I know my early PacNW/BC history pretty well, and have never heard this phrase before....what source is it in, or was it just made up for this article? These events are usually called "the Tonquin incident"........and it's NOT part of the "American Indian Wars", I took that out of the infobox as ridiculous. This was a trading expedition gone awry......not a "battle".Skookum1 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- for one thing, there's no such place anywhere in BC called "Woody Point".....I just checked BC Names....Capt. Walbran's books are online, I'll have a look later for his account of this, and someone I know on Wiki has a copy of Derek Pethick's book......this article needs a rewrite and some serious language-fixing....all instances of "Nootka" should be removed unless they refer to the Nootka Sound area and the people there......and the name Tla-o-qui-aht is of modern invention, it's not the name of the particular people involved in these events, whose successors are one of the three surviving groups of what had been about eight just in Clayoquot Sound...Clayoquot and Tla-o-qui-aht may seems like the same word, they're not. Clayoquot comes from a place at the mouth of the Clayoquot River, and means people of Clayoqua, which was at the mouth of that river and those people are the river's and the sound's namesake. Tla-o-qui-aht Nations is a modern-era band government not sure what its former "FOO Indian Band" name was......Skookum1 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- From Googling, I found some references that say that Woody Point was the original name given by Captain Cook to what is now known as Cape Cook. Indyguy (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that should certainly go in the article. Add "BC Names" to "Cape Cook" you'll find the location-cite. But where did this "battle" title come from? I note the popular history tone of this, it may come out of American accounts of this I'm unawares of; I haven't read Bancroft about this; there may be some who say small-b "battle" but the consequence of this title is it seems like a formally-named battle; from what I know of it, as I said, "incident" is the usual term or others like it; that whole coast north of the Columbia trading ships - the smart ones- were prepared for a state of instant war; ships slept at night with big anti-boarding nets sticking out, betrayal during trading was common; there are dozens of such stories; titling all of them "battle" won't give the impression of the kind. Not that kind of war. These were trading deals gone bad, sometimes very bad as with this and Jewitt's ship and others.Skookum1 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed—calling it a battle makes it sound like it was part of a war. It wasn't. It was "trading deal gone bad", yes. Pfly (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
