Talk:Wampanoag people

message: "In 1600 the Wampanoag lived in southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as well as within a territory that encompassed current day Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and the Elizabeth Islands." Naming the islands is redundant; all the islands listed are in southeastern Massachusetts, which is already listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: redundant

message: Did the Wampanoag move? --Rj 17:01, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
Exactly to what extent are the Bushes descended from the Wampanoag? Everyking 06:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know the answer to this question too. --Whimemsz 21:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I felt that the wording "forcing the Wompanoag to convert" was too negative so I weakened it somewhat to reflect the wording in the "King Phillip's War" entry. Kyaa the Catlord 10:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I was curious, too, and found that in the modern orthography used for writing Wampanoag, an 8 is used to represent a long /u/ sound.  I don't immediately have a great source for this, but here's a link from Google crediting this convention to Ken Hale and Jessie Little Doe Fermino. Also, here's one of several papers I found that accept this as a character for writing Wampanoag: http://web.mit.edu/norvin/www/papers/WampanoagConjunct.pdf -Quintote 02:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Their Bible translation (the first into a native american language) used an "oo" symbol, presumably based on English spelling conventions, but ran the two "o"'s together so that the symbol looks like an infinity sign or an "8" turned on it's side. I'm not sure when the use of an upright "8" began. I would imagine fairly recently to allow the use of existing keyboards. It must be fairly unique for a numeral to be used in this way in an 'official' orthography, as opposed to just being used as a stand-in for typing etc. (cf. some of the symbols used in X-SAMPA to substitute for IPA symbols). Mongvras (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also possibly of interest [], and the resulting discussion, at []. I'll leave it to others to decide if any of this is reliable or even notable, certainly plenty of POV's. Mongvras (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: An editor has included extensive material from a historian who testified against the Wampanoag bid for federal recognition, arguing that they had not demonstrated continuity as a tribe.  But, they gained recognition and the decision of the gov't showed how they satisfied the requirements, so it's not clear why so much material against their bid was included here. Parkwells (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: After some IP disruption on the State tribes page, and conflicting information on related articles, I'm checking into the sourcing. The one source on Assonet does not source any of the content in the entry. It does not say they have state recognition. It only says, "Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation, Massachusetts, a non-Federally 
recognized Indian group." Unless and until someone can source it, I'm removing it. AFAIK, this is the official list for both state and fed tribes:[www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx], and they are not on it. Sources offered in other WP articles that mention this group look to be local papers who clearly didn't do due diligence, or a pamphlet from the Health Dept, who apparently didn't check, either. Neither of those are WP:RS for legal issues of tribal status. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Assonet Band is more correctly titled Assonet Wampanoag Inter-Tribal Council, Inc. http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?FEIN=000327276&SEARCH_TYPE=1 Indigenous girl (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assonet 

message: In respect of the plurality of the many people linked to Wampanoag, "Wampanoag peoples" should replace the current title, clearly indicating individual people, and not simply implying a single collective mind known as this group.
 Fruitstand (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The map is profoundly confusing.  By being captioned "Wampanoag," it means the Wampanoag occupied the green area in the map.  But it covers most of southern New England.  Only after much mental confusion, and searching thru the article to find a resolution, in desperation I blew up the map—only to find that the green area defines many tribes.  Because of the current caption, the reader thinks the yellow dividing lines and names demarcate divisions OF the Wampanoag.  Because the map is only inset-size, you cannot make out, and therefore it doesn't dawn on you, that the names in yellow are tribes themselves, of which only one is Wampanoag.  Change the caption to its proper one, seen on the blow-up page, "Tribal territories of Southern New England tribes about 1600"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlue (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map