Talk:The Last of the Mohicans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is considerable confusion about Mohican vs. Mohegan terminology, as can be seen on the Mohican page, but there's no reason to bring it onto this page, too. The book cals them Mohicans - switching to older/newer/perhaps more authentic terminology halfway through the article just confuses the reader. - DavidWBrooks 03:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Hi.
-
- Yes, there has been confusion between the terms in less scholarly work. But, I think it would be better to not perpetuate the confusion. We now have a much better knowledge of some of the different indigenous groups, so we dont need to conflate these two anymore. I think that since "Mohican" has been used to refer to 2 different peoples, we should use the names "Mohegan" & "Mahican" for their respective groups as these terms have not been used with quite as much confusion.
-
- Yes, switching terms is confusing. I was just blindly changing what links to Mohican. I have added a little parenthetical note.
-
-
- Yes, that seems fine to me. - DavidWBrooks 11:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
Contents |
[edit] Inaccurate title?
I removed the statement that the title is inaccurate; the Mahicans were moved from their lands, Christianized, their language is extinct, and they're not even called Mahicans anymore (they're Stockbridge Indians to everyone but anthropologists). Generally speaking, the loss of homeland, religion, language, and name is sufficient to define the end of a cultural group. Chingachgook and Uncas were the last true Mahicans remaining in their native land with their langauge and their religion; after Uncas died, Chingachgook was the last. Kafziel 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stub?
I don't think I would categorize this as a stub. It's been around for years, it's had plenty of editors work on it, and it's a pretty good length. Maybe not featured article quality, but not a stub, either.
Still, to be fair, I just changed the stub type from "Western" (which it certainly is not) to "Historical fiction", which (though somewhat vague) fits much better. I'm only going to leave it on for a short time, though; if anyone feels this fits the description of a stub, please explain why. Kafziel 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're correct: Not a stub. - DavidWBrooks 14:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blood brothers
Is it true that Bumppo and Chingachgook are blood brothers? If so, it should be mentioned in the article Blood brother. --Abe Lincoln 17:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone else been noticing that titles of pages in wiki are becoming hyperlinks??? Ive noticed a few today...when you refresh the page, they go away! WHAT THE **** User:theprivateer83 22 July 2006 19:50
[edit] Confusingly worded sentence
This sentence doesn't seem to read well to me, and I suspect it could be broken into two sentences to improve the readability (if I understand its meaning correctly).
"Purportedly, this was supposed to be a novel of the American Indians, and not a tale of romantic relationships that Cooper had found dissatisfactory and prompted him to begin his writing career."
Does it mean that he found contemporary books about romantic relationships and authored by others dissatisfactory? Would it read better if it was re-written and split into two sentences? "Purportedly, this was supposed to be a novel of the American Indians. He was dissatisfied with contemporary tales of romantic relationships, and this spurred him to begin his writing career." 71.112.11.120 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] HAVING SEX
poopy poopy pooped in the ****ing toilet and mr.hanky came out of his ***. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.13.167 (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] 1992 Michael Mann film
The main character of the 1992 film does indeed have the name Hawkeye. I'm deleting the sentence that says his name was changed "to avoid confusion with the M*A*S*H character".