Talk:Pocahontas/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Link not leading to cited item

This link: "John Smith's Letter to Queen Anne regarding Pocahontas". Repr. in Caleb Johnson's Mayflower Web Pages. is going to an AOL account login.KSRolph (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sedgeford Hall Portrait

If the Sedgeford Hall Portrait is believed to not be an actual portrait of Pocahontas, then does it still merit to be displayed on this page? DrkBlueXG (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My view: the portrait should be included in the "See also" section Froid (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Matoaka's first marriage to Kokoum and descendants are not mentioned here

there are several family direct line descendants through her and Kokoum Stream's Daughter Kaokee ( Meese, Ashton, Moody, Coon, Bouck and Pratt Families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4600:1F57:DD9B:E8FC:D6A1:FF00 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if people know something to be true, one of the core policies of Wikipedia is verifiability. For statements to appear in Wikipedia articles, they have to be sourced from reliable sources such as a newspaper, book, TV news show, documentary, etc - some enterprise that has a reputation for fact-checking & accuracy (and usually with some kind of editorial oversight). If you can find published sources that back up this information, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit...consider adding the information yourself. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

For what its worth, the genealogical claim does turn up in a couple of online sources. For example, this one. No idea on what text this claim is based on. Dimadick (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting... My issue is that many (if not most) genealogical websites do not qualify as WP:IRS since they are user-edited, have little (if any) editorial oversight, and do not provide sources. I have no doubt that the IP's statement could possibly be true but if this editor thinks it is important enough to post their query here on the article's talkpage then maybe they can find reliable sources that back up their statements/traditions/family oral histories. Shearonink (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction: age at death

There is a discrepancy in the birth and death dates for Pocahontas, and her age at death. The article gives her dates as c. 1596-1617 (20 or 21 years), and then says she died at age 19 (3rd paragraph). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.139.70 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Most sources who give her age at death give 20 or 21. Fixed, and thanks for noticing. Haploidavey (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Gravesend and setting sail

Did she die before they left England? If so, the couple couldn't have "set sail." Did they "set sail" from a different port, then stopped in Gravesend, where she died? Can somebody clarify and fix it? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, it is all set forth nicely in the article. Oops. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pocahontas. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

In the opening the entry claims: "Pocahontas was captured and held for ransom by the English during Anglo-Indian hostilities in 1613. During her captivity, she converted to Christianity and took the name Rebecca. When the opportunity arose for her to return to her people, she chose to remain with the English. In April 1614, at the age of 17, she married tobacco planter John Rolfe, and in January 1615, she bore their son, Thomas Rolfe.[1]"

However many historians point to her having been kidnapped and raped repeatedly, having a half white and half native son named Thomas, before being married off to John Wolf the tobacco farmer, she was never given the opportunity to return to her people and her captors used her several times to attempt to trap the native chief, before shipping her off to England.

https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/pocahontas-her-life-and-legend.htm Cgoodwin1 (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Camp Matoaka

@J.B.: First, may I direct your attention to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which, among other goals, will prevent Wikipedia:Edit warring. The place to discuss whether or not this article should include a mention of Camp Matoaka is here, not in edit summaries. As @Doug Weller: advised you, please explain why inclusion of Camp Matoaka is relevant to, and will improve, this article. I realize that a lot of non-notable trivia has made its way into Wikipedia articles, but that does not excuse adding more. - Donald Albury 14:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Hi, Donald. Since Camp Matoaka is named for Pocahontas, it appeared to me relevant to include it in the "Namesakes" section of the article. However, perhaps not everything named for Pocahontas should be included in the "Namesakes" section. So it is okay with me if those who follow this article closely remove the reference to Camp Matoaka. My sense is that it may be of interest to someone to know that there is an existing institution for girls that takes Pocahontas as its namesake, if not as its idol. But perhaps the existence of a summer camp does not rise to the level of being worthy of mention. - J.B. 22:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that, with the exception of Pocahontas Elementary School, every item in the Namesakes section has a blue link, which means there is an article in Wikipedia for the place or institution. (Wikipedia does not normally have articles about elementary schools, but that school is listed with a middle school that does have an article.) You can try to create an article about the camp, but you will have to demonstrate that the camp meets the requirements of the Wikipedia guideline on the notability of organizations and companies. - Donald Albury 23:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Pocahontas

Why does nothing/someone doesn’t know when the day and month Pocahontas was born Unicorns are so fluffy (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably because the Tsenacommacah were not using the Julian calendar when she was born. - Donald Albury 02:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Married into white culture to protect her family"? -- CNN

Consider for use in article?

'. . . when Trump refers to Warren as "Pocahontas," I imagine most people think of the beloved, though arguably hypersexualized, Disney character from the 1995 animated film. This is a problem.

'In reality Pocahontas, whose real name was Matoaka, was a captive who married into white culture to protect her family. Her father, Chief Wahunsenaca, only agreed to the marriage for fear of what the white invaders would do if he refused. Oral history from our indigenous elders disagree with the written accounts of Pocahontas' age (she may have been only a child), but one thing is for certain: It is hardly the stuff of entertaining cartoons.'

-- http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/21/opinions/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-native-american-moya-smith/ ("Trump's casual racism toward Native Americans", cnn.com 20160522)

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Pocahontas was 10 years old when the Pocahontas John Smith story took place. Before she was kidnapped she was already married to an Indian. Her marriage to Rolfe is questionable - bigamist at best. She was dragged around England to raise money. She died in England - apparently in an unmarked grave ( at least the church was rebuilt and her body was lost. 2601:181:8301:4510:191:5960:F889:3423 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Scrushmaster

Adding Elizabeth Warren back under "Cultural" references, as its a major political/cultural event. With more notable written articles than all other others. Therefore we need to either remove the cultural section all together or keep the Elizabeth Warren reference to remain consistent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrushmaster (talk • contribs)


This article is the Disney version of history. 2601:181:8301:4510:191:5960:F889:3423 (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Trump

No. That Trump chooses to call someone by this name is of no relevance to this article. It's trivial, it will blow over, it's nothing--if a year from now a book or journal article provides evidence of lasting importance, we can discuss this again. In the meantime, DocRushing, you have reverted its removal three times; that's enough. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. General Ization Talk 16:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The position of Drmies may well be correct.
However, regardless of whether he's right or wrong, his expression in this instance (his comment to me) appears to be bossy, condescending, and dictatorial – unnecessarily and inappropriately.
Everyone here has a duty to communicate with others in considerate, respectful, constructive, and mutually supportive ways – not to wag fingers or talk down to others.
As always, best wishes to all,
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC).
Doc, Drmies could have instead posted a warning template on your Talk page concerning edit warring, which policy you were arguably on your way to violating. Would you have preferred that? General Ization Talk 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree with Drmies and General Ization. DocRushing, I'm sure Drmies would have reacted differently if you hadn't reverted 3 times, which is generally considered edit warring. You would have done better to have come here after your first revert was reversed. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

By definition, according to the three-revert rule (3RR), edit warring consists of more than three reversions within 24 hours, whereas my three restorations took place over 105+ hours.
Further, for three different reasons I restored three deletions by three different users:
first, because an anonymous unregistered newbie made an undiscussed and unexplained deletion of an entire subsection;
second, because a registered user deleted it, merely referring to a defective link (which I corrected when I restored the material);
third, because a different anonymous unregistered newbie deleted it, fancifully referring to supposed politicization, political partisans, and transparency.
No, my three restorations did not constitute warring by any stretch – and certainly not with any particular other user or any particular contrary concept;
instead I responded to three deletions by three different users, who had claimed to delete for three different reasons.
Further, the comments by Doug and the general sidestep my post: they do not respond to my suggestion that Drmies had written to me in a bossy, condescending, and dictatorial way.
As always, smiles and best wishes to all in any event,
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC).
Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Edit warring again. Your statement "By definition, according the three revert rule, edit warring is ..." is incorrect, as that page clearly states:
"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."
Whether you want to call it edit warring or disruptive editing, repeatedly reverting to your preferred version of an article is disruptive, and the fact that multiple editors removed the section you repeatedly restored should be an indication to you that Talk page discussion is needed, not that you should continue to revert. If you'd prefer, the matter can be brought to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, where experts can comment on whether or not your behavior constitutes edit warring. Alternatively, you could take the hint and stop with the reverts. If you want to try to make a case for the inclusion of the material you've repeatedly restored, this is the place to do it. General Ization Talk 18:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way, because an edit is made by an "anonymous unregistered newbie" (that is, an IP) is never by itself a defensible reason for a revert. Unregistered editors (whom you cannot assume are "newbies", even if they do not have a long edit history at that IP) are perfectly capable of making valid edits, and even if they did not provide an edit summary that you found convincing, you should still, after multiple reverts, have stopped to discuss the disputed content. General Ization Talk 18:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I did not respond to your comments describing Drmies' message to you as reading in a "bossy, condescending, and dictatorial way" because I did not find it so. Drmies was discussing the value of the content, not your value as an editor, and the statement "you have reverted its removal three times; that's enough" does not strike me as bossy, condescending or dictatorial. The first part is a fact, the second part is an observation about that fact. General Ization Talk 18:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Drmies' point. We should consider the long-term academic value of content that is added, not get bogged down on current events. WP:RECENTISM is a relevant essay. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
That Donald Trump refers to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas is not trivial at all; it's racist and sexist and denigrating, not only of Native Americans in general, but of both Ms. Warren and of Pocahontas, specifically. Moreover, dismissing as inappropriate for inclusion, or suppressing efforts by others to include, in Wikipedia any presidential candidate's public statements revelatory of their views of cultures different from theirs, because such statements constitute "current events" that will "blow over" (they won't) is misguided, inappropriate, and constitutes censorship. Froid (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Froid, I will post the content with the word denigrated to make sure we can get consensus on this issueLumbering in thought (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems DrKay has done WP:OR and labeled the information as silly.Lumbering in thought (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Primary source and WP:POV removedLumbering in thought (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This stuff may be appropriate for the Donald Trump article but it is totally inappropriate for this article. It tells something about Trump but nothing about the subject of this article, Pocahontas. Richerman (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither does Pocahontas being on a stamp or a coin. But as per WP:Recentism I think that's an argument I would lose. Goodbye, Pocahontas page. Lumbering in thought (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
A year later and this is in the news again. I think it's worthy of inclusion in the legacy section as it shows the valence of her name as a stand-in for Native American identity (even if it is being used to mock a senator). - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Used as a racial slur, and derogatory to a standing US Senator is not something to enshrine, nor is it relevant to this article. -- Alexf(talk) 01:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely YES. There is no explanation of this matter anywhere on Wikipedia and it is both topical and factual (i.e. scrubbed here and from Warren's wiki page). This issue has re-emerged and people searching for an explanation are left clueless by removing any explanation in the "Cultural Representations" section (regardless of purported "racial slur" or "derogatory to a standing US Senator.") Further, the Senator Warren has been fronted as a 2020 Presidential candidate and the term encapsulates her questionable use of native-american ancestry. Should be returned. 2601:243:C301:732:D926:E6D0:CE66:62F5 (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not per Alexf above. If mention of the slur belongs anywhere, it would be on 45's page - 'twas his attack/insult. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your point because no one other than some people in the United States know this about trump Unicorns are so fluffy (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Face the facts. Everyone calls Mass Senator Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas. For the rest of her time in public life she will carry the curse of falsely claiming to be a Native American -- a contention proven false by a DNA test. It should be in the article. The name has stuck permanently. Case closed. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:D870:FB0F:8A10:584D (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually the DNA test suggest that she does have Native American ancestry even though it was from way back. However, Warren being consistently being called an offensive slang doesn't mean it belongs in this article.Mcelite (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

Add a "See Also" section with a reference to the article on Mary Kittamaquund, who was a similar figure in the history of Colonial Maryland.

See also

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

The top of the article needs a redirect for other uses to Elizabeth Warren. I'd add it; but the page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.68.156.197 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A reference to that usage is listed at Pocahontas (disambiguation), which is linked in the hatnote on this article. The term is not prevalent enough relative to other usages that we should list it separately though. That would be WP:UNDUE.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Indian vs. Native American

The article states, “In 1907, Pocahontas was the first Indian to be honored on a US stamp.” and then references an article (reference #69) which confirms the fact that she was the first Native American depicted on a US stamp. However, Pocahontas is not Indian. Can someone who is able to edit this article please change this so it can be accurate? Msaguirr (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done (though Pocahontas was both a member of an American Indian tribe, the Powhatan, and a Native American, which includes all of the indigenous people of the Americas). General Ization Talk 04:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Matoaka or Mataoka?

I've seen both these spellings used in several sources each. Of course, they would be phonetic renderings of the original, which would not have been written with our alphabet, if at all. They would seem to represent different pronunciations. Can it be determined which is more authentic. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Pocahontas' Daughter

Pocahontas married Kocoum and gave birth to a daughter named Ka Okee.


Sources: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/131606355/ka_okee_jane-pettus https://www.indianreservations.net/2016/08/little-kocoum-or-ka-okee-who-was-child.html http://www.southern-style.com/Pettus.htm


Mdhardin2020 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Your cited sources do not prove what you say they prove. The indianreservations.net source pretty much directly refutes the claim that Pocohantas had a daughter with Ko'coum as the father. Besides that, your cited sources in general do not pass muster as reliable sources, findagrave is user-edited so per WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL it cannot be used as a source for asserted points of fact in a Wikipedia article. Southern-style.com's statements are stated as theories only and do not lay out clear proof. Besides, the site states that an anonymous researcher is the source for their assertions... Shearonink (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Problematic wording

I think it should be said that she was “coerced” into converting to Christianity as opposed to “encouraged” Michael Murfie (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Pocahontas had 3 children not 1 . She had a daughter and a son with kocoum before he was was murdered 68.192.204.21 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrong numbers

When John Smith and the other colonists arrived in Virginia 13 May 1607, there were 104 men and boys between the three ships, not 100. This would mean that the line "Pocahontas is most famously linked to colonist Captain John Smith, who arrived in Virginia with 100 other settlers in April 1607 where they built a fort on a marshy peninsula on the James River." Is wrong. They arrived in May. With 103 other settlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailord (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

please change her name

instead of redirecting matoaka it should be redirected from that white given name. I am white and I think you can do better Wikipedia. SAY HER NAME! 97.113.92.169 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Per the policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names, we "generally prefer the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." "Pocahontas" is much more recognizable to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers than "Matoaka" is. - Donald Albury 22:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Value-laden language

I'm not am extremely experienced editor, but it occurs to me that the word "encouraged" in the introduction ("the Colonists encouraged her to convert to Christianity") is 1) encoding an Anglo-centric perspective where the colonists are benevolent evangelizers and 2) is likely masking what was likely something more like "coerced" or "forced." This seems to violate NPOV.

That said, I do not know the circumstances of her conversion to Christianity, but if it was indeed the fact that she was benignly "encouraged," or was forced to convert, then I think this should require a citation. Otherwise, in the absence of evidence either way, more neutral language should be used. 2604:CA00:158:1445:0:0:461:12AF (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The source cited at the end of the paragraph says that Pocahontas received religious instruction after being captured by the English. It goes on to say that while she was a captive, Pocahontas and John Rolfe fell in love and wanted to marry. Her conversion to Christianity occurred before she and Rolfe were married. When people of different faiths marry, one of them often converts to the other religion. Nothing in that supports the statement that she was forced to convert. As pure speculation, which is not admissible in Wikipedia, I suspect that the C of E clergyman in the colony would not marry the couple until she converted. If you are aware of a reliable source that states that Pocahontas was coerced or forced to convert, then please provide it so that that information can be included. - Donald Albury 18:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

Pocahontas burial place is within Gravesend town but not in the current St Georges Church.

This is proof taken from stgeorgesgravesend.org the church where it is claimed she is buried.

In 1896, the memorial tablet to Pocahontas was put in the chancel of St George’s Church, and the memorial windows were presented by the Colonial Dames of America in 1914. In 1923, a Virginian received permission to search for the remains of Pocahontas, but nothing conclusive was found. St George’s churchyard was laid out as the Princess Pocahontas Garden in 1958, a replica of Jamestown’s statue of Pocahontas was unveiled and the Queen gave St George’s the replica of the chalice and paten used by the original settlers in 1607.

Could someone please edit the burial place on this page. HistoryGirl91 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: - Here's a bit more of the article, for context: "She is thought to have been buried in the vault beneath the chancel of the local parish church - St. George’s. Her son, Thomas returned to Virginia where he is understood to have numerous descendants.

The original church was destroyed by fire on 24th August 1727 and later rebuilt. In 1896 the memorial tablet to Pocahontas was made in the chancel of St. George’s Church, and the Colonial Dames of America presented the memorial windows in1914. In 1923 a Virginian received permission to search for the remains of Pocahontas, but nothing conclusive was found."

The "and rebuilt" isn't enough information one way or the other - was it rebuilt on the site of the original church? If it was, then the entry is still accurate, since her remains are presumably still thought to be under there somewhere.

If you'd like to resubmit this request, please specify exactly what you'd like to see changed in the article, in the form of "Change X to Y." PianoDan (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rodrimari10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Change to her real name.

Her name is Matoaka. Pochahontas should be an alias. Don’t call her first by name that was never hers. 45.78.124.164 (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see the answer to the last time this proposal was made four months ago, at Talk:Pocahontas/Archive 2#please change her name. - Donald Albury 19:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2022

Pocahontas was forced into Christianity, Not “persuaded”. I’m pretty sure she was also given or stolen by John Wolfe. I can’t remember at the moment I’m just furious y’all are actually make it sound like she wanted to go with him. Figure out the actual history instead of whatever that is. 2600:1700:5BC0:79A0:5494:42E3:5171:F2C7 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Pocahontas → Matoaka – Whilst Pocahontas is the name of this article since most white people only call her that, I think that the page should be renamed Matoaka. Firstly because to me it's unencyclopedic to call her by her nickname. And secondly, since Indigenous people call her both names. Therefore,I don't think that Pocahontas would be the article name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since this only takes into account the primary name for white people - and white sources - over Native American people and sources. Stephanie921 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Uhhh...no. —  AjaxSmack  00:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As AjaxSmack's ngram result shows, Pocahontas is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME for this article's subject. That criteria is "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources." Sources under that description use Pocahontas; it is not "unencyclopedic" to reflect the common English-language name. Even if we were to accept the idea that we should discount "white sources" for certain topics, there has been provided no evidence that this is the WP:COMMONNAME even in that overly strict context. I'm not following OP's comment about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as that's about disambiguation and the primary topic amongst several entries with the same/similar names, not about choosing between different names for a given topic. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@User:Aoidh my problem is that calling her by her nickname seems informal - not that it's common Stephanie921 (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a "nickname" the same way Gautama Buddha is a "nickname" for Siddhārtha Gautama; that it seems informal to you personally is not a factor in determining an article's title. Calling Paul David Hewson by the name Bono is very informal, but that's still the title for his article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and snow close per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose (with caveat) per WP:COMMONNAME. That said if there is wholesale discussion and coverage that the indigenous name should be used because reparations are being given then I would support its move. Much like Uluru and Ayers Rock, the latter was the more widely known name for many years due to westernization but the move to the indigenous name has been very widespread since. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support - use her actual name, not a nickname made popular by Euro-American/"Western" pop culture. Or do we have to wait until Disney spends millions marketing another (inappropriate) movie, except this time using her real name until Wikipedia changes it?  oncamera  (talk page) 21:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • From Confucius (not 孔子) to Meat Loaf (not Michael Lee Aday), it is Wikipedia's policy to use the common name of a subject, nickname or not. The fact that Disney also uses her common name is irrelevant. —  AjaxSmack  03:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the policy at WP:COMMONNAME. - Donald Albury 22:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Cf. WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pocahontas is the common name even if her real name was Matoaka. JIP | Talk 13:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I searched for Pocahontas because I have known that name since I was a child ... a long time ago. I have never heard of Matoaka once in my life. Ever. Let folks first FIND what they're looking for THEN elucidate them on the fascinating details. As the title policy states, stick with a title that is most commonly familiar. That would be Pocahontas. What's more important? Finding her and learning about her or not finding her in the first place? Once I'm here, tell me all about her various nomenclature. Fine. But hiding her behind an esoteric (even if correct) title serves no purpose except perhaps to feed the hubris of academia. Mjl1966 (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Common name. Willing to wait for Disney to spend millions marketing under another name. Walrasiad (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very clear common name. Long before Disney made films about her! And we do use nicknames in article titles if they are more common than "official" names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose and snow close per WP:COMMONNAME. Pocahontas is her common name. This has nothing to do with Disney, Oncamera. cookie monster 755 19:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unnessesary subjective wording

”In 1907, Pocahontas was the first Native American to be honored on a US stamp.”

The word honored is subjective and unnessesary. 85.24.203.254 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it's an honor to be put on a postage stamp or an item of currency. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Captain John Smiths marriage to Pocahontas

It is my understanding is that the Revisionists have written the story of their marriage out of history. The reason is the only, I repeat, the only written evidence/information they have is from Cpt john Smith's own hand and he was a notorious liar. Correct? Well when they first did this I wrote to the women who gave the reason and told her that my family tree ( which dates back 1346) states that one of my ancestors married Capt. John Smith to Pocahontas. So there is another bit of writing/evidence, by another hand that states quite clearly that they were married. So the revisionists are WRONG. Furthermore I offered to show the proof along with original letters back and forth between the Maxwells and friends in England in which they discuss the beheading of King Charles the first. All it would cost was an aeroplane ride to Virginia and pay my hotel expenses for 2 weeks (so I could tour the battle fields of the ACW) Being Scottish and paper being rare and expensive, one letter is written across the page, and the reply is written diagonally over the top. Incidentally, my family used to own Norfolk Virginia, (and I want it back please) but the owner was travelling between America and England when he died of yellow fever ( back then it was so contagious, that not only did they throw the diseased corpse overboard, but all his possessions went overboard, including the deeds to the land) Now you would think they would jump at the opportunity to have a look at and copy these original documents, but no, not a word in response. Now I ask you, is that because the revisionists would then have to revise their hullabaloo, and the university graduate who based her doctorate on such bull would be discredited ? after it wouldn't be the first time an American has lied 120.159.36.248 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Has your family tree, or any other material relating to a marriage between Pocahonta and John Smith, been published in a reliable source? Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. If it cannot be verified from reliable sources, it cannot be used in Wikipedia. Donald Albury 15:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2023 HIST 401

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Osa401 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Osa401 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"The True Story of Pocahontas (book" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The True Story of Pocahontas (book has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § The True Story of Pocahontas (book until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pocahontas/Archive_2&oldid=1217547530"