Talk:Native Americans in the United States

Lede reverts

@Oncamera: it's the lede, which is a summary of the body of the article. The article mentions that "epidemic disease (e.g. smallpox) was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the Native Americans", which is appropriately sourced, so this is an entirely valid addition. Please revert your edit. Willbb234 23:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No. It should be written without editorializing or synthesizing sources per WP:NPOV.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

How was that done? You're making things up at this point. Willbb234 01:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You've been reverted twice, consensus isn't with you on your edits.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Oncamera. I would like to add that, of the five references given (80-84) for this in the "Impact" section, none actually say that there is consensus that infectious diseases were the primary cause of the decline of Indigenous populations. Most of these references refer to random case examples like epidemics among Blackfoot or Taino populations. This is therefore WP:SYNTH. Aufderheide 1998 p.205 is the most comprehensive citation, but even they say that estimates of mortality and population size widely vary. The PBS citation merely credits smallpox with the speed of the Mesoamerican conquest.

In light of more recent work demonstrating that so-called "virgin soil epidemics" were anything but it may be time to adjust this part of the article. It is now clear that the role of virgin-soil smallpox outbreaks to Indigenous mortality was over-estimated, and that where great outbreaks occured, they were often not inseparable from the other contributing causes, particularly warfare. The idea that virgin-soil outbreaks were the central contributing cause to Indigenous mortality is by no means consensus. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay seeing as we really want to go down this route, which is a complete waste of our time, here are some of the sources which state that the disease played a significant role, and most likely was the main factor, in the decline of Native populations:

• [1], Broad agreement exists on two issues: contact has generally been followed by a long and pronounced demographic recession and high mortality – determined by exposure to new diseases – has been a prominent cause of the recession. But agreement ends here: the debate is still unresolved on the level of pre-contact population, the speed of the decline, and the weight of factors other than epidemic mortality which led to demographic collapse. Disease is defined as the cause of the high mortality here.
• [2] When the Europeans arrived, carrying germs which thrived in dense, semi-urban populations, the indigenous people of the Americas were effectively doomed. They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans.
• [3]*The first was the period of introduced acute contagious diseases that swept through otherwise healthy populations, bringing unprecedented mortality to the communities affected by them., The Cree people of the Saskatchewan parklands did not experience their virgin soil outbreak of smallpox until the 1780s. So many died that the existing band structure of the region buckled.
• [4] Dobyns's response, in part, has been to argue that the disease epidemics that followed in the wake of European contact with American Indians - including smallpox, influenza, measles, bubonic plague, diphtheria, typhus, and (later) cholera - were so devastating that " the aborigines collectively could not have survived" unless the population at contact were as large as he suggest. His calculations show that "a serious contagious disease causing significant mortality invaded North American peoples at intervals of four years and two and a half months, on the average, from 1520 to 1900." Some of these epidemics, which Dobyns calls "the true shock troops with which the Old World battered the New," spread across the entire continent. "Yet," he adds, "the relatively long intervals between invasions by the same disease prevented Native Americans from acquiring much immunity for well over three centuries. " Thus, the same disease returned again and again, driving the native population down at a nearly extermination-level rate, as a consequence, again like most such contagions among the American Indians, the Hawaiians had no immunity to these and other epidemic infectious diseases when they were introduced. Thus, as with other so-called "virgin soil" populations, the new diseases wreaked havoc almost immediately upon first contact, While epidemic and endemic diseases certainly caused high levels of death during the era of the great population collapse, the unwavering downward trajectory of the population was in fact principally a secondary consequence of the newly-introduced diseases : low birth rates and high infant mortality rates were the primary cause
• [5] The repeated outbreak of influenza, measles and smallpox had a devastating effect on Canada's indigenous population. Indeed, seventeenth century observations suggest that deaths from these diseases resulted in a decline of between one-half and two-thirds of the Aboriginal population of eastern North America during the first one hundred years of European contact. Just noticed that this talks about Canada, but is still relevant.
• [6] Following the earliest explorers, however, a decimating illness that may have been smallpox reportedly killed 90 percent of the Indians along the Massachusetts coast from 1617 to 1619. Another smallpox epidemic arose in the populations near Plymouth Colony in 1633, killing twenty immigrants from the Mayflower and whole tribes of Indians. Enormous epidemics soon swept westward, inflicting terror and mass death among tribes along the Great Lakes: the Hurons and the Iroquois were especially hard hit
• And some articles such as 1837 Great Plains smallpox epidemic, 1775–1782 North American smallpox epidemic (I know they're not RS, but still have sources and figues for your consideration).
• Meanwhile, warfare, which you have mentioned cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians. The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the number given ... Fifty percent additional would be a safe estimate. This is from 1789 to 1891. It appears, from what I have read, that disease accounted for a significantly larger numbers of deaths than that of warfare, such that warfare would certainly be considered a "contributing factor" to the decline.

Ok so there's plenty of evidence. I have a feeling that both of you are trying to push some kind of POV here, ignoring evidence and instead trying to put the blame on to European colonisers. Sure, they did have a significant direct impact, but it's clear that disease was the leading cause of the population decline. Oh and as you'll note, I've backed up my argument with evidence and sources, unlike someone else who thinks they can make general, ungrounded statements and then fuck off without a care in the world. Willbb234 12:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Your method of communication is very hostile and coming out of no where since no one is responding to you in such a heated manner. Also the sources you shared say it's because of European contact that these diseases were spread. The way you are rephrasing it makes it seem as if the diseases were active without European contact. You accuse us of pushing some agenda when your own sources say it's due to European contact and colonizers.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 13:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I've never suggested that the diseases came about without European contact. Where on earth did you get that impression? Stop ignoring my comments and the real discussion here. Willbb234 13:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The edit in question also has nothing to do with how the diseases arrived or the manner in which it spread. It regards the effect which the diseases had on the native populations relative to other factors. Willbb234 13:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234, Oncamera and Hunan201p are correct and I agree with their thoughts expressed above. Please stop edit warring and changing the article to your preferred version. WP is a collaborative project and decisions are made through the process of consensus. At this time, consensus is not with you. Netherzone (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I was the one to initiate discussion on the talk page and I only made a single revert. Hardly an edit war if you ask me. Your comments make no sense. Willbb234 13:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS.; While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Netherzone (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion isn't regarding the inclusion of new material, just the clarification of existing material. And you'll also notice that I am finding consensus. I don't need you to tell me what to do, that's just rude. Willbb234 14:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not being rude. However many of the comments you have made towards those who disagree are rude. For example: You're making things up at this point.; a complete waste of our time; both of you are trying to push some kind of POV here; ignoring evidence; unlike someone else who thinks they can make general, ungrounded statements and then fuck off without a care in the world.; Stop ignoring my comments; Your comments make no sense.

This type of communication is not the best way to collegially establish consensus with your fellow editors on a collaborative project. Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Holy moley. @Willbb234 kindly chill out. Consensus is not with you. Please be respectful. I agree with Oncamera, Hunan201p and Netherzone in keeping the intro as it is. I'm not sure where the consensus is that you mention upthread in regard to your changes. I do not see anyone in agreement with the changes you made. Perhaps if you tone it down a little people would be inclined to have a discussion with you. I for one am not willing to talk with a person who is hostile and throwing f-bombs. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

A little late but I agree with the majority here. There is no reason to change what the lead says. Often whether someone is willing to have a discussion or continue a discussion is based on the perception of how the other side in the discussion is approaching it. Willbb234's approach almost from the start is one of combative resistance to what is being explained to them and a less than collegial response to not getting their way in the discussion. I encourage them to take a step back. It is so easy to become offended and to lash out, after all, we're all human. Take some breath's. Walk away for a while.

In regards to consensus, I believe, but could be wrong, they believe they are finding consensus among sources but that's not how consensus on WP works. It is consensus among contributors, editors, and the community. --ARoseWolf 20:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe a number of users are engaged in tendentious editing.

It is clear (already in the body!) that Willbb234 is attempting to summarize material with good support.

The core claim is, "disease was the leading cause of the population decline" and it is well sourced.

Wikipedia discussions aren't votes. @Oncamera has violated policy numerous times in edit warring. I worry that this page has declined in quality due to a lack of attention from careful editors and an abundance of attention from less careful editors. DenverCoder19 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Learn what the WP:consensus process is about instead of making personal attacks.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But how 108.248.80.39 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The use of "Indians" in the lede

Truong Gia Bao112 has been insistent on the inclusion of "Indians" in the lede of this article, replacing "First Americans", despite six different editors disagreeing and reverting them multiple times. They have refused to acknowledge the warnings on their talk page or enter into discussion with other editors about their edits. They also refuse to leave any kind of edit summary. This section was added pursuant to normal Dispute Resolution policy in an attempt to resolve this dispute and allow them the opportunity to explain their edits so the community to evaluate the merit of the edits within this article. --ARoseWolf 16:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) --edited 16:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"Indians" is a well-sourced term. DenverCoder19 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Indians" was and is also accepted by multiple tribes. 152.131.15.115 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Opinion: Distinguish tag worth it?

For readers accustomed to the term American Indian, what's the opinion on using "not to be confused with: Indian Americans" (distinguish: Indian Americans)? My thought was that while the article is easy to find, it may be of interest for some readers. Thoughts? KnowTheManyHistories (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that is only appropriate on the Indian Americans page itself. No one is confusing the title "Native Americans" with "Indian Americans." If the title were American Indians, that would be wise. American Indian already serves as a disambiguation page for that purpose. PersusjCP (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clairification, much appreciated. KnowTheManyHistories (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Smallpox blankets controversy

I removed unsourced material claiming that the United States used "biological warfare" against Native Americans. This enduring myth is largely a product of scholars like Ward Churchill, whose work has been debunked.

There is no evidence that Europeans intentionally spread smallpox among Native Americans. The only possible instance is a letter discussing a plan to do so, without evidence that it was carried out. Further, the plan would likely have failed because the method was unlikely to be effective.

Like Covid, smallpox is primarily spread through respiratory transmission. While it is theoretically possible to spread via objects like blankets, it can only be done in limited circumstances in a narrow time window of the disease progression, like Covid, and so it is very unlikely. See Siege of Fort Pitt.

DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll need sources for your claims.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in fact there are, as you can see on the page for Siege of Fort Pitt and Ward Churchill. DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't sources. Be serious here.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply. The Wikipedia articles, of course, contains citations, organized helpfully according to each claim. DenverCoder19 (talk) DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oncamera, when a good point is made, you ignore it.

This is not engaging in discussion. You are raising irrelevant points and then disappearing.

Unlike you, I will not keep edit warring. This is the reason this page is poor quality now, especially the lede.

Please stop edit warring. DenverCoder19 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no edit war unless two or more people are engaged in it. You have already been told that Wikipedia articles can not be sources for other Wikipedia articles. If that article cites sources that support your views then you go to that article and specifically cite those sources here. Don't tell other editors to find sources which support your viewpoints. --ARoseWolf 12:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

First, you seem to be saying that oncamera is edit warring. Second, it is perfectly possible for there to be only one edit warring editor: I keep stopping right at the point where it would be edit warring, and oncamera keeps repeatedly adding changes. That's edit warring.

You misunderstand: the burden is on the person attempting to add content to support it. I have pointed out that this contradicts well-sourced statements elsewhere on Wikipedia. The burden is now on oncamera to gain consensus to add the change. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oncamera has added a statement without citations ("genocide") and now claims I need citations in order to remove it. First, he must gain consensus to add it. Second, I do not need citations in order to removed unsourced material. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want citations, here: DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Barras, V.; Greub, G. (June 2014). "History of biological warfare and bioterrorism". Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 20 (6): 497–502. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12706. PMID 24894605.
• Calloway, Colin G. (2006). The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America. Oxford University Press. pp. 66–75. ISBN 978-0-19-530071-0.

These are very reliable, and match with the sources cited by you, which mention Fort Pitt as the only instance with direct evidence that smallpox may have been spread, but not that it was attempted or, if attempted, that it worked. 16:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The second link returns an error and the first link confirms smallpox blankets were used as biological warfare. You are attempting WP:Original Research to use that source in your argument to claim otherwise. It actually supports what's currently written in the article. And we have a whole article called Native American genocide in the United States with numerous sources calling it a genocide so go mark that article for deletion and see where that gets you; the man Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide used it to describe what happened to Native Americans by colonists. Also, you need to sign at the end of your posts.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I modified and added material about the 'weaponization' of diseases and another citation -- I should have checked here first. There appears to be sufficient scholarly sources to establish that European-Americans attempted to weaponize diseases, possibly a few times, but there is no way to prove that it was effective. There is likely a better way of phrasing it than what I used, and the entire sentence has become unwieldy. But, it seems noteworthy enough to relate that the desire or intention to use disease to weaken Native Americans was expressed and apparently attempted, while there is uncertainty about it actually working. WmLawson (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed unsourced material

I check the citations in the paragraph "There are a number of documented cases where diseases were deliberately spread among Native Americans" and they failed verification. If you believe this is well supported (a number being 3+), discuss here, and point out where in the citations you believe the statement is supported. I find no such quotes. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Idologically biased

Article starts by pointing the finger to european settlers. 72.12.174.222 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there an alternative history for this that has been established by some trustworthy sources? Or, are you just suggesting reordering the article to discuss this later in the text as opposed to near the top? I could see it as reasonable to do the latter, but there is quite a lot of established history and narrative with what you are apparently protesting, and I do not think there is an alternative theory that anyone has particularly posited that would negate that.WmLawson (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This page seems to be a target for vandals

Maybe it should be edit-protected. Emdosis (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Is disambiguation of currency appropriate here?

"The Native American arts and crafts industry brings in more than a billion in gross sales annually." A billion what? It seems obvious that they mean USD, but even the source doesn't disambiguate, so I'm hesitant to change it.

Is it reasonable to assume they mean USD? Infectedfreckle (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Change name of the title?

I am not American Indian and not speaking on behalf of any person.

I think the Title Should be changed to American Indians instead of the current "Native Americans in the United States".

1. the US official term for the Tribal community within its borders is American Indians, as can be seen in examples like: "Bureau of Indian Affairs".

2. I understand the Idea of being "politically correct" but also using the term Native Americans is on the other hand too inclusive, and it seems there is no widely accepted preference tips

3. Even though this naming is linked to colonialism and the colonialists ignorance, it became through the hundred of years a widely known and accepted term, with a lot of American Indians using this term themselves.

4. linked to 3 -> Papua New Guinea name is also from ignorance of colonialists linking West Africa people to the people there because they have similar skin color, but the name stays the same. (some will argue that the name Guinea itself is not appropriate).

5. by this wiki page it seems that: "A 1995 U.S. Census Bureau survey found that more Native Americans in the United States preferred American Indian to Native American". 46.121.26.191 (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The American Civil War

The American Civil War is arguably one of the most important events in US history and also very Important in Indian American History, and it is described so briefly.

I will be Happy to add more data to this subject, if someone with more Seniority will help me edit here. I will also be happy to assist to anyone who want to edit it themselves.

this is a very important topic and shouldn't be described so briefly and so vague.

there should be a clear mention that the 5 civilised tribes sided with the Confederacy and detailed reasons why they have sided with them (The former federal treatment to them (though is mentioned in previous subtopics, there is no linking), slavery, and more reasons). Indians that chose to serve in the Union even though their tribes were allied with the Confederacy key leaders from the respective tribes during the war, as Stand Watie. result of the war and consequences. 46.121.26.191 (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

what Native American tribes lived in the U. S. A?

what Native American tribe lived in the U. S . A? 2600:6C44:3600:554:B73B:7E50:73FC:77D9 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see Classification of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@2600:6C44:3600:554:B73B:7E50:73FC:77D9 All of them, Native American typically means Indigenous peoples not Alaska Native nor Native Hawaiian who live in/come from the US. While not inaccurate to say that the Nahua for example are "Native American", it isn't the most common usage.

And there are many (hundreds to thousands) tribes which lived and continue to live in what is now the United States. There isn't just one, and it wasn't only in the past. PersusjCP (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This is also not the place for general discussion of Native Americans PersusjCP (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)