Talk:John Smith (explorer)

Copyright date and POV
I assume something with a copyright date of 1899 is eligible to be included here? Still there's a lot of POV here and not much meat. -- Zoe — Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 31 December 2002 (UTC)


 * Anything pre-1923 is in the Public Domain in the U.S. so this qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.11.147 (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2002 (UTC)

The POV-ness is due largely to the fact that the source seems to take Smith's memoirs at face value, whereas they are today believed to biggest source of baloney outside the Italian peninsula. -Smack 06:00 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * "This dropping of historical context and fact dishonours those heroes among the European expedition. It dishonours Pocahontas. And worse, it abuses the modern child's potential for understanding the growing pains of Western Culture and the founding of America."
 * Uhh...thats very NPOV if I do say so myself. I'm deleting it.
 * -Mr. Tachyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.4.225 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Age of Pocahontas
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)

Birth and death dates
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)

The currently shown death date for Smith is both wrong and inconsistent with the balance of the article, and while I am no historian, a number of internal dates in the article also do not match my history-class memory of events. Doc W 14:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger
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)

John Smith in film
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)


 * Quite correct. I've trimmed it. - DavidWBrooks 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Smith fathered Pocahontas bastered son."
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).


 * 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)

Water Trail
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)

US or UK spelling?
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. 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)


 * The article currently carries a "Use British English" 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)

Daily Press
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)

Baptism Date
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)
 * 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.


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Cpt Smith & Pocahontas
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)

POV
"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)


 * 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)

Suggestions

 * 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)


 * More than that - the article relies far to heavily on LeMay et al. Rich Farmbrough, 10:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC).

This article is written in terrible English and is rife with incomplete sentences and, frankly, sentences that make little to no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.85.65 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Should executions be included?
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)


 * Given the context (an offhand remark by a narrator), additional sources are needed TEDickey (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not knighted
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)

What on earth has Captain John Smith got to do with Kings Lynn
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)


 * 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)

Article revisit
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)


 * It still needs an English language edit to correct the grammatical errors and make sure the phrases are at the appropriate formal level. Mr. Muggins, I think you are moving in the right direction. Be bold, but give reasons for your changes - grammar, spelling, awkward phrase, not a neutral point of view, etc. That way if someone takes issue you will have a leg to stand on. Now that you may have had a chance to track me down, keep it to yourself, will you? I would now add one comment. In my opinion the sections are too long. They could be split into subsections. I realize of course that every writer, regardless of their experience or skill, writes differently. So, I am not even going to approach the topic of how I would write it. I do think it should be grammatical. The length of the article, well, it is a big topic. Smith is an important historical figure, at least to us in New England. He was quite a man. He could have had a rich Turkish princess but he tossed her over for freedom. He wanted to name Cape Ann after her but the king said no. If it really gets huge we might consider splitting it, say, Smith at Jamestown, Smith at somewhere else.Dave (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No one has taken on the refs. I can't say I blame you. You almost have to be a programmer. It clearly needs the Harvard ref system. Everything is done by hand, and that is allowed on WP, and if there is a coherent system, we are encouraged not to touch it. However, those repetitions are not in my view a coherent system. Moreover, in any system, raw url's are not allowed. At the time of my previous comments I was just discovering harvard ref. I've done more of them since then. It does not work quite the way I said. I will get started on that briefly so you can see what I mean. Only started.Dave (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

"English unwillingness to work"
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)

Removed the named siblings of John Smith
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)

Requested move 30 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

John Smith (explorer) → Captain John Smith – This man seems to be universally known as 'Captain'. Per WP:COMMONNAME this should be included in the title, which also eliminates the need for disambiguation. Zacwill16 ( talk ) 17:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tending toward opposed – My impression is that we generally don't use ranks or honorifics in titles on Wikipedia, and I have certainly heard Smith discussed in serious reliable sources without much (or perhaps any) noticeable usage of "Captain" – particularly in 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose since this subject's WP:COMMONNAME does not include "Captain". In fact, this subject has such a strong connect with the name "John Smith" with nothing else that adding "Captain" to the title could be rather WP:ASTONISH-ing. Steel1943  (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose extremely common generic name. Further, he was an admiral and a knight, so picking and choosing a title is bad. And indeed, most of the military personnel listed in the military section of the dab page became captains at some point. John Smith (of Pocahontas) or John Smith (of Jamestown) would make it more recognizable, if you wanted to identify this as the person in the tale. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose extremely common generic title, GregKaye 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Steel1943. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close In ictu oculi (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No need and goes against our usual guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither "Captain" nor "explorer" are ideal, but then nothing will be for a complex character known for multiple things. Recommend John Smith (explorer, 1580 – 1631).  I'm sure other John Smiths explored.  "Founder of Jamestown" might be most recognizable, but is not quite accurate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Death
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)

ENGVAR all over the place
"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)

Credibility as an author
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)

External links modified
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)

Insistence on "Indians"
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)

No response Following the guidance ofWP policy: Quote: Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.

Shortcuts

WP:STATUSQUO WP:QUO

If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.

If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling.

Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username. You cannot remove or change prior edit summaries by reverting, even if you made the edit in question. If an edit summary violates the privacy policy or otherwise qualifies for oversighting or deletion, then see Help:Edit summary#Fixing. Otherwise, ignore it. In the case of a bad username, see WP:BADNAME. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting. Your reversions are not justified, and certainly not adequately explained in the eddit summary, in fact they do not address the issue at all. Given this I intend to revert your unexplained and unjustified arbitrary reversions.I prefer that you respond and discussOldperson (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Native American vs Indian
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)

unclear
"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)

Legacy
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)

Death and burial
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)

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

other information
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)

Revise the section 'Encounter with the Powhatan tribe'
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)