Talk:Wangunk

Descendants/tribe

A group can have living people claiming to descend from it, but that is not the same as having a tribe, which is an organized, active political entity. The article already stated that the tribe ceased to exist in the late 18th century before I touched it. I just now provided additional citations clarifying this point. Yuchitown (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

@Yuchitown given the article leads with "The Wangunk or Wongunk were an _Indigenous people_ from central Connecticut", should the language in the article reflect that there are current Wangunk descendants (e.g. "..._are_ an Indigenous people") while retaining other past-tense references that make it clear that the Wangunk tribe is no longer an extant political entity or organization?

The lead of the article and past-tense language pertaining to the Wangunk _people_ contradict language in the "Descendants" section which affirm continued "kinship connections and cultural traditions." It is also in contradiction to statements by the government of Middletown directly quoted in the article stating "The Wangunk people are the native inhabitants and caretakers of the land in and around Middletown, and have lived in this area for thousands of years. The Wangunk people have persisted to this day through their resiliency and spirit." Babeswayscaptcha (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The living people with ancestry are not recognized as a tribe, so they aren't a tribe in the political definition. Then they aren't a tribe in the anthropological definition. Continued "cultural traditions" would require some independent citations beyond the individual's claims, considering the multicentury gap. The quote can be included with the source identified. Yuchitown (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This article already mentions numerous descendants, including Gary O'Neil, and it mentions the 2023 Middleton proclamation for Indigenous Peoples Day. It doesn't need to be inserted multiple times. Yuchitown (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@User-92837: the talk page is a space to discuss the article. What is at the crux of our disagreement is that published sources are extremely clear that no Wangunk tribe has existed since the 18th century. Published sources are also clear that there have been Wangunk descendants, many of whom merged into other tribes historical tribes. Whether from an anthropological definition of a Tribe (Native American) or a legal definition, there are no Wangunk tribes today and have there have not been any in the last two centuries.

While secondary, published sources to do support that Gary O'Neil is publicly identified as a Wangunk descendant and the Middletown issued a proclamation affirming their town being on Wangunk land (and both of these topics have been consistently been in the article, while at the moment I'd argue there is undue content about them), no independent sources suggest that there is a Wangunk tribal organization active today — or even a cultural heritage group of Wangunk descendants meeting or acting under a unified name and organized structure.

Some groups of descendants of historical tribes form nonprofit organizations; some even form churches; however, no such organization appears to have been formed. If one did, it could be mentioned; however, conflating with the historical Wangunk tribe after 250+ years would require massive research and proof published in secondary sources.

One of the tenets of Wikipedia is no original research. Only established research that has already been cited in published sources is admissible on this platform. Additionally, Wikipedia does not allow editors to push a particular point of view, or promote an organization, or write about organizations or individuals with which they have a conflict of interest. Please follow all the blue links above to better understand Wikipedia polities. Yuchitown (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@User-92837:, please stop deleting cited content just because you don't personally like it. You aren't furnishing reliable citations to back up your WP:POV. Regarding your edit summary, A living people can meet definition of Indigenous People while not meeting the governmental definition of tribal people; this isn't an article about individual people; it's an article about a tribe. No published sources reflect that there is tribal organization today or even organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe. Yuchitown (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any cited content.

This is an article about an Indigenous People. The opening sentence states as such, and the short description states as such, and has consistently through all of your disruptive edits. User-92837 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yuchitown: Regarding the opening sentence (“The Wangunk or Mattabesec are an Indigenous people from central Connecticut”), you’ve repeatedly changed the tense from “are” to “were.”

Several reliable sources, including those cited in the article, affirm the continued existence of Wangunk descendants and cultural continuity. For that reason, the present-tense “are” is appropriate when referring to the Wangunk as an Indigenous people, even while the article can—and should—use past tense when referring to the historical tribal entity.

It’s important to note that “Indigenous peoples” and “tribes” are not synonymous. Not all Indigenous peoples maintain, or are recognized under, political structures that meet governmental definitions of a “tribe.” The article on Indigenous peoples clarifies this distinction in its definition section.

The issue at hand is not whether a federally or state-recognized Wangunk tribal organization exists (the article already notes there is none), but how to accurately reflect continuity of identity and heritage consistent with reliable, modern sources.

Pages on the City of Middletown’s official website, for example, refer to the Wangunk people in the present tense, stating:

“The Wangunk people are the native inhabitants and caretakers of the land in and around Middletown, and have lived in this area for thousands of years. The Wangunk people have persisted to this day through their resiliency and spirit.”

This is a verifiable governmental source, and therefore valid under WP:RS. Other recent scholarship (e.g., the 2023 Wangunk History Symposium at Wesleyan University: https://events.wesleyan.edu/event/wangunkhistorysymposium) also emphasizes the ongoing presence and erasure of Wangunk identity.

Given this, edits that assert the Wangunk “were” an Indigenous people contradict these reliable, contemporary sources and risk promoting outdated narratives of extinction. The article's language can and should recognize both the historical dissolution of the tribe as recognized by governmental and legal terms, and the continued existence of Wangunk descendants as an Indigenous people. The current phrasing appears to balance these points appropriately.

I would encourage future edits to focus on incorporating additional current, reliable sources rather than removing or contradicting them. User-92837 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You are not furnishing any citations that provide evidence of a current tribe. Please read wp:cite. An event announcement for a symposium is not a reliable published citation for the existence of a tribe after 250 years of not existing. Just because you don't like the published sources, doesn't mean you get to remove them. But, if you argue that there is a Wangunk tribe today, what is the name of it? What is the address of the tribal offices? How is the tribe organized? Who are the current administration governing the tribe? Yuchitown (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yuchitown: You’re misframing the issue. No one here is claiming the existence of a currently organized government-recognized Wangunk tribe. That is not the question. The question is how the article represents the Wangunk people—an Indigenous people with living descendants who self identify as such (see definition of Indigenous People)—as supported by reliable, contemporary sources already cited in the article.

The article is titled Wangunk, not “Wangunk tribe.” It describes the Wangunk as an Indigenous people, which is accurate and consistent with the sources. As defined at Indigenous peoples, Indigenous peoples need not be organized in ways that meet federal or state definitions of a “tribe.” Framing this discussion around “tribal offices” or “administration” is therefore a straw man and does not address the actual content question.

Contemporary reliable sources—e.g., pages on the City of Middletown’s official .gov site—refer to the Wangunk people in the present tense, recognizing ongoing cultural and ancestral continuity. These meet WP:RS and align with keeping articles current per WP:UPTODATE.

I have not removed cited information; I adjusted tense/phrasing to reflect the distinction between the historical tribal government (which the article already notes has no public record of current existence) and the living Indigenous people, per multiple reputable sources (including local government). Your reverts reintroduce outdated claims and past-tense language that conflict with those sources.

Given the ongoing disagreement, I’m asking that you refrain from further changes to the lead/tense until we reach consensus here. Continuing to make the same changes without consensus runs against WP:CONSENSUS and may constitute WP:EDITWAR and WP:OWN.

I’m engaging in good faith to reach an accurate, policy-compliant consensus. If reversions continue, I’ll open formal dispute resolution per WP:DR. User-92837 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Note: Please refrain from further edits to the lead tense of the article until consensus is reached per the ongoing discussion above. See: WP:CONSENSUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User-92837 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

User-92837 at this point you need to list each of the changes to the talk page with your reliable sources for discussion because it appears you are the person edit warring here, and bring your own research, much of which appears to have no supporting sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@User-92837, you do not have consensus for the editing changes that you have made. Please self-revert rather than continuing to force your preferred version. As the person who is initiating the "bold" edits, you need consensus for those changes if there is opposition, which there clearly is. Please, instead of continuing to edit war, bring verifiable, reliable sources to the talk discussion that support your changes, and if the community decides they are DUE, then they may or may not be incorporated once the sources are vetted. Netherzone (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I agree with @User-92837 and @Netherzone that we should reach consensus before further edits are made.

I have already made my stance clear in my previous comments on this page in February of this year, and agree with @User-92837 with regards to the distinction between an "Indigenous people" and a "Tribe". This is a developing conversation, and the most recent sources affirm the continued existence of the Wangunk as a people, though not as an organized political entity, or Tribe in the sense I understand @Yuchitown to be using it in.

Regarding the last sentence of the current lede:

"Wangunk descendants, scholars, and local government have made public statements affirming the Wangunk peoples' continuance and highlighting their historic erasure"

I believe this is the appropriate framing based on the latest available sources, but I would also argue this conflicts with the past-tense of lines like "The Wangunk or Mattabesec were an Indigenous people". How can this be resolved? Is this already an appropriate compromise?

I would like to make clear that I do not have any personal conflicts of interest with regards to my position or edits made here. Babeswayscaptcha (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Citations and facts still matter. User-92837 keeps deleting the statement "No longer exists as a distinct tribe," but above wrote, "No one here is claiming the existence of a currently organized government-recognized Wangunk tribe." (They interjected "government-recognized" into the conversation.)

The sentence "Wangunk descendants, scholars, and local government have made public statements affirming the Wangunk peoples' continuance and highlighting their historic erasure" remained because, yes, the fact that people have made those statements is easily proven. However, to demonstrate that a Wangunk tribe exists today would require some serious citations to fill in the last two centuries.

The Wangunk are a historic tribe in the literature. They exist as a concept outside of Wikipedia. The article uses an "ethnic group" infobox, and tribe can be interpreted in the anthropological sense of the term. The Wangunk are discussed in literature in this way as well as in the political sense (Swanton's "Wangunk sachemdom"). To demonstrate that a Wangunk ethnic group exists today would also require serious citations to fill in the last two centuries.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yuchitown (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Babeswayscaptcha, I came here to reiterate that User-92837 does not have consensus to make the changes they wish to make. I was also going to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." but Yuchitown beat me to it. The notion that extraordinary (or exceptional) claims require extraordinary (exceptional) evidence is the core of critical thinking and is one of the key concepts of verifiability, which is a policy of the encyclopedia. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality, secondary (not primary), independent reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you @Netherzone and @Yuchitown for taking the time to explain to me. Babeswayscaptcha (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

A college symposium does not create a tribe. Yuchitown (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)