Talk:King Philip's War

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mahican or Mohegan?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: #Is the article still deserving of the "Neutrality in Dispute" tag? 
#If so, what elements are in dispute? Surely we can fix that!  rewinn 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Tag?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Different begining to the war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inadequate Treatment of Aftermath 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The estimations are off by a few thousand... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eight in Seven? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sassamon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Indian servants 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Killed 6 out of 13 settlers"? Really? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bacons Rebellion 

message: 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)
thread_title: censored/censured?

message: 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)
replies: text: A little background on Mason from the NEHGS Register. There's plenty more on google books.  MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Capt. John Mason

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree also.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pequot war and Mystic Massacre 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: METACOMET'S VISIT TO SCHAGHTICOKE NEW YORK

message: 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)
thread_title:  New York? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  600 vs 800? 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Connecticut Colony in the King Philip's War 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  White Casualties Too Low? 

message: 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. John Faragher. Great and Nobel Scheme. Yale University Press. 2005. p. 83" --Hantsheroes (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC 
::Faragher treats it as a separate war. Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rjensen, that's exactly why I reverted. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Colonial Victory? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bloodiest war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aftermath: New England not exclusively Puritan during this time 

message: I think for citations that seem to be reliable that go dead, the best method of labeling them is . 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)
thread_title: Dead link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on King Philip's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060128103352/http://www.rootsweb.com:80/~srgp/articles/epidemics.htm to http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/articles/epidemics.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed as correct archived capture. Thanks, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709011003/http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs305a,0,6043582.story to http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs305a,0,6043582.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011011457/http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/rownarr.html to http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/rownarr.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011011457/http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/rownarr.html to http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/rownarr.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929100330/http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20020714%2FNEWS01%2F307149989&cid=sitesearch to http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20020714%2FNEWS01%2F307149989&cid=sitesearch
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Began the development of an independent American identity?  

message: 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)
thread_title: Mount Hope

message: 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)
thread_title: When did the war end?