Talk:Jamestown Settlement

message: It seems to me that monkeypants they may or may not be does not sound like an impartial encylopedic entry. I feel the last sentence should be removed and the penultimate sentence modified to make it impartial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellodavey1902 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of Last Bit of Introdution

message: "the establishment of the successful settlement of St. John's, Newfoundland by 1583"  
The above is the section I edited out as the source for it no longer exists, when I clicked on the link the page could not be found.  On top of that from what research I have done information on when St. Johns became a permanent English settlement is not clear, some say it did not happen until 1792 even though it was founded much earlier and by English.  In the end, since there is some debate about when it was made a permanent English settlement, I have found no date that it was made a settlement for English earlier than the early 1600s and so far none with an actual year, that any information regarding St. Johns should remain in the article about St. Johns.  
My other suggestion would be to say Jamestown is the first permanent English settlement in the US, or something like that if people do not want to contend with St. Johns possibly being the first permanent English settlement in all of North America.  Any other thoughts on this? Sarah1607 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of section on St. Johns

message: Should the arriving English be called settlers or invaders, since the area was already occupied by First Nations. ClaudioMB 08:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement or invasion? 

message: Without dispute, Jamestown can claim to be the first permanent English settlement in what is now the United States. 
Whether Jamestown was the first permanent settlement in North America (thereby including present-day Canada) may be subject to some question. Sources seem to indicate that Newfoundland and Labrador were not places to spend the winter for the English for a long time after the area was claimed by John Cabot, despite seasonal occupation by fishing fleets from England. I do read where St. John's was permanently occupied by 1605, but failed when seeking to source that as a fact. Maybe we are playing with the difference between recurring seasonal and permanent? 
We do know that, after the members of the Plymouth Company's Popham Colony spent a really tough winter a bit south in what is now Maine in 1607-08, those who survived all left the following August. We also know that winter at Jamestown in 1607-08, and the next few years at least was very harsh, even in a much more southern climate. 
The word "English" is also important in stating the Jamestown claim, since the Spanish clearly established St. Augustine in what is now Florida in 1565, and sold it to the U.S. in 1819 (changed hands in 1821). (see Adams-Onís Treaty).
Finally, I thought First Nations was a Canadian term for the native people there? Regarding the Native Americans in Virginia in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, I don't think that "settlers" is wrong terminology. They certainly soon, if not immediately, saw the "settlers" as invaders. The fact they were settlers, and not just visitors, made it all that much worse to those already living there, especially after land-hungry tobacco became the English cash crop to export after 1612.   
:: First English settlement in North America was St.Johns, Newfoundland.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.1.129 (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamestown's claim as first 

message: John Smith and his "good loyal friend Gary Mao?"  Seems sketchy to me... anyone heard of that before?--Elmorell 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Mao? 

message: Jamestown to me is a new discovery, I could see what was in the old times. what would it be like if you were there/ what were the other people were like? its a fun time for all kids to look at the old buildings. to see all the hard work all those people put in to live there to make history. I am 13. I loved how I saw all of the things I knew helped me be here in America today. go to Jamestown and see all the wonderful things that made me realize how good we have it today. that is what opened my eyes.to see that I ,you know we have it great that we don't have a communist like other countries. thanks to the people who moved here who put work in all of this so that we can live a great life. those are my heroes, they are the reason of what my life is today, what your life is today.  
Karen Hamlett  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.234.72 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what Jamestown is to me 

message: The header of the article states:  "In modern times, "Jamestown Settlement" is also a promotional name used by the Commonwealth of Jamestown's portion of the historical attractions at Jamestown."  Is this correct, an error or vandalism?  I have lived in Virgina for thirty years and never heard of any Commonwealth of Jamestown.  Should it perhaps be "Commonwealth of Virginia"?--Tomaterols (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth of Jamestown?

message: There is a reference to Polish Artisans who did not at first have a vote. When did they arrive, there is no reference to Poles prior to this? Yendor1958 (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish Artisans

message: Shouldn't there be at least a phrase or sentence in the article referring to the fact that the last leg of the settlers' travel began in Puerto Rico and ended in Jamestown, a fact important enough for the 400th Anniversary Committee placing a plaque in Puerto Rico?Pr4ever (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route of settlers 

message: As proposed by some others above, I think that this article should be reconfigured to focus on the "Jamestown Settlement" viz. museum, and that the historical content largely be spun-off to either Jamestown, Virginia or History of the Jamestown Settlement (1607-1699). The former seems to focus on the same material as this one (though is somewhat scant in the historical summary of the colony), with additional information on the many celebrations and museums there (a role this one attempts as well). The later focuses in detail on the colonial settlement itself. Ergo, this page for other purposes is largely redundant, aside from explaining the museum there. Thoughts or comments? Morgan Riley (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There being no voiced opposition, and prior comments in earlier threads supporting such move, action taken. Morgan Riley (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Re-Focus