Talk:Mashantucket Pequot Tribe

Connecticut Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I am a Pequot, and I am very proud to be one and to be owning a casino and a museum that displays some of our culture!

                                -Bright Eyes

Book link[edit]

I don't understand why a user keeps removing the link to the book "Hitting the Jackpot: The Inside Story of the Richest Indian Tribe in History". Could you please explain why you wish to remove this information from the encyclopedia? Rhobite 04:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

One can only say that the problem with these books is that they are used to raise issues with not just one group but Indian Country as a whole. If you are to post links to these books why not post books and articles that show the benefits of Indian Gaming to not only Indian Country but the communities that exist within the areas of Indian-owned casinos. Not only that... the books you refer to are known propaganda tools. There are facts in those books.. however, the authors have written them to such a degree as to say "We should terminate these Historical Tribal Governments." Hitler had the same idea about the Jews. Matt Bigos- A Schaghticoke Indian

Fine you keep your links... and I raise you 4. Nighty-night.

As a descendent of German immigrants I am really really tired of having Hitler dragged out as a devil-figure at every opportunity. It trivializes what happened to the Jews, disabled of all races in Germany, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, and assorted other "undesirables". Hitler took action on what was common opinion at the time; if my Polish ancestors hadn't been pretty people, and let into the United States by the screeners at Ellis Island (who could tell undesirables just by looking at them - Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man) - I wouldn't be here to object to the bugaboo being waved in our faces by someone unfamiliar with Hitler or the people at Mashantucket.

The book link being argued about presents a counterweight to the general tone of the article. I grew up in Ledyard. I don't know what happened to the founder of the people at Mashantucket in his school, but in ours the history of what happened at the Pequot fort and afterwards was told completely and simply, with no coloring one way or another. I witnessed the "gathering" of the "tribe". The book is about that one group -- who bought their identity with Malay Chinese money -- and not about any of the people who were here when the English came. Necia1127 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This article suffers from substantial non NPOV writing. I just reverted some edits that had been made and summarized some stuff that seemed way to lengthly. For instance Benedict's claim regarding the tribe was given a single line and was edited to include the POV phrase "unsubstantiated heresay against the Mashantuckets." Laurence Hauptman's response was given a large separate paragraph and seven sentences. That's just unbalanced. I do think that Hauptman's comments should be put into a separate article that links from here as there was some good information in there that still warrants inclusion into its own article. zimmhead 15:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Parkwells made some fantastic changes to this article, but he added back in all the NPOV stuff having to do with Benedict's book. It's simply not fair to put a single sentence about Benedict's book against 10 full sentences about criticisms of his claims. Especially when most of the rebuttals were to Benedict claims that were not even listed in the article. At a bare minimum a more thorough listing of some of Benedict's claims should be listed along with their critiques. That said, this is an article on The Mashantucket Pequots and not an article on Benedict's book. A separate article is probably warranted for the book and all the claims and counter claims should be left out of this article. Personally I think the changes I made are reasonable. (i.e. a simple one line sentence that Benedict makes claims doubting the genealogy of the current tribe along with two counter-claims disputing Benedict.) zimmhead 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimm0who0net (talk • contribs)

Chairman[edit]

I just removed this sentence from the 'Chairman' section: "because sandra is better than you oh yo" Because....well, it has absolutely no reason to be there. Rock on Sandra, see ya. 131.107.0.112 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foxwoods[edit]

On the Foxwoods page, it says the casino is the fourth largest in the world. Here, it says second largest. Which one is correct?72.78.166.2 (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land area[edit]

The land area of 2.17 square miles that is reported in the 2000 Census files is equal to 1388.8 acres. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mashantucket Pequot Reservation[edit]

There has recently been back-and-forth changes of two redirects, at Mashantucket Pequot Reservation and Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation, to redirect to this article about the tribe and reservation, or to redirect to Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District. This relates to decision on a requested move at Talk:Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District which was closed in favor of keeping two separate articles, at least until reliable, citeable sources are uncovered. Could discussion be here, about which target article is going to be the place where the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation will be described (and hence where the redirects should go)? doncram (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation is a well-defined place. I've inserted (into this article) a link to one of the several reservation maps available at census.gov, and I verified the land area on census.gov. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for where the article should go, for most Native American tribes that have reservations, there are separate articles for (1) the tribe and (2) the reservation (or each reservation, in the case of tribes with more than one). I'm not familiar with the theory that says there must be one article for both topics. --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it is not my "theory" if it is anyone's, that there must be one merged article. I don't have a position on splitting it or not. But this article has long been about both the tribe and the reservation, including a geography section describing the reservation with bolded name Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation. Recently, to clarify, I moved that bolded title up to the top. I have, however, resisted renaming the related NHL article to being "Mashantucket Pequot Reservation", in part because it would then be confusing with respect to this tribe-reservation article). doncram (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]