Jump to content

Talk:Fort Caroline

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tsamp815 (article contribs).

Permanent?

[edit]

It doesn't seem so, from the description. -- Decumanus | Talk 22:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Permanent, yes; successful, no. It was the first permanent year-round French colony as opposed to seasonal fishing villages or temporary trading posts. Rmhermen 13:33, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
O.K. I see the definition being used. By that definition, Roanoke is the first permanent British settlement in North America, not Jamestown?.-- Decumanus | Talk 13:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't have called Jamestown the first but I find 5 places on Wikipedia do (and the NPS for what that's worth ;) [1]) Rmhermen 14:12, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Star fort?

[edit]

Would Fort Caroline be considered a "Star fort" by it's triangular design? 4.255.52.57 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"French colonization of the atlantic coast"

[edit]

This is in the article:

This massacre put an end to France's attempts at colonization of the Atlantic coast of North America.

Just what definition of "Atlantic coast of North America" are we using here? Even excluding the Gulf of Saint Lawrence (and that's one heavy stretch), or even reducing it to "Atlantic Coast of the United States", that still doesn't account for places like Castine...--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it's obviously incorrect. What it did was permanently end French colonization attempts on the southeastern coast of the present-day United States, which was where the early Spanish and French attempts to colonize the northern reaches were centered. I made a slight change, hope it helps.--Cúchullain t/c 18:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed

[edit]
It may be helpful that there are a couple of paragraphs on Fort Caroline and the Spanish massacre thereof on page 87 of the October 2010 Smithsonian magazine, volume 41, number 6. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

This article asserts that the fort was 'Established in what is now Jacksonville, Florida,' with no mention that this might be disputed let alone that recent work claims to have determined a location near Darien, Georgia. See Florida State University. "Oldest fortified settlement ever found in North America." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 February 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140221111218.htm>.

Iconoclastic claims should be treated with caution

[edit]

Claims unsupported by physical evidence and resting solely on new interpretations of old maps and texts by researchers should be treated with caution.

As noted by St. Augustine's former mayor, George Gardner, it seems that Crowe and Spring have confused Laudonnière's fort with another referred to by Menéndez in a letter he wrote to King Phillip II of Spain. Here is part of the text:

The Commandant and the Captains also wrote me that the two French ships which escaped when we took the fort of St. Matthew in which Juan Rivao's eldest son escaped the day that he was in the fort by swimming to one of these ships, had gone five and twenty leagues beyond, towards the north to a very good harbor called Guale, the Indians there being their friends.

And that there are, within a space of three or four leagues, forty villages of the Indians of two brothers, one of whom is called Causin, and the other Guale, and these two brothers are great friends of the General Ludunier [sic] who was in Florida before the coming of Juan Rivao.

The day that we took the fort, he jumped over the wall in his shirt, and fled to the mountain, wounded by a pike, and we never heard any further news of him, save that it was said that the Indians, his enemies, had killed him.

It seemed to me that Ludunier reached the shore before the son of Juan Rivao got over the bar, that he took him in and, as he knew of the harbor of Guale and the two caciques were his friends, that he went there with the two ships, and that, in great haste, he threw up a fort, and that he had in it seventy or eighty men; that he had sent one of the ships to France and kept the other there.

They must have much artillery and ammunition and stores, for these two ships had not yet discharged what they brought from France, and one of them carried four heavy heavy brass guns on her broadside.

... with the largest force I can get together, which shall be, if possible, not less than three hundred men, for this is little enough, I shall go to Guale, where Ludunier and Juan Rivao's son are, and endeavor to take their fort and expel them from the land before they can be succored from France.[2] Carlstak (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely causes raised eyebrows, but as of yet there haven't been any published responses to the theory yet. Once there are we'll be sure to include them; I'm sure they'll point out some of the things you mention and more. We also need to make sure we don't give undue weight to this novel theory other scholars haven't vetted yet.--Cúchullain t/c 15:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is becoming unbalanced with more information about novel and unsupported claims than about the subject itself. Although this may be an effective counterweight for people seeking info about sensational and dubious "discoveries", it would be nice to see the same effort put into adding historically and archaeologically supported content. I will address this when I have time. Carlstak (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite. We need to make sure we stick to reliable sources and give the viewpoints due weight - which in several cases may be none at all. I suggest we seriously cut back that section, remove anything that hasn't appeared in a reliable, published source, and remove the fringe material. And of course we need to make sure the wording is accurate and neutral.--Cúchullain t/c 13:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Proposed alternative location" section of the article has reached the point of undue weight with its treatment of these unsupported claims as serious research. Similarly to the fabricated "debate" between evolutionary biologists and defenders of so-called "Intelligent Design", there is no debate among credentialed archeologists and historians about the location of Fort Caroline as being in present-day Florida, or about the early location of St. Augustine. Crowe and Spring appear to have plagiarized, or borrowed heavily from the writings of Richard Thornton, an architect and city planner with no credentials as an archeologist or historian, according to his profile at examiner.com/architecture-and-design-in-national/richard-thornton.

I first became aware of these bogus, unsubstantiated claims more than a year ago when I came across a site called bibleorigins.net [3] put up by Walter R. Mattfeld of ​Orange Park, Florida, which linked to the article titled Building this famous Florida attraction caused history to go astray at Examiner.com.

There seems to be a movement afoot with an agenda to push the "alternative location" of Fort Caroline in Georgia, supported by articles published at Examiner.com, a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. It is a division of Clarity Media Group of the Anschutz Corporation, which is primarily owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz, a supporter of far-right causes and Christian activist who contributed $70,000 in 2003 to the Discovery Institute and who has agitated against the Kyoto Protocol. Carlstak (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia article with information about the Spanish attack on Fort Caroline

[edit]

I have created the article "Spanish assault on French Florida" with much material about the Spanish attack on Fort Caroline. Carlstak (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fort Caroline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fort Caroline. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fort_Caroline&oldid=1206651061"