Talk:Beothuk

"Beothuk researcher" wording

This phrasing caught my eye, "Beothuk researcher Ingeborg Marshall", as it's grammatically ambiguous whether it means Marshall is a researcher of the Beothuk people or a researcher who is Beothuk. As I read on in the article, it seems that it's more likely that the meaning is that Marshall is not Beothuk but researches the Beothuk people. Is there a better way to word this to remove the ambiguity? "Researcher of the Beothuk, Ingeborg Marshall" is an option but a bit wordier. Elfangor9 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Genocide

At the moment, there is a section called "Genocide" that just begins "Scholars disagree in their definition of the term in relation to the Beothuk, and the parties have differing political agendas". Presumably the term in question is "genocide" but the section seem to take for granted that some genocide has been assumed by the reader. Nothing in the preceding section really suggested genocide, only that there had been some hostile encounters and starvation. Source links seem dead, but without some explanation as to why genocide is being put forward and by whom, the section doesn't really make a lot of sense. If it's not the mainstream view, I propose it be the section just be merged with the above section on extinction with more elaboration as necessary as to the exact claims. 2600:8800:23A2:9600:207F:4E1E:2600:119D (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've merged the Genocide section to the Extinction section, and split it out as a Claims of Genocide subsection, along with a Claims of Modern Survivors subsection. This needs work and I'm not happy with the POV and referencing of some of the more recently added paragraphs here. In particular the claims about Peyton's specific activities have been difficult to substantiate - I can't find any references or mentions of this specific incident other than the Adkari once and that does not seem neutral. (Self edit followup: this is not to say that some of Peyton's actions were not thoroughly reprehensible - they were - but this specific incident does not seem to be reliably recounted.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Dubious

Added the dubious reference tag to bring discussion here. While Peyton Sr's general attitude and behaviour toward the Beothuk is not disputed, the specific details provided here for this incident are dubious. This appears to be a pastiche of several incidents, not one, and there are date discrepancies with respect to his actual time of residence in Newfoundland. Better referencing is needed.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Followup post-restoration of tags: I reverted the edits removing the reference tags because referring to the tagging of these references as "ridiculous" and "laughable" is a borderline personal attack, and because there was no further discussion of the issues I raised with those references here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the lack of discussion is because you do not inform anyone that you have started discussions. Acknowledged specialists and experts publishing in academic books, published by well known and reputable academic publishers, is about the most R and RS can possibly be per our standards on Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The "dubious" tag contained a direct link to this discussion. Your inability/refusal to follow that link to the talk page before deleting the tag is your problem, not mine. That said:

- I didn't tag the reference as dubious, I tagged the paragraph, for the reasons initially noted above.

- The paragraph continues to appear as a pastiche of multiple incidents, and there may be issues with Peyton Sr's time of residence in Newfoundland.

- The "1789" massacre does not appear to exist outside of Wikipedia. There is a reference to a 1781 incident (see here in a talk by Dr. Ingeborg Marshall, who is referenced elsewhere on the Beothuk page), which appears to partially match this one; whether or not the Adkhari and other references got the date wrong or meshed multiple incidents I don't know. I don't have access to Marshall's book so I can't confirm the details.

In any case:I have re-instated the "dubious" tag on the paragraph. You can follow the "discuss" link to reach here and comment in return. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

concur on this Abumoh00 (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Following up on this, since we now have people actually discussing it: I have an online reference which corroborates the Marshall talk 1781 date above; see , specifically around pages 35-36 of the PDF document. The Newfoundland Quarterly incorporates Aspects, which is a publication of the Newfoundland Historical Society; the specific article here is by John Hewson of Memorial University of Newfoundland (also referenced elsewhere in the Beothuk wiki article) in 1988, and is a transcription of the Liverpool and Pulling manuscripts dating to the 1790s. These confirm the date of 1781, the number of people in the Peyton expedition (3), the fact that the Beothuk were fired on and some of them killed, and the statement that Peyton Sr. beat one injured or crippled Beothuk to death with a trap. They do not confirm or provide any numbers of the size of the village or the number of dead, or the "left them to freeze to death". I'll take a stab at rewording this in the article when I have time. In the meantime: does anyone have access to an online copy of the Adkari or Harring actual publications? I'd like to trace the references and find out where their wording came from.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

And lo and behold, the internet is your friend: the Adhikari reference: , which is misquoted in more than one place; it got 1781 correct but depended a lot on "probably" with regards to the actual size of the village in question, and also likely quotes the same Pulling manuscript and makes a few more assumptions at the same time.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The "killing many while injuring *all* others, beyond some injured individuals *who were physically beaten to death after being shot*, *any* others *were left to die* from their injuries *or freeze to death*."

seems quite loaded/impartial of a description. Is this the most NPOV wording and/or precise to the sources? Abumoh00 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You probably mean "partial" not impartial. While the phrasing can obviously change, we should maintain that these were active actions which were perpetrated by individuals. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

yes sorry, good eye, I meant partial. I agree, we need to make it more precise and less sensationalist in language and description. Abumoh00 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

A few questions to answer in order to do so before editing most of them:

1. a. Is "all" from "all others", & b. "any" from "any others", precise/accurate?

c. "were left to die or freeze to death" - are either or both of these intents certain and known?

2. Can we give a number as opposed to "many" in "killing many"?

3. What was the context and motivation for the raid? This is important to note, and currently absent, even if context isn't known (that is context for readers in itself).

4. "physically beaten" is redundant language (serves to emphasize). I'll fix this now as this is not dependent on sourcing/precision like the above.

5. "who were physically beaten to death after being shot" - this is also certain? Abumoh00 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes the date specifically was mistyped from Adhikari. I own a copies of all of Adhikari's books (both authored and edited) for future reference. You argue that the dubious tag is for the paragraph and not the sources, yet as the information of the paragraph is presented in the sources, with it being condensed from said sources, tagging it as dubious is an argument about the reliability of the sources used. As I have previously stated, considering the prominence and rigour of the published work, its information is considered to be reliable, unless you can provide sources that show them to be wrong. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

No, some of the wording you've used is not in fact present in the source. The source reads "housing what probably constituted an entire band of over 50 members" (which in itself is an assumption, and a poor one, based on the earlier statement in the same source that a Beothuk family group was believed to be about 30 to 50 people); your original insertion of that paraphrased it as "fired on a band of 50 Beothuk". And as for "prominence and rigour", I have some concerns about that, given the completely unsupported statement later in the source that Shanawdithit "was clearly not the last living Beothuk". There's an argument to be made that she may not have been, but that's a long way from "clearly not".

The Pulling Manuscript is referenced in the Newfoundland Quarterly link above, and that appears to be a direct transcription of one of the primary sources for the details of the 1781 raid. It clearly indicates that Peyton and two others journeyed for three days up the Exploits River, came upon a Beothuk village of unspecified size, and fired their guns into it, presumably multiple times. (There's no indication of gun type in the Pulling manuscript but in 1780s Newfoundland this would most likely have been a barrel-loading musket, and the "buckshot" would have been whatever pebbles were available to hand - or more likely a single ball shot.) There are two separate accounts of the incident within the same manuscript. Both make it clear that the author (Pulling) thought that the storytellers were being economical with the truth to reduce their part in the incident. Both versions also make it clear that there were fatalities and injuries, and that a number of Beothuk fled - but no specific numbers were given. The second version of the story recounts in detail that Peyton Sr did beat one wounded Beothuk man to death with an animal trap. Both versions of the story indicate that there was at least one completely unharmed survivor, who was left alone. Both versions of the story also indicate that Peyton and his two partners in crime took whatever furs and other goods they could carry - which for three men in winter was not going to be a lot. Would it have meant hardship for the surviving Beothuk? - certainly. But to assert that they would have frozen to death is pure speculation. (I don't know where the source author sourced that particular piece of data, but it doesn't match with Pullings' recounts of the incident recorded in 1792-93.) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph in question and cited the Newfoundland Quarterly source. Specifically I've addressed the following:

- changed "mass violence" to "violence"; three people is not mass.

- changed Peyton Sr's "many" incidents to multiple (this is confirmed, both by the Canadian Biography reference, by this incident, and by the Shanawdithit incident further down in the article, in which Peyton Sr was also involved).

- made it clear that the encampment size was likely 30 to 50 people.

- identified that there were and unknown number of dead and wounded, and that there were survivors, including at least one completely unharmed person.

- confirmed that Peyton Sr. did beat one person to death.

- indicated that Peyton and his men took whatever they could carry and left.

This is supported by the Newfoundland Quarterly source, the specific article being a transcription of Pulling's original records from 1792-93. I also dropped the trailing Adhikari and Harring short references as replaced by the Newfoundland Quarterly one, and yes, I removed the "dubious" tag.

I remain concerned about directly referring to Adhikari in the text of the article; this is an article about the Beothuk, not what Mohamed Adhikari thinks about the Beothuk, and referring to the author directly in the article text seems like a classic case of WP:UNDUE.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this improvement, the context is now clearly there and less sensationalist.

What would you suggest re referring to Adhikari? I don't know what is normal here. I just added his full name as he was mentioned but never his full name. Abumoh00 (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's a good reason to mention either Adhikari or Harring by name at all. (As I said: the article is about the Beothuk, not what certain people think about the Beothuk). I can see a way to remove the direct reference from the 1781 paragraph, but not the trailing paragraph in the section. My take is that the trailing paragraph is WP:UNDUE and puts more weight on the "it was genocide" side of the argument then is necessary. I may play around with the wording and see if I can move some of it to the opening paragraph. I wish I had a copy of Marshall's book, which is pretty much the canonical resource on the subject. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I only lean towards mentioning people to be precise on attribution instead of using wiki-voice. I agree that fringe views should have proportional size/placement.

You probably know better than I how to handle this. Feel free to edit and I can chime in if I see any need. Abumoh00 (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want to remove attribution of what seem to be "contentious" assessments, feel free to, but that goes against P&Gs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is a policy (part of WP:NPOV, and my issue with this is that the way the paragraph was worded puts undue weight on the opinions of two historians/researchers. I've made an attempt to address that by combining the first and last paragraphs and more clearly identifying Adhikari and Harring. I'm still not happy with it but I think the section is more adequately balanced now. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The opinions of specialists working in this area, publishing in reliable academic sources, with more recent research is perfectly DUE. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Claims of Genocide: Better Reference Needed for Palliser Quote

I have again reverted the removal of "better reference needed" tag for the Hugh Palliser quote. I have not been able to locate this quote outside of Wikipedia itself or articles copied directly from it - and it is not present in Palliser's entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, even though there are several other direct quotes there, and this one is significant enough that it should be. I have no doubt that Harring found the quote and referenced it somewhere, but the Harring article is not available on the open internet outside a paywall (or at least I have not been able to find one), so this quote needs better sourcing - even if that sourcing is copied directly from the Harring bibliography. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Harring cites L.F.S Upton in a book called Sweet Promises: A Reader on Indian-White Relations in Canada, who in turn cites a letter from Palliser to a Grafton with the following details: Palliser to Grafton, 31 March 1766, CO 194/27, ff. 178-180. Storrat (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

"Grafton" would appear to be the British Secretary of state for the Northern Department, Augustus Henry Fitzroy, the 3rd Duke of Grafton, who held the position between July 1765 and May 1766. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Storrat, thanks for this; I've made a copyedit to the text to more clearly identify the communication and include the Upton reference directly. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)