Talk:Nipmuc

	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.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).

Moved from "Nipmuck" to "Nipmuc" edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Note that although the Federal government used the spelling "Nipmuck" in the decision described herein, the "Nipmuc" spelling is more used by members of the group themselves (as evidenced by the flag illustrated in this article. Likewise, search engine hits for "Nipmuc" greatly outnumber those for "Nipmuck". - House of Scandal (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nipmuc vs. Massachusett edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has a ton of information. (Parenthetically, I find Wikipedia's grading of articles clearly wrong. As of 3-19-2017, it's graded "C" in quality. It is anything but. Was the grade issued prior to subsequent edits?)

But one issue is garbled: Were the 17th century Natick Indians Massachusett or Nipmuc?

Since the figure caption says the Natick were the first Praying Indians, it is an all-important issue. Presently the article says, first, that today's Natick descendants are of both extractions. But that's not the issue under discussion. Of what extraction were the 17th-century Natick? Two, farther down it says, without a referent, that Natick was "Also [sic] settled by the Massachusett". What other tribe is implied by "also"? The Nipmuc? I can't seem to find it. For that matter, how is it possible that a single event, settlement of Natick, was done jointly by two different tribes? I can't think of any source saying Natick wasn't settled by a single group, the Nonantum Indians.

(Arguably you need to reverse order of discussion as well. Move all talk of today's descendants—"Divisions or bands"—to the bottom. As well, the article's otherwise excellent sectional breakdown into 18th/19th/20th centuries is missing section '21st century'. All talk about today's Indians might then be collected there.)

What were to become the Natick Indians lived originally in Nonantum, part of today's Newton—which by the map illustrated is solidly in the region of the Massachusett, the tribe surrounding Massachusetts Bay. Under Eliot's tutelage they were evicted from Nonantum and resettled in what is now South Natick. But what was their identity in Nonantum? Massachusett? Nipmuc? Explain. Note that the Wiki article on their representative, Waban (an incomplete stub), says he was of the Nipmuc "group" (BTW, is that a valid term?). That fact, if true, is germane.

Final clarification of the issue might also be iterated in the article on the Massachusett.

(BTW, judging by the map illustrated, the Nipmuc/Massachusett boundary seems approximately to slice though today's Framingham. Since that's the very town west of Natick, we get little resolution of the issue there.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlue (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nipmuc. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140609200103/http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc-001549.pdf to http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc-001549.pdf

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) 23:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic