Talk:John Rolfe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
John Rolfe was killed by the Powhatan Confederacy, and the chief's name is Wahunsonacock, not Powhatan, and Opechanaough killed him and many of 350 colonists in 1644. The war ended in 1646, in which the colony became a royal colony.
- According to multiple sources, the Colony of Virginia became a Royal Colony in 1624 after the charter of the Virginia Company of London was revoked. It is my understanding that no one knows for sure whether Rolfe who died in 1622 was killed in the Indian Massacre of 1622, although it is speculated that may be the case. Could you please cite your source for that information?
- Mark in the Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 01:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Page name
This page was recently moved from John Rolfe to John Rolfe (English Settler), and thence to John Rolfe (English settler), in accordance with WP:CAPS. But I'm not sure that (English settler) is the best disambiguator for this John Rolfe. Would (Virginia colonist) be more descriptive? He's known for his role in early Virginia history and the history of tobacco. "English settler" is accurate, but I think that "Virginia colonist" would be more helpful to readers trying to find the right John Rolfe. What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I think this is a pretty good case for being a primary topic. The other John Rolfe's appear to have pretty minor claims of notability. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Coudln't disagree more since notability is subjective and depends on perspective and environment. Primary topics are used where there is an original use of the phrase or word, with later subsidiary uses based only upon that phrase of word. ie "New World" quite rightly has a primary article on its meaning as the Americas, and other articles, because they are subsidiary and based upon this original usage, are seondary articles. However, neither John Rolfe the actor, nor John Rolfe the classical scholar are famous as a subsidiary (ie because of) the John Rolfe who is an English settler. It would not therefore be correct to allocate the English settler John Rolfe primacy over the others. This would be to make a value judgement on their notability which I feel is misplaced and based on geographic location. - PocklingtonDan 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- That is a misunderstanding of primary topic -- there are countless examples of primary topics that have no relation whatsoever to the other similarly named articles. From Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic, there is no mention of original or subsidiary uses. It says simply, When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page. Although it is at best only an extremely rough gauge of notability, Google shows that John Rolfe the settler is overwhelmingly more notable than any of the others. [1]. older ≠ wiser 15:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
For what it's worth, I tend to agree that Pocahantas' husband is the primary topic for "John Rolfe". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I'll be checking the links. - Nunh-huh 02:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed; all the links in article space now link directly here rather than to a disambiguation page or a redirect. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First wife and child
The sex of the first child and the location where child and first wife died seems to be unclear, based upon conflicting information in various sources. There seems no doubt that the three of them left England together, and only John Rolfe survived to continue on after finally arriving back at Jamestown for good with Lord Delaware, etc. So, I have edited the information about these two individuals to only state that they had died after leaving England. If we can verify more details, we can add that in as appropriate. Vaoverland 04:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Paragraph ends abruptly with "Among those left buried in Bermuda were Rolfe's ". Text relating to wife and child probably misplaced?
[edit] US or UK spelling?
Recently, 86.136.175.11 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) 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)
