Talk:Squanto

Possible lack of etiquette in my addition

I have added a long paragraph to announce the discovery of four original manuscripts regarding Squanto's arrival in Spain. Due to my lack of Wikipedia skills, the source article is shown twice, once in the reference section and one in secondary sources, because I have not found a way to link directly from the body of the article to the secondary sources, where I believe the original article needs to appear, because it contains the location of the primary sources. Which by the way are the only truly primary sources found to date. I would very much appreciate if someone could teach me how to avoid this lack of etiquette.

PS: In case anyone is interested, I am working with Ms. Ruiz on a second English language article explaining the findings in full detail, which I will contribute in due course. AGA2024 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2024

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Squanto → TisquantumTisquantum – This is considered to be Tisquantum's real name, is used throughout the article, and has a more neutral, less Western-biased persepctive. Ezra Fox (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. The article already seems already to prefer Tisquantum. Makes sense to align the title with this preference too. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 09:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. As above. 73.184.232.224 (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright I don't edit Wikipedia so I don't know how to close these things but I know when I've lost a battle. But jeez this makes me realize how awful it would be for me to actually try to start editing Wikipedia in significant ways. Like, I don't think you're wrong, I think your interpretation is completely valid. But the Wikipedia rules are so long with so many caveats you can literally argue anything about anything. Like I could point out that according to Wikipedia "notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." Or I could say the "name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred" and that is trending toward Tisquantum. Or I could say neutrality in the article title must also be considered. This is all true, but of course there's dozens of counterarguments one could add to this, because as I said, Wikipedia rules are so long with so many caveats you can literally argue anything about anything. Anyway, this has just been a valuable experience that has reminded me to never ever try to edit Wikipedia in any serious capacity. But I think Wikipedia is a very important useful site, so thank you for your service, it seems Goddamn miserable. Wish you the best! :) Ezra Fox (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; compare Pocahontas, Powhatan, etc. --Quuxplusone (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as above per WP:COMMONNAME. As the article notes, "Tisquantum, more commonly known as Squanto...". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2024 (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.

Didactic literature and folklore section

The entire "Didactic literature and folklore" section should be deleted as it is nowhere near encyclopedic. As the section currently stands it is no more than an anti-white and anti-religious screed. It stains an article that is well researched and a rarity on Wiki. Shanejac (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually if you compare sections, the Didactic section has more citations per sentence than most of the rest of the article. Alternate opinions are not by definition bad even if you disagree with them. Ckruschke (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Ckruschke

The number of citations is irrelevant if they are poor citations. "Those intending to teach a moral lesson or tell history from a religious viewpoint tend to be the least accurate even when they claim to be telling a true historical story" How does this belong in an encyclopedic article? Shanejac (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Again I'm going to say that a contrary opinion isn't bad just because your opinion is that it isn't encyclopedic. I DON'T LIKE IT can't be a reason for wholesale deletion per Wiki standards. And - no - I didn't write the section - I'm just pointing out guidelines that any other editor would.

So I would like to make the suggestion that you point out the citations in the Didactic section that are lacking and gain consensus on suggested edits to improve the page. Ckruschke (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Ckruschke

You misunderstand the objection and the purpose here. I am not objecting to the editorial opinion of the writer and I never implied "I don't like it". I am agnostic as to an opinion on the matter itself. I'm objecting that it is an opinion and is not encyclopedic. It is not the responsibility of an editor who points out that an entire section needs to be removed to have to spend time substituting something else. Shanejac (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur that parts of it should be deleted. As with most of this article, it is plagued with original research and an analysis of primary sources that is not encyclopedic. I think that truncating it to the end of the discussion on Ceci (1990) would be good (everything after that is original research). Ultimately, Squanto is commonly and probably most frequently seen in didactic literature, so I think that keeping the section would be good.

As an aside, looking through the edit history, the article was written to an absolutely absurd length by a single editor and full of similar original research. In 2019 two editors went to great lengths to remove unnecessary information, but seem to have tired. The burden is evidently much higher to remove terrible material than to add it, which is unfortunate. I've started a section on this talk page proposing a number of other edits before implementing them if you care to leave an opinion. ~2026-29207-04 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Use of 'Indian'

I'm not American, but to my understanding, why is the term "Indian" being used instead of Native American? Even if it was the word used at the time, it's use is unfavourable in modern times, and is also just generally inaccurate. Wikipedia is an international resource, using Indian makes little sense even given the context. Even Wikipedia's own page on the indigenous population of America uses "Native Americans". It's use in quotes is fine, but why use it in a general context? SuperSalamander5434 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

We obviously agree. However, this is a VERY long article and we all do this "for fun". It would sure be great if you saw a reference to "Indian" that someone has inserted that you just fixed it rather than have someone else hunt it down. Ckruschke (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Ckruschke

I am not sure this is correct. I tried to find out if Wikipedia has a guideline for this, but I thought that “American indian” was also a term that was used, and is now used (after being appropriated) by descendents of the people who inhabited (north) America before Europeans colonised it. Slomo666 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

“Martha’s vineyard”, an anachronism.

I think we should change the use of the term “Martha’s vineyard” (used thrice on the article) to something else, as this would not have been the term used at the time. Unfortunately, I do not know the correct name to use instead. Slomo666 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The following source on the Martha's Vineyard page claims that it was being called Capawock (a Native name) at the time: http://history.vineyard.net/hfnorton/history.htm

"About five years later, in 1607 [...] By this time the Vineyard had become known to the English by the Indian name of Capawock" ~2026-40408-21 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed edits to remove extraneous info and reduce reliance on original research

This article appears to be heavily reliant on primary sources and at times branches into original research. This was acknowledge by some editors in 2019 (see archived talk page), but remnants of the original research and some information unrelated to the article remain. I propose the following edits to help correct this, with a brief rationale attached to each:

• Remove "First Kidnappings", as its only relevance to Squanto is apparently a different kidnapping of a person sharing a similar name with Squanto. Since the confusion may be relevant, a brief sentence or two could be added to the "Abduction" section while not including original research.
• Remove the first paragraph of "Historical Analysis", which is a personal opinion (i.e. unsourced) combined with a non encyclopedic literary-critical reading of a primary source.
• Modify "Memorials and Landmarks" to add reference to the memorial at the supposed burial site and another plaque dedicated to Squanto.
• Truncate "Didactic literature and folklore" to remove original research, such as examples of articles and books that "make the point" of the Wiki author.

I wanted to post these proposed edits on the talk page since they include several deletions in case anyone opposes them. I will make them in several days time if there is no response.

The body of the biographical text is also probably too heavily reliant on primary sources, though it is admittedly quite comprehensive. My primary concern is that it reads like an excuse to quote Early Modern English. I think it may be good to alter this portion too, but I won't endeavor to do that much. ~2026-29196-99 (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)