From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Popular Culture[edit]

Does Wikipedia consider all contemporary novels to be pop culture/trivia? To me, Carlin's novels seems to be a very literary multicultural origin myth, and it gave wider prominence to a small, region-specific group of people. The categorization isn't a big deal to me, but i was curious to know more about the rationale.

--Hickoryhillster (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The comment in this topic states that it is fictional (it's not part of the topic itself, so it would have to be in a section to delimit it from the topical content). It doesn't give a pointer to something that would provide enough information (short of acquiring the book) to see if it is notable in itself. So it's simply a stray comment that someone added. If the book were notable, and there was a verifiable plot summary which demonstrated that the connection to this topic was substantial, then one might construe that as an "In literature" section. Most popular culture entries don't do that... Tedickey (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
A review of the novel in the LA paper did say it treated the multicultural issues seriously, conveyed the colonial world, and was well-researched, so it does have a substantive link to the topic.--Parkwells (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This article...[edit]

This article isn't even stub-class. It has about two actual sentences, and those are the introduction. The rest is just "popular culture" references, which, when I last checked, was not enough to merit article status. This article should either be deleted entirely or made a subsection of the Charles County, Maryland article or some article involving different subsets of mixed-race peoples.

Term considered derogatory[edit]

His point, as a member of one of the families mentioned in this article, is that they consider the term offensive. He asked that we remove the article, but I pointed out that we have entries on all sorts of terms that are considered offensive - as well we should - and in part we should so that we can point out to interested people that the terms are considered offensive. He sent me one link to a source suggesting that the term is offensive, and I found another one. I'm not really happy with the sourcing, but this is a fairly obscure topic and I'm not finding a lot of good sources. There are apparently no newspaper articles (that I have found) or similar, discussing that the name is considered offensive. It is unclear to me how many people are or have been in the past regarded as part of this cultural sub-group, nor how many of them find the word offensive, etc. I hope we can do better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post published a definitive article on the Wesorts sometime in the 1970s. It appeared in The Montreal Star. It, too, listed surnames such as Proctor and Swann. In fact, I have a good memory of an accompanying photo of a family named Proctor -- father, mother, two teenagers. The article was written by Bob Woodward, presumably the same Bob Woodward who went on to Watergate fame in later years. (I have that article, but I have no idea where it exactly is.)

Dave Pinto, Montreal (Canada)

Discussion that was put into the article - moving it here[edit]

The word "Wesorts" does not have a hyphen.

Wesorts is a well-respected term among people whom are descended from a group of Native Americans in Maryland who are from the Piscataway tribe. Piscataways have always claimed to be Native Americans in the United States.{See the Catholic Encyclopedia.}

The Piscataway were powerful at the time of European encounter, presiding over the entire Chesapeake Bay area. (See Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Individuals with the surnames Proctor, Newman, Savoy, Queen, Butler, Thompson, Swann, Gray and Harley, claim that Native heritage. Their appearance suggests a mixture of European, Native American and African ancestry.

Those Piscataways who believe themselves to be of pure-Indian stock, do not use the term "Wesort".{See However those members of the Piscataway Tribe who proudly recognize themselves to be of mixed bloodlines, use the term "Wesort" to respectfully distinguish themselves from the "pure" Piscataways, and to mean "our sort" of mixed-race, mulatto-Indian people. However, it is fully understood by both factions of the tribe that Wesorts are part of the Piscataway Indian Nation. (See

In addition to being derived from the Piscataway Indians, Wesorts are also derived from the Cherokees Indians who originated in Georgia before being moved during the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma and North Carolina.

They are additionally derived from other Chesapeake Bay Indians like the Powhatans of Virginia which include the Mattaponi, and Pamunkey tribal groups, and that is where the meaning has significance, meaning "we sort" of Indians which come from various Indian tribes.{See Catholic Encyclopedia.Brownby (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tedickey and Jimbo. This user Brownby - aka Thomas Ford Brown is NOT piscataway like he has claimed in a previous posting he has done. He has no real knowledge of Piscataways. Piscataways NEVER claimed to be mixed race, mixed tribes, NEVER called themselves wesorts. It's very apparent that Brownby has a personal grudge against Piscataways. He really needs to get a life before he gets banned from making edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

However, we're looking for reliable sources, in particular excluding attacks on other editors Tedickey (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please work on consensus here[edit]

I would like to ask that the edit warring - going back and forth from "derogatory" to "respectful" cease entirely. It is neither helpful nor appropriate.

I would like for us to have a thoughtful discussion here about the status of the name, with as much reference to reliable sources as possible. There are clearly two people here (Brownby and Coolpat22) with very different views on the matter. I'd like for both of them to identify their relationship to the topic and why they feel so strongly about it.

To me, the solution seems obvious: the name is, self-evidently, considered offensive by some people. The name is, equally, also used as a proud self-label by others. If I am wrong, please correct me. The point, at Wikipedia, is not for us to decide which of those sides is right or wrong, but to be sure that we have the facts straight. Reliable sources are what we need, and unfortunately they are scarce in this context.

Nevertheless, we ought to be able to work together in good faith to find a compromise presentation of the issue that satisfies all the current editors. That will only happen through thoughtful and respectful discussion here, not through edit-warring on the article itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In the early 1930s, weekend-farmer Alice Ferguson...[edit]

None of that paragraph appears topical, since neither it, nor the supporting link (which is dead at the moment) mentions We-Sorts or Wesorts Tedickey (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the paragraph has no relationship to the Wesorts article - it might not even belong in the Piscataway article. Paulburnett (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The aforementioned section holds absolutely no relevance to the topic as hand - yours, Jim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We-Sorts or Wesorts?[edit]

Wesorts is mentioned in the article as an alternate name to We-sorts, however, all of the cited sources use Wesorts and not We-Sorts. This appears to be one of the issues that user:Brownby has with the article as it stands. I would like to suggest that the article be renamed Wesorts, I hope that that will convince Brownby to start editing constructively here. Quasihuman (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the African connection?[edit]

This article is included in lots of Black-related categories, and it state that the wesorts "claimed" to by Indians. But there words "Black" or "African" do no appear anywhere in the article. Very confusing. Does this mean that there is evidence that the Wesorts were (are) Black or mixed race? Why isn't this dicussed in the article? --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 22:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no black connection. People assume that there is. People are trying to deny their native american heritage. Alot of people seem to forget there was people here before white and black people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The Wesorts most assuredly do have an African connection - anybody who has seen them can see this. User has hijacked this article with his/her Piscataway-only material. See the 1946 Gilbert article I just added as an external link. Paulburnett (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Piscataway tribe[edit]

Why is We-Sorts an article? If it's a derogatory term for Piscataway tribe, why doesn't it redirect to that article with a mention of the term. Does it refer to any people that aren't in the Piscataway tribe?? -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

There was a redirect to the article that wesort is a derogatory name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)