Talk:Pequots

Untitled
At WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Pequot, I've tried to use this material as a sample to test out our work in progress on a more uniform framework to discuss ethnic groups. Please, if you are tracking this article, have a look, tell me what you think. I'd like to supersede the current article with something more like that (though probably moving the TBDs to this talk page). -- Jmabel 01:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Lacking comment, I've gone live with that. -- Jmabel 23:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

2 cut sentences
The following was recently anonymously added, with no sources cited. I've cut it, pending citation:


 * "There is much debate over the validity of the tribe and its members. It is also interesting to note that 100 of the 350 tribal members have criminal records."


 * 1) There may be debate over the validity of the tribe, but how can there be debate over the validity of its members? An what use is it to refer to "debate over the validity of the tribe" with no clarification of the nature of that debate?
 * 2) "It is also interesting to note that..." Pure POV, cut even if the rest of this can be cited
 * 3) The number 350 suggests that the statement is being made about the western Pequot, although the placement of this sentence suggested otherwise.
 * 4) "100 of the 350 tribal members have criminal records" A statement like this clearly needs citation to a reliable source.

06:16, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)


 * Yeah seems like a good idea. looks fishy. Alex Wilhelm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.59.164 (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes
I would suggest a change in tense in the first paragraphs since the Pequot clearly still exist. Also, the English they were at war with were Puritan. It seems to me this should be part of the article since "English" over "Puritan" implies a purely racial conflict. In truth the war was borne of cultural, religious, and ethnic differences. Added links to the Pequot tribal casino, Foxwoods including a link to the historical section of that site. Wjbean 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Text analogy
"The Pequot War and Mystic massacre reduced the Pequot's sociopolitical influence in southern New England."

"The Holocaust reduced the Jews' sociopolitical influence in Eastern Europe."

AntiqueReader (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJMC89 bo (talk • contribs)

Recent edits/additions to article
Dilidor, I do think my changes were an improvement, so let's discuss what you don't like on the Talk page. I believe I added more context and clarification as to some of the issues related to this people and their history. Perhaps we can reach a compromise to benefit the article.Parkwells (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There are positives - and negatives - to both versions. The new version is somewhat more expansive, but it also introduced some wonky sentence structure. More work on it should be welcomed.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had not noticed this talk posting previously or I would have responded. The recent additions are definitely improvements to the intro. I am merely trying to keep grammar accurate and syntax compact. My latest edits are only addressing those concerns; I have not meddled with the content. Hope that clarifies. —Dilidor (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pequot. 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/20081217141058/http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~massasoit/bermuda.htm to http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~massasoit/bermuda.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060418043400/http://www.foxwoods.com/TheMashantucketPequots/Home/ to http://www.foxwoods.com/TheMashantucketPequots/Home/

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) 22:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Native American", etc.
I've (again) reverted the recent edits changing the "Native American" terminology to "American Indian", and other edits. Native American is a perfectly well understood conventional term, and is the name of the article. There is no reason to change it. Additionally, edits changing the plural "Pequot" to "Pequots" need further discussion. Both forms are in use. If "Pequots" is more common or otherwise preferable, the article should be moved to Pequots. Otherwise, the use will be inconsistent.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Indian is a perfectly well understood conventional term, and it has been consistently and universally used for 300 years. "Native American" describes any human being born in America. And neither term is the name of the article. There is no consensus that "Pequot" is plural, any more than "American" is plural. Both words require a final -s to be plural. —Dilidor (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're wrong here. While there's nothing "wrong" with "American Indian", it's certainly no more "right" than or preferable to "Native American". The article on, well, Native Americans in the United States is at Native Americans in the United States, as you know because you changed the piped link. So long as that article uses the term "Native American", there is no reason to change or avoid that construction. No reader would be confused into thinking "Native American" actually meant "any human being born in America" - that's just not the way the term is used.
 * On plurals, again, if "Pequots" is more common that "Pequot" (and it may be, though both forms are in use) then the article needs to be moved. It should not be at "Pequot" and have the text using "Pequots", or vice versa.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that Pequots was not even a redirect to this article, but pointed at Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. I've corrected it to point here.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You are openly acknowledging that there is no reason to prefer "native American" over "Indian"! Please do some wider reading on articles connected to the Pequots. You will discover American Indian Wars, French and Indian War, and numerous other uses of the age-old term. Please read the opening sentence of the article to which you refer: "Native Americans, also known as American Indians…." You are not providing any compelling reason to use the modern, politically correct phrase "native American" instead of the traditional, internationally understood term "Indian" which has stood for the past 300 years.
 * I would like to move the article to "Pequots" or "Pequot People," as that is the construction that is used by the Pequots themselves as well as their neighbors, but I have no idea how. —Dilidor (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The reason to keep Native American is because it's the conventional term. It's far more common in across Wikipedia and in news sources, for instance. It's also consistently been used at Native Americans in the United States and this article for many years. You're the one proposing the change, so the burden is on you to defend your change and get support for it.
 * On moving the article, see WP:RM. It looks to me that "Pequots" is substantially more common as a plural than "Pequot", so I'd support the move (and following that, updating the wording in the article).--Cúchullain t/ c 19:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You appear to know how to move an article and I don't, so I would request that you please change it from "Pequot" to "Pequots" or "Pequot People" or "Pequot Tribe", as with Narragansett people and Mohegan Tribe (both of whom are neighbors of the Pequots). —Dilidor (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The article has been moved. “Native American” has been restored, hopefully for the last time.—Cúchullain t/ c 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This silly edit war is going nowhere. I've requested a third opinion and posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Using Native American is the conventional term as stated by other editors people will not get that confused as people born in America. It is also more consistent. Pequots is the plural word to my knowledge not Pequot.Mcelite (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * To reiterate the dispute, there is nothing wrong with the long-standing, neutral term Native American. There is no call to replace it with "American Indian". "Native American" is far more common in Wikipedia articles on Native American peoples (cf the main article, Native Americans in the United States, much more common in news sources, used by the Census Bureau, etc. The claim that " anyone born in America is a native American" is one of those things that's technically correct but doesn't reflect actual usage at all. As this is the stable use in the article, it should be restored.
 * There are other problems with Dilidor's edits. The term "tribe" is opaque and generally avoided by specialists except for specific circumstances due to the potential confusion and colonial undertones. The Pequots are not one "tribe"; modern Pequots and descendants belong to multiple entities with state and federal recognition. The term "people" is superior phrasing. Finally, "of Connecticut" is better phrasing than "in Connecticut", as today not all Pequots live in Connecticut.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: I think "Native American" is the more appropriate term to use here, for two reasons: Firstly, as stated by Cúchullain above, Native American is a well-understood conventional term, so there is no reason to think that its use will lead to confusion (additionally, the suggestion that "Native American", especially when capitalized, refers to any human being born in North America is preposterous and I would challenge the author of this opinion to support their assertion by demonstrating the use of this term in that specific context in print). The second reason I support the use of "Native American" is that the term "Indian", when used to refer to Native Americans or Canadians, is widely seen as historically inaccurate and even derogatory, and as such, it is politically incorrect. The preferred term when referring to this large and diverse group of people is "Indigenous American/Canadian" in Canada and "Native American" in the USA. Though the term "Indian" may be several hundred years old, this in no way suggests that it should continue to be used in perpetuity, especially when it becomes associated with historical and contemporary abuses. werewolf (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)  werewolf (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above and the usage of Native American was established before a user change the language, it should remain as such. Also, I personally do not believe Pequot should be pluralized with an s, as it is not an English word, no? Other tribes like the Sioux generally do not use Dakotas or Lakotas when speaking about the tribe and neither do other tribes; Wikipedia has Dakota people and Lakota people rather than using an s. Also, I have many relatives who are Pequot and have not heard them ever pluralize as if it was an English word.  on camera  00:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I Agree with werewolf and with camera statements. Native American should be the term used.Mcelite (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

American Indian over Native American
I am 66 years old. For my entire life, my family and I have used the term "American Indian" to describe that part of our heritage. I am a citizen of an American Indian tribe (Cherokee Nation, one of 3 federally recognized Cherokee Tribes). We have been using the AI term for hundreds of years. Yes, we are not from India. I have been saying for many years (it is even on my website http://americanindian.net) that anyone born in the Americas is a "native American". There will always be some confusion with the NA term. As an American Indian, I have never used the NA term to describe myself or others except as a parenthetical mentioning political correctness. For people who think AIs might be confused with people from Indian, the even more common usage form would be Indian-American. Every single "hyphenated-American" group that I know of has the ethnic group name listed first. While I am often "politically correct", I have never like this term being forced down our throats by outsiders. One comment above says the term Indian is "derogatory". They should provide documentation of an American Indian making such a claim. See the list below. Since a tribe can call itself anything they want, why would they use a "derogatory" term to do so? Of the 500+ federally recognized tribes, not a single one uses "native American" in their official name.

Just a tiny listing of American Indian groups still using the terms "American Indian" or "Indian": Association on American Indian Affairs - American Indian College Fund - Bureau of Indian Affairs - American Indian Graduate Center - American Indian Education Fund - Center for American Indian Health - THE COBELL SCHOLARSHIP - Providing elevated opportunities for American Indian and Alaska Native college students - American Indian Quarterly - American Indian Culture and Research Journal - Studies in American Indian Literatures - American Indian Education Fund - National Congress of American Indians -

Official tribal Names (This is just the groups whose names start with an A or a B): Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma - Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation - Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation - Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians - Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation - Bay Mills Indian Community - Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California - Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California - Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria - Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana - Bridgeport Indian Colony - Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California -

To add to my bonafides, I am one of the authors in "Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts and Sovereignty, 3 volumes, ed, (2007)" below, and my own work "This Day in North American Indian History".

Phil Konstantin (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Phil Konstantin


 * While I agree with statements by previous commenters that there is no reason to think that use of the term "Native American" will lead to confusion, I do not agree with those who think that the term "Indian" is generally offensive. It seems in my reading experience that the indigenous peoples of Canada are more likely to take offense at its use. My practice has been to follow the established usage in WP articles I edit, e.g., Indian removal, which uses both terms, with "Indian" being used in the preponderance of instances. In my own writing I've preferred "Indian" because calling native peoples "Americans", the name of the very people (North and South Americans of European descent) who destroyed their nations and cultures, seems more offensive to me than calling them by a name that was used mistakenly by early European explorers (I supposedly have Choctaw, Cherokee, and Comanche ancestry, but I would hate to be "Elizabeth Warrened"). I would present for consideration the works of the distinguished historian Donald Fixico, of Shawnee, Sac and Fox, Muscogee, and Seminole descent:
 * American Indians in a Modern World (2008); Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts and Sovereignty, 3 volumes, ed, (2007); Daily Life of Native Americans in the Twentieth Century (2006); The American Indian Mind in a Linear World: American Indian Studies and Traditional Knowledge (2003); The Urban Indian Experience in America (2000); The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century: Tribal Natural Resources and American Capitalism (1998), 2nd ed., 2011; Rethinking American Indian History, ed. (1997); Urban Indians (1991); An Anthology of Western Great Lakes Indian History, ed. (1988); and Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945-1960 (1986). Call for Change: The Medicine Way of American Indian History, Ethos and Reality (June 2013) and Indian Resilience and Rebuilding: Indigenous Nations in the Modern American West (October 2013).
 * In the case of this article, the precedent of "Native American" was established before it was changed by bold editing and persistent reversions to "Indians", so I would defer to established usage. Carlstak (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved to Pequot at this time, per the discussion below. Consensus as to Pequot people is unclear, so please feel free to introduce a new move request to discuss that title at any time. Dekimasu よ! 08:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Pequots → Pequot – Native Americans tribes do not pluralize as if they are English words and the official Pequot tribes are not pluralize themselves. WP:CRITERIA for consistency: every other tribe on Wikipedia does not pluralize with an s as if they are English words, see Category:Federally recognized tribes in the United States.  on camera  01:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PLURAL. The titles of articles of people groups should be plural, and this is the English Wikipedia, so standard English grammar rules are what we use here. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no Wikipedia pages in which the tribe's name is pluralized as if it's an English word. There are numerous articles that exist with just the tribe name without "people" or "tribe" being attached such as Sioux, Seminole, Mohegan, Muscogee, Kiowa, etc. which speak about the tribe/people (these are the same thing) as a whole and not just based upon modern reservation divisions.  on camera  06:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are none? There is this one we're currently talking about, and I'm sure there are others, like Mississaugas. And there have been relatively recent discussions that have resulted in the pluralizing of articles of native American people groups such as Aztecs and Olmecs. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are very few then. This page shouldn't have been moved a few days ago from Pequot to Pequots without at least making it a contested move so we could have this discussion and archiving it for future reference.  on camera  07:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect that it would be challenged, or else I would have just started an RM. We easily could have moved it back and started a discussion. However, a few assumptions here are wrong. Per WP:PLURAL and WP:ETHNICGROUP, the titles are in plural. In many cases, like all the ones you've listed, the plural is a mass noun that's the same as the singular form. In this case, both "Pequot" and "Pequots" are used for the plural, but "Pequots" appears to be more common.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Approve The article is about the tribe as a whole therefore I think Pequot is more accurate. We are not making a sentence in which Pequots would be accurate.Mcelite (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the article is about the tribe and not the people, then the article should be moved to Pequot tribe. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, and standard English plurals should be used unless there's evidence that a different form is used in English. How a non-English language forms its plurals is irrelevant. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In addition to WP:PLURAL, the relevant guideline is WP:ETHNICGROUP. Both indicate that we use plural forms for groups of people. What happens is that with many North American peoples, the common plural form is a mass noun that's the same as the singular form ("The Cherokee are", etc.) In some cases, the "s" version is more common, and we defer to that, as with Aztecs. In this case, both "Pequot" and "Pequots" are in use, but a look at the reliable sources suggests that "Pequots" is more common.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As others have stated, terminal -s is a standard way of making plurals in English. We frequently find foreign words being "force pluralized" in this fashion, adding an -s regardless what form the original plural took. We find this in "appendixes", as just one example. As to the claim that the Pequots themselves use "Pequot," the tribe is my neighbor—as are the Mohegans and Narragansetts—and I can attest that they refer to themselves in the plural with a terminal -s. However, a compromise could be reached by using "Pequot tribe" or "Pequot people" as the title. —Dilidor (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pequot people would be fine with me if others who oppose accept that compromise.  on camera  19:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Pequot people" seems to be a reasonable compromise. Carlstak (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Pequot people" is even less common. There's also no need for the "people" as Pequot already redirects here, it's unnecessary disambiguation.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:31, 16 January 2019 (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.

Terminology
We got consensus for using "Native American" above in after a formal WP:3O request, and then several more people weighed in. To restate what was decided there, "Native Americans" is the conventional term used at the main article Native Americans in the United States.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * And again. Hopefully we won't have to revisit this every month.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I just got back from Tahlequah, Oklahoma in Indian Country (not Native American Country). The sign outside the new Indian Health Services affiliated hospital says "Cherokee Indian Hospital", not Cherokee Native American Hospital. Phil Konstantin (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Every official reference to all American tribes uses the term "Indian." It's the Bureau of Indian Affairs, after all. I don't care what the politically correct thought police dictate; the phrase "native American" describes any human being born in America. The vast majority of articles on Wikipedia which discuss various tribes use the word Indian. All historical articles that involve tribes use the word Indian. Disregard the dictates of the thought police and use language accurately. —Dilidor (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We've been over this before, repeatedly, and the consensus was for using "Native American." There are many good reasons for this. To summarize: (1) as you know, the main article is titled Native Americans in the United States and use should be consistent; (2) "Native American" is far more common in Google News searches ( vs. ) and other measures; (3) "Native American" is the established use in this article; (4) despite your claims, "Native American" is far and away the common use in Wikipedia articles. A notable exception is the comparatively small number of articles you've worked on (and edit warred over), but it's simply a fact that most Wikipedia articles follow the "Native American" use. As has been said repeatedly, there's nothing wrong with either "Native American" or "American Indian", but there's no compelling reason to prefer the latter over the former, your personal preference notwithstanding.
 * It is very troubling that you would claim that the dispute here has been resolved in favor of your preference, as the formal 3rd opinion (and most subsequent comments) disagreed with you, let alone that you'd continue this slow motion edit war over something so trivial. This strongly suggests that you're not willing or able to abide by Wikipedia's expected practice of consensus building. In the future, if you edit war again, I'm won't spend any more time trying to work with you, and will head straight to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, a "consensus" reached by people who mostly were not American Indians (or "Native Americans", as you prefer).Phil Konstantin (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't "prefer" either form except in making sure things are consistent and reflect the sources as well as we're able. As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing inherently wrong with either term.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)