Talk:Pocahontas

Oral history

I was thinking that there should be a separate section devoted to the oral history of Pocahontas's life. Specifically I am talking about the book written a few years ago that is based on oral history, The True Story of Pocahontas. While I know there is a lot in the book that is very different from what we know from regular historians I think it is still just as valid. I think it would be best to keep information based on oral history in a separate section so as not to cause confusion. Plus, I think it would point out the importance of oral history by it being in a separate section (at least in my view). What are people's thoughts on this?Sarah1607 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oral history doesn't appear to be supported in Wikipedia as a reliable source. Considering why, it's easy to see: oral sources can be easily faked. Tedickey (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

True, oral sources are more questionable in that there is no paper trail to support or refute them, but I still think oral history is just as valid. Afterall, even with written history we can't ever know the full truth of what happened. Overall, I just think that a separate section with information based on the oral history is warranted if for no other reason than because then maybe people will stop adding information from the book that is based on oral history to the rest of the article. In a separate section it could be addressed that Wikipedia does not support it and give people another source of possible information that could be true about Pocahontas, even though it is out of the norm information wise. Just my thoughts in the end, but I think that while oral history cannot be proven to be reliable it is still very important to most American Indians and should be utilized.Sarah1607 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Image Cleanup

too many photos for article size and positioning is awkward. clean up please by deleting or including an image gallery at the end. I suggest adding an infobox too Longliveemomusic (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pocahontas did not Abandon Her Roots, that must be changed

Pocahontas merely looked to diversify her cultural knowledge by temporarily adopting a new style of living. That doesn't count as abandonment. Someone, PLEASE, change that thing.

She did not!

She never tried to save John Smith by laying her head on the block. That is just a myth. You would know that if you read An Underground Education; by Richard Zacks. Bionicle Fan (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC) She also was a tobacco sales-woman for a while. Bionicle Fan (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact it is unsure of what happened with Pocahontas. This encounter could have been part of a ceremony that was often held by the Powhatans and other groups in this time period or it may have been completely made up by John Smith because he did not write about this incident until 17 years after it occured and well after Pocahontas' death even though he had already written about his encounters with the Powhatans several times before. As to her being a tobacco saleswoman, her husband John Rolfe was a tobacco planter and she very well may have sold it, but she was definitly a spokesperson because when she went to england, she was brought to show that the Natives of the New World could be successfully colonized and turned into Europeans. This was to secure a continuation of the funds that were given for the settlement of Jamestown. -- Papabrow (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Geneologies

Bushes are not directly descended from Pocahontas

Since this erroneous factoid gets reinserted from time-to-time -- for the record neither U.S. President Bush was directly descended from Pocahontas. Pocahontas's only grandchild was Jane Rolfe who married Robert Bolling. Their only child was John Bolling, who married Mary Kennon and had sex an got 2 kids. Mary Kennon's sister was Martha Kennon who was an ancestor of the Bushes. A second connection is that after Jane Rolfe's death, Robert Bolling remarried to Ann Stith. They had several children, including one also named Robert Bolling. This Robert Bolling, who was a half-brother to John Bolling, was also an ancestor of the Bushes. So there are two indirect relations with Pocahontas but no direct blood lineage. older≠wiser 15:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the most thorough genealogy I've come across shows that President Bush is, in fact, a Pocahontas descendant - it shows Robert Bolling,Jr. to be Jane Rolf's son. I've done a cut-and-past job from that website (I hope I don't get charged with copyvio). The line goes thus:

GENERATION 13 4564. John ROLFE was born 1585 in Heacham, Norfolk, , England and was christened 6 May 1585 in Heacham, Norfolk, , England. He died 22 Mar 1622 in Jamestown, James City, , Virginia,USA. John married Pocahontas Motoaka - (Princess) on 5 Apr 1614 in Jamestown, , , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

4565. Pocahontas Motoaka - (Princess) was born about 1595 in Werowocomoco, , , Virginia,USA. She died Mar 1617 in Gravesend, Kent, , England and was buried 21 Mar 1617 in St. George's, Gravesend, Kent, England. [Parents]

GENERATION 12 2282. Thomas ROLFE (Lieutenant) was born 30 Jan 1615 in Jamestown, Virginia, USA. He died 1656 in Virginia, USA. Thomas married Jane POYTHRESS in , , , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

2283. Jane POYTHRESS was born about 1620 in Jamestown, Virginia, USA. She died 1676 in Charles City, Virginia, USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 11 1140. Robert BOLLING (Colonel) was born 26 Dec 1646 in All Hallows, London, Middlesex, England. He died 7 Jul 1709 in Kippax, Charles City, Virginia, USA and was buried 17 Jul 1709 in Kippax, Charles City, Virginia, USA. Robert married Jane ROLFE on 1675 in Petersburg, Ind. City, , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

1141. Jane ROLFE was born 10 Oct 1650 in Petersburg, Virginia, USA. She died 1676 in Kippax, Charles City, , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 10 570. Robert BOLLING (Jr.) (Major) was born 25 Jan 1681 in Charles City, Virginia, USA. He died before 3 Jan 1748/1749 in , , Prince George, Virginia,USA. Robert married Anne May COCKE on 27 Jun 1706. [Parents]

571. Anne May COCKE was born 27 Jan 1705 in Prince George County, Virginia. [Parents]

GENERATION 9 284. James MUNFORD (Major) was born 1708 in Prince George County, Virginia. He died 25 Apr 1754 in Prince George County, Virginia. James married Elizabeth BOLLING on 1727 in Amelia County, Virginia. [Parents]

285. Elizabeth BOLLING was born 17 Dec 1709 in Prince George County, Virginia. She died 1754 in Amelia County, Virginia. [Parents]

GENERATION 8 142. Robert MUNFORD married Anne BROADNAX. [Parents]

143. Anne BROADNAX was born in Charles City County, Virginia. She died after 1780. [Parents]

GENERATION 7 70. John SHELLMAN (Jr.) was born 5 May 1756 in Frederickstown, , , Maryland,USA. He died 17 Apr 1838 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. John married Clarissa MUNFORD. [Parents]

71. Clarissa MUNFORD was born in Amelia County, Virginia. She died Feb 1845. [Parents]

GENERATION 6 34. Samuel Howard FAY was born 21 Jul 1804 in Cambridge, , Middlesex, Massachusetts,USA. He died 16 Aug 1847 in Brooklyn, , , New York,USA. Samuel married Susan SHELLMAN on 5 Jul 1825 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. [Parents]

35. Susan SHELLMAN was born 20 Feb 1808 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. She died 12 Jan 1887. [Parents]

GENERATION 5 16. James Smith BUSH (Reverend) was born 15 Jun 1825 in Rochester, , Monroe, New York,USA. He died 11 Nov 1889 in Ithaca, , Tompkins, New York,USA. James married Harriet Eleanor FAY on 24 Feb 1859 in New York City, , , New York,USA. [Parents]

17. Harriet Eleanor FAY was born 29 Oct 1829 in Savannah, , Chatham, Georgia,USA. She died 27 Feb 1924 in Boston, , Suffolk, Massachusetts,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 4 8. Samuel Prescott BUSH was born 4 Oct 1863 in Brick Church, , , New Jersey,USA. He died 8 Feb 1948 in Columbus, , Franklin, Ohio,USA. Samuel married Flora SHELDON on 20 Jun 1894 in Columbus, , , Ohio,USA. [Parents]

9. Flora SHELDON was born 17 Mar 1872 in , Franklin, , Ohio,USA. She died 4 Sep 1920 in Watch Hill, , , Rhode Island,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 3 4. Prescott Sheldon BUSH was born 15 May 1895 in Columbus, Franklin, , Ohio,USA. He died 8 Oct 1972 in New York City, , , New York,USA. Prescott married Dorothy WALKER on 6 Aug 1921 in Kennebunkport, York, , Maine,USA. [Parents]

5. Dorothy WALKER was born 1 Jul 1901 in Nr. Walker's, Point, York, Maine,USA. She died 19 Nov 1992 in Greenwich, , , Connecticut,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 2 2. George Herbert Walker BUSH was born 12 Jun 1924 in Milton, Massachusetts, USA. He married Barbara PIERCE on 6 Jan 1945 in Rye, New York, USA. [Parents]

3. Barbara PIERCE was born 8 Jun 925 in Rye, Westchester, New York, USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 1 1. George Walker BUSH was born 6 Jul 1946 in New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut. [Parents]

There is a tremendous amount of speculation about Pocahontas descendents. I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but I've come across a numer of quite convincing sites that dismiss the direct Bush-Pocahontas lineage. [1], [2], [3], [4] indicate that Robert BOLLING (Jr.) of Generation 10 was the child of Col. Robert Bolling with Anne Sith not Jane Rolfe. [5] indicates Col. Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe had only one child, "John Bolling of "Cobbs" (Colonel) b 1676 d 1729". (blacklisted URL removed per automated message by Erechtheus) also corroborated this. I could probably find more, but I think I've made the point. older≠wiser 15:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Yes, you've made your point - whether conclusively, well, I guess we'll have to wait for further research to tell. From my own point of view, the jury is still out on that one (but even that's a departure from the position I would have stoutly maintained as late as yesterday). I'll make some more comments under Lir's, below. David Cannon 10:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If people think he is descended, then the wikipedia should include the information. Lirath Q. Pynnor

For once, I'm inclined to agree with older≠wiser - not necessarily with his conclusions, but with his view that the information should NOT be in the article. As I said in my comments above, I consider the jury still to be out on this question. If so, both opinions (that Bush IS or IS NOT a Pocahontas descendant) are POV. This encyclopedia strives for NPOV, so I don't think the article should take a stand either way.

I do propose, however, that the article include a sentence or two about the controversy, without taking sides, like this: A number genealogists have linked Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush with Pocahontas, but this link has not been proved. The connection depends on Robert Bolling, Jr. (a 10th generation ancestor of George W. Bush) being the son of Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe (granddaughter of Pocahontas), a connection which has been disputed by many reputable genealogists, who believe that the younger Bolling was the son of Anne Sith, not Jane Rolfe. The Bush family, for its part, has not confirmed, denied, or publicly expressed an opinion on, whether or not they are descended from Pocahontas. David Cannon 10:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with an addition phrased such as you propose. older≠wiser 12:21, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. BTW, I've removed the sentence, "Thomas Rolfe remained in England." This source says that he died in Virginia. However, if anyone can come up with a contrary source, we'll factor that in. David Cannon 00:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I need to revert my own edition. I've had some correspondence with the author of the genealogical site I referred to, and this convinces me that older≠wiser is right. I print (in full) my e-mail to the author, and his reply:

Dear Dr. Barker,

I have been researching the family tree of President George W. Bush, and have found your online genealogy very helpful. It is the most comprehensive that I have found.

There is one problem that I'd like to hear your comments on. Your genealogy shows that President Bush is a descendant of Pocahontas through Jane Rolfe (1141). I (and a number of others) have tried inserting the information in Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia), but a number of others have drawn my attention to other websites that dispute the link, claiming that the younger Bolling was the son of Anne Sith, not Jane Rolfe. Even on your genealogy, I find a problem with it, namely this:

• Jane Rolfe died in 1676.
• Her supposed son, Robert Bolling, Jr. (570), was born in 1682.

I got these dates from your genealogy. Now, how can someone be born six years after his mother has died? Either the dates are wrong (quite possible), or the link is wrong (equally possible).

Something in me really wants to find that President Bush is a Pocahontas descendant, but the internal contradiction in the data makes the connection appear tenuous at best. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Yours sincerely,

David Cannon.

Dr Barker's reply:

This is a wrong connection, he descends from the Stith connection, and not the Boling. Sorry for the problem, we have corrected it in our files, but we have not yet put up the correction on the Internet. Sorry.

Lowell A. Barker

In view of this information, I will now change what I wrote yesterday, to reflect the fact that the Rolfe link has been shown to be mistaken.

No relationship - not valid information for inclusion.

Since it is obvious there is no relationship between Pocahontas and the president, I have removed any references to it in the article which is after all about Pocahontas, not aboput people who can not claim descent from her which would only be good for trivia anyway.

This information is more suited for this page:

"A number of genealogists have attempted to link Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush with Pocahontas, but this link has been proved to be based on the mistaken assumption that Robert Bolling, Jr. (a 10th generation ancestor of George W. Bush) was the son of Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe (granddaughter of Pocahontas). This connection has been disproved by many reputable genealogists, who point out that Rolfe died in 1676, six years before the birth of the younger Bolling, who therefore could not have been her son. He was evidently the son of Anne Stith, whom his father married after Jane Rolfe's death. The Bush family, therefore, is not directly descended from Pocahontas."

The above information would be better off on a page that cared about the president or his ancestry, and even then, if there is no relationship, then why even make mention of it. Plank

Incorrect information about the relationship has been repeatedly added to the article and there is obviously some mistaken information in common circulation. There is nothing inappropriate about including a clarification about the correct information here. older≠wiser 16:21, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

If there are rumors about Bush being related to Pocahontas that are not true, I think there is nothing wrong with this article shooting that down. After all, this is an encycolopedia. So one should walk away more informed. (I understand that several presidents in the past have tried to trace their line to her, such as Jefferson and Washington, but I remember where the source was for that so I've left it out of the article) Grice 00:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other noteworthy descendents?

I don't think it's the place of an encyclopedia to have to shoot down rumors of various kinds, unless they've clearly entered the common currency (which cannot be said of Pocahontas-Bush geneology; how many people are aware of such talk?). Instead of wasting a paragraph to explain that Pocahontas isn't related to GWB, why not mention the prominent Virginians that are known to actually *be* related to her? I know that there are some noteworthy descendents of her son Thomas. Funnyhat 22:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to including notable descendants. But I think it is worth having the disclaimer regarding Bush (although it could perhaps be briefer). That bogus information has had to be excised from the article on repeated occasions -- it was placed there to prevent future reinsertion of the bogus rumor. older≠wiser 22:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Funnyhat is right Bush need not be mentioned in this article! It is irrelevant. Plank 23:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What we could do is just say something like "there have been attemps to link Bush with Pocahontas without any success" and then simply add a link to the source that goes into more detail about it. Grice 09:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that Bush is a descendant of Pocahontas. After all, he is white for goodness sakes, and has no signs of any Native heritage whatsoever. However, she probably has many living descendants; there's just no 100% way to know for 100% sure. SilentWind 20:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The somatype doesnt carry that much genetic material.Thus,Bush(or anyone)might have but one ancestor yet lots of their genes.Ron Broxted (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

I might be related to her but I'm not 100% sure. --HoopoeBaijiKite 05:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

REGARDING GENEALOGISTS:

The mentions of "genealogists" in the above threads do not appear to refer to professional, certified genealogists or historians, but to ordinary family historians. Although some family historians can be as scholarly, meticulous, and reliable as professionals, most, alas, are not. Even if all the above links were still working, I don't the think the family historians cited qualify as reliable sources. See Identifying reliable sources for further explaination. Those citations are also inappropriate due to the Self-published sources caveat. All the best, Wordreader (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

British descendant on TV

I seem to recall the British TV programme "Blue Peter" once interviewing a child actor (I think she was one of the children in the 1976 TV serial "The Phoenix and the Carpet") who was a direct descendant of Pocahantas (added by Trev) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.39.98 (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why call her Pocahontas?

If we know that this person's real name was Matoaka and that "Pocahontas" was only her nickname, why is this article still called "Pocahontas?" It should be titled "Matoaka."

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Niteowlneils 16:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its because her nickname is more popular than her real name. Most people know her as Pocahontas, so its easier to find information on her if the article is titled Pocahontas, not Matoaka. Bionicle Fan (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be good to title it Pocahontas but have Matoaka in parenthesis or have it cross-listed? Matoaka is how she was regarded to her family and other Native Americans. If "Pocahontas" is the only name used, it could be argued that her Native American roots are being denied. Also, the story of "Pocahontas" that is widely known is the Disney version, which is grossly inaccurate. So maybe Matoaka is a better choice because it can be the more accurate version.Steshome (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)stSteshome (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Matoaka already redirects to Pocahontas, which is Wikipedia's way of "cross-listing".

Since "Pocahontas" was her Indian nickname, not one originated by the English, it's hard to see how "her Native American roots are being denied" by using that name, and it calls into question the assumption that she was not regarded as Pocahontas by her family. 2600:1006:B16A:2868:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

How did the English know what her name was? Could they understand the language they spoke? Well, the Disney film "Pocahontas" is a very different version of REAL life. In the film, Pocahontas is the only child, but in the article it says that she had multiple siblings. Also, in the Disney film, it shows that she has to marry a man. In the article, it says nothing about that. So is the film true or is the article true? Gabby500o (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

How did the English know what her name was? Could they understand the language they spoke? Well, the Disney film "Pocahontas" is a very different version of REAL life. In the film, Pocahontas is the only child, but in the article it says that she had multiple siblings. Also, in the Disney film, it shows that she has to marry a man. In the article, it says nothing about that. So is the film true or is the article true? Gabby500o (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Why, the Hollywood cartoon is the absolute historical truth, of course -that's what you came here to be told, isn't it? Now have a nice day. 172.58.185.32 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

Is not the word "indian" missused?

We can not avoid using the word "indian" in TV shows and movies, but people who knows enough to write an enciclopaedia knows that Americas are not part of India. Should not be used instead a more correct term, as simple as "native"? --Asierra 15:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the two in the intro to Native American--after that it gets problematic, as they are part of a quote, part of a link, etc. Niteowlneils 16:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though I'm not going to object to Niteowlneils changes, it should be noted that the need to destroy any associations with the word "indian" with the Native Americans/American Indians has not been completely successful (they often call themselves "Indians" as do others and their neighborhoods are still called "Indian Reservations") and I don't think its the job of Wikipedia to further this objective. If the word Indian had by now become a complete taboo, I might think differently. For the most part, the word Indian is just a historical reminder that names are something other people give you. Aside from the natives wrongly being labeled Indians by Columbus, the name India was given to that land by westerners (everything east of the Indus river being labeled the land of the Indies) and not by the indigenous peoples of India itself. Thats my two cents on that. Grice 13:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand you completely. Supposedly, the reason why the Whites ended up finding North America in the first place was because they were hoping to find an easier way to get to India, because they liked trading with them. When they arrived in North America, they thought they were in India so they called us Indians. And the name has stuck like crazy glue ever since... it makes me very mad, because WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INDIA. We are Native Americans. NOT INDIANS. Grr... -SilentWind 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I have been repeatedly told by Native Americans that they prefer to be called "Indians". Apparently, they find the term 'Native American' patronizing. 72.200.78.181 19:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As a 1/16th Apache, I must confirm the above. In Spanish the term is "Indio" and is used to describe everyone from Chile to Alaska. The term "Native American" is insulting to indios outside of the USA. The most correct term is to use the tribal name (Navajo, Mohawk, Olmec. Don't expect anything to change within our lifetimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC) The last book I read stated that natives call themselves Indian.Yes it is a misnomer,but there one goesRon Broxted (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Not too sure why the term "Native American" is insulting to "indios" outside the USA, unless that's confirmation of the US assumption that the term "American" can only apply to US citizens. I always thought all the people of both North & South America were "Americans", otherwise it's rather like only inhabitants of European Union member states using the term "European" (I'm sure the Swiss are still European). The name America, like India, is also European in origin, so again I'm not too sure as to why this would be less offensive to some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.238.74 (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some indigenous people prefer to be called Indians, like Russell Means, and others prefer to be called Native Americans. As for Spanish, "indio" has a neutral sense, but it also has an insulting one, and although "indigeno/a" isn't insulting, it too may be seen as patronizing. You can't please everyone no matter what you do. --John Cowan (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Pocahontas images

There is an extant contemporaneous woodcut portrait of Pocahontas. Are there any public domain prints of this?

I find the captions on the portraits a bit hard to swallow - are they honestly trying to suggest that the original primitive engraving is an accurate picture of what she looked like?

How can we know? Does anybody have a photograph of her to compare the original engraving? No we don't. But we do know that the original was done while she was alive and that the later one that distorts her features is based off the earlier one. The earlier one has more authority and the later one has none. Grice 00:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

For goodness sake it looks like a gremlin! To say that the second portrait "Europeanizes" her is faintly ridiculous - it simply makes her look more *human* - other than dress and make-up, I can't see how this picture has been "Europeanized".

A gremlin? Well that's your opinion. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities. Grice 00:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Please forgive me for I am interrupting you, gentlemen, but, if I may say so, I agree that she does look dreadful in the first portrait. Anglius

The picture has certainly been "Europeanized" she has mousy hair and milk white skin!!! The original may not be conventionally attractive, but I hardly think she looks like a 'gremlin', just unromantisized.

Link to "Indian Removal Act"

I'm only someone trying to learn about Pocahontas, so I'm not exactly knowledgable on this topic.

However, I'm wondering if there isn't some confusion with the mention of an "Indian Removal Act" and the link to the (2 centuries later) Andrew Jackson Indian_Removal_Act of 1830. Maybe there was another similarly named act brought on by the King of England at the time? -paul v

I do not believe so, sir. Anglius

Reputable Genealogists?

Who are the genealogist that are said to be reputable in the article? A reputable one would be published in a book and would be a professional. Please list some names and publications. Dwain 19:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, Dwain - also look for someone published in a reviewed scholarly journal. And look for genealogists and historians certified by a reputable organization. Wordreader (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ritual

I have removed the following passage which is unsourced and confusing.

One theory about the event - if it ever occured - is that Powhatan had created a ritual in which Smith would be 'saved' by Pocahontas, a favored younger wife unrelated to Matoaka. It would have shown the kindness of Powhatan's people over his logical treatment of an enemy.

Before it is returned, some questions need answering: (1) Who has suggested this? A reputable scholar of native ceremonies? If so, name them. (2) Who is this Pocahontas who is unrelated to Matoaka? It's confusing. The Singing Badger 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Emperor, Princess query

Codex Sinaiticus - the article on Chief Powhatan gives three possibilities for the translation of Powhatan itself: Chief, King, Emperor, and my opinion is that a person who is the ruler of 'tidewater Virginia' does not really merit the style of 'Emperor'. 'King' is arguable, but 'Chief' is the most recognisable term for the leader of such a Native American group.

As for 'Princess' being used for Pocahontas, I can find no evidence of her being afforded the recognition of 'Princess' when presented at court to King James I, and 'daughter of the chief' is an accurate description. WLD 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Powhatan was usually referred to as Emperor in the 17th Century English, and with good reason - he was absolute ruler of not only his own nation, but of a dozen surrounding nations. If that doesn't merit the definition of Emperor, what does? Modern attempts to falsely deny his sovereignty remind me of a certain character in the Disnety cartoon, but I won't say which one... So are you saying Pocahontas was presented at London as "the daughter of the chief"??? Sorry, Emperor and princess are more than fully justified, despite your Eurocentric pov toward natives, so I'm going to have to restore them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Captain John Smith's letter of recommendation, written in 1616, to Queen Anne (King James' wife) concerning Pocahontas refers to "Powhatan their chief King" and to Pocahontas as "this Lady Pocahontas". It goes on to describe Pocahontas as "at last rejecting her barbarous condition, she was married to an English Gentleman, with whom at this present she is in England; the first Christian ever of that Nation, the first Virginian ever spoke English, or had a child in marriage by an Englishman: a matter surely, if my meaning be truly considered and well understood, worthy a Princes understanding." It does not refer to Wahunsunacock as 'Emperor', nor to his daugter, Matoaka (or 'Lady Rebecca' as she was baptised) as Princess.

Can you cite any documentation from John Rolfe or the Virginia Company that refers to her and her father otherwise?

As for absolute ruler - Wahunsunacock's tribe were part of a confederacy of six, not a dozen - he did not have absolute power, and in fact another tribe existed in the same area, unallied to the confederacy. At best it can be argued that Wahunsunacock was king of his own tribe, in much the same way that the Saxon kings of Britain could be called kings.

I've no idea what Disney charater you are talking about. I've not seen the cartoon.

If you can't cite sources, I suggest using the style 'King' for Wahunsunacock and leaving Pocahontas/Matoaka/Lady Rebecca [Rolfe] plainly as his daughter, as Smith did not refer to her as a princess.

Google searches also show

• "Emperor Powhatan" about 272
• "King Powhatan" about 533
• "Chief Powhatan" about 33,100
• "Emperor Wahunsunacock" no matches
• "King Wahunsunacock" no matches
• "Chief Wahunsunacock" about 202

So on the (flawed) basis of Google popularity, it looks like "Chief Powhatan" would be the way to go. As John Smith's letter refers to him as King, I'd be happy to go with that rather than chief, but Emperor looks unjustified.

WLD 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I cite any contemporary documentation that refers to Powhatan as "Emperor"? Yes, I certainly can... Just for starters, there is the picture of her on the article... Note that the part you can see reads MATOAKA ALS REBECCA FILIA POTENTISS PRINC: POWHATANI IMP: VIRGINIA (The IMP: stands for IMPERATOR)... Unfortunately, you can't see the caption in that pic (The picture, including caption can be seen on this website [6]), but it reads: Matoaks als Rebecka daughter to the mighty Prince Powhatan Emperour of Attanoughkomouck als virginia converted and baptized in the Christian faith, and wife to the worthy Mr. Joh. Rolff. (BTW, The 19th C. copy mistakenly had her as the wife of Mr. Tho. Rolff, who was actually her infant son...) If you read the article a bit, it mentions that she was promoted in London as an "Indian princess", I don't see any inaccuracy here, although I must wonder why the scare quotes. If that's not enough, I have around 20-25 books about her in my private collection, just about everything that was ever written about her, including some stuff by Smith and Wm. Strachey, I'm sure I can find references there to 'Emperor" and "Princess" if you like... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do like. Please do. We can then add those references into the article, which would be great. WLD 15:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing... He started out with six tribes, but he ended up adding all the other Algonquian tribes as far as the Doegs, with the notable exception of th Chickahominy, who were tributary. I suggest you read some more sources, his power over these tribes was indeed absolute. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Personally, I'm still not convinced he merits the title/style of 'Emperor', and I'd suggest it is possible that contemporary sources were equally as confused about his, and Pocahontas' status. If one were boosting the status of the colony in the UK (which was the intention), it would make sense to refer to the only native of North America with you as being of high status, even if they weren't. Which makes more sense - "Come see the daughter of the Emperor!" or "Come see the daughter of the local village chief!"? However, my personal beliefs don't merit inclusion in the article, and you have better source material that I. Can I suggest that instead of simply reverting people who change Emperor to Chief, and Princess to member/daughter, that you write a paragraph about the controversy, and back up your argument that the title/styles of Emperor/Princess with citations of your sources. I think it would be a valuable addition to the article, but it is unfortunately, one I can't do. WLD 10:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pocahontas was not a regular "member" of the tribe or even one of the nobility, she was daughter of the Paramount ruler, whose authority over his people exceeded that of James over his, she was by any definition a princess, and I am convinced that the anonymous user keeps reverting to "member" only to be ugly, colonialistic, or to get some snide satisfaction from saying she was a "member" as if she was a commoner. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia convention of 'assume good faith'. I agree that it is sometimes difficult, but please avoid descending into name-calling. For the avoidance of doubt, whoever the anonymous contributor is, it is not me. I suggest that as more than one person is exercised by this issue, it would be a good idea to cover the dispute over Pocahontas' title/style in the article itself, if only to prevent more people making changes of the kind you disagree with. WLD 09:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I just stuck my oar in and rearranged the intro so that the names 'princess' and 'emperor' become more self-evident. I hope this helps matters. The Singing Badger 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've stuck my oar in as well. I've made some (hopefully regarded as) minor changes to the intro to remove controversial terms, and added a section discussing her title and style. I have a lot of sympathy for Codex Sinaiticus - it's galling if you are an expert to have apparent non-experts modifying your text. All I can suggest is making sure all terms are properly cited. I've asked on the List of Latin phrases talk page for someone to translate the 1616 engraving's inscription. WLD 10:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As a point to offer into the debate, I'll say immediately that I am not expert in the customs of the Powhatan people in the early 1600s. However, what I will point out is that it is by no means obvious that the daughter of a leader/chief/king/emperor is accorded any particular status. My reason for saying this is that I am passingly familar with the customs of one African people (the Konkomba of Ghana), where village leaders are elected by common consent, and the children of such leaders do not inherit their parents rights of leadership on their parents death. The Wikipedia article on the Dagomba mentions the Konkomba in passing as being acephalous, which, strictly, is incorrect - the Konkomba have a power structure which just doesn't fit into traditional classifications. See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. There are many other peoples with similar, non-traditional structures. WLD 15:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting article online here [13] in the Encyclopedia of North American Indians. It states that "Powhatan's chiefly position was also inherited matrilineally; thus his children could not succeed him." WLD 23:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting point is the statement on this website Algonquian Language Group - Powhatan Tribe that "The ruler of this entire area, stretching from what is now Washington D.C. to northern North Carolina, with about 9000 subjects and dozens of villages was the great Powhatan. It was his title of Powhatan that the English used as the name for all the tribes. Powhatan was the "Great King." Powhatan's real name was Wahunsenacawh; Powhatan was the name of the village he came from. He died in April 1618, leaving the chiefdom to his brothers." Two things stand out - (1) that apparently his empire consisted of 9000 subjects. This looks too small to be believeable - perhaps someone can corroborate this, and (2) it claims Powhatan was the name of the village Wahunsunacock same from! That is, not a title. Can anyone de-conflict the sources? WLD 15:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As the articles already state, Powhatan was not only the title of the Emperor, but was also the name of the capital at the present site of Richmond. As to extent, John Smith says the Powhatan domains stretched as far north as the Aquia creek (north of Fredericksburg) and included the peninsula now known as the Northern Neck, which he knew as Chicacoan. North of the Aquia, and including all the area around Washington DC, was the domain of another supergroup known as the Doegs or Dogues (also called Piscataway, Nanticoke, Nacotchtank, and other names)... Famous from Bacon's rebellion incident... I'm just looking through my sources now for a better population estimate, but I have so many sources, upgrading this article will probably be a very gradual effort! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As far as I can tell, Powhatan is Algonquin for "at the falls", thus naming the town. The analogy used elsewhere is like the English peerage - John Doe, who lives in Podunk, becomes Lord Podunk, so Wahunsunacock, who lived in Powhatan becomes 'Lord' Powhatan. In this case, instead of 'Lord', the title is 'Mamanatowick', which is rendered in various places as the Algonquin for "great chief", "paramount chief", or "emperor". Incidentally, each village had its own chief, the title of whom was apparently 'Weroance'. Oh, and at www.virtualjamestown.org, specifically here [14], it gives the population as about 8,000; and here [15] it claims about 14,000 WLD 00:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I own most of the books you just added as sources and then some; I have Rountree (one of the most recent and best researched) here in my lap now, so I will be re-reading that over the next little while, with an eye for relevant facts... ;o) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, she says 14,000, but I will look in greater depth, maybe also check Barbour... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Another portrait

There is another portrait here http://www.williamsburgprivatetours.com/Pocahontas%20smith.htm which claims to have made in her lifetime. Thoughts anyone? WLD 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could be authentic, but I wouldn't bet on it. There seems to be a lot of speculations and guesswork involved. Jonas Liljeström 17:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a 19th century painting, not a 17th century one. The Singing Badger 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pocahontas' kidnapping

The page on the The Anglo-Powhatan Wars here: [16] says Pocahontas was kidnapped not by the colonists, but by the Potowomacks, then traded to an English sea captain for a copper kettle to become a pawn in the negotiations between the colonists and the Powhatans. Can anyone confirm this? If so, the article should be updated. WLD 13:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question in part, Ralph Hamor's account of the kidnapping is transcribed online here http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1004. From his account, it's not so clear- cut, but looks to be kidnapping by connivance between Capt. Argall, and 'Iapazeus', a local chief. WLD 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Uncertain passages

I'm trying to find references for every statement made in this article. The following has stumped me:

During hard times, Pocahontas also helped to save the Jamestown colony from extinction by supplying it with food.

Certainly the natives did sometimes help the settlers, but was Pocahontas herself involved in this? Or is this just a fanciful image written by someone who has seen The New World? I've removed the sentence for now but if I've missed something let me know. The Singing Badger 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the following: again, I can't find a reference:

Chief Powhatan gave the newlyweds property that included a small brick house. Today, Fort Smith is in Surry County, just across the James River and was used as a home or cottage by Pocahontas and John Rolfe when they were first married.

The Singing Badger 14:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pocahontas engraving inscription

See Talk:List_of_Latin_phrases#Pocahontas_engraving_inscription

Before indulging in a revert-fest, could we either locate a citeable translation, or a Latin scholar to give a correct translation? WLD 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note I'm not claiming the pre-Phoogenb revision is necessarily correct, but neither has anybody else cited a source for a different version. Cite a source, and I'll be happy to back whomever to the hilt. :-) WLD 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for the grammar correction, Codex. WLD 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

<edit conflict>It's worth looking at this reference: Abbreviations in Latin Inscriptions assembled from digital texts of all Latin inscriptions published in L'Année Épigraphique between 1888 and 1993. From that we see that:

• POTENTISS - doesn't appear
• PRINC - could be any one of: princ(eps), princ(ipales), princ(ipali), princ(ipe), princ(ipem), princ(ipes), princ(ipi), princ(ipia), princ(ipibus), princ(ipis), princ(ipum)
• IMP - could be any one of: Imp, imp(endio), imp(ensis), imp(erante), Imp(erator), imp(erator, Imp(eratore), imp(eratore, Imp(eratorem), Imp(eratores), Imp(eratori), Imp(eratoribus), Imp(eratoris), Imp(eratoris, Imp(eratorum), imp(eri), imp(erii), imp(erio), imp(etum), Imp(peratoribus), imp(ugnavit)

Now, obviously, the date range of the corpus examined for the referenced collection does not cover the Simon van de Passe engraving of 1616, but it illustrates that the abbreviations in question are not unambiguous, so we need to be careful about drawing conclusions about the correct translation, and more to the point for Wikipedia, the verifiable translation, as one of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. I would prefer whatever is stated in the article to be both verifiable and true. WLD 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have in my lap now, a copy of Frances Mossiker's 1976 treatise, Pocahontas: the Life and the Legend. Following page 144 are several pages of plates (illustrations), one of which is a facsimile reproduction of the original engraving, being the frontispiece of John Smith's Generall Historie of Virginia (1627 ed.)... The engraving of course is by Simon Van de Passe. At the bottom the English paraphrase version of the Latin legend is given exactly as follows: "Matoaks als Rebecka daughter to the mighty Prince Powhatan Emperour of Attanoughkomouck als virginia converted and baptized in the Christian faith, and wife to the wor.^th M^r. Joh. Rolff." ... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is confusing. The Latin legend being "MATOAKA ALS REBECCA FILIA POTENTISS : PRINC : POWHATANI IMP:VIRGINIÆ", there being no mention of Attanoughkomouck in the original text! Obviously, we can use it, since it is citeable, but personally, I'd prefer a translation into 21st century English, with minimal interpolation and addition of words not present in the orginal text. Is/was 'als' even English? WLD 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's as English as "alias", since that's what it was an abbreviation for... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't get drawn into that debate. :-) I suggest that rather than having a single translation, we acknowledge the ambiguity in the abbreviations and link to a paragraph in the text giving the possible different translations, and an indication of which may be the most accurate (in as NPOV manner as possible)? We really could do with a Latin scholar here, preferably familiar with 17th century Latin usage and abbreviations. I'll freely admit that I'm not one.

On another point, isn't it 'Simon van de Passe' rather than 'Simon Van de Passe'? Modern Dutch usage would be a lower case 'v' when using the christian/first/given name, according to Dutch name. Of course, you may be gently pointing out that you know better than me. WLD 23:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha, no, I just copied it as written in my Mossiker... "van" is probably more correct in modern usage... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer myself partially - it depends on whether he's Dutch or Flemish. Having used my knowledge of Dutch names, and read the first section of the article which confirmed my belief, I wrote the last item. I then went on to read more, and learnt something, documented both in that article and in tussenvoegsel. Feh! WLD 23:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My favorite solution would be to scan the entire 1627 frontispiece including the English caption, then we wouldn't have to translate it at all... Another thing, the 1627 copy reproduced in my book looks noticeably lighter than the "original" van de Passe shown in the article... it looks like someone has tampered with the shadows to give her an uglier appearance in the article version... I wonder which one is the "real" original? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we had an original 1627 copy to scan... I don't think copyright laws allow us unreservedly to scan a modern (post circa 1923) edition/reproduction of the original. Copyright law being one of the many things I'm not expert in, I would not like to risk it. As for which is the "real" original, I suspect this one [17] is, because it looks like an engraving, whereas this one [18] looks like it has been tidied up, much like the oil painting (a weird grayscale reproduction of which, showing the translated text, is in this article [19]. There's a poor, colour reproduction, including the text, here [20]. The image used on the dust-cover of the Mossiker books looks different again - there's a large copy on Amazon here [21], and this looks like a different oil-pinintg as well [22]. Working out which are originals, and which are copies would be a time-consuming task. I would say the Mossiker dust-cover version is a 'cleaned-up' copy of the the original - the shadow of the head on the lace is too big, the shading of the hat gives incorrect perspective, and details on the hat-band have been removed. WLD 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

IIRC 'IMP' is a standard Latin abbreviation for "imperator" (or any of its declined forms...)Vultur (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Indian Queens in Cornwall, UK

It seems very unlikley that this place is named after Pocahontas for the reason given in the article. Indian Queens is west of Plymouth and London to the east, so it seems very unlikely she would have travelled through it en route to London. 82.32.238.139 09:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, slap a {{fact}} on it, and if no citation comes forward within reasonable time, delete the assertion. Unsupported assertions can be summarily deleted - waiting a reasonable time before doing so is not necessary, but is less abrupt. Some editors take the approach of deleting and noting on the talk page why it was deleted, much as you have done without the deletion. Thanks for pointing this out. WLD^talk|edits 09:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is not impossible that it is named for Pocahontas, not necessary for her to have ever physically been there, and not entirely unlikely, as Pocahontas was wildly popular in England for a brief time in the 17th century, and had a few places named for her where she had never been. A sourced citation would be nice, though. Has any Indian Queen or even princess ever passed through the place in all of history? Would this be necessary in order for it to have that name? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Having read that article Indian Queens now, I agree that this is a dubious connection, but it is still encyclopedic and of interest, even if apocryphal connection, so I think we should keep some kind of link to that article from here. I have changed the line so to better agree with the information over there. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Add External Link?

I'm new to Wiki work, but not coding/design. Would it be possible to add this as an External Link?

• The Pocahontas Inspiration

Thanks! David Hager, M.D. 03:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI and WP:EL. -- Donald Albury 03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

what?

can you tell more about how she overcame her obstacles and clearly stating the obstacles and how she over came them i ask this with much respect

                       thank you
                              sincerely one of the readers on this page (:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.84.198 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

In Popular Culture Section?

Shouldn't there be a mention of her in popular culture? Namely the two films that portrayed her, both the Disney animated film and the live-action one that starred Colin Farrell and Christian Bale? Arnabdas (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

heads up

yeah, I don't think 50 cent fathered Pocohantas, check the top of the biography section. . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.120 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WHATFirl21 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Indian

I'm bringing up the issue on that the use of the word Indian is not the politically nor neutral term to describe Pocahontas. Native American is alot more widely accepted by people who are or not of native blood. Indian is considered to be offensive and confusing by many and also the citation that has Virginia Indian also has Native American in it. I see no reason to use the term Virginia Indian this is the 21st centuary.Mcelite (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize my citation for when I changed the term to Virginia Indian also uses the term Native American however I also happen to live in Virginia. As a result I am aware that overall the tribes here in Virginia prefer the term Virginia Indian be used. I cannot of course use a member of one of the tribes as a citation here or I would have and that would make things clearer. As with many things there is no one universal term that everyone uses and this case is no different. Some people of native descent have a preference for the term Indian, some for American Indian, some for Native American and some don't care one way or the other. And while I realize the use of the term Indian is offensive to some, and I do not want to cause offense by using it, if that is what the Virginia tribes prefer then I think it should be used. I am in no position to speak about any other tribes than the ones in Virginia. And here they have the Virginia Council on Indians and the Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life, for just two examples of important groups here that also use the term Virginia and Indian-neither of which can be used for citation purposes either. All I am really saying here is that these tribes prefer the term and in this instance I think the term Virginia Indian should be used as a result.Sarah1607 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

The burden is on the person claiming that "Indian" is offensive, to find some verification in a reliable source that says it is offensive. I would posit that anyone who thinks the term "Indian" is offensive does not actually know any, for that is one of the names they have always called themselves in English, and still do (though keenly aware that it originally stems from a misnomer). As usual, it sounds like someone trying to legislate political correctness from their armchair, who wouldn't know an actual Native American if they fell over one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What is more significant than unverifiable individual preferences is that the edits imposing the term "Virginia Indian" removed useful links to related background articles about Native Americans in the United States. If there is verifiable and encyclopedic information about Virginia Indians, then perhaps an article could be created describing what is meant by such a term. Otherwise I think it is better to stick with the standard naming used in other Wikipedia articles. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have Virginia Indians, which a user moved to Native American tribes in Virginia in 2006. Since this is an encyclopedia that anyone may edit, it takes more than that to declare the status quo is now a "standard". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, that page that was moved in 2006 was Virginia indians, which incorrectly had a small i also. I will now make redirects for Virginia Indians and Virginia Indian. The article they will redirect to uses the term and should hopefully explain it to everyone's satisfaction. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Til Eulenspiegel! Again to everyone I do get why Native Americans is the general term used and especially on a site like this that has to try to be as broad as possible. However, I think when it comes to these tribes in Virginia at least some of the terminology should reflect their preference. Afterall, it's not like people who want to know more about American Indians in general can't look up that information by simply putting that phrase, or Native Americans if that is your preference, in the search box (it would find what you want either way).

Here is a quote to give an idea of where I am coming from, especially when talking about the PC debate of this. It is from the Virginian-Pilot dated June 7, 2009 (the article is called We're Still Here): "Isn't it PC to say "Native Americans"? You can, but it's not necessary. That once politically correct term is now considered too broad because it covers all indigenous people, such as Alaskan natives, too. "American Indians" or simply "Indians" usually won't cause offense." The article also uses the term Virginia Indian throughout and is available online as well http://hamptonroads.com/2009/06/special-report-virginias-indians-threepart-series.

In the end I am simply someone who knows a lot about this area of history and in my job I focus on talking about the Virginia Indians. As such I simply wanted to reflect their overall preference for the term Virginia Indian on wikipedia. In this instance I think it is the right thing to do.Sarah1607 (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I did another edit to put the term Virginia Indian back in. I also added an internal link to the page about Virginia Indian tribes and a link to other pages about Native Americans through an internal link (that term was still in the article in at least one place -which I left unchanged on purpose as it talked about more than just Pocahontas). I think this discussion proved my point enough to make the edits, if not we can discuss it further. Sarah1607 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't agree the term Indian is out dated and not politically correct. It's far more neutral to use Native American than to use "Indian" or "American Indian". Also to Til Eulenspiegel are you implying that it's impossible for me to know any Native Americans?? I suggest you watch it...Mcelite (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How about any kind of verifiable source backing up your opinion? Otherwise, it's just your opinion. On the other hand, I have seen loads of reliable sources agreeing with what Sarah1607 says, i.e. that it is correct, and not offensive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's completely out dated and it is considered offensive by some. That's like calling African Americans negro and not expecting to get a dirty look or not have someone hit you.Mcelite (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable source to back up what you say? If what you assert is true, a source saying so should be easy to find. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine here's a source and there are a couple others that are available that are not in blogs. [23] I don't see how hard it is to understand how this has become a complicated issue. I also saw how in the article Native American tribes in Virginia the term Indian is used throughout the article. That makes the article look like it was written by a 10 year old since the title is Native American tribes not Amerian Indian or Indian tribes.Mcelite (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to read that reference you gave all the way through. Don't stop reading as soon as you get to the word "offensive". It finally comes to the same conclusions that we have been saying, that nowadays it is not offensive and the terms are interchangeable, and note your source even calls us "Indians". It also points out that it was never offensive to us Indians, only maybe to some PC folks whose heads are still stuck in the 1970s. We don't need this prescriptive PC argument; it isn't doing anyone a bit of good, the argument is dead, both terms remain acceptable and interchangeable, both in modern literature and on wikipedia. The reason I suggest you might not know any Indians is because if you did, you would know we call ourselves that and laugh at this PC silliness. Furthermore, if you read the article on Virginia Indians carefully, you might glean that the name "Indian" has for some reason always made white supremacists cringe, which is why they tried to abolish it in Virginia in the 1920s, but failed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1st i did read it all the way through. The point is Native American is more neutral than American Indian. That is my whole arguement and i honestly believe that it more clear than saying Indian. Also yes I very well know that some Native Americans don't find it offensive at all. Also I am of native blood and I myself don't find it so offensive to be called Indian but sometimes I don't like it because i'm not Indian (India). I'm of native blood and proud of it.Mcelite (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I still get where you are coming from Mcelite this whole discussion has not been about which term is more neutral overall, which seems to be the only angle you have been coming from. To me, it has been about the fact that the tribes here in Virginia have said that they prefer the term Virginia Indian over others and have been very clear on that fact. My whole point, and only point, has been that this is the preferred term for these particular tribes here in Virginia. I would not begin to suggest the use of the term Indian, in any form be it American Indian or anything else, unless I knew that is what that particular tribe, or tribes, wanted to be called. I do not have a source, partly because all my books that might have this information are at work, but I have heard that the reason the tribes in Virginia want to have the term Indian used is because of the fact that it is a misnomer. In other words, they do not want anyone to forget that the term Indian was given to them falsely. At this point let me ask this: if a particular tribe, or in this case group of tribes, has a preferred terminology with which they want to be called as a group why is it wrong to use it, especially in a forum such as wikipedia? If you were a member of one of the Virginia tribes wouldn't you want to be referred to using the term they have said they want used?Sarah1607 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The website is <http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3AuMI4uA8Xd_0J%3Aindians.vipnet.org%2Fresources%2FwritersGuide.pdf+Virginia+Council+on+Indians%2C+Writer%27s+Guide&hl=en&gl=us> "Writer's Guide", Virginia Council on Indians, Commonwealth of Virginia. The Council is made up of representatives of the state-recognized tribes. It is published by the Commonwealth of VA. Up front they say they prefer the general term "Virginia Indians", but even more, prefer that tribes be identified by their own names when writers note specifics. This is not a general discussion about use of Native American or American Indian in all of the US (although a poll has shown there is little consensus about that, and some prominent spokesmen, such as novelist Sherman Alexie, have said they totally dislike the term "Native American".) Given there is a valid, recent source that says this is how the Virginia Indians choose to be referred to, I think we should use the convention.--Parkwells (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Algonquian - vague term

Pocahontas was of an Algonquian-speaking people, but it is unusual to refer to her as an "Algonquian woman." This does not seem sufficient, given that more information is known about her. At least she could be located geographically. --Parkwells (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that it is a vague term, especially given that we know where she was from. Algonquian is a language group that was very expansive. Overall, I just don't think it is the way to describe a person in my view. I think Virginia Indian is a better way to describe her than Algonquian woman. It maybe should be added, if it is not in the article, that she spoke an Algonquian language.Sarah1607 (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification?

I'm unfamiliar with this history. It is not clear whether the English captives for whom Pocahontas was ransomed were ever returned. Under Capture the article says

"Powhatan returned the prisoners, but failed to satisfy the colonists with the number of weapons and tools he returned."

And under Marriage to John Rolfe it says

"Their marriage was unsuccessful in winning the English captives back..."

Anthony (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable source

This refers to a book which appears to be a modern construction, rather than historical. As such, it's an example of WP:Fringe, which needs reliable sources to back it up. Tedickey (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

At the very least anything from this particular source should be removed from the general article and if kept put in a separate section that addresses the fact that there is a book out there with information on Pocahontas that is based on oral history-which is where the general rape claim is from. As for the online article source that is attached as a citation as well I find it very suspect seeing as how there are many facts that are incorrect in it. Plus I have never heard anything about the person who may have raped Pocahontas being John Smith-who was not even in Virginia anymore by the time Pocahontas was captured. I think their source for that is suspect.Sarah1607 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the late reply i've been over worked lately. Writing a section on the oral tradition would be informative. I'll see if there are more sources on the issue from scholars but I'm not sure how long it will take me since I'm multitasking a couple of things.Mcelite (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be awesome Mcelite. I myself have not been able to add to wikipedia lately as I have been overwhelmed and juggling other things. If I can find anything to add to an oral history section I will, especially now that I know I am not the only one who is on board with such a section. Sarah1607 (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this source, I am unsure about the validity of David Morenu's website on Pocahontas. I cannot find any sources of where he got his information, and from reading his version of the tale, some parts do not fit with scholarly arguments of Pocahontas. I would be open to his site if there were references to where he got his information, but from comparing it to other sources that I have been investigating, I am unable to find any legitimacy to his site and believe that his site cannot be used as a reference until properly verified. Papabrow (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

questions

if tou had any questions about the article you can write it below —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.213.163 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Status of Pocahontas

User:Til Eulenspiegel Insists on changing the description of Pocahantas in the lead from "Virginian indian woman" to "Princess". I've reverted this once but it has been changed back and I don't wish to get into an edit war. To quote from the article:

However, although the young Pocahontas was a favorite of her powerful father (his "delight and darling" according to one of the colonists) her own society did not regard her as having a high social rank. Powhatan society was structured differently from that of Europe and while women could inherit power, Pocahontas could not have done so because the inheritance of power was matrilineal...Regardless of the nature of Pocahontas' status among the Powhatan, in England she was generally regarded as a princess.

In the edit summary User:Til Eulenspiegel misquotes my edit summary and suggests that to not use the term "Princess" is to "deny that the natives ever had royal families, to minimize their legitimacy". To be honest I take exception to that. I'm not trying to minimise their legitimacy at all - the term is just not the correct one to to use and doesn't square with what's said in the main body of the article. Native Americans did not have kings, queens, princes or princesses. These terms are applicable to European royal families and as such are a construct of European social hierachies and are not directly applicable to other societies which have their own social structures. Just because Europeans at the time "regarded her as a princess" doesn't mean it's the correct term to use today. It was used because that was a familiar term they could use which was more to do with ignorance at the time of how other societies were structured. However, wikipedia should be using correct description.

what do others think? Richerman (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Every continent had kings, including Africa, Asia, North and South America. They don't need the Whitehall Seal of Approval. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What's Whitehall got to do with anything? This isn't about anybody's "seal of approval" - its about use of terms. Pocahontas father wasn't a king and she wasn't a princess. Ascribing European terms to their status is an insult to them and their society. Richerman (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that POV requires your off-handed brushing aside of all the sources that say he was a king, and your POV endorsement of a few POV sources that say he wasn't a king. The reasons given by the POV sources for the POV of stripping him of his royalty are suspect and will not bear scrutiny, since it is never made clear exactly what differentiates him from any other king. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The clearest reasoning I have ever been able to find, is the old, covetous, European law that says: "non-Christian hereditary monarchs are not really legitimate kings, and therefore all of their domains have been up for grabs and henceforth the legal property of Christian monarchs, by virtue of European law." This law of King James has been the true source of many modern-day attitudes, seeking to deny that Indians ever had hereditary monarchies or even valid systems of government - but please don't come pushing that POV crap in here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, as you obviously have access to a number of sources that that say here father was a king you tell us what they are - I have never seen any to be able to "off-handedly brush them aside" as I haven't seen any. And please don't accuse me of pushing "POV crap" - have you ever heard of assuming good faith? There is no way that I would subscribe to the law of King James that you quote above and please don't assume that I would. Quite simply, the lead is supposed to summarise what it says in the article, and calling her a princess is completely at odds with what it says in the main body of the text. If you think it should say something different different please feel free to change it with properly referenced information. Richerman (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several points; perhaps they're not all in dispute. Listing them separately:

• P's father acted as a king
• Europeans assumed that P's father's children would inherit some or all of his privileges
• Europeans treated P as a princess based on their assumption of the what P's society was organized
• modern historians may/may not call P a princess

Tedickey (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I've looked up the terms in the Oxford English Dictionary and the definition of a king is "a male sovereign (esp. hereditary) ruler of an independent state" and a princess is "a female member of a royal family esp. a daughter or granddaughter of a monarch". I suppose her father did act as a king within that definition, even though the I doubt if he was ever called that, and so Pocahontas could be called a princess. However, I still think these are European terms and that the Powhatan people probably wouldn't thank you for using them. To quote from the Powhatan website:

Since the time we met the Europeans in the 1500's, our history has been characterized as a struggle to survive war, disease, prejudice, and cultural disintegration. Foreign disease alone probably accounted for halving the Powhatan population by the end of the 17th century. Many of the survivors of those early epidemics were largely decimated by war and starvation. Yet, against all odds, we the Renape (human beings) have survived. Essentially the term Renape refers to us as an ethnic group, a people speaking a common language. However, we were not all united in one Nation. Our people governed themselves freely and harmoniously as independent republics, which sometimes came together in alliances or confederations, such as the Powhatan Confederacy. Thus Powhatan refers to our political identity, while Renape refers to our ethnic/language identity.

Do independent republics have, or even want royal families? Richerman (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to "doubt if he was ever called that" - just research it! He certainly was known in English as "King Powhatan" to scholars and officials at the time, such as William Strachey. Of course, the word is different in the Powhatan language - for which the English translation given in the contemporary sources was always "King". Also, don't forget that Pocahontas met the King of England as a member of Powhatan's royal family.

I don't know about the accuracy of your "Renape" source; there is no historical record that the Powhatan had a republic nor that their language ever had any such word like "Renape"; the term "Renape" seems to be favored by modern-day bands based in New Jersey, where the main tribe was known as the Lenape or Renape and spoke a different, but related language. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. What I don't understand is, if King James had decided that non-Christian hereditary monarchs were not really legitimate kings why did he later accept Pocahontas as a princess? Richerman (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

While I get where you are coming from Til Eulenspiegel I have to say that I do not use or like the term princess to describe Pocahontas. It is actually a pet peeve of mine to do so simply because while she was regarded as that by the English the term was not what was used by her own people. In other words her position within Powhatan society was not equivalent in my mind to the English term princess, even though she was the daughter of a ruler. Basically I don't like using a European term to describe her as I think it does not describe her best. There are people who don't care about the use of the term and others, like myself, who really do not like it being used. Because it is still a sensitive button issue in my experience I think it best to leave the term to a different section of the article and not use it in the introduction. Just my thoughts.Sarah1607 (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User Tyler M. Chapin changed matrilinial to patrilinial and then back again. I've removed that bit of the sentence altogether as it's not that simple and I think it's probaly best left out. If someone wants to put something back in there's a reference here that explains the situation but doesn't really come to a clear conclusion, other than saying the evidence "points away" from a patrilineal society. Richerman (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you look in some of Helen Rountree's more recent books, as well as others about the Powhatan or Pocahontas, it is stated more clearly that Powhatan society was matrilineal. To be more specific when it came to the inheritance system for the weroances the succession was determined by the mother's line. Here is the excerpt from Rountree's book Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough: Three Indian Lives Changed by Jamestown that explains this: "One inherited the right to be a weroance through the mother's line. The common folk seem not to have followed that rule, insofar as their kinship can be reconstructed, but weroances differed: they were matrilineal."

The book goes into more detail than that, but those two sentences make it clear that when it came to weroances the inheritance was matrilineal. Since Pocahontas could not inherit her father's chiefdom as a result of the weroance's inheritance being matrilineal I think it fitting to keep that in the article. If you want we could use the other book I mentioned above as a reference instead as it more clearly states this.Sarah1607 (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this quote not refer to how Pocahontas is viewed in Europe at the time? I do believe that the Europeans viewed her and marketed her as a Princess. This fact can stand alone regardless of what she was viewed as in her own society, because it was strictly the mistaken view of the Europeans at the time. Papabrow (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

pocahontas and her family

pocahontas had no family exseped her dad.

pocahontas and her family

pocahontas had no family exseped her dad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.78.172 (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

there is other indians better than pocahontas

if pocahontas didnt become famous she would be like all the other indians. there are a lot of indians with more interesting stories.really. sarah is the coolest in the world.and you know it you just dont want to show it.haha losers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.78.172 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Indian" is Correct Term; and John Smith Was a Liar

According to the AP (Associated Press) Stylebook, "Indian" is the correct term, not "Native American". This is because everyone immigrated here (the Indians about 10,000 years ago) and no race of humans developed here as a biological entity unto itself. So no one is a native American. And no, Pocahontas did not save John Smith's life. Smith was a liar and a braggart and made the story up, along with many other stories--there was a great article in the New Yorker magazine about this around five years ago and I can't remember the exact issue, but I'm sure someone can track it down. An interesting side note is that I was substitute teaching a fifth grade class here in California and there in the textbook it said that Pocahontas saved John Smith's life, so rather than tell the kids that their schoolbooks were full of lies I simply asked the girls if they would save my life if my head was on the chopping block, since they'd be the same age as Pochantas when she supposedly did it. The girls all had blank looks of confusion on their faces--the concept was completely beyond them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.14.65 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

REAL POCAHONTAS

Somewhere I should say that Pocahontas is a copied story (or inspired) by the British, 250 years later. Pocahontas it's the Juan Ortiz history . Please someone posts this information. I leave references. If anyone says anything I create an account I'll post it myself. Greeting.

http://www.floridahistory.com/inset444.html

http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/juanortiz.html

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30138217

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narváez_expedition

http://www.laterdude.com/node/74

note: Like 'El imperio donde nunca se pone el Sol' ,'Sun never set' english copied this phrase for Spanish's empire, three centuries later. Spanish empire was inspired by english. Wikipedia shoul be free and IMPARTIAL.

--Toni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.50.27 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History

Is anyone aware of this book? The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History, published in 2007.

To quote from the description, it is 'the first public publication of the Powhatan perspective that has been maintained and passed down from generation to generation within the Mattaponi Tribe, and the first written history of Pocahontas by her own people.'

As mentioned in a review of the book by Ted Glick, Pocahontas 'having endured kidnapping, confinement and rape at the hands of the English, was murdered on an English ship just as it was about to leave England and return to Virginia. '

Looks like something to seriously consider for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eilidh (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It (that specific source) has been discussed before, and did not meet consensus, since it appears to be WP:Fringe - like Ted Glick's webpage. TEDickey (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In another section discussing this book myself and one other expressed interest in adding a separate section of the article devoted to the oral history as presented in this book. Neither one of us has been able to take the time to actually do this though (I'm assuming on the other person's part here). I think that even though it is oral history it is just as valid as anything else, even if wikipedia does not recognize it as a valid source. I see nothing wrong with a separate section about the oral history because then the information will be out there and it will be made clear that it is based on one source about the oral history of the Mattaponi. Just my thoughts.Sarah1607 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That alludes to making Wikipedia a repository of knowledge - see WP:NOT TEDickey (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 130.71.214.241, 13 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} On the Pocahontas wiki article it says Indians instead of Native Americans. I feel this should be corrected since Pocahontas was not from India, but I do not know how to edit the page.

"Names At the time Pocahontas was born, it was common for the Algonquian-speaking Virginia Indians to be given several personal names. Bestowed at different times, the names carried different meanings and might be used in different contexts. It was not uncommon for Indians to have more than one name at the same time, to have secret names that only a select few knew, and to change their names on important occasions.[9]"

130.71.214.241 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: no consensus for this change, please see above discussion threads including Talk:Pocahontas#Virginia_Indian. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

THE TRUE

This one is the real history...

http://www.whatdoyaknow.com/History%20Class/Real%20Pocahontas/real_deal_with_pocahontas-index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Lead

I've expanded the lead per the MoS to reflect the contents of the entire article. Please don't revert. Thanks! NancyModugno (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article."

The colonists' attitudes

It seems that much of the confusion about Pocahontas's status is due to the fact that the earlier colonists had no experience with foreign cultures and tended to project their own social customs on the Native Americans. The chief ruled a lot of land by English standards, so he was a "King". A foreign king was often called by the name of his land, so he was "Powhatan". Pocahontas was his daughter, so she was a "Princess". John Smith may have understood that they were dealing with an alien political system, but he was not a typical colonist. CharlesTheBold (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Burial site clarification needed

There are two statements in the article that are at odds:

"Lead" section: She was buried in England, but her resting place is not known.

"Death" section: The site of her grave is underneath the church's chancel. Her memory is honored with a life-size bronze statue at St. George's Church by William Ordway Partridge.[56]

Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed this so it is more clear that her burial site in not known and why. Sarah1607 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Again, the lead says 'resting place unknown', but the infobox says 'resting place : St George's Church, Gravesend' VenomousConcept (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Death section has the clear statement (referring to St. George's in Gravesend): "The site of her grave is thought to be underneath the church's chancel, though since that church was destroyed in a fire in 1727 her exact gravesite is unknown." I've edited the lede to reflect that. -- Donald Albury 01:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Pocahontas's marriage to John Rolfe in 1614 was the first recorded interracial marriage in American history.[3] It is not correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.120.12.171 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mother

This article says "Her mother, whose name and specific group of origin are unknown, was one of dozens of wives taken by Powhatan" whilst First Families of Virginia says "She was the youngest daughter of Nonoma Winanuske Matatiske".

Which is correct? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

qq 2q

Unclear Dates

Near the start of the article we read: "c. 1595 – March 1617". What does that mean? You are uncertain of the date of her birth, it being anywhere from around 1995 to 1617? You mean she was born around 1595 and died in March of 1647, living only 24 years? (EnochBethany (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

It is well known and documented that she went to rest in March 1617. This means that her year of birth is estimated as 1595. This probably doesn't need any additional clarification, as the article should make that reasonably clear. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What's in a name rehash

According to Wiki guidelines shouldn't she be referred to as Rachel after she chose to change her name. Just check out the Chelsea (Bradley) Manning case. The title of the article uses the most commonly known name but the rest of the article uses the name (and gender) chosen by the person. Matoaka then Rachel could be used entirely through the article, especially since Pocahontas essentially means "little coquette". However, articles on historical figures like Caligula have used that name throughout despite the fact that he would have killed anyone who called him that, and his having had a name change when he became Emperor. In this case though, not using the name Rachel kind of denies the entire second half of her life. Unless someone can show that she had Stock(ade)home syndrome or something, that is. Has anyone thought about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.72.120 (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why should we call her "Rachel"? You must be confusing Rachel and Rebecca, and beyond that to know how our article naming policies work, you can learn about them at WP:COMMON. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me on both points. Yes, I meant Rebecca, and of course it makes common sense to use Pocahontas throughout so as not to confuse things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.72.120 (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Namesakes section

I'm curious how many other Pocahontases there are throughout history that the "Namesakes" section should be included in the article as opposed to being described on a disambiguation page. Just a thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Saving John Smith

A book I am reading states that the story is untrue, so I have added this reference to the led. The prior material in the section on the story appears to come to the same conclusion, but not so definitely.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How do they know the story is untrue???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of Pamunkey dispute?

I think the paragraph about the dispute over the ancestry of the modern Pamunkey tribe doesn't really belong in this article. As far as I know, the Pamunkey don't claim descent from Pocahontas; they claim that Pocahontas was Pamunkey. That claim could be placed elsewhere in the article, with appropriate sourcing. (The Pamunkey were indeed one of the tribes of the Powhatan Confederacy, but I don't know whether there is any evidence about which of the tribes Pocahontas' mother was from.) Today's Pamunkey claim descent from the historical Pamunkey; that is what MGM casinos are disputing, in their opposition to the Pamunkeys' bid for federal recognition. That's the dispute referenced in the Washington Post article, and it doesn't have anything to do with Pocahontas. Unless somebody can argue otherwise, I'll remove those sentences from the article. (The article could be used as a source for a statement elsewhere that the Pamunkey believe that Pocahontas was Pamunkey, presumably via her mother, but it would be better to find a source which says that directly.) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 15:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course the Pamunjey claim descent from Pocahontas. Not just that she was Pamunkey but that she is in all current members family trees. But most importantly, we do not care what you think in Boston. The article topic is Pocahontas and here we don't use "not relevant" as a cober for IDONTLIKEIT 172.56.34.163 (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in Connecticut, not Boston; but I was born and raised in Virginia. And the problem was not IDONTLIKEIT; it was that the dispute over whether the modern Pamunkey are descended from the historical Pamunkey has nothing to do with the section about people descended from Pocahontas. The WaPo article does say that the Pamunkey "claim Pocahontas as an ancestor", but that's a broad use of the term "ancestor". The actual claim is not "Pocahontas was my 9th great-grandmother", it's "Pocahontas was a member of the tribe from which I am descended." Those are different claims, and only the former belongs in the section about "Descendants".

I'm not averse to the article saying something about Pocahontas' legacy, and how it's used by Virginia Indians today. Such a section could very well include discussion of the Pamunkey and those who dispute their "Indian-ness", though I still think that dispute isn't really relevant to Pocahontas. But the "Descendants" section of the article should be about people who are actually directly descended from, or claim direct descent from, Pocahontas. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Pamunkey's application for federal recognition has been granted. There may (or may not) be a place on the Pamunkey page to discuss the claims made by those who opposed that recognition, but it's at the very least undue weight to mention those claims here. The most neutral way to present the connection to the Pamunkey is to follow the wording used by the NPR report on the recognition: that the tribe "counts Pocahontas among its members". We need not opine on whether Pocahontas was Pamunkey or belonged to some other tribe in the Powhatan Confederacy; nor need we mention any question of the legitimacy of today's Pamunkey. (And, to be clear, I don't doubt their legitimacy myself; I just don't think the question is remotely relevant to Pocahontas.)

I also changed the section heading from "Descendants" (as I've said before, the Pamunkey aren't, and don't claim to be, direct descendants of Pocahontas) to "Descendants and legacy", to better incorporate the mention of the Pamunkey. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)