This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The following is ambiguous: it first suggests that Raleigh was at the colony and "returned" several years later (when?), but then says he "never came to the New World." Which is correct?

The first English settlement was at Roanoke Island in 1587. Sir Walter Raleigh sent 150 people to the island of Roanoke (in present-day North Carolina) to settle. They did well and, as Sir Walter had to take care of some things in England, he left the colony with appointed leaders. When he returned several years later, the colonists had disappeared, but the houses there were intact. In fact, Sir Walter Raleigh never came to the New World. The 1587 colony was led by John White, who returned to England for supplies in 1587 and was forced to stay there because they were at war with Spain. He returned two years later only to find the colony abandoned.

I have a question

What is the growing season number of days a year?

The following off-site maps show the various claims of the original Thirteen Colonies: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. If this information could be included in a map of this province's claims, it would be great. (This request was originally made by jengod, and I moved it here.) – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 16:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Map request filled. Also want to endorse the cleanup tag, this article needs more help than I have time to give it. There's 170 years worth of history there to be described. Kmusser 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there was another section vandalized in this wikipage. Under "Virginia Company: Plymouth and London branches", this sentence is included. "The settlers loved beef, so they fought the Beef Battle."

I'm pretty sure they did love beef but probably did not fight the Beef Battle.

Thanks, I took it out. Kmusser 13:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The British colonies did not gain independence until 1783, so putting 1776 is inaccurate and nationalistic POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.181.172 ( talk) 14:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We have the Colony of Virginia, the Virginia Colony, the Dominion and Colony of Virginia ... what about the Province of Virginia?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article states, as if it were established fact, that Raleigh's men "returned with word of a regional 'king' named Wingina, who ruled a land supposedly called Wingandacoa. The latter word was modified later that year by the Queen to 'Virginia', noting her status as the "Virgin Queen." The footnote cites Stewart, Names on the Land: A Historical Account of Place-Naming in the United States, p. 22. What Stewart actually wrote is, "Then, it may be, that spelling spurred the Queen's thought, and she remembered her own virgin state, which her poets celebrated." It's pure speculation and should not be cited as authority or elevated to historical fact. The sentence should be replaced with one stating the established fact that Virginia was named for Queen Elizabeth I, the supposed "Virgin Queen" of England.

Note also that it is condescending to put "king" in quotation marks with reference to Wingina. The English recognized him as a king, without patronizing quotation marks, and Wingina was as much a king as many early kings of Europe, such as Agamemnon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcrutch ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your points, and have modified the article accordingly. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 16:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles M. Andrews, in "The Colonial Period in American History," vol. I, p. 98, and also in the separate index entries, lists Christopher Newport's ships as the Sarah Constant, Goodspeed and Discovery. This is an old but scholarly and Pulitzer-winning source. T. Woodrow Wilson, in History of the American People, vol. I, p. 35, agrees.

Is there support for "Susan Constant" and "Godspeed," or may I change these?

Terry J. Carter ( talk) 17:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never read anything that says the "Godspeed" was also called the "Goodspeed", but it is possible as I know there are sources that mention the "Susan Constant" was also referred to as the "Sarah Constant". However, I would say it should not be changed unless you have more citations, ones that maybe even mention the duel [dual] names. Either way the names should not be changed, just mention the ships as also being called by other names. This was a time period when there were no spelling and grammatical standards so simple misspelling, etc could be at play here. Sarah1607 ( talk) 18:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically "godspeed" and "goodspeed" are the exact same thing, as the phrase come from Old English, meaning "good luck". As such, it'd only be a spelling variation (along the same lines as armor/armour). — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, the head of the article says that Virginia became a British colony after 1707, yet other sources (including this article) say that actual British rule began in 1624. Where did 1707 come from? — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 23:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it refers to the Acts of Union 1707 which created the " United Kingdom of Great Britain" out of Scotland and England; before then it was merely an English Colony. Virginia was a colony since 1607 (and before then, if you count when it wasn't settled by any Europeans), its just that there was technically no British Empire (by that name) prior to 1707 for it to be a part of. Morgan Riley ( talk) 03:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, alright. So independent from 1607 - 1624, English rule from 1624 - 1707, British rule from 1707 - 1776. Should the article's head reflect that? Because currently only 1707 is mentioned, which I feel is less relevant than the loss of the charter in 1624. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No we don't make up the rules here at Wiki we follow what the RS say. The scholars write about the British empire BEFORE 1707. The do NOT call it the "English Empire." (The term "British" is not invented in 1707) Colley, Linda. Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850 (2004); Lloyd; T. O. The British Empire, 1558-1995 Oxford University Press, 1996; Marshall, P.J. (ed.) The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire (1996); Cain, P. J. and A.G. Hopkins. British Imperialism, 1688-2000 (2nd ed. 2001); and for more details see Adams, "On the Term 'British Empire,'" American Historical Review, 22 (1927), 485–9; in JSTOR Rjensen ( talk) 05:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Having worked with you before and respectful of your scholarly approach, I nevertheless respectfully register these thoughts. While I will agree the term "British Empire" is indeed applied retrospectively by historians, such a distinction could still serve as an explanation for the prior version of the text. I do point out, though, that if there is no "English Empire", then there are larger systematic problems on Wikipedia that need to be addressed, in particular the entire article English colonial empire and the disambiguation page English Empire. Yet the Adams article you pointed to explicitly cites the term "English Empire" on several pages (486-487) as the contemporary term for the thing in question, and the term "British Empire" isn't cited to until a 1708 work. Thus at the very least, "English Empire" is the contemporary term prior the 1707 Union and one at least recognized in the scholarship, even if it is common practice for "British Empire" to be anachronistically applied to it (While I agree the term "British" is not invented in 1707, there was no political entity of "Britain" before then, merely a physical entity--the island by that name). Thus "English Empire" appears a very defensible position, albeit not the only one, for one to take... Morgan Riley ( talk)

Hey Rjensen, I'm talking about the year (1624), not the term used. Next off, watch your tone, fella. I started this section in concern about which year was mentioned at the intro of the article, from the perspective of "Virginia actually was not under crown rule until _____", and a quick read only provides 1707, which is rather misleading. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 07:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

the question is what the RS use--the historians of Virginia-- They use "British empire" and they do not make any fuss about 1707 in Virginia. For example, "In 1607 no one spoke of an English empire." says Billings (The Old Dominion in the seventeenth century (1975) Page 324) so we should not do so either. Rjensen ( talk) 07:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The citation of The Royal Government in Virginia, 1624-1775, Volume 84, Issue 1, Percy Scott Flippin, Wallace Everett Caldwell, p. 288 says nothing on the issue. Rjensen ( talk) 15:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the Act of Union 1707 opened Virginia and other former English colonies to Scottish settlement. This was significant for Virginia as Scottish settlement in Virginia actually took off beginning in that year. As numerous historians do attest. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact not--Scotland no longer set up its own colonies. Better find some RS for these strange claims, Rjensen ( talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying Scotland set up its own colonies. I'm saying that beginning in 1707, persons from Scotland were legally entitled to settle as equals to persons from England in Virginia, to hold colonial office, etc. which they indeed began to do immediately, and in great numbers. This is exactly what all the reliable references say that I can find. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, you do an excellent job of missing the point that anyone is making. First off, again, I'm talking about listing the date where Virginia ceased to be independent, and came under Crown rule (whether English or British), and Til Eulenspiegel is right; the entire Appalachian region of Virginia is primarily ethnic Scottish, much less the rest of Virginia. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the folks over at Jamestown Rediscovery (the organization conducting the archaeological dig at the fort), the Virginia Company lost its control in 1624 when its charter was revoked, and the crown seized control. Morgan Riley ( talk)

While the year 1624 should be noted as significant it would be misleading for the article to suggest Virginia was previously independent and only at that point became part of the English Empire. The London Company received its charter from James I and ran the colony as part of his territorial empire. The revocation of the charter only changed the colony's system of effective rule but James I had still been its sovereign before that point and it had been part of the Empire. Similarly, in the years before 1775, Benjamin Franklin and his allies made a major and unsuccessful effort to have Pennsylvania made into a crown colony and control taken away from the Penn family. This doesn't mean that Pennsylvania wasn't part of the British Empire but just dealt with how it was governed.

I'd support the current formula with regard to pre-1707 use of England (although James after the Union of Crowns, ruling both Scotland and England at the same time, was keen on the term Great Britain it wasn't in any legalistic sense a "British Empire").

The mass presence of the Scots-Irish on the Appalachian frontier was broadly unrelated to the 1707 Act of Union, as they emigrated from (as their name suggests) the separate Kingdom of Ireland rather than from either pre-1707 Scotland or post-1707 Great Britain. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 20:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on a website which will feature a section called "Our Governors", for Virginia, and I want to have the flags which applied to the time frame of each governor in office. Problem is, I'm finding conflicting information about which one it would have been.

This site claims it would be the English Red Ensign which was first flown in Jamestown, but this site claims it'd be the King's Colors . If both were used, what would be the years they were used? I know that earlier English explorers used the English St George's, but I mean upon landing at Jamestown, and thereafter.

(The intent on my site is to have the applicable flag shown above the portrait of each governor) — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 00:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

While the particular article does not have sources listed I would trust this History of the British Flag information over the sites you listed above . This is not to say it might not be wrong, but I think some further research would probably prove it correct. Hope this helps! Sarah1607 ( talk) 13:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The spring/winter distinctions given for the year 1606 helped tremendously. The historians at the Jamestown-Yorktown Society also said it'd most likely have been the King's Colors Union flag, but this pretty much sealed the deal for me. Thanks a ton.

Also, if this article should ever get a little flag icon like "national" articles have, I'd recommend using the Union flag for 1607-1707, then the Colonial Red Ensign from 1707-1775, then finally the Grand Union flag for 1775). — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a great deal of information, sometimes conflicting, often redundant within various articles, on the history of Jamestown. This would seem to require extensive research and editing to clean the pages up. Activist ( talk) 21:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's in the works now (hopefully). I did some work on sorting out the Jamestown articles a few years ago, and that seems to have gone well. The current project is the figure out the tree of nested articles from general>>specific, what overview articles are missing, which articles lack a clear focus, and to build a proper WP:Summary Style format throughout. Right now, I've been trying to build out this article as the main overview/summary article for all of colonial virginia, with an emphasis on thematic subjects (which have their own articles) over rigid chronology (e.g. Religion in early Virginia). See Plymouth Colony for a comparable subject that is a featured article; it treats the subject not merely as the delineated territory but the whole package, much like articles for any territorial subdivision (state, country, etc.). That said, some of the material in the not-quite-focused History of the Jamestown Settlement (1607-1699) article belongs here, so that article returns to its focus on Jamestown-specific issues rather than the colony as a whole. As for the conflicting information, that may come at some point, but at least the organizational structure is coming along so people can even know and navigate to the various articles that exist. Morgan Riley ( talk) 23:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Today a large batch of my work, namely summarizing and parring down a large bit of info I just copied over from another article (in alignment with WP:SUMMARY) was reverted, albeit neither with a formal revert nor so much as an edit summary. I can't fully explain it, but I assume it may have to do with the large removal of material showing up in a watchlist. While I stand behind my edits, I don't want to start an edit war, and want to discuss the issue out here. Namely, what were the objections (to the cleanup of material that had just been pasted), what wasn't objectionable (it was a complex edit), and any other thoughts. Cheers. Morgan Riley ( talk) 23:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edits look sound to me. Kmusser ( talk) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edits look like cultural erasure to me. Did it ever occur to you that all history is not about a single group of people? And everybody else's but yours doesn't need to be quietly swept out of sight? Well it won't be quietly on my watch. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 15:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be so accusative without inquiring first or providing details. I am not trying to erase anything. Did you not notice that I put the content on this page in the first place because it was missing, albeit as part of a raw copy-past with the intent on editing it down. I am trying to expand this article, albeit in an organized fashion. That said, I was trying to summarize a lengthy chunk of text for which there is a corresponding main article that already covers all the details, the Anglo-Powhatan Wars. Note that even the article Native American tribes in Virginia (edit: and Powhatan) is nowhere near that detailed. Please see Wikipedia:Summary Style. Also, as it is it is poorly edited, poorly formatted, and overly detailed for a high-level overview article. Morgan Riley ( talk) 16:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how you get cultural erasure from someone adding a section on Native Americans to an article that previously had nothing. Kmusser ( talk) 17:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about this article ( Colony of Virginia), which article are you talking about? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 17:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We all talking about Colony of Virginia. Kmusser and I are referring to this edit, where I added copied over the material in question in the first place. Morgan Riley ( talk) 17:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I must have been confused, so you yourself first added that section yesterday, then you tried to remove it again? In that case I support your adding it but not removing it again. This is vital information. In fact, there is a lot more that could be reliably sourced about English intentions in Virginia that would be highly relevant, from the horse's own mouth, and sources show a major proportion of the colonists' thoughts were preoccupied with native relations, minimize it though they might try. This is an integral section for portraying what the topic is about. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 17:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You're getting close. I didn't try to remove it so much as I removed some of the material from it because it was material written for a more-detailed article closer to the subject, I tried to edit it down to the essentials (again, see WP:SUMMARY). And as for more information, exactly, but it has to be curated and can't merely be a dump. I disagree that every sentence or detail is vital information to this article (all of it is essential to Wikipedia): there is already an entire article on the same subject Anglo-Powhatan Wars (if you really want, I can do a sentence-by-sentence breakdown of my logic and provide a draft of the work I had done); there merely needs to be a series of paragraphs summarizing that article to the extent that it all makes sense for a person reading this one, rather than a full set of sub-sections. Again, the issue is that article has to summarize the entirety of a 169-year territory and political entity, its history, culture, economy, etc. into around 60K of words; this is a top-level overview article. That said, I have an entire section on the relationships with the Iroquois Nations in the works (hence why I wanted the main subsections after a brief introduction to be Powhatan Confederacy and Iroquois Nations (from my research it appears that most all formal relations dealt with these two or their various allies)), but right now have been too spooked by accusations of "cultural erasure" and prior reversions to even begin adding it. Morgan Riley ( talk) 18:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

To add my own two cents, This version was the state of the page before Morgan began editing. Morgan did a copy/paste of material from Anglo-Powhatan Wars here and then edited that material to be a summary rather than a pure copy/paste here and it's that edit that you reverted. Personally I think a summary is appropriate, repeating Anglo-Powhatan Wars here in full doesn't make much sense unless you are going to merge that article into this one and I think that has enough material that it deserves its own article. I'd let Morgan finish editing and judge the final result rather than interrupt the process midstream. Kmusser ( talk) 18:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where the current version is "repeating Anglo-Powhatan Wars here in full" - what are you talking about? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 18:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that this edit was a copy/paste from Anglo-Powhatan Wars? Kmusser ( talk) 18:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No I don't, A-PW doesn't have all those mispellings and errors I corrected, if they were pasted from there, and the edit summary says it was pasted from some other article, not that one. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 18:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Technically it wasn't, it was from History of the Jamestown Settlement (1607-1699) (which is right now a very confused article, which is why I migrated much of it here and to the lower-level articles; indeed most of the articles on colonial Virginia are confused as to their scope and focus, hence why I began this project). But that has nothing to do with the actual arguments being made. The point remains that it is more than a Summary right now. There only needs to be a complete summary here, rather than treatment in full, because there is already a detailed article on the subject and it is only a moderate part of a very large and complex topic that this article represents. Is there an easy way to dissect my issues with it now line by line, or edit choice by edit choice? Or somehow perhaps could I show you what I propose (again), and then we can build up and out from there, with more relevant information? Morgan Riley ( talk) 18:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all I am not clear at all on what the other article is that this material supposedly duplicates. But this topic is of major importance to the Colony of Virginia and deserves more than a "summary" and it could easily be expanded, as I say, with reliable sources that are entirely relevant, and end up not duplicating whatever the "other article" is. What is there is inaccurate and needs more work to give a more honest picture. So instead of white-washing it all from this article in one fell swoop, which might seem the more convenient approach, how about we try to get it into proper shape so that it is on topic and explains what this was for Virginia Colony and why it was important? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 18:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The other article is Anglo-Powhatan Wars (or adjacent topics such as Powhatan) as we have repeatedly said. Virtually all content from the section that was added here is already covered there; even if not verbatim or the same sentences, then the same information. I agree that relations with the Virginia Indians is a very important topic to the Colony of Virginia, but the Anglo-Powhatan Wars were only but a part of that, and thus should not dominate this section with numerous subsections as if it were defining of the history, especially with details that are irrelevant to the Colony of Virginia. Furthermore, I never whitewashed it all, I summarized it. I took the core of the information and removed details that are irrelevant or more suited for a more-specific, more detailed article. That said, I would think that if there is such great amount of detail in the summarization that it cannot be adequately summarized here, then perhaps it warrants its own entire article, in which case we must begin the summarization process on this page again, no? Morgan Riley ( talk) 18:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, this article is or was deficient without that material. Why does it need to be segregated to somewhere else? And how can turn a blind eye and say "details that are irrelevant to the Colony of Virginia"? "Irrelevant" in what sense of the word "irrelevant"? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 19:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Many details are irrelevant to the topic of the Colony of Virginia as a singular article in an encyclopedia, not necessarily the entire field of "Virginia Studies". A good introduction to what I am talking about and what I am trying to do can be found at WP:TOPIC. A short essay on the issue may be found here: Wikipedia:What claims of relevance are false. Morgan Riley ( talk) 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked "What sense of the word irrelevant" and the answer is in wikipedian user essays written to explain why "irrelevant" means "well, really relevant, but" in 1984. Great. Perhaps I should have said what English Dictionary sense of the word "irrelevant"? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This conversation will just go around in circles if you don't understand Summary, to quote: "Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article. . . A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." No one is arguing that this article doesn't need a section on the Native Americans, it definitely does, but not every article should cover every topic at the same level of detail. The Colony of Virginia article doesn't need to go into super-specific details when those details are already covered by subarticles just as the Virginia article doesn't spend more than a few paragraphs on colonial history because it's already covered in more detail here. Kmusser ( talk) 19:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If the "other article" is indeed "Anglo-Powhatan Wars", I just don't see this section repeating that article in full. That article goes into considerably more detail and accuracy. It seems like a baseless accusation to say it is repeating that article in full as a pretext for marginalizing one of the important topics here. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 19:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not in full, it's in summary. My apologies if those links on "relevance" did not help, but they seemed to suggest to me the concept is common. My though process for relevance is basically (for what I could craft in a short amount of time): is it information directly about the subject (i.e. title) of the article, or so connected that it could not be removed without making the topic or its links/relationships to other subjects confusing, while still being appropriate to the level of detail for that article (via the theory of levels of articles; that some are more generalized and others more specific), perhaps asking myself "is this the most appropriate article for this information at this level of detail?") If you are curious as to my specific rationals I employed in this instance, I have posted on my sandbox page a markup of the text as it currently exists, including comments as to each removal (indicated by a strikethrough). Morgan Riley ( talk) 19:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, good idea. I'm looking at that now and agree with several of your proposed deletions, and have reservations about others. I'll go ahead and delete the parts myself where I agree with your reasoning why they can be deleted and see what is left. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 19:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems we largely agree. The changes you agreed to were the ones that I was most concerned about. With a few exceptions, the remainder are more an issue of what is the right level of relevant details for this article, rather than being tangential or irrelevant. As for the handful of questioned bits that remain--as well as ideas for what's missing--I'll note here when I've posted a revised sandbox page for discussion, if that works. Otherwise, I have no real problem with most of what's left remaining for now, pending a general expansion and growth of the article. Right now I'm trying to expand the article more and refining the other parts of it. Morgan Riley ( talk) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is looking good, I do feel bad about misreading the situation too hastily with the revert from my not paying enough attention to everything going on the watchlist, so carry on with the improvements while I remove my foot from my mouth! Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings, we worked it out through discussion. It was just a case of where things weren't as they first appeared, though I wasn't entirely without blame: I made the deletions prior to adding the new content I thought could/should replace it (still working on that part), giving the appearance of wanting to diminish the subject itself. You have a big job policing for cultural deletions and providing a voice where it is needed, for which I salute you. I do look forward to working with you more soon (right now I am doing research work to find what articles are missing on Virginia history in general). Morgan Riley ( talk) 15:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I am at a loss. How do I succinctly state the important fact that Virginia is the first colony of England, in the entire world, of what will become the British Empire? I was astounded to read, on the Slate website that Jamestown was the first colony of the British Empire. The author of the Slate article quotes William Kelso, directly, as telling, Queen Elizabeth, "Your majesty, this is where the British Empire began, this was not just the first American colony, this was the first colony in the British Empire." To me this is an astonishingly important fact, that as an American I was never taught. Everything that Americans write, read as did this article, emphasizing the importance to the United States, while ignoring the importance to the development of the British Empire.

Please I am not being nasty to the authors. I would have written that first sentence that way, which is exactly my point here. That, that sentence as originally written misses entirely the world-wide historical importance of the founding of Jamestown. This colony was a success, which prompted others in England to want to get in on the profits. There quickly followed other successful colonies, and, though no one at the time knew it, the British Empire began to grow.

It just seems to me to be essential to mention here, that Virginia is the start of not just the United States, but of the British Empire. Nick Beeson ( talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I added a word to help your edit make sense, however, I think it's overkill to have both the statement and the quote in the article's introduction marp ( talk) 04:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Colony of Virginia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Indiana assessment== This article is compiled from multiple other articles and contains a sufficient amount of information, pictures, and an info box to receive a B class rating. However, the article lacks in-line citations to verify the information. To move the article towards a Good Article it will need references (a lot of references). This article has Mid importance to the state of Indiana for its historical value for the entire state of Indiana.--Assessed by: Jahnx ( talk) 08:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 12:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colony of Virginia. 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/20131014135617/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR7529&chapterID=GR7529-747&path=books/greenwood to http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR7529&chapterID=GR7529-747&path=books/greenwood

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Colony of Virginia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TuckerArnold2011":

• From Spanish Florida: Spencer C. Tucker; James R. Arnold; Roberta Wiener (30 September 2011). The Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars, 1607–1890: A Political, Social, and Military History. ABC-CLIO. ISBN  978-1-85109-697-8. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
• From British West Florida: Spencer Tucker; James R. Arnold; Roberta Wiener (30 September 2011). The Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars, 1607–1890: A Political, Social, and Military History. ABC-CLIO. p. 751. ISBN  978-1-85109-697-8.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)