Talk:Turkey Tayac

Deletions
Please do not delete relevant material, including links. If there is a valid reason for deletion, then first negotiate it here. The two external links deleted are directly on topic and very informative.Pokey5945 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

POV
The stridency of the attacks on Sims and Brown, and the use of applause words (i.e. "courageous") in describing Tayac and his comrades, are clearly NPOV violations. The whole article reads like a propaganda piece and doesn't lend itself to trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.8.5 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We can edit to reduce POV - it is not encyclopedic in tone.--Parkwells (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Piscataway Language
I would suggest removing the category "Last Known Speaker of a Language" as well as the sentence claiming that Turkey Tayac was the last speaker of Piscataway. 1) There is very little documentary evidence of the language--there is a 17th century catechism at Georgetown University which may be written in Piscataway (see the page on Andrew White (missionary), but of a very poor quality. 2) Turkey Tayac was primarily an English speaker though he remembered and wrote down a number of words in order to preserve them (see for example http://www.silverspringvoice.com/archives/copy/2004/01/tayac.html). These have been determined to belong to an Algonquian language (I believe by linguist William Leap), but there has not been enough scholarship--and there may not be enough evidence--to determine if the words are specifically Piscataway. Lillipeg (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bastard
It's not exactly what Brown means in this context ~ Thomas Ford Brown has gone so far as to repeatedly apply the term "bastard" when referring to many of the ancestors of the Piscataway ~ is he referring to the claims, the legitimacy of the ancestors, or calling the entire people bastards? Can someone who may have a greater insight, or more knowledge, answer this. Cheers, LindsayHi 09:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on other reading, he appears to be dealing with the documented birth status of some of the ancestors, who were illegitimate children born out of wedlock. So it is fact, not judgment, although he could have chosen a less loaded term.--Parkwells (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Content and tone
The article is troubling as there are numerous sources listed, but no inline citations. The tone has been inappropriate and overly adulatory about Proctor. Have tried to make it more encyclopedic. There is more controversy about some of Proctor's claims for himself than is apparent in the article. The essay by Sims appears to be well-documented, based on my experience with genealogy, but more than a generation after Proctor's death, it appears that the media have accepted the Proctor/Tayac family account of themselves. It is difficult to find third-party sources about him that are objective.--Parkwells (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)