Talk:Mystic massacre

message: This article needs serious wikification. In particular, citation to sources and npov'ing. rewinn 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone deleted the worst of the material. 216.254.10.236 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikification

message: I'm not going to argue about whether it was or wasn't a genocide. The fact is that the article has a whole section of scholars debating that point, and as such, it deserves to be in a category related to genocide. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but we will be applying this policy to ALL organized, attempts that eliminate 800+ or 3-5,000 based on racial and national basis? I have had to have this debate in other articles when simply applying, peer reviewed academically respected multiple sources. With 3-5,000 people killed in 1804, in the course of two months eliminating the entire ethnic and national group of French creoles. Revenge doesn't de-genocide a legal framework. It is a charged word and personally the Jamestown massacre COULD be discussed as "genocide", however genocide requires specific intent, targeting of substantial parts...essentially theoretical intent, while we have other articles, that clearly demonstrate a crime of genocide in whole...by ANY standards related. This precedent SHOULD be reenforced. I am a genocide prevention activist, and try to decipher the gravity of genocide with modern times. I suggest the term "genocide" be avoided until the creation of the United States, (as the "Trail of Tears", and the Jamestown massacre of indians are clearly within the realm of the concept but not the legal framework. Ac220404 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't find your arguments persuasive, or even on topic.  As far as I can tell, you have not even attempted to address the points raised by Themightyquill.  This is not a discussion of the Jamestown massacre, it is not a discussion of any other article or topic. Dlabtot (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: New England States committing genocide? ( they also enslaved pequats to help them) Next they will accuse the blue bloods  of having all white swim clubs ! Sen. Whitehouse & fellow blue bloods? 47.205.83.213 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocides category 

message: Substituted at 00:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

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

message: The greatest strength of the article is its neutrality in writing as well as its reliability of sources. Although the article discusses a pretty event, the author does a great job of providing neutral commentary to the event. As a reader, I was able to gather what happened without finding myself swayed in one direction or the other. Additionally, the sources that the author pulled from all seemed to be quite reliable. The sources were mostly books and sometimes journals from libraries such as JSTOR.
An opportunity that I see is an expansion of each of the sections. Although I will discuss a deletion of a particular section in the next paragraph, I think as a whole, the author has laid out some very relevant sub-sections to the massacre. The content that the author has chosen to write on seems to be pretty balanced – not leaning too heavily towards a pure narration of the massacre nor towards a narration heavy on discussions surrounding the massacre. If the author can elaborate on each of these sections, they will find themselves with a very strong article. Another opportunity I see is a change in the wording of the sub-heading “as genocide”. This sub-heading was not very clear to me in the lead and despite being a very strong and necessary section, a better-worded title such as “Debates On the Magnitude of the Massacre” might strengthen the article. 
The biggest room for improvement, in my opinion, is a rearrangement of the lead section. Although the lead section is very clear and While I think the account by John Underhill is very important and pertinent, I wonder if that account warrants a section for itself. Perhaps a better decision may be to split up the quotes among the “massacre” and “as genocide” sections? Or, if the author wishes to allocate a separate section for this, perhaps the author could gather more first-hand sources and make a section of “first-hand narratives/accounts”. I think doing so would strengthen the structure of the article and eliminate an awkward break in between the article sections. 
I enjoyed the part when the author included a discussion on whether the massacre should be classified as a “genocide” or not. I think including dialogue such as this one that shows conflicting thoughts on a prevalent issue is very helpful and I will definitely consider adding such dialogue to my own article. Geec22 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Revision