Talk:Havasupai/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs Expansion

The article needs major expansion and revision, for more comprehensive coverage and a more neutral tone.

For now, I've changed the name to "Havasupai," to match established usage, both popular and scholarly, also used by the tribe itself and by the government. To say that the name is a "mispronunciation" is like saying that the English word "French" is a mispronunciation of "Français" or that "Spain" is a mispronunciation of "España". In the English-language Wikipedia, the article on Spain is properly titled "Spain," and the article on the Havasupai properly should have that title. When and if the generally accepted convention becomes "Havasu 'Baaja," then of course Wikipedia should change to that.

The speech of the Havasupai is recognized (for instance, in the Handbook of North American Indians) as a dialect of Upland Yuman, not an independent language.

The snide reference to "voice-over talent" has been changed, for a more neutral encyclopedic tone. RhymeNotStutter 16:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of sentence

I deleted the sentence "The Falls is magical as most people say, we have had millons of tourists who have all said that they will remember this holiday for years to come." as it is poorly written and lacks any encyclopedic knowledge and is a POV. It also doesnt make sense in the context of the Havasu Falls section.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

most remote city

In doing a quick google search for "most remote city in america", an article came up that claims that Congress recognized Page as holding this title. I couldn't find a reference to Supai holding this distinction, so unless it gets cited, the reference should be removed. Murderbike 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[1] under the "Supai, Arizona" section states it is but i have been thinking about stating it is "one of the most remote cities in America" because it is subjective to a lot of things. So ill make the change. Thanks.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Current version states incorrectly that the town can only be accessed via 66 -> 18 -> hike. Somehow the helicopter option needs to be incorporated as an alternative.Kalvitz (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you were reverted because your wording suggested taking a helicopter to the trailhead, which is of course possible, but not an ordinary way of getting there. From the trailhead, one may get to Supai by foot, horse, or helicopter.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Feel free to suggest alternative wording to make it more clear.Kalvitz (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely redid this whole page

As a lover of Havasupai I almost threw up when I saw this page. This is my first real creation of a page. If there are any mistakes or if you think you can format it better, have fun. I just think this is a little more informative and looks better. I am an expert on Havasupai, having been down over 15 times and having lead group of over 50. feel free to message me if you have any suggstions or concerns.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think that this article should become an umbrella article over the whole Havasupai tribe and the stub titled Havasupai language should be merged into the Havasupai article. I also think that the article titled Waterfalls of the Havasupai Indian Reservation should either be deleted or "merged" with the Havasupai article since the Waterfalls of the Havasupai Indian Reservation is repetitive and it is not that good looking. Gonzo_fan2007 07:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I redirected Waterfalls of the Havasupai Indian Reservation to this page, as the previous one is totally repetitive and in bad form.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gonzo fan2007 -- you've done a lot of work here and the article is definitely improved. However, I have a couple of quibbles. First, nearly all references I've seen indicate that it's Havasu Falls, not Havasupai Falls. Second, your edits and subsequent elimination of the separate Waterfalls of... article has resulted in two images of Havasu Falls being eliminated, one of which is a featured picture here. Now obviously I'm a bit biased as I was the photographer on both of them, but ignoring aesthetic considerations, they were objectively higher resolution and were produced with better equipment. At the very least, the pic that was promoted as a featured picture in part because it was such a good illustration of Havasu Falls should be restored to the article. This is the featured picture: "Picture #1" "Picture #2"

-- Moondigger 23:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah really sorry about that. I made the Havasu_Falls_1a_md.jpg as the top photo in the infobox, and put the other pic in the Photos section. They are definitely good pictures and again I am sorry about that.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All in all it's not a big deal. I didn't want to just change it back if you had some particular line of reasoning that led you to change them, which is why I brought it up here. You might want to look into the Wiki licensing requirements w/r/t the Ken Baldwin pics, though. If you have any questions about Wiki-required licensing, I'll be happy to answer them. BTW, I do want to reiterate that I think you've improved the article content immensely with all your work on it. -- Moondigger 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I change Havasupai falls to havasu, i don think there is a huge difference but it probably is common usage as havasu. Heres the thing with the photos, the ones marked as Ken Baldwin are from him, and were given to me by him. he has no problem with me putting them up, but i didnt know which license to use. So if you have some suggestions please shoot them over and ill fix them.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007, there's another problem. It seems the images you uploaded were taken by "Ken Baldwin." You can't upload somebody else's pics and then mark them with licensing terms indicating "self" release into the public domain. Do you have Ken Baldwin's permission to upload these images? If so, you'll have to provide evidence of such and then change the licensing terms to something more appropriate. That's gotta be fixed, and soon... or they'll be deleted by an admin. -- Moondigger 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey i have to go but if you sned me the right tag for the pics i will have them up by tonight or tomorrow morning. I can get a letter from ken releasing the pics to me if necessary, i was trying to read up on what to do. Thanks for the help, and add anything to the article you deem fit. I just tried to pick my brain as much as possible.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs}

All the photos are tagged under the right license. If needed i can still get a letter of release, if there are any people who question or object to them. I uploaded some more photos that are mine.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs}

Forgive me as this is my first comment on a Wiki article and I'm not sure exactly how to go about it. Under the "Beaver Falls" heading, a reference to a small waterfall suitable for a shower is made, then it is further stated to make sure biodegradeable soap is used (for obvious reasons). I have visited Havasu Creek from the mainstem several times (I have hiked in from Hualapai Hilltop as well...). One point river rangers strongly make is that there is to be absolutely no bathing in any tributaries. My recommendation is to remove reference to the 'shower' and biodegradeable soap, and perhaps even the small waterfall near Beaver Falls as well. This tributary is one of the most heavily used in the whole Colorado in Grand Canyon, and the smaller the tributary, the higher the impact on it, and to mention this little attraction can easily lead to its demise. I did not know of this feature near Beaver Falls, and will certainly be looking for it on my next trip, and will also likely take some or all of my fellow travelers there as an example. Thanks for listening... Dono suave (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article

what happened to 10,000 falls? I have been coming to havasu since 1981 (5 times), but haven't seen these since my earliest times (1981- 1983). Navajo has changed, but 10,000, was earlier in the creek and not as spectacular, yet worthy of visit.

As a round trip from the camp ground, allow a whole day (dawn to dusk) for average hikers. Last trip, my husband and I did the hike without the stop at Beaver (both of us fit and under 30) to the Colorado. We had a great day of it. Campground friends of ours took the same hike and were not able to make it back that night. Please be aware of your abilities before embarking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.51.170 (talk • contribs) in turkish: hava(meaning:air)+su(meaning:water)=havasu. is this only a smilarity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.96.19 (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

New pics of falls after the 2008 flood

I have uploaed some new photos to the Commons of my recent trip to Havasupai. These photos show the massive changes Havasupai has endured. If someone feels like adding these photos to the article and making the proper updates, that would be much appreciated. I do not have the time or energy to do so. Here they are:

• 
  The first new waterfall
• 
  The second new waterfall
• 
  Navajo Falls dry
• 
  The new Havasu Falls
• 
  The new Mooney Falls

I have plenty of other photos, so if someone feels these aren't adequate or would like to see if I have another angle, please feel free to contact me. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Decided to do it myself. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was the Park Ranger at Havasu for the NPS 1971-72.

My name is David Montalbano and I was the NPS Ranger assigned to Havasu Canyon in 1971-72 during the period when the land return discussion was taking place. It was my opinion when I was directly asked by the Director of the National Park Service that the campground area land be returned to Havasupai for both moral and practical reasons. I worked with very little support from the NPS down there at that time and they were not committed to managing a complex area. With the remoteness of the area and what I observed was a lack or organization to actually "manage" a recreational area I had doubts about their ability to pull it off... but the NPS also had very little commitment so it was my opinion that NPS should return the area without a fight and let the Havasupai manage their own lands!

In the end the NPS did not fight the return and worked with the tribe to return the area.. the current write up makes it sound like the government was the enemy when in truth the NPS was trying to decide what to do with a situation they inherited and were poorly equipped to manage.

Living down there and working was an amazing experience that I shall always cherish in my retired years. I can be contacted at info@retiredlawmen.org . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentm244 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing history and culture

Why is there no mention of the havasupai culture before contact w the west? What was there technology, methods of warfare, primary enemies and allies, migration, and a whole lot more.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be a fair amount already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havasupai#Habitat . What's a lot more disconcerting to me is the plumping-up of this article with what looks like information you'd find in a brochure. I know tourism is important to the region, but descriptions of the surroundings of three trails (e.g., there are picnic tables!) is not encyclopedic knowledge, it's pointless minutiae (and it's certainly not history or culture). Vaaarr (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the length of the article and the precontact material provided for most indigenous peoples - not much.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems there's actually a lot of academic literature on the Havasupai, but little of it shows up here. Do you have a particular article you were looking to as a model for how much precontact information you think there should be? Vaaarr (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

History before western contact? Make something up that amounts to a romantacized story of a noble people doing no wrong whose whole existence was destroyed by people who actually recorded their actions so each generation did not repeat the mistakes of the last. Works for all the others, why change it? If this sounds disturbing or callous, maybe it's time for a reality check- the indigineous peoples of north america did not utilize the written word to record their histories, except for some cave paintings and similar artifacts, all we have is what each generation of old men told young braves at campfires then they told that to the Europeans who have catalogued all their evil deeds from murdering Julius Caesar to the Crusades and beyond. This is simplifying it, admittedly, and the PC police will surely attack me for tearing down a myth.they can do so, but I simply ask, show me their written word. a book. a tablet of drawings. anything. Ask Grampa if he ever got in trouble when he was a kid or how many times he had extramarital sex before he met grandma. Now imagine 30 generations of that intentinally clouded memory. Relevant to the article, it claims sustainable agriculture before the Europeans arrived, essentially impossible before the invention of the plow and taming of the hooved beast. But hey it sounds good, let's go with it... Batvette (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been down to Havasu canyon several times as a hiker (late 1960's). My particular point of interest was when I was talking to a local resident and he commented (paraphrasing here after 40 years I DO NOT remember exactly): The Havasupai settled in one fork of the canyon - essentially a paradise - and became the most peaceful of peoples. The Apache settled in the other fork - definitely NOT a paradise - and became the most warlike of people.

Now here's my point: The Havasupai did not keep the Apache from coming in and taking their land by passive resistance. They must have had warriors, and pretty good ones or the Westerners would be trying to learn of the Havasupai's simple existence by digging deep holes and carbon dating anything less than 50,000 years old and guessing about the rest.

Like all peoples, the Havasupai have quite a tale to tell. We can't tell it all in a Wiki article, but SOMETHING about their culture - the good and the bad - should be included.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Article needs editing

I've just added the {More footnotes} tag to the article. Many references are provided, but too frequently are not tied to specific statements in the article. I thought this tag was preferable to adding a dozen more {Citation needed} tags. Given the number of hard copy references, it may be difficult to clean this up -- at least it will be for me! Any volunteers?--Larry (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

How many acres?

The size of the Havasupai lands as specified in the article is questionable. No source is given for a size of 251,000 acres. It would appear this figure includes 90,000 acres overseen by the National Park Service, as described later in the article, but this too is unreferenced and uncertain. Moreover, a seemingly reliable online source -- the offical website of the Havasupai Tribe at http://www.havasupai-nsn.gov/ --says the reservation is 188,077 acres. Does anyone know from what source the article's statement are taken?--Larry (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's four hours of my life I won't get back ;-) . I've waded through government junk, and managed to find an online copy of the law referenced in the article as S. 1296. It was passed as Public Law 93-620, and may be found on the General Printing Office website. It's a multi-thousand page document saved as a PDF -- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88.pdf . Law 93-620 starts on page 2089. In short, the law set aside about 185,000 acres for a reservation, plus specified another 95,300 acres of GCNP as "Havasupai Use Lands." I'll work on changing the article to reflect this.--Larry (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I missed another reference to the number "251,000." In this case, the number is used to refer to the size of the Havasupai traditional lands. I haven't been able to find any confirmation of this, and it contradicts a cited reference elsewhere in the article that compares the lands to the size of Delware (more than twice 251,000 acres). This is my long winded way of saying I'm going to remove the number, and replace the reference with "their traditional lands."--Larry (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How many visitors per year

The article says that "The town receives an average of 12,000 visitors per year." However, it fails to provide a citation. I've found a different figure in one of the references listed in the article -- "I Am the Grand Canyon: The Story of the Havasupai People" Hirst, Stephen, Grand Canyon Association; 3rd edition (February 28, 2007). On page 18, it says there are 30,000 visitors per year. No source for this figure is provided.

Does anyone have any other sources, or know upon what either of the above figures is based? My gut says that 30,000 is probably a newer, more accurate number, but I can't seem to find the template for {cite gut}  ;-) --Larry (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Section 1882 - 1920

There's a statement in this section: "The order in effect relegated the Havasupai to a 518-acre (2.10 km2) plot of land in Cataract Canyon, leaving 90% of their aboriginal land for American public use." The 90% figure is completely in conflict with other figures in this article. If 90% were correct (and the Havasupai had 518 acres left), then their original acreage was 5,180 acres -- but as this article notes, it was actually hundreds of thousands of acres. The actual percentage would be 99% -- and then some! I'm going to remove the percentage, and replace it with "almost all."--Larry (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the population

Here's another messy area. Currently, the article lists three different numbers. The infobox says "about 750." Later in the article, it says "...approximately 600 in the current era." Still later, "it is home to around 500 of the tribe members." No sources are provided.

I've found some sources, but they disagree.

• The 2010 U.S. census says that the Supai CDP has 208 people.
• The Arizona Rural Policy Institute says (in article Demographic Analysis of the Havasupai Tribe, Using 2010 Census and 2010 American Community Survey Estimates) the population is 465.
• Hirst says (in I Am the Grand Canyon: The Story of the Havasupai People) "In 2006, the Havasupai census listed 684 persons of half or greater Havasupai ancestry. Of that number, 454 reside on the reservation."
• The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona says that 639 people are in the tribe. Not all are on the on reservation; no separate reservation-only figure is provided.

I'd like to change the article to say that the population on the reservation is about 450, and that the total tribe population is about 650. Opinions yea or nay?--Larry (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, no one has any opinions, so I've made the change.--Larry (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Havasupai people → Havasupai – This article was titled "Havasupai" from its creation on Sept 12, 2004 by Jfpierce. After almost seven years of stability at that title, it was moved by Kwami on May 17, 2011 from that title to the current on, without discussion or comment. As per closures of similar RMs in recent days by Cuchulainn and others, "consensus has spoken" that the people are the PRIMARYTOPIC, as stated by him here re the Northern Tutchone title. Guidelines such as Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) call for this move, as does WP:Conciseness and WP:Precision, and more Skookum1 (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. In cases where the requested move simply eliminates the word "people", and the destination title is already a simple redirect to the current title, it is clear that guidelines favoring both precision and conciseness support the move. Xoloz (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is the DNA research case not yet covered?

I could find no information about this case on Wikipedia - has this information been integrated? It is a major issue with international and historical implications.

• Harmon, Amy (21 April 2010). "Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA". The New York Times. New York: NYTC. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 23 August 2012.
• http://www.whoownsyourbody.org/havasupai.html

I might be interested in developing this if someone would work a little with me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Another reference for this subject in case someone develops this out: http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/08/15/is-the-havasupai-indian-case-a-fairy-tale/ Pengortm (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added a "skeleton article", as it were, under "History". If you would like to flesh it out a little, it would be much appreciated.

--Kurt von Hammerstein (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Havasupai/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Some content but really only a stub; needs full expansion and separation of people/language articles --Skookum1 (date unknown) The section on the tribal documentary is simply horrible. From what I can see the article is in worse shape now than when it was previously reviewed... --Miskwito 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I graded this as B-Class. It needs more references and in-line citations, and a culture section. I will try to add those and then I will change the grade to A-Class. Then I will do a request for peer-review, and then on to the good-article and fa-class. Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)