoags, Narragansetts, Nipmuc, Pocumtuck, and Abenaki (the allied New England Indian tribes) were on good terms with the Mohicans. The Mohawk indians, an Iroquois tribe living further west in New York, in the Mohawk Valley district, were enemies of the Mohicans, as well as of the other New England tribes. It was from the Mohicans, not the Mohawks, that Metacomet was seeking an alliance and support. While spending the winter there, the Mohawks, at the urging of Gov. Andros of New York, attacked Metacomet's warriors and killed up to 600 of them. This was a serious blow to Metacomet's military strength, and probably marked the turning point of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.C. O'Connor (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since making the above comment, I've done a bit more research. The Indian village of Schaghticoke, in the Taconic Hills district of New York, was indeed inhabited mostly by Mahican Indians, an Algonkian tribe. Most Algonkian tribes were traditional enemies of the Iroquoian tribes. But it appears that the Schaghticoke Indians were on friendly terms with the Mohawk Iroquois tribe on the opposite side of the Hudson River. So it is indeed possible that Metacomet, by visiting them in January 1776, was hoping to bring not only the Schaghticokes, but also the Mohawks (and perhaps other Iroquois) into his alliance. (Maurice O'Connor, Apr.19, 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice O'Connor (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York?[edit]

Did New York help the other New England colonies at all in this war? I remember reading somewhere that they did but I can't seem to remember where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.50.172 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

600 vs 800?[edit]

In the intro, It says that 800 colonists and 3000 Native Americans died in the war. Later, in the Aftermath section, it says 600 colonists died. It's not that big a deal, but when you have to write a paper on how the deaths of the war affected settlements in New England, it would be helpful to know the number of colonists who died in a little more detail. Knight344 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does need to be corrected, but if you're writing a paper, you should be consulting up-to-date secondary sources that are histories of the war.Parkwells (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English colonists or New England Confederation[edit]

Changed the belligerents to the New England Confederation, since that is what declared war. --TimothyDexter (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Colony in the King Philip's War[edit]

"The Connecticut River towns with their thousands of acres of cultivated crop land, known as the bread basket of New England, had to manage their crops by working in large armed groups for self protection." "The towns of the Connecticut colony escaped largely unharmed, although more than 100 militia died in the actions." These two sentences are all that there is about the contributions made and facts surrounding the Colony of Connecticut during the King Philip's War. It needs to be expanded in my opinion. I have found several references including specific battle plans, marching orders to raise officer's, troops, provisions, munitions and arms in the Colonial Records of Connecticut. I would like to expand the sourced content related to the CT Colony in its own section. I added material previously, but it was deleted by a wikipedian who felt it wasn't relevant.Tomticker5 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors need to use secondary sources - see if your evaluation of the contribution of the CT Valley is made by a professional historian. You and other editors should not be trying to support your opinion from such primary sources as the Colonial Records of CT, but see what the published, peer-reviewed secondary sources, such as Lepore's award-winning history (1998) of the war, have to say about the issue. Parkwells (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiproject US topic[edit]

I have been removing the WPUS tag on this article because according to their page statement (see Wikiproject United States) they describe themselves as: "We are a project dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the United States, with an emphasis on subjects with regional and national significance". Since this article is of events which occurred ~100 years before the US existed, it is not within their scope. No Americans fought in this battle. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is very bad form to remove tags from a wikiproject unless you are an active member of the project. The argumentation is false --in fact all major textbooks on United States history include the episode, which certainly was of regional significance. If you're really interested join the project and discuss it with editors there first. Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of them? Really? Every single last one of them? I think you're stretching a bit there. Note that the page is in multiple projects, including WP USHistory. Would you be against my removing the tag if it had gotten tagged for Wikiproject Plumbing instead of WPUS? If yes, then tags are valueless. If no, then I take it you agree with the basic statement that a Wikiproject should only tag articles that are within it's scope? The US started in 1783, or 1776 if you like. The people that fought this battle were English Colonists and not Americans. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes all of the last 25 I looked at when I was working on this article--you will not easily find an exception. Markvs88 is making a false claim that US History begins in 1783--he has zero RS for this wild claim. Let him show us a textbook on US history that starts in 1783. Tags are the creation of project members and they use them all the time. Markvs88 should spend more time on the plumbing articles where his insights will be of great value. Rjensen (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not claim that US History begins in 1783, and ask you to note that I do not remove the WPUSHistory tag. I *do* however claim that the WPUS is not a historical project, as they themselves state and I copied (verbatim) above. This article is simply not within their scope as written, as it is not about the United States.
Is it a piece of history? Yes, of course. Did it involve an area that became a part of the US? Assuredly. Were the people who fought in it Americans? No. Did the United States provide any arms or material support to the War? No. Will you answer my question about Wikiproject Plumbing? Probably not. The point I'm making is that there this tag is out of scope according to the project's own page. If that isn't enough, what is? Do you support Clovis Culture being tagged as WPUS? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Casualties Too Low?[edit]

In the text book "A Survey: American History" by Alan Brinkley, it states the White settlers suffered over 1000 deaths, yet the casualties listed here are only 600. Why is that?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than using a survey, use a current history, such as Lepore's award-winning 1998 book, considered the best on the war.Parkwells (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Victory?[edit]

It was not a colonial victory in New Hampshire and Maine - why was this deleted:

"The Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island tribes were defeated; in New Hampshire and Maine, the Abanakis prevailed. [1]" --Hantsheroes (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC
Faragher treats it as a separate war. Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rjensen, that's exactly why I reverted. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of you know if a historian has named the war that was happening on the Maine frontier or know of others who define it as part of the same war?--Hantsheroes (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Axelrod America's wars (2002 p 44) says "The First Abnaki War may be viewed as a phase of King Philip's War, 1675-1676, or as a separate conflict. Increasingly threatened by English expansion, the Abnakis unleashed a guerrilla war against the English, hitting outlying frontier" Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John Faragher. Great and Nobel Scheme. Yale University Press. 2005. p. 83

Bloodiest war[edit]

The text states "Proportionately, it was one of the bloodiest and costliest wars in the history of North America.".

Proportionally in what regard? I'm sure that, for the British Colony/future US it was one of, or even the, bloodiest war. Compared to the effects of wars between settlers and indians on indian nations, I'm not sure it was as significant. (Similarily I'm not sure it was the bloodiest war in terms death toll across the continent.) Anyone know what the sentence means so it can be explained? - Lejman (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: New England not exclusively Puritan during this time[edit]

New England was not exclusively Puritan during the time of King Philip's war, as stated in this section. "At the same time, an Anglican church was established in Boston in 1686, ending the Puritan monopoly on religion in Massachusetts." For example Salisbury, New Hampshire was first settled in 1638 by colonists who adhered to the Church of England.Zen-in (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

I think for citations that seem to be reliable that go dead, the best method of labeling them is {{dead link}}. This allows editors to go into the archives, wayback, deja vu, or whatever, to retrieve a genuine link which is often "somewhere." Student7 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on King Philip's War. 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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Confirmed as correct archived capture. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk as third-party belligerent?[edit]

The Mohawk had multiple engagements with Metacomet's forces during the war and their intervention can be directly tied to the wider conflict. However, they were not allied with New England. Should the infobox be modified to add the Mohawk as a "combatant3" third-party belligerent? Chetsford (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been inter-tribal skirmishes during that time period but, if so, they would likely have been a result of some other longstanding conflict between the tribes, unrelated to King P's War. You say that "their intervention can be directly tied to the wider conflict," and that statement would need some clear support—first on the level of any Mohawk fighting being "intervention" as opposed to simply inter-tribal animosity. (Intervention implies that they were deliberately assisting one side, or at least "coming between" the two combatants—which frankly I think is unlikely.) Further, there would need to be support for your claim that the Mohawk involvement is "directly tied to the wider conflict." So my short answer would be no. —Dilidor (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I now note that you have deleted a previous section on the Mohawks altogether, and added a large section on this alleged "intervention"—drawn entirely from one source. Your contribution needs to be examined closely before this goes any farther. —Dilidor (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. To clarify, I did not "delete" a previous section. There was a section that was chronologically out of order, lacked even a single citation, and had a four-month old maintenance tag (which, in fact, you added with the edit note "more PC nonsense" - [2]) - seen here, before: [3].
2. What I did was add three separate WP:RS, rewrote it for consistency with those RS, removed the maintenance tag, and placed it chronologically in-order (seen here, post improvements: [4]). This was not a "long section" but, rather, exactly 93 words in length.
3. Further, these are not sourced to "one source" but three: a book by Daniel Barr (associate professor of history at Robert Morris University), a book by Colin G. Calloway, and a third book by Michael J. Tougias.
4. Finally, to call it an "alleged intervention" seems a little odd. As demonstrated by the RS, this is a consensus-chronicled campaign that occurred during this war and is no more "alleged" than the Battle of Midway is an alleged battle of World War II. Chetsford (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there would need to be support for your claim that the Mohawk involvement is "directly tied to the wider conflict." This is not "my claim." This is the mainstream and consensus-chronicled historiography of this conflict. To quote our section:
Chetsford (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Tougias, Michael (2017). King Philip's War: The History and Legacy of America's Forgotten Conflict. Countryman Press. ISBN 1581574908.
  2. ^ a b Barr, Daniel (2006). Unconquered: The Iroquois League at War in Colonial America. Greenwood. p. 73. ISBN 0275984664.
  3. ^ Calloway, Colin (2000). After King Philip's War: Presence and Persistence in Indian New England. University Press of New England. ISBN 1611680611.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on King Philip's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Began the development of an independent American identity?[edit]

The article currently reads "King Philip's War began the development of an independent American identity. The New England colonists faced their enemies without support from any European government or military, and this began to give them a group identity separate and distinct from Britain.[4]:5–7" How so? There had been several such wars in Virginia by that point, all of which were suppressed with local militia (aka townspeople and farmers)--no regular troops. What makes this particular war the beginning an independent American identity? I get it that some author wrote a book called that, but where is the proof that it's true? 71.220.219.16 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hope[edit]

The name is dropped, end of para. 1, without a locality. State the colony it was in.

Jimlue (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did the war end?[edit]

At top it says the war ended in 1678. But near the end, in section "Mount Hope" it calls a 1676 event the last of the war. Reconcile.

Jimlue (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_Philip%27s_War&oldid=1207982876"