Talk:Pocahontas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pocahontas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 30 days

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 20, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 5, 2010, April 5, 2017, April 5, 2019, April 5, 2022, April 5, 2024, and April 5, 2025.

Religion: Interfaith High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Indigenous peoples of North America High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia High‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

United States: History High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kent Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

Anthropology: Oral tradition High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

On 30 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Pocahontas to Matoaka. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Sardar, Ziauddin (1996-12-01). "Walt Disney and the double victimisation of Pocahontas". Third Text. doi:10.1080/09528829608576638.
Edgerton, Gary; Jackson, Kathy Merlock (1996-04-01). "Redesigning Pocahontas: Disney, the "White Man's Indian," and the Marketing of Dreams". Journal of Popular Film and Television. doi:10.1080/01956051.1996.9943718. ISSN 0195-6051.
d'Entremont, John (1995). "Review of Pocahontas". The Journal of American History. 82 (3): 1302–1305. doi:10.2307/2945279. ISSN 0021-8723.
Edwards, Leigh H. (1999). "The United Colors of "Pocahontas": Synthetic Miscegenation and Disney's Multiculturalism". Narrative. 7 (2): 147–168. ISSN 1063-3685.

The section covering the Disney version is VERY opinionated and VERY un-Wikipedia-like

It keeps going on and on about how harmful and offensive the movie is, even though many people (of all races) find it just OK. This isn't TV Tropes, we are supposed to present facts in an unbiased manner. Hell, the Disney Wiki is much less harsh towards the movie and the character, so the fact that this site has this very biased and un-encyclopedic section bothers me a great deal.

The whole section needs a rewrite badly. Just say that the Disney version exists and is popular, and leave it at that. Agustinaldo (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree a rewrite is needed - it reads like a school essay. But no doubt there has been some harsh criticism. There's better stuff, with refs, in the film's article.Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My issue ISN'T that "it reads like a school essay". My issue is that the entire section keeps saying "the movie is racist and insensitive". It goes opinionated and political instead of remaining neutral.

Saying something like "the movie exists, and some took issue with the movie" should be more than enough. Agustinaldo (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what has been said in reliable sources. If there has been substantial criticism of the content and tone of the movie in reliable sources, then we need to give such criticism due weight in the article. We are not supposed to either attack or defend Disney or the movie, we are supposed to summarize what reliable sources say. Donald Albury 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such substantial criticism does exist, but this does not address it in Wikipedia style. Criticism on wikipedia has always been written as "According to ________," or "In [name of work], [author] argues that..." etc, whereas this article just flatly states the opinions as its own.Yoyofsho16 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said - see the film article. The stuff here is an uncited student ramble. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a completely unsourced sub-section added by a single user being humored in the first place? Remove it. 2600:1702:6650:3430:A1FE:7C98:BE4B:D972 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Contemporary Media Portrayals of Pocahontas"

This entire section is just an essay. Its an essay. It talks about The Little Mermaid. Disney. But it has nothing to do with Pocahontas. It's just an essay someone wrote at the end to give their "final thought".

This is extremely unprofessional and, I would say "un-wiki like" but these types giving their political opinions on matters is sadly the norm now.

Itll probably be back up, but I deleted it. 2601:147:C101:D320:486E:D253:3F07:69D6 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, nvm, ai cant alter it. Indefinitely protected page. I guess the PHD student gets to keep his essay about Native American film portrayals in. Its not even about any current or upcoming portrayals! Its just a "what I think about Indigenous portrayals in film" essay!

This is one of the primary reasons why I stopped donating. Stuff like this is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C101:D320:486E:D253:3F07:69D6 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such melodrama! It is a bad section, but Wikipedia is chock-full of old locks and edits and weird sections. There are millions of articles, it is a mathematical certainty that things will be overlooked. If that is worth throwing the baby away with the bathwater when this is the only decent, principled website in the tech oligarch nightmare that the internet has turned into, then I can't say I agree with your moral compass or your ability to determine relativity. Yoyofsho16 (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it; my edit summary was "This is a valid opinion, but just that; it needs sources - and attributions to reputable commentators who hold that opinion, and should not be in Wikipedia's voice". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her real name?

Should she be referred to as Pocahontas if that's not her real name, but a nickname? 188.176.109.104 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME. A primary consideration in choosing a title for an article is what name is most commonly used in English language sources for the topic. In this case, that is overwhelmingly "Pocahontas". Donald Albury 14:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]