Talk:John Smith (explorer)

message: Just wanted to point out that in the Pocahontas definition she was 13 when she saved John Smith, and in this definition she was 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soopah (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of Pocahontas

message: An anonymous IP was curious about Smith's birth date, apparently not noting that the years of birth and death were right after his name. I have removed their ALL CAPS COMMENT from the middle of the article, which is hopefully not a tact they will regularly follow. - DavidWBrooks 20:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth and death dates

message: I support this, although I don't see a great deal to salvage in John Smith (statesman). The Singing Badger 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: What's up with this section?  For a man who's been a character in American history and lore for nigh 400 years, that's a lot of space spent on a minor Disney film and its direct-to-video sequel.  In addition it does not present  a NPOV. -Acjelen 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct. I've trimmed it. - DavidWBrooks 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Smith in film 

message: Huh? "Smith fathered Pocahontas bastered son." There is no evidence or citation to support this statement. I suggest this statement be removed until it is substantiated with facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.168.154 (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I've been able to find two (rather lousy) references to this: one in an NY Times article and another in a book by Jyotsna Kapur called "Coining for Capital: Movies, Marketing and the Transformation of Childhood." And each of these refers to an educator from Seattle named Robert Eaglestaff, who apparently did an interview with the Chicago Tribune back when Disney's 'Pocahontas' came out. I couldn't find the original interview (cited in Kapur's book), but the Times may be referring to it when it says: "Mr. Eaglestaff pointed to an account of the relationship between Smith and Pocahontas, said to be in Smith's diaries, in which Smith raped and impregnated Pocahontas." Now if that were in Smith's diaries it seems likely that it would be more widely reported. Eaglestaff (or the reporter) may have been thinking of the oral tradition to which the Wikipedia article on Pocahontas refers, referring to Linwood Custalow: "Linwood "Little Bear" Custalow, in a 2007 book, asserted that Pocahontas was raped during [her captivity at Henricus], citing oral tradition handed down over four centuries."......Perhaps, if someone is interested in pursuing this, they could try to track down the Chicago Tribune interview referenced in Kapur's book. If there's anything to substantiate it, or if the myth is so widespread that it's worth debunking the popular misconception, then it might be worth including a section in the article. At this point, though, I don't see any real evidence to support it. NY Times: Coming to Classrooms, the Real Pocahontas Story Jyotsna Kapur, 'Coining for Capital'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brijohn6882 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Smith fathered Pocahontas bastered son." 

message: Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillC (talk • contribs) 13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Trail 

message: Recently,  changed the spelling in Christopher Newport, John Smith of Jamestown and John Rolfe from US to UK English.  I've started a discussion on what national variety of English these articles should use at Talk:Christopher Newport#US or UK spelling?. Anyone who has an opinion is invited to join and help us work towards a consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently carries a "" but if this article started as US English, then per WP:RETAIN it should revert to it. The question is does MOS:TIES say this has a weak affinity for Britain, or is it also strong, as it does have a strong affinity for the U.S. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  US or UK spelling? 

message: This article was on the front cover of my newspaper Daily Press. It said students at school copy the text and use it on reports and stuff. That's not good Ryan Holloway 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Daily Press]] 

message: *This and others say it happened on 9 January 1579.
*this, this  and  this say it happened on 9 January 1580.
*this says it happened on 6 January 1580.
The consensus seems to be 9 January rather than 6 January, but what do we make of the discrepancy between 1579 and 1580?  -  JackofOz (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: google on "john smith" born 1579, and "john smith" born 1580.  You'll note that some comment that their sources state that it's around the end of 1579/beginning of 1580.  Others just say 1579/1580.  Baptism date is near birth date, but not the same (depending on circumstances, may be a few weeks later).  The UNC page seems to have some reliable sources; the Britannia is least reliable.  None of them are primary sources, but you might be able to find a reliable source quoting the baptism date using the hints that you've found so far. Tedickey (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: post-mortem on the date. I don't see any discussion of date. FYI date discussions of persons who lived in times more remote from the present are not only perfectly legitimate but are often expected. Not to include them is often totally bad form. We can't always know when things happened in history. Often there are different theories. If it is relevant WP should not seek to simplify to one date, it should present the theories. But here, we have a problem. The editors want to use the usual web sites as sources. They think way too much of web sites! Typically they only repeated what someone else said on another web site and that derives ultimately from someone's off the cuff simplification or invention. WP offers the opportunity for the ordinary man to do historian's work. This means you have to come UP to it; it isn't easy work. There are no easy answers; if there were, we wouldn't need historians, we could just settle for whichever of the reams of mythological bunk tickles our fancy. You have to find scholarly discussions of the date in credible sources. It is both a lot of work and a lot of fun. The world is not or should not be interested in convenient myths just so it won't be troubled by any non-convenience in WP articles. Become historians, and have fun doing it.Dave (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The gap is still too wide, but is the editor (or sources) mixing OS and NS dates here? Mugginsx (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptism Date 

message: Thay both present in pop culture than just the movie. For example Presley's song Fever which is few years older that the Disney movie (and more popular among adults :> ) Mar1u5z (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cpt Smith & Pocahontas 

message: "Henry Brooks Adams, the pre-eminent Harvard historian of the second half of the 19th century, attempted to debunk Smith’s claims of heroism. He said that Smith’s recounting of the story of Pocahontas had been progressively embellished, made up of “falsehoods of an effrontery seldom equalled in modern times.” Although there is general consensus among historians that Smith tended to exaggerate, his account does seem to be consistent with the basic facts of his life. Adams' attack on Smith, an attempt to deface one of the icons of Southern history, was motivated by political considerations in the wake of the Civil War. Adams had been influenced to write his fusillade against Smith by John G. Palfrey who was promoting New England colonization, as opposed to southern settlement, as the founding of America."
This is all very biased without any attempt at documentation. Who claims it was politically motivated? Can we have a source? Who claims that his account is consistent with his life?  This is all unsuitable as is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.235.141 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jill Lepore article states that Adams and others were interested in promoting New England as the birthplace of America. That's a bit short of what this article claims, so someone who can access the article should go see what exactly it supports (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/02/070402fa_fact_lepore). JustinBlank (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: *In the notes the same book is repeated many times with different page numbers. One way in which WP handles this is as follows: a separate bibiography that uses template:cite book. One parameter in the list is "ref=CITEREFauthoryear". In the note you use template:harvnb with a a parameter "p=" or "pp=" for page or pages. The result is a brief 3-or-4-word note that gives the page number and links you to the full bibliographic item below.
*The style. Too many editorial insertions. It reads like an essay. I would have to say, this is not yet WP style. For example, the incident with the Indian maiden is not "infamous." Leave out words such as these. Also, that is an interesting theoretical explanation of the incident but it is presented as fact when in fact it is only a theory. You need to state whose theory it is. In such cases one would state the source of the story and then give the theories explaining it; that is, to distinguish between the historical evidence and the historian's theory about it. The editor tries not to take a stand himself. This is not always easy, no one said it was. Currently I'd have to rate this article B or below. Have fun.Dave (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More than that - the article relies far to heavily on LeMay et al. Rich Farmbrough, 10:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Over at the History.com is a video titled Death at Jamestown which can be seen here. As most know, History.com is a considerably reliable source when it comes to actual history and not reality programming. What surprised me was the claim made at about 0:30 and to quote it, "John Smith finally took over the colony, imposed martial law and executed people who wouldn't work." Actually there were a couple of surprises, but this is the only one directly related to John Smith. Now to be fair, I cannot find another reference which lays claim to Smith's ordered executions. This doesn't mean that other sources do not exist. My feeling is that if the claim is true (and not a stretch or twist of the fact that Smith ordered those not working to not eat), it most definitely needs to be documented in the article. I also feel a second source is in order since it appears to be so rare. Any thoughts on the subject? Is one source enough? MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the context (an offhand remark by a narrator), additional sources are needed TEDickey (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should executions be included? 

message: The abstract mentions that Capt. Smith was knighted. To the best of my knowledge, as of 2006, he had not been (Google: Knighthood sought for Capt. John Smith) 2ndCharter (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not knighted

message: Is it me or are you having a laugh? Are you thinking of the Rolfes at Heacham perchance?Greenpenwriter (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of remark in unhelpful and is borderline malicious to a possibly new or newish editor.  A simple critical statement using wiki guidelines (as shown above by other editors) is better.  I only created Jamestown section in this article late June 2012 but will work on rest of this article per the more helpful suggestions. Mugginsx (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What on earth has Captain John Smith got to do with Kings Lynn 

message: I revisited the article on request. I can't say that it has changed any. The material it seems to me is sound and at the encyclopedic level. So, I would still rate it as B. My critique (for what it seems to be worth, not much I guess) concerns the language and the formatting.Dave (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Dave. Oops, I hope I have not inadvertenly interfered.  Should have read this first.  Please feel free to revert.  Mugginsx (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see anything reverted. Here is some help: HELP:FOOT. I was going to list more help but down at the bottom I just noticed something new: the multiple page numbers. The programmers have not all gone to sleep after all and apparently they do something else for their money besides hassle the editors. This is new. I've never used it before, although it is easy enough to use. So, I could give you some help for the citations and the abbreviated citations, which utilize harvref, but now that there is another possibility, who is to say harvref is the best way to do it? You can find harvref under "template:harvref" and the publication citations under "template:cite book" and the like. Someone now has to decide what system should be in use in this article. I propose that that person should be YOU. What I have done are only examples, but you can see I've cut down by several notes. I'm not going to work on the Smith article. I propose you take it over. If you read the help and browse around in the templates you should be up to speed in less time than you think. It is all laid out pretty good. As I say J. Wales must have got them off their thumbs to do some useful work. It's up to you. I'm a tech writer. I always worked on Framemaker, Epic, and earlier I did Unix macros and so on so I enjoy it, more or less. Keeps me from going mad, mad, mad. Do it yourself design is very interesting and I can pick my poisons. If this is something you care to do, go, go, go! If someone hassles you just work it out and push on, on, on. By the time you are done you should be a silver or gold editor, whatever. I could probably put all the precious metals on my user pages and then some, but I find standing out from the crowd makes you a target. When I was in the service I was told that when I walked into a room I should stand out from the crowd. The only trouble is, in war, the crowd contains a man or woman with a sniper rifle. So, you may have great credentials but sooner or later a jerk will show up who can get nastier than you and then it may not be worth it. Some people are professional nasties. It is up to you what you want to do. Are you interested in programming? Well I think I have managed to reply to you requests. If you would like, take a look at template:harvnb and the help page I mentioned and see what works for you. Since no one else really is on the article I think you have pretty much a free hand at design and text. After a certain number of edits you'll be listed as the chief contributor and then people will email YOU! Best wishes. PS feel free to change anything I did.Dave (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Please feel free (anyone) to change the type of referencing that is here.  I have not as yet perfected the preferred use of citation listing that others do.  Still trying to learn it.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't   Apologies. Mugginsx (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article revisit

message: Is there any chance someone can rephrase this? It seems quite prejudiced if I say so myself. As if whoever wrote it has some assumption that ALL English people are lazy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry McThompson (talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "English unwillingness to work"

message: I removed the reference to John Smith's siblings by name.  None of the recent scholarship mentions these names and no reference was given to support the claim.  If anyone has a reliable source that mentions names of Smith's sisters and/or brothers, it can, of course, be reinstated. Mugginsx (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the named siblings of John Smith 

message: The text says:  "John Smith died 21 June 1631. He was buried in 1633 (bold added here for emphasis) in the south aisle of Saint Sepulchre-without-Newgate Church, Holborn Viaduct, London."
Question:  Is there a typo on one of the dates, or was he buried in late 1631 and RE-buried in 1633?  This needs clarified in the text -- unless London had an unburied corpse stored somewhere for 2 years? Lifesnadir (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: "colonise", "colonize", "baptise", "baptize" (admittedly within an image), "labour", "rumour", "harbor", "laborious". Since we can't excise one of the "baptize"s, using some ENGVAR that spells it -ize is best, and since Oxford spelling preserves the (majority) -our spellings I'm gonna go with that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENGVAR all over the place 

message: This section is oddly and defensively written. We are told throughout that "critics," "literary critics" and the like make all sorts of accusations about Smith's credibility and character. And yet not one of them is cited or any attempt made to portray their criticisms. So if the criticisms are worth noting, then why the rebuttal? The other part odd part is that Lemay is used for all defenses and it looks like he is a complete John Smith true believer. There are historians who both admit Smith's importance, in some cases his humanity but nevertheless point out his biases and exaggerations. Finally, while the defense of Smith is all directed at his actions in Virginia, no attempt is made to defend his Autobiography, which has many things that strain credulity (and have generated much ink). The section is unbalanced (from a writing point of view I could care less about Wiki:POV) and it reduces the credibility of the article, IMO. AnthroMimus (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility as an author 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Smith (explorer). 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/20120626175132/http://vision.stanford.edu/~birch/pocahontas.html to http://vision.stanford.edu/~birch/pocahontas.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724021531/http://www.cbf.org/JohnSmith to http://www.cbf.org/johnsmith/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528150225/http://www.folger.edu/html/folger_institute/jamestown-new/c_rose.htm to http://www.folger.edu/html/folger_institute/jamestown-new/c_rose.htm
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) 13:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I want to avert revert warring so I ask you this question here.  Why do you insist on referring to native Americans as "Indians" when it has been well established that many consider the term derogatory and insulting as Indians are inhabitants of the sub continent of India. While it is true that some have no problem with the word, it is an individual choice. Depending on tribe they either prefer being referred to by their tribal name (i.e. Dakota, Lakota, Nakota) or the official Native American as adopted by the US Government. I have mentioned this more than once in my edit summaries, and you choose to ignore, and then use specious and inaccurate justifications in your revert Edit Summaries. Do you care to engage in a conversation?Oldperson (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Insistence on "Indians"

message: I see by your revert of a previous edit that you have a problem with the words Native American and prefer the word Indian. Care to explain. I assume you aware of the Native American name controversy. I am trying to understand the issues behind the controversy. Can you help me out?Oldperson (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native American vs Indian 

message: "they landed at Cape Henry on 26 April 1607" - "By the summer of 1607, the colonists were still living in temporary housing. The search for a suitable site ended on 14 May 1607". First, why is the first half of May "summer"? Second, why is looking for less than 3 weeks worthe mentioning "still temporary housing"? (and why did they not stay on ship anyway?) unclear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.62.103 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear 

message: Since the other monument is mentioned, perhaps the statue at Jamestown ought to be mentioned as well.
https://historicjamestowne.org/visit/plan-your-visit/monuments-john-smith/
71.191.77.64 (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: It might just be a typo but his article states he died in 1631 but was buried at St Sepulchre's Newgate in 1633, two years later. This needs checking, was he buried elsewhere in the meantime then moved to give a more fitting place for a memorial to be erected? By his lifetime parish registers of burials would already have been operating; do published registers of St Sepulchre's support the alleged year? (I accept some registers may have got lost in the Great Fire of 1666.)Cloptonson (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Death and burial

message: who was his successor as governor? 176.72.115.169 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  successor? 

message: what was his political position: royal absolutist? and his religion: Anglican, Catholic, or Puritan?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.234.123 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  other information 

message: Hello, I apologize if this request is disruptive or inappropriate in any way. While reading this article, in the section 'Encounter with the Powhatan tribe,' it felt as if the second paragraph did not quite follow from the first. It launches into discussion about whether or not John Smith's story as it relates to Pocahontas is accurate, however the preceding paragraph does not mention her at all. It talks about how Smith may have been "involved in a ritual intended to symbolize his death and rebirth as a member of the tribe," which sounds like the three-day shamanistic ritual mentioned above, which does not refer to Pocahontas. It reads as if we were meant to have just been told a story about how Pocahontas rescued Smith, or perhaps was the impetus behind him leaving Opechancanough's camp and the shaman ritual. In fact she had only been briefly mentioned in the section above that, without any prior introduction as to why she would've been present, or whether she had known Smith previously. The entire section of the article reads as if it had been written by several different editors, who did not check as to whether their respective paragraphs would logically align or flow into each other. As I'm not that familiar with all the history here, I'm not sure the best way to revise this. Perhaps put more emphasis on the story of Pocahontas, so that it makes more sense when its veracity is brought up. 2600:1702:4190:1B60:B4E2:105A:8A55:7A0C (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revise the section 'Encounter with the Powhatan tribe'