Talk:Massachusett

message: The Massachusetts tribe fought for the colonists in King Philips war in 1675-6. Page 219 of Philbrick's book (used as evidence in the article) states, "[T]he Massachusetts, who were so cozy with Winslow, would never join him [Philip]. the article is confusing and makes it seem like they fought with Philip. 
hi
:I noticed this as well. I've just corrected it. DocumentError (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with article

message: Other articles on the Indians of Southern New England show this map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tribal_Territories_Southern_New_England.png]
Show it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlue (talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Neither this article, not that on the Nipmuc, seems to state the identity of the tribe of the Natick Indians of the 17th century.  Both talk about the tribal identity of their present descendants, at the expense of stating to what tribe the 17th-century Natick Indians belonged.  Were they Nipmuc?  Massachusett?  Some other answer?
See my fuller discussion on the talk page for Nipmuc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlue (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Natick

message: There is a lot of references but no bibliography information: "Trumbull, J. H. (1903). pp. 58, 270." - which book ?; "Hicks, N. (2006). pp. 53, 79" - which book ?; "Bragdon, K. J. (1999). p. 110." - which book ?, and so on. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the bibliography

message: Readable prose for an article hovers around 50 megabytes. This article is 115 megabytes and much of the information isn't specifically about the Massachusett, but is instead about regional groups. Solutions might be to move information to the relatively short Praying Indians article and/or to create a Praying Indians of Natick article. Yuchitown (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Have hopefully given fair warning and I'm going in. This article is simply bizarre. Most of the citations don't have links, and when I check them out, the article text often isn't confirmed by the cited source. Nintala composed 96.6% of the text and appears to be pushing a definition "Massachusett" that includes Nipmuc, Wampanoag, and other New England tribes. Using "Massachusett" as an umbrella term for several regional tribes is simply not reflected in the literature. Historical accounts of Massachusett are scant, so this article should only reflect what has been published in secondary, wp:reliable sources. I'm going to split appropriate material to Praying Indians of Natick and strip the Massachusett article back to what has been established in secondary, published literature. Here goes! Yuchitown (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go for it! Agreed regarding use of "Massachusett". — Andy Anderson 16:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: I appreciate your efforts to condense this article to bring it up to better standards, but the Natick are Massachusett.  It was the first Praying Town for the Massachusett Indians which includes the Mattakeesett and Ponkapoag tribes.  The Massachusee Psalter and the Massachusett-language Bible were written in Natick.  The Massachusett and Nipmuc were closely related, and many Nipmuc settled Natick, but the community remained Massachusett speaking as well as identity and are labelled as Massachusett again in the Earle Report.  Contemporary Natick include the Praying Indians of Natick, which identify as Massachusett, and some Natick-Nipmuc that do not.  Why are you creating a separate article when the vast majority of Natick self-identify as Massachusett?  All the Yuchi are enrolled in other tribes and most members are only partially Yuchi, but still self-identify as such.  There are no separate articles for all the mixed Yuchi communities.
The Massachusett were among the first Natives to greet the English settlers, contributed many of their words to local flora and fauna and Native culture, and the Massachusett were literate with a printed Bible, their role definitely needs to be explored and explained as most of their history after King PHilip's War, they are treated as myths when they never disappeared. Right now, the Wampanoag claim the Massachusett as their own and the Nipmuc claim all but Ponkapoag as their own, which is also contrary to historical understanding as written by the English Puritans. There were no Wampanoag helping Eliot translate the Bible, just like there were no Creek speaking Yuchi.
Nintala (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Praying Indians of Natick article discusses Massachusett people—and Nipmuc and Wampanoag, etc. The Massachusett article was more than twice the recommended length for an article; hence the split. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. It is an encyclopedia so should only contain concise information that is thoroughly cited in secondary, published literature. But all the previous material is still available to you to publish on a blog or personal website. Yuchitown (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Natick are Massachusett 

message: Is the noun styled the same plural as in the singular? (i.e., no "s" appended.) Casey (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. You can just write "The Massachusett lived in Massachusetts," or for greater clarity, "The Massachusett people lived in Massachusetts." Yuchitown (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of name? 

message: The Massachusett are still here. Currymmmm (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentions that numerous groups identify as being descendants of Massachusett people, and several of these groups have their own articles. The definition of Native American tribe includes continued governance, not just ancestry. So if there are wp:reliable, secondary, published citations discussing that, they can certainly be added. But wp:self-published, original research cannot be added to Wikipedia articles. Yuchitown (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree with @Currymmmm that the lead of the article needs to be reframed due to this issue Jackie.salzinger (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lose the past tense. These people still exist.