Jump to content

Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Indigenous people 2

I realize the article deliberately states the continental US etc. Not sure why. There are territories ("commonwealth") to be considered as well. This would include Arawakan natives, Chamorros, etc.

I am not suggesting they all be included here in detail, but mentioned someplace, then point to "main" article.

Again, if not here, then should be created in higher level article with this as a subordinate article. This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but whatever. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you perused Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas? -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Chamorros or Native Hawaiians won't be mentioned there as they are Pacific Islanders, not Native Americans. Samoans on American Samoa would be another instance. Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The only "Native Americans" in American territories then would be those in U.S. VI and PR but there are none in the VI and the Taino culture of PR is disputed. Rmhermen (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not all casinos are that profitable

Some tribes erected casinos in rural areas (northern Arizona, for example). A case of lacking sufficient gamblers to make a really lot of money. Some tourism, but a lot are not the type of gambler to keep open a casino, most of which can be found closer to populated areas. Student7 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead - current life

I've added content to the Lead about major changes since the 1960s, because it seemed that the focus was on the past. Other parts of the article have to be expanded to support this part of current life: the founding of tribal schools and tribally controlled colleges, independent newspapers and websites, culture, museums, American Indian studies programs in mainline academic institutions, etc.Parkwells (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetic distance "map"

Under "Genetics", there is a mapping of genetic distance. This confused me. I thought the Caucasians were dead last in creation. Europe was only settled (what?) 40,000 years ago? It seemed to me that Africans were all related. Fine. I would have thought Oceanic Negroes came from Africa (Micronesia, for example). Australoids maybe more recent.

Caucasoids seem too central on the map.

But worst of all, the derivation of Native Americans seems a bit lost in the presentation. Kind of an afterthought. I had thought that various Amerinds could be traced to specific Asian tribes. Iroquois, for example. I would think forget the Caucasoids and Negroids entirely for presentation here, unless we are talking modern day. I had presumed this was supposed to show where ancient tribes descended from. Student7 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reproduction of the human migration map that was also made by Saitou Naruya (Japanese:斎藤成也) professor at the (Japanese) National Institute for Genetics. It may help you understand Naruya's other map better. You are right though about this map not being especially relevant to the Native Americans in the United States article, since it does not distinguish USA Natives as a group. It would be better off in the genetics of American Indians article and that is where I will put it. I will remove it from this article.--Ephert (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Except for the Inuit/Eskimo who still have close relations to Siberian tribes, I don't think it is true that "that various Amerinds could be traced to specific Asian tribes". Can you find a source for that claim? Rmhermen (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for rm that genetic map.
Interesting about the Inuits. I didn't know that.
I wasn't suggesting that all tribes could be so traced. A certain homogeneity has occurred after 20,000 years of the first migrations. Also, perhaps related tribes have died out in Asia.
Anyway, here is an equivocal ref on DNA. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_adn05.htm
I had thought that some of the North(eastern) American tribes had moved in after the glacier retreated. Some of them had preserved their genetics differences from other immigrating Asian tribes. Student7 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
We generally discount any tertiary source basing itself on Edgar Cayce. Rmhermen (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The main articles for this subject are Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Settlement of the Americas. This page only contains a summary of the details. Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the Edgar Cayce lead sounds funny. The article, however, is quite scientific and convincingly (to me) scholarly. Student7 (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Genocide?

NO MENTION OF GENOCIDE ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.58.145 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

it's under Impact on native populations Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of women

I noticed that in the images in the beginning of the article there are no women listed in the collage. Please fix this as I know there's some famous NA women. --Turn685 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Or — you could make the changes yourself... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much about Native American history but I can look into it --Turn685 (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the collage. Sarah Winnemucca, Suzette LaFlesche Tibbles, Susan La Flesche Picotte, and Wilma Mankiller are a few other extremely famous Native American women who have photos on Wikimedia Commons. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Although I agree women could be better represented in the collage, could we use some that are not more widely known as Disney princess characters? (Pocahontas) We have a whole list to chose from here List of Native American women of the United States. Heiro 02:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
At least Chief Mankiller's in there now; sorry, Colbert fans. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Slavery? Torture?

Captives were retained against their will from returning to their homeland, assuming it still existed. Some were tortured, others executed. Native Americans did not always have as "gentle" a society as reconstructionists project. And, no, they didn't "learn" this from Europeans. They had "always" done this. Student7 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The statement about "slavery" not being necessarily the most accurate term for the phenomenon comes directly from the source cited ([1]), whether or not the source's interpretation is correct. I'm actually not crazy about that article as a source because it's not very clear where it is originally from (from Google-searching, it looks to me like it's originally from this site), and exactly what sources Seybert is using for what claims (although there's an overall bibliography listed here). That being said...what exactly is your point? Of course Indians weren't two-dimensional, Noble Savage Pocahontas-y stereotypes, but I don't see where this section gives that impression. It's quite frank about some forms of slavery or involuntary captivity being common among Indian tribes; but clearly there's a difference between most historical kinds of slavery (practiced by cultures all over the world) and the sort of chattel slavery of the Southern US and Latin America that many people immediately think of when they see the word "slave". --Miskwito (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, the paragraph goes on to say that this probably wasn't really slavery. The intent seems to be since it was practiced by now-pc groups, that it couldn't have been nearly as bad as Europeans (and Arabians) who had a relatively complex economic model for acquiring and disposing of slaves as a commodity. Since the model for Natives wasn't that sophisticated, therefore it wasn't slavery. Please! Student7 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The model for different precontact US Native tribes' adoption of enslaved prisoners of war was very complex; however, it was not chattel slavery. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
In any case my primary concern here is mostly that we accurately report what the sources say, rather than our own opinions. In this case the source cited did explicitly say that "slavery" might not be an appropriate term. As I said above I'm actually not crazy about the actual source, but whatever. Unfortunately, the article is long enough already that there's not really any room to go into the complexities of how various tribes had different sorts of slavery etc. etc.; that discussion, I think, really has to be confined to Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. Maybe the solution then is to shorten the section here up a bit and confine the discussion to the most basic stuff: various American Indian groups had various forms of slavery or war captives or involuntary servitude, blah blah, see Slavery among Native Americans in the United States for more information. Or maybe I'm totally off--this isn't really my area of expertise... --Miskwito (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Really need less vagueness, not more. Saying the "natives were good guys and the colonists bad guys" just doesn't cut it for an encyclopedia. Need less bias and more facts. Student7 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Strychnine

An author vaguely asserts that strychnine was used by "us," but gives no details. I did not insert commentary but did insert in TAG where the rumor might have come from. It is pov to assert something as a fact and give no details. This appears to be a tertiary misconstruction of a secondary work describing something that occurred in the Modoc War. Readers should not be left with the idea that poisoning was the common way of eliminating natives. The American way was much more direct: threats, guns and bullets. Poisoning was just too difficult to manage as the story of the Modoc War describes. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source that states or argues this and use it in the article, but adding your own commentary into the middle of a direct "in quote marks" quote is not and acceptable way to deal with it. Heiro 14:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
[2], [3], [4], and [5]. Give them a quick glance would ya? Heiro 23:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The first looks okay. Will comment later. Second appeared derivative. Another supported the "whiskey kick" additive. There were two separate individual instances of deliberate attempts at poisoning. But these latter two, while quite culpable does not make for anything like a national policy and casts doubt on the reliability of the author whose offhand, uncited remark is stating that "we" fed the natives strychnine as a sort of policy. If the above cites is all there is, they seem to show that we did nothing of the sort. The quote is clearly WP:POV.
Incidentally, the "whiskey kick" additive, while hardly moral, had its copycats during Prohibition with unregulated distillers putting "anything" into stuff that was supposed to pass for liquor in order to give it a "kick."
Also, while arsenic, along with strychnine, do not make a favored taste list today, arsenic once was used as a condiment. Information was not as widespread then as now. They did clearly know that strychnine, in volume, would kill somebody, but it doesn't seem to make economic sense to kill off your whiskey buyers! Student7 (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This is such an obscure historical point in a broad ranging article, that should all be chucked unless there's some incredibly salient reason to include it. What if I started writing about 19th--century diaper practices of Kiowa people? I can find reliable sources, but who cares? It's way too obscure to be included. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
It may be difficult to salvage this pov quote. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of other researchers who have said much the same without an obvious intent to exaggerate. But we can't have it all ways. We can't insert something that is false or unprovable. At worst, if the untruth "must" remain, for some (presumably good) reason, than some effort must be made to rebut the falsehood. But the idea of an encyclopedia is to publish something that is close as possible to the truth and not to deliberately propagate a falsehood. I'm not sure why another quote can't be found by someone without an obvious axe to grind. Summarizing something subjectively may create Pulitzers, but often makes for poor encyclopedias. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Have you yet produced evidence that anything in the quote is false or exaggerated other than your own WP:OPINION? Heiro 19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF and avoid WP:PERSONAL attacks. Student7 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the WP:RS of the author is in question. Student7 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Exactly my point, "IMO", because you have not provided any sources which support your contention that the quote is in any way false, misleading or inaccurate. As for personal attacks, show me where I have made one or show me where I am not AGFing. I think any univolved editor would read the conversation so far very differently than you seem to be. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be your only motive so far, IMO, because you cant seem to provide sources which support your viewpoint. There are verified cases where strychnine was used to poison groups of Native peoples, the Shasta being one example provided so far. I'm not sure what your objection to the quote really is. Explain it to use here please? Heiro 15:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
??? Two cases, one of which succeeded, both by vigilantes does not equal a national policy. The author is stretching a point, apparently for pov reasons. Natives were not treated "right" but surely editors don't need to stretch quite so far on such flimsy reports. The statement implies that there are insufficient npov reports by reliable authors which document actual policy that might be considered "national." Not by a couple of random out-of-control felons. Student7 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Other instances Shadows at Dawn: An Apache Massacre and the Violence of History By Karl Jacoby, Patricia Nelson Limerick, We Shall Remain: Geronimo Pg 5, The Evolution of Domestic Violence and Reform Efforts Across Indian Country pg 2, February 23 1864, History of the Welsh in Minnesota, Foreston and Lime Springs, Ia. Gathered by the Old Settlers. Edited by Revs. Thos. E. Hughes and David Edwards, and Messrs. Hugh G. Roberts and Thomas Hughes(x92), The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion, CHAPTER VII. INDIAN HOSTILITIESpage 152 and hEyOkA mAgAzInE-HARLYN GERONIMO. If your problem is with the POV of the source, find sources that rebut or debunk the source. Whether you like it or not, it was done and more than once. It may not have been sanctioned, but people were killed in this way by European Americans. And even though the Modoc poisoning plot failed, it was obviously not the only attempt to kill mass numbers of Native Americans in this way. Your definition of NPOV sources has me confused, do you mean ones that downplay or don't mention atrocities such as this even tho there are many documented cases where it did happen? The quote never says it was a national policy, it just states that poisoning with strychnine and a list of other morally reprehensible practices was used by euroamericans to kill and marginalize indigenous people. Heiro 00:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Note re at least one source: "Scholars like Barbara Mann who cite Ward Churchill are uncritically repeating crude, unscientific propaganda that has its origins in the Medieval stories that Jews poisoned the wells of Christians with plague or that they kidnapped and murdered Christian children and used their blood to make matzoh."[6] This is a very disputed area of research and should not be added here without completely addressing all sides. Rmhermen (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Contentious to an unnamed blogger who goes by "Snapple", I'm totally convinced by that. And besides, the quote is from Paul Wellman from the 1930s, not from Barbara Mann or Ward Churchill. Heiro 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Paul Wellman wrote books for the "popular" press. He is not a historian and is therefore not wedded to facts. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to use detached academic reference materials here, not tabloid-like ones. Surely, there must be a lot of academics who have objectively analyzed US-Native American relations. Why can't one (or more) of those be used? Student7 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
And you have established this how? You have citations and references, I presume, to show this? Or is it still WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Since you've just entirely removed the material[7], citing only your opinion of the sources credibility as a reason, why should I bother further? I refuse to get drawn further into an edit war with someone who has yet, even after numerous requests, produced a single source supporting their position. I'm done banging my head against the wall, guess we are done here. Heiro 17:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

More on strychnine, if anybody is so minded

Here's the diff: [[8]]. I agree that this quote should not be used. It just doesn't seem well-sourced to me. Sorry if you don't agree, but that's why we have these discussion pages. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lakota Times

This was defined as a newspaper independent of tribal government, and significant for offering views that might serve to challenge the governments, after the period when the BIA had so much influence over governments and when some tribal officials tried to squash dissent, as at Pine Ridge. It's also a good point to add more about tribal newspapers that were developed in the 19th century, such as the Cherokee Phoenix, before the BIA got involved, if editors want to do that. Parkwells (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans and assimilation acceptance with Europeans

Is this phrase meaningful English? It seems to have originally been a section called "Europeans", then "Native Americans and Europeans". It looks to have taken this form in the last week of May, 2009 during a large batch of edits. But what is the title supposed to mean? Rmhermen (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit too orotund, I think. I changed it. It's shorter, if not better!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Pre-columbian ancestry section/ Settlement of the Americas

Hey I usually do not do this and I will not edit it myself, but I have recently read in a few different historical publications that the land-bridge over Beringia theory has been officially dis proven for how migration to the Americas occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.114.244 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Great. Where did you read that? Give us the journal/book/website with author, title, and date so we can evaluate it. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Name change

why is this page still titled with its "white name" if the consensus has shown that they prefer American Inidians? i would be bold but idk how to change it and add a forwarding link tho, can i get a hint on that?

" According to a 1995 US Census Bureau set of home interviews, most of the respondents with an expressed preference refer to themselves as American Indians" --74.134.81.205 (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See also Native American naming controversy (which also quotes the lower number (50%) for that 1995 survey). Rmhermen (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "American Indians" does not include non-Indian Alaskan Natives, such as the Cup'ik/Yup'ik, Aleut, Alutiiq, Iñupiaq, and Inuit peoples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Still debated?

The article says the settlement of the Americas is still debated, but judging from the editorial tone of the article and the picture, it appears that in this article at least, those who believe that North America was populated by people crossing over the Bering Straight have won the debate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.14.98.21 (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The debate relates more to how many migrations there were and if any substantial migration was made by other means. There is considerable archeological, linguistic and DNA evidence linking indigenous peoples of North and South America with populations in northeastern Siberia, so there is considerable academic consensus that there were major migrations from this area via the land bridge.Parkwells (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Collage

The pictures are not very welcoming. As the collages on Wikipedia also might have a small advertising function, there should be a few more representatives from the 21st century. What about actors and singers? Also, there should be famous representatives of politics and organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.18.10 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to modify the collage. As it stands the picture which is a single file is better than a bunch of different sized images (which is why I keep replacing it) when it comes to layout formatting. If you want to change the persons of the collage please let me know which ones you'd like to see. --Turn685 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
All those who are in it now - as of the version before you added your own collage. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Third gender

There is a peculiar sentence, currently uncited (No WP:RS): "In some (but not all) tribes, two-spirit individuals served mixed, or third gender, roles."

1) Most likely this is the first time anyone has ever heard of this. Seems a bit WP:FRINGE.

2) With all the LGBT stuff being added to other articles, it also seems a bit WP:COATRACK-ish. That is, here's a place where we can hang this statement.

3) Doesn't seem to add value to the paragraph or article. How did this help the tribe? How come no one has ever heard of this before? Student7 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I say remove it. Probably spam by a "two spirit" editor. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed as unsourced. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a Reliable Source

The noted pdf: <Tony Seybert (2009). "Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865". Retrieved 2009-06-20.>, appears to be an article to be used in a lesson plan, but there is no indication of where it was published, and it does not have footnotes. This does not qualify as a RS under Wikipedia standards WP:RS. I'm going to delete it along with its numerous cites. Other recognized scholars and works on slavery in the US need to be used.Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this here is not all that reliable - but its info is a grade 7 level and we should have no problem sourcing any info to reliable real books. I will take a look for some books after Wikipedia Plans 24-Hour Blackout to Protest U.S. Piracy Law. In the mean time we can move the info to here.Moxy (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Date Style

The original date style for this article is BC/AD. Per WP:ERA date styles should not be changed arbitrarily. There needs to be a reason, other than preference--since both styles are acceptable. If you do not like the edit I have made, please do not start an edit war. There is a process for resolving issues. Since WP:ERA is very clear on this matter, any issues should be resolved in a timely matter. Primus128 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so we are clear on the rules, here is what it says at WP:ERA: "No preference is given to either style." Also, its says "Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." On this article, the arbitrary edit was made by user:Thorwald. Thorwald did not attempt to obtain a consensus, and gave an invalid reason for his edit " BCE is the more poper use these days." Since this edit should not have been allowed, it has been reverted. If someone wishes to change the date style from the original they may do so by follow the procedures listed at WP:ERA Primus128 (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The process is you discuss here with the other editors of this article changing a date style that has been in place and stable for quite a while. See the archives Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 3#BCE/CE equals "PC" and Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 1#Dates for Eras. You are the one now edit warring to change it. Wait for other editors to respond and ge aq new consensus for AD. Personally I prefer it the way it is now, CE. Heiro 04:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Heiro is only making arguments not valid perWP:ERA. It clearly states preference cannot be used as a reason for a change. It doesn't matter how many links you put here showing some people agree with your preference. It wouldn't matter if 100 preferred it one way and 10 the other. WP:ERA states: "preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." Longevity of a style is not a given reason either. Only the original or a validly changed style can be used. Primus128 (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe its best to use the more scholarly abbreviation on all are articles of indigenous nature. Many hold to the belief that ("Before Christ") and AD ("Anno Domini", "In the year of the Lord") represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate. I personally dont care about the religious aspect of arguments - I care that we use the more scholarly abbreviation were we can if there is no big religious attachment - just makes Wiki look more neutral and scholarly Moxy (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
per wp:era this is not a valid argument. Both styles are acceptable, and saying "Many[who?] hold to the belief" is considered to be a "weasel" statement WP:WEASEL My household is made up of Oneida, Comanche and Choctaw, and we are just fine with either date style. There is no evidence that American Indians have any deep-rooted issues with date styles--either way. Any statements of preference are not relevant in this discussion--because preference is disallowed as a reason. Primus128 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Honestly what is more logical to use here regardless of the guidelines recommend? - As you have pointed out both styles are acceptable. So why not use the more common scholarly system that has no possible POV attached to it - We should think about whats best for our articles and readers over a guideline that your tiring to implement years after the fact. Would it not make more sense we just use the neutral non-christian version that has been stable for years? Could you explain why we should revert back to the old version that has not been contested till now? Does reverting back to a style from years ago help the article or simply add someone preference back? You claim there is no evidence that indigenous Americans have a problem with the style - why even guess when we have a neutral version we can use. Moxy (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Your argument is based on preference, which is disallowed per WP:ERA. I believe the rule should be enforced without bias, since that is what Wikipedia's position is on the topic. Not all view BCE/CE as a neutral view. I could cite numerous articles which states some find BCE/CE to be offensive. However, that is all irrelevant because that too would be citing someone's preference. Primus128 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and W:IAR, before you started this there was no problem with this article, it had a stable date style for years. Deciding to come to this article and the other and "follow" process for 4 year old edits that haven't bothered any of the regular editors at these two pages in that time is WP:DISRUPTIVE. And your WP:BATTLE mentality(starting a dispute resolution thread about the other article before anyone besides you and i had had a chance to weigh in on the matter, REALLY?) is not helpful in the least. Heiro 06:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) NO no - its you that whats to change a very very long standing stable style version Cant show up and say "wait I dont like what happened years ago" before I was around. - So its up to you to get consensus now as they did in the past. So if you would like "your preferred" version reimplemented after all this years make a logical argument based on facts because consensus can change. Moxy (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Primus, you've been reverting BCE on a number of articles over the past few months. You've been invoking something that WP:ERA specifically no longer says about the first style having priority. You are at 3RR at Cahokia and have been reverted by I believe at least 3 editors including me. You clearly have a bias (which is fine) which you have tried to push across several articles (which is definitely not fine). Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, you are using an argument about 'originally' that was removed from the guideline. If you didn't realise it had been changed, you should say so and back away, with hopefully an apology to show good faith. If you can't or won't do this, then it's hard to agree with you that you are only here to enforce the 'rules' (which I would take more seriously if you ever changed from BC to BCE). Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The people who have actually been building and editing this article appear to have had a consensus of the BCE/CE dating style for years now. This seems cut and dry to me. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Just so we are clear here, we are not trying to "secularize" non-religious articles. Secularization, by itself, is irrelevant. Both styles are acceptable, per se. Student7 (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Section on crime

A section I added regarding crime was simply removed despite it being well referenced. I have restored it. Removing relevant, referenced information is inappropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The material is from the article on Indian reservations, but is of general relevance. I originally created it. It does contain information that is of special importance regarding reservations, but the topic is of general relevance to Indians. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Then a link to the other article should suffice without having to include the exact same information. Heiro 20:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It would be more convenient to the reader if the information was included in both places but edited to make each section relevant to the article it is in. Total exclusion of a section on crime when crime is one of the major problems American Indians face is inappropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Now a call for Congressional hearing regarding information we have excluded. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Discussion of sources for a section on law enforcement or crime. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Native Americans in South Dakota: An Erosion of Confidence in the Justice System South Dakota Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, March 2000, "A report of the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights prepared for the information and consideration of the Commission. Statements and recommendations in this report should not be attributed to the Commission, but only to participants at the community forum or the Advisory Committee."
This appears to be a source of limited value. The letter of transmittal states:
The document, approved by a committee vote of 12 in favor and 1 opposed, is based on the Advisory Committee’s December 6, 1999, public forum in Rapid City, where nearly 100 persons addressed issues affecting the administration of justice and Native Americans in South Dakota.
The problem is the limited scope of the report -- a 1999 public forum limited to South Dakota. This is hardly a reliable source for the current state of Native American crime throughout the entire United States. It is also a primary source and there is no objective analysis provided as to the value of the material presented. What are the qualifications of the participants? What are the qualifications of the Advisory Committee members? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The report was followed up by a law journal article:
  • "South Dakota Criminal Justice: A Study of Racial Disparities" 48 S.D. L. Rev. 171 (2003) Braunstein, Richard; Feimer, Steve "The report, based largely on anecdotal evidence provided at a public hearing, criticized South Dakota for maintaining a dual system of justice where race is a critical factor in determining how law enforcement and justice functions are carried out. In response to the report, the Governor of South Dakota contracted the authors to examine whether the Commission's findings were supported by empirical data from the state's judicial, investigations, and corrections agencies." User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A little hard to access, but available via Lexis-Nexis. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


I will be working on a section for crime. I was the one that removed the incoherent section that was just a copy and paste of a badly referenced section of the other article. I am reading over ( again its been years) the books below that I will be using as refs. Pls take a look also and we will see what we can come up with.Moxy (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Samuel Walker; Cassia Spohn; Miriam DeLone (17 June 2011). The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. Cengage Learning. pp. 53–. ISBN 978-1-111-34692-8. Retrieved 25 May 2012.
A brief summary of the statistical facts and of the jurisdictional problems. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Again a brief summary, although the anecdotal information quoted from the FBI agent Mac Romminger is inappropriate for the save reason the South Dakota Advisory Committee report is. Additionally, the Navaho and Hopi reservations are significantly different from the general run of reservations. Go down to the next page and you will find interesting information about Pikangikum First Nation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a substantial reference. Also found on Amazon: Native Americans and the Criminal Justice System edited by Jeffrey Ian Ross and Larry Gould and Tribal Policing: Asserting Sovereignty, Seeking Justice by Eileen Luna-Firebaugh. American Indians, American Justice by Vine Deloria, Jr. and Clifford M. Lytle is somewhat outdated, published in 1983 and possibly biased, but has the virtue of being quite cheap in used condition. However it promises factual information about jurisdictional problems. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Free free to write a section. I can add additional information and sources. However, failing work on your part, having done additional research, I will take the initiative. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

I removed the following:

Claims based on family tradition of Native American ancestry by putative mixed-bloods who are not enrolled members of an Indian tribe, particularly in the context of affirmative action, can result in controversy and embarrassment. This is illustrated by the cases of Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren.[1]

I really find it absurd that this article should include information about a current political controversy that has basically nothing to do with the actual topic of his article. The editor who added it needs to make a case for its inclusion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is sufficient to support the information. The matter of Ward Churchill needs no specific reference. The article contains no information about the millions of mixed-blood Americans who are not enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. This brief note is only an introduction. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't find your explanation believable. However giving you the benefit of the doubt, your choice of THIS ANECDOTE as an introduction to the subject of "the millions of mixed-blood Americans who are not enrolled members of federally recognized tribes" is an extremely poor choice. A better choice would have been to say, with sourcing, that there are "millions of mixed-blood Americans who are not enrolled members of federally recognized tribes". And if you were to start such a section, it is still not clear why a mention of Elizabeth Warren, one of these millions, would be relevant. How many of these millions actually fall victim to "controversy and embarrassment", the phrase that you included in your alleged introduction? Why the mention of affirmative action -- is this an actual issue for Native Americans that is discussed in reliable sources?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The subject is discussed in the blog. Harvard, based on her representation, reported a Native American faculty member. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010 "According to the 2010 Census, 5.2 million people in the United States identified as American Indian and Alaska Native, either alone or in com- bination with one or more other races. Out of this total, 2.9 million people identified as American Indian and Alaska Native alone." User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
So what does this have to do with Elizabeth Warren? Why does she warrant mention in a GENERAL ARTICLE about Native Americans? You need more than simply the mention of her in a political blog that says virtually nothing about Native Americans. As far as your census numbers, surely your are aware that this info is already in the article in a rather large table at Native Americans in the United States#Population distribution (although it needs to be updated from 2000 based on the 2010 census). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The information concerns spurious or genuine claims of Indian ancestry by people who rely on family lore and possible problems that can result. While Ward Churchill, who seems to not have a drop of Indian blood, is the exception, he IS a member of a band of Indians, AIM, most of these people, like Elizabeth Warren, have no cultural connection with any tribe and appear, and act, white. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Which again dodges the issue I have raised. Why is any of this relevant to a GENERAL ARTICLE on Native Americans? BTW, what exactly in 21st Century America do you consider to be "acting white"? And isn't describing AIM as "a band of Indians" a very poor choice of words? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren, whatever her ancestry, does not appear to display in her behavior any element of tribal culture or have social connections with Cherokee people. AIM is what it is, a band of Indians; I'm not politically correct. Here is a YouTube video with a different emphasis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9r5rOmJ6uk unrelated to the innocence of repeating or relying on family tradition. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ward Churchill on the subject User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Another issue, disenrollment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So "acting white" is about failing to behave according to "tribal culture" and to maintain "social connections" with a tribe? However according to material that YOU ADDED to the article 78% of Native Americans live outside a reservation, probably making your criteria the rule rather than the exception So, yet again, why is Elizabeth Warren of significance to a GENERAL ARTICLE on Native Americans?

As far as your effort to change the subject of this discussion to disenrollment, the general topic is already covered to some extent in the section Blood Quantum and to a much greater degree in the main article on the subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That has been explained to you a number of times. She is under political attack by both Indians and political opponents due to disclosure of family lore. Those facts are in the referenced article. Failing to understand something is not grounds for removing it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Not true. The only explanation you offered is "The article contains no information about the millions of mixed-blood Americans who are not enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. This brief note is only an introduction." How is the fact that ONE person is under political attack in the last few weeks at all relevant to a GENERAL ARTICLE on Native Americans? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Some behave one way, some another; some are enrolled, some not. Some have substantial obvious Indian characteristics, physical and cultural, some not. Some have solid evidence, some only family tradition. Most people with slight Indian blood probably check white. The census depends only on self-identification not enrollment in a federally recognized tribe. Elizabeth Warren, acting in good faith, could have checked the box. The thing is, if you talk carelessly about it, write it on applications for employment, your employer puts you into statistical reports, there is a potential for controversy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Still non-responsive. How is a controversy relating to ONE PERSON appropriate for inclusion in a GENERAL ARTICLE on Native Americans? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You're not looking at all the sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, because I didn't see the paragraph as being necessary or helpful to understand the broad subject of Native Americans. The fact that half a million unenrolled people claim to be Cherokee demonstrates that it isn't that rare or "embarrassing." The fact that the media are currently obsessed with this story doesn't translate to significance in the long run. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Claims based on family tradition of Native American ancestry by putative mixed-bloods who are not enrolled members of an Indian tribe, particularly in the context of affirmative action, can result in controversy and embarrassment. This is illustrated by the cases of Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren.[1][2][3][4]

  1. ^ a b Katharine Q. Seelye (May 31, 2012). "Warren Says She Told Universities of Her Native American Roots" (blog). The New York Times. Retrieved June 1, 2012.
  2. ^ Mary Annette Pember (January 25, 2007). "Diverse: Issues in Higher Education". Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. Archived from the original on December 6, 2007. Retrieved June 2, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  3. ^ Scott Richard Lyons (May 10, 2010). X-Marks: Native Signatures of Assent. Univ Of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0816666775. Retrieved June 2, 2012.
  4. ^ Jack Hitt (August 21, 2005). "The Newest Indians". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved June 2, 2012.
[http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Indian-Struggle-Cherokee-Twenty-first/dp/1934691445 Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century]] User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
A controversy that results in 1304 comments on The Washington Post story on it is not trivial, However it must be phrased appropriately. The matter is being politically exploited while she seems to have not actually gained an affirmative action advantage. The story in The Atlantic seems to be the best, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Who cares about comments on a newspaper article; I certainly do not. If the information should be anywhere, put it on her article, not this one. oncamera(t) 00:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

American Indian and Alaska Native Summary File (AIANSF)

American Indian and Alaska Native Summary File (AIANSF) - population and housing characteristics iterated for many detailed American Indian and Alaska Native tribes - (to be released December 2012) see http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/wc_dec.xhtml User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Indians who are not enrolled in a federally recognized tribe

I have reverted the section. Much of it involves the Elizabeth Warren issue (without using her name) and the rest involves a POV distortion of what the sources actually say. However some of the sources do contain good information -- I have used them to present a more NPOV section and have added it to the "Blood Quantum" section. I changed the name of that section so it would be more understandable, upped it a level, and divided the text into three subsections -- the third being the one where the material from the deleted section has been moved. Placing the material here puts it in a proper historical context by allowing the reader to see how the identical issue was addressed prior to the last few years.

Problems with the deleted section include:

(1) Fred wrote:

The significant increase in the number of Indians reported in the 2000 and 2010 census as well as a number of dubious new "tribes" has resulted in considerable skepticism on the part of members of recognized tribes.

He sources this to an article by Jack Hitt, however what Hitt actually said is something quite different:

The reaction from lifelong Indians runs the gamut. It is easy to find Native Americans who denounce many of these new Indians as members of the wannabe tribe. But it is also easy to find Indians like Clem Iron Wing, an elder among the Sioux, who sees this flood of new ethnic claims as magnificent, a surge of Indians trying to come home. Those Indians who ridicule Iron Wing's lax sense of tribal membership have retrofitted the old genocidal system of blood quantum -- measuring racial purity by blood -- into the new standard for real Indianness, a choice rich with paradox.

In the next section I have added this quote as well as Hitt's explanation of why self classification had escalated.

(2) Fred wrote:

Claims based on unproven or unprovable family traditions of Native American ancestry, particularly in the context of affirmative action, can result in controversy and embarrassment, even accusations of ethnic fraud.

This is a gross simplification of what the main source, an article by Pember, said. She discussed much more than affirmative actions and identified more issues than simply fraud. I have expanded this material beyond a single sentence and included a more detailed and accurate description of the problem. Like Hitt, Pember provides a more nuanced description of the controversy than Fred's interpretation allows.

(3) Fred wrote:

Laxity by educational institutions in establishing the authenticity of claims to be Indian has called for demands by legal professionals of color for institutions to investigate and confirm all claims that a person is an American Indian

Minor tweaks. I attributed the opinion to the specific group that made the claim. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

PS I note that right before I changed the article that Oncamera had tagged No 1 above for POV problems also. The fact tag added by Oncamera is addressed in the Hitt article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: it's much better written, neutral and informative now. I removed one sentence (There is a growing interest in possible Indian ancestry on the part of many people, particularly in the southeastern United States), seemed like an opinion and didn't add anything to the section. oncamera(t) 01:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Source is Jack Hitt (August 21, 2005). "The Newest Indians". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved June 2, 2012. I know that is behind a paywall. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The whole section is odd..it gives no stats ..Should be called Legal process not Crime.Moxy (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
North Shoremans's edits are about Expansion of Native American Classification. I agree your statement about the Crime section Fred added; re-write, more specific sources. oncamera(t) 01:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I changed the title to "Crime on reservations" but "Legal process on reservations" would work just as well for me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the problems with sexual assaults on Indian women probably affect urban areas also. The strange jurisdictional problems are limited to Indian Country. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for jumping in and doing some editing rather than simply deleting. Your edits are clumsy, removing much sourced content, but at least an effort. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"All recipients of services under section 166 must meet the definition of Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian found at WIA section 166(b) and in the WIA regulations. See WIA Section 166(d) and 20 CFR 668.300." Section 166 of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

PART 668: INDIAN AND NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS UNDER TITLE I OF THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

Subpart C: Services to Customers

668.300 - Who is eligible to receive services under the INA program

(a) A person is eligible to receive services under the INA program if that person is:

(1) An Indian, as determined by a policy of the Native American grantee. The grantee's definition must at least include anyone who is a member of a Federally-recognized tribe; or

(2) An Alaska Native, as defined in section 3(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43 U.S.C. 1602(b); or

(3) A Native Hawaiian, as defined in WIA section 166(b)(3). User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Harvard University — 1999 Affirmative Action Plan
    • Page 14 "The definitions for racial/ethnic groups, consistent with those found in Title 41, Part 60-3.4B of the Code of Federal Regulations, are given below.
    • "Native American or Alaskan Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition."
    • Page 113 shows one Native American woman. "Senior Faculty (Professors)

Current utilization for women is 14.5% and availability is 14.0%. Women are not underutilized in this job group. We met our 1998 goal of three additional women in this category by 1999, through two promo- tions to tenure, and one lateral hire. We do not expect to hire another tenured woman in 1999 and have set no goal in this category. Nonetheless, the recruitment of outstanding women into the Senior Faculty remains a very high priority, which the Law School expects to address by new hires after 1999. The utili- zation of minority Senior Faculty is 11.6% and the availability is 6.2%. Minorities are not underrepre- sented in this job group. Two minorities, in fact, were added to the Senior Faculty in 1998 (one promotion and one lateral hire). After careful review of the field, the Law School has set no goals in this category for 1999. However, the Law School will continue to seek out and attempt to retain excellent minority candi- dates for Senior Faculty positions in the future." User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Based partially on hiring Elizabeth Warren Harvard Law says, "Minorities are not underrepre- sented in this job group." User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please describe your background ________________________________________________

    • 2. Regardless of your answer to the prior question, please select one or more of the following ethnicities that best describe you:

> American Indian or Alaska Native (including all Original Peoples of the Americas) Are you Enrolled? > Yes > No If yes, please enter Tribal Enrollment Number ________________ Please describe your background ________________________________________________

User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

?????????????? point??Moxy (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Box checking occurs when the emphasized portion of "Native American or Alaskan Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition." is not adequately addressed by the respondent or statistical reporter. Invitations to self-identify don't adequately address the requirement of a cultural connection. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Harvard law, by reporting employment of a token Indian woman, was able to report affirmative action success without actually recruiting or hiring an Indian. Affirmative action is intended to open employment opportunities, and in the case of Harvard, opportunities for influence, to people who have historically been discriminated against, not to people who appear and act white and would not be discriminated against on a racial or cultural basis. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
We need to include detailed information on these issues somewhere in Wikipedia. This article itself should probably only point to our coverage of the issue. I wonder what affirmative action looks like; looked, see Affirmative action in the United States. The particular case of Elizabeth Warren is being exploited politically in bad faith. We probably don't want to focus too much on her, but the issue is important. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The posting "Elizabeth Warren & Indianness" at http://www.nativeamericannetroots.net handles the matter is an appropriate way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Information on affirmative action

I am concern this is a learn as you go situation... Perhaps best to have a comprehensive understanding before proceeding. Moxy (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, society seems to be learning; it is only in the last few years that this has been dealt with, for example by the ABA. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
We already have defined the various ways folks are classified as Native Americans. Fred, with his most recent edits, is doing little more than repeating what has already been established in a different context. We only need one section declaring "Who are Native Americans". My recommendation is that we move the current section up to right after Current legal status so that it will be closer to 4.1 Societal discrimination and racism. We also might want to move Population up higher. In the alternative, we could simply move the section Contemporary issues closer to the bottom after population. In any event, we don't need adding to an already good sized article by repeating info. I also don't see that we need anything else on affirmative action that what is already in the article -- this is not a major part of the overall article. I thought we already reached the determination that we don't need to expand this area. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure the article could be reorganized; I haven't really thought about it; however, the way affirmative action is handled in the case of Native Americans is significant, and, apparently, frequently misunderstood by otherwise sophisticated people. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Removing large blocks of well-sourced material that adds significant information to an article without a solid rational basis is outside our collaborative editing practice. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You either didn't read what I wrote or failed to absorb it. To make it clearer -- THE MATERIAL YOU ADDED IS REPETITIOUS. We already have the following:
In an academic setting, simply relying on self-identification raises potential problems with both affirmative action and, with respect to faculty, a commitment to the diversity goals related to Native Americans.[223] In the legal field, the Coalition of Bar Associations of Color likewise called for educational institutions to investigate and confirm all claims that a person is an American Indian.[224]
Despite this material already being in the article, you added the following in a different part of the article:
However, self-reporting is permitted, "Educational Institutions and Other Recipients Should Allow Students and Staff To Self-Identify Their Race and Ethnicity Unless Self-Identification Is Not Practicable or Feasible."[130] Self-reporting opens the door to "box checking" by people who despite not having a substantial relationship to Native American culture innocently or fraudulently "check the box" for Native American.[131] On August 15, 2011 the American Bar Association passed a resolution recommending to law schools that additional information be required.[132]
We don't need to discuss affirmative action in two different places. Is that really so hard to understand? The thing that makes your actions even more ridiculous is the fact that the language I just quoted COMES FROM WHAT YOU WROTE EARLIER.
We also already have the following in the article:
According to Office of Management and Budget, “American Indian or Alaska Native” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.[221]
Yet you found in necessary to add the following yet again:
For this purpose a American Indian or Alaska Native is defined as "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment."
I have removed the material again since your reply indicated a failure, or a refusal, to understand what I wrote. If you add it back, so be it -- I won't edit war with you. It is just a shame that you, an administrator, don't trust the process enough to engage in good faith discussions. When you couldn't get exactly what you wanted in one section, you just turned around and tried to put the same stuff in another section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
How about considering how this well-sourced information should be appropriately included rather than wholesale removal? If there are duplications normal editing can resolve the problem. The material has been substantially changed, specifically, to remove the inappropriate emphasis on Elizabeth Warren. Emphasizing her case introduces right-wing bias into the article in the midst of a political campaign. I am sorry to have had to resort to simple reverts; always a last resort after patience has been exhausted. These days I almost always edit using information from a reliable source, usually a New York Times article. There is seldom a good reason not to include factual information in an appropriate Wikipedia article. I will closely examine the questions you raise. Also, I think we should probably substantially shorten this article by spinning off subsidiary articles after summarizing content here. I have a sustained interest in this article. An examination of its organization is probably long overdue. And, lack of active editing by Native American editors continues, not that such participation would make editing any easier, just more authentic. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Simple self-declaration, for example, in communicating family traditions to children, or declaring Indian ancestry on the census needs, for our purposes, imparting useful information to readers, to be differentiated from self-declarations which have the powerful legal affect which they do with respect to affirmative action issues involving federal contractors. It is obvious from the online discussion above that there is considerable confusion among the public regarding this issue. We need to include that information in understandable form. Inappropriate self-declaration in an affirmative action context is arguably not a social gaff or innocent error, but fraud. Telling a child in good faith that their great-grandmother was of mixed blood, on the other hand is anyone's right to do, regardless of whether legal proof is available or forthcoming. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing blocks of sourced material

Repeatedly removing blocks of well-sourced relevant information without discussion of it and exploration of its relevance and significance is not within our editing process. I don't like it is not a reason. If an issue is a subject of discussion in the national media, part of our national discourse, both generally and in the Indian media we need to provide appropriate neutral information regarding is. Discussion regarding the nature of that presentation and attempts to refine it are appropriate. Simply deleting it without an attempt to address the issues involved is not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian history

Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#Pre-Columbian is way too long for this article. It needs to be summarized here and, with more detail added, combined with pre-Columbian material from Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada#History to make a long detailed article about pre-Columbian history of North America, U.S. and Canada. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't need to. Canada and the U.S. didn't spring forth forth from Columbus's feet. Rmhermen (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree one section for 10,000 years is not much to ask. Moxy (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not talking about removing the section but about improving it and summarizing it and creating a more comprehensive subsidiary article. A 260k article is too big. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There has recently been a lot of copy and pasting of copyright material that keeps getting restored. Will bring up recent edits to council as I am not sure how much of the new additions have this problem. As seen here - that was pasted over to Native Americans in the United States#Societal discrimination and racism. There is more copy and pasting from here to the "Affirmative action issues" section. Thinking of reverting all recent additions if most have this problem. Moxy (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything in second source you cite that were used in the article, at least recently. What language are you talking about? User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The language in the first source was copied from Wikipedia. It is the copyright violation. It even copies our old footnotes, in fact they work, although not to the right source. It is copied from a prior version of the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

French and Indian War

This war seems to have been overlooked, or perhaps it is covered elsewhere but should at least be mentioned here. After all, Indians got a part of the "billing" for this one. 72.86.42.38 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Scope of term "American Indian"

The following statement appears in the lead concerning the term "American Indian":

According to a 1995 U.S. Census Bureau set of home interviews, most of the respondents with an expressed preference refer to themselves as American Indians or Indians, and this term has been adopted by major newspapers and some academic groups; however, this term does not include Native Hawaiians or those Alaskan Natives, such as Aleuts, Cup'ik/Yup'ik, and Inuit peoples, who are not American Indians.

Strictly speaking, this is not entirely correct. Definitions can vary, but a common accepted definition of the term "American Indian" includes all indigenous peoples of the Americas (and descendants thereof) at the time Columbus landed in 1492. This would include Alaskan Natives. As far as Native Hawaiians, I really don't think either of the terms "Native American" or "American Indian" fit them very well. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are American Indians and Alaska Natives also referred to as Native Americans?

When referring to American Indian or Alaska Native persons, it is still appropriate to use the terms “American Indian” and “Alaska Native.” These terms denote the cultural and historical distinctions between persons belonging to the indigenous tribes of the continental United States (American Indians) and the indigenous tribes and villages of Alaska (Alaska Natives, i.e., Eskimos, Aleuts, and Indians). They also refer specifically to persons eligible for benefits and services funded or directly provided by the BIA.

The term “Native American” came into broad usage in the 1970's as an alternative to “American Indian.” Since that time, however, it has been gradually expanded within the public lexicon to include all Native peoples of the United States and its trust territories, i.e., American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, Chamorros, and American Samoans, as well as persons from Canada First Nations and indigenous communities in Mexico and Central and South America who are U.S. residents. US Department of the Interior: Indian Affairs

The US Department of the Interior: Indian Affairs seems to consider Alaskan Natives to not be American Indian.--Ephert (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, definitions can vary. I am aware that some definitions of "American Indian" exclude northern indigenous peoples like the Inuit; however, some do not. For example:

American Indian — n Also called: Native American a member of any of the indigenous peoples of North, Central, or South America, esp those of North America[9]
American Indian — noun a member of any of the groups of indigenous peoples of North, Central, and South America, especially those of North America.[10]

To make a blanket, unqualified statement in the lead that the term "American Indian" does not include Alaskan Natives is technically incorrect, as some definitions include all indigenous peoples of the Americas in the definition. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Linguistically they are distinct. Genetic studies also distinguish between these groups. BTW these terms get discussed constantly and exhaustively, so you might check out Native American name controversy and its attendant talk page. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
That's fine for it to be discussed elsewhere, but if that statement is going to be in the lead of this article it needs more of an explanation or else it should be removed. Perhaps an explanatory footnote would work. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Alaska natives include American Indians like Eyak, Tlingit and Athabascan peoples, as well as Eskimo peoples like Yuppit and Inupiat. The reason Alaska natives is used is exactly that it includes both groups. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All Native Americans on Reservations?

I removed the following despite the fact that it appeared to be sourced:

On August 29, 1911 Ishi, the last known Native American to live outside of the U.S. reservation system was arrested and put into protective custody in Oroville, California.

This contradicts what the article says elsewhere:

78% of Native Americans live outside a reservation. Full-blood individuals are more likely to live on a reservation than mixed-blood individuals. The Navajo, with 286,000 full-blood individuals, is the largest tribe if only full-blood individuals are counted; the Navajo are the tribe with the highest proportion of full-blood individuals, 86.3%. The Cherokee have a different history; it is the largest tribe with 819,000 individuals, and it has 284,000 full-blood individuals.

It appears that the person who added the Ishi information took sensational language from the two cited works that referred to the reaction in the 1910's to the discovery of Ishi and accepted it as gospel. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the meaning is that he was the last "wild" Indian. Which is more or less true. The last "wild" buffalo lived in Lost Park southwest of Denver. It's trivia, not sure it belongs anywhere outside of an article on Ishi. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Obviously many Indians today don't live on reservations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Gambling

It wouldn't hurt to find statements that support the fact that there are often too many gambling choices in the US today. As a direct result, Native American casinos which dot the turnpike crossing Northern Mew Mexico are often ill-attended and generate low incomes. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous issues, most of which should be covered in our article on Indian gambling, or whatever it is called. Despite a few very successful operations near urban areas, usually these don't amount to much because they are in isolated rural areas. People from where I live, in the San Luis Valley do patronize these, particularly the one at Taos Pueblo. These are not high-rollers though. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Taxation

Is the gambling income subject to either federal or state tax? That would be an interesting addition either way. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Federal yes, state no. Tribes are not under state jurisdictions but each tribe negotiations separate compacts with states, so it's case-by-case basis. -00:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Again, belongs in the article on Indian gambling, whatever the answer is. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Historical depictions in art" section is in the wrong spot

The "Historical depictions in art" section is the "Contemporary issues" section, but it should be in another area. How about the Stereotypes of Native Americans in North America page? Brightonbooks (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems about right to me. Move the mascots there as well. Just leave a short summary and a link to the main article and we have a spinnout!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
My problem is that there is a difference between historical depictions and stereotypes. An accurate depiction is surely not a stereotype? Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course it can be a stereotype even if it is historically accurate - if it chooses to depict certain historically accurate things over others because they fit the stereotype. Edward Curtis' historical photos for example are famed for drawing on and promoting sterotypes of "the vanishing race".[11][12][13]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that, but aren't you saying that they can be used as stereotypes? So we could have some of this material in both articles, with comments of course. Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Contemporary Native American art freely employs stereotypes as well as using authentic historical motifs; that is the choice of Indian artists and their patrons. Exploitation of stereotypes, such as a soup can, is not unique to Indian artists. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren in Photo Summary

Why is Elizabeth Warren in the Photo Summary? She is not a listed member of any tribe, and has acknowledged she has no American Indian ancestory? Shouldn't this section be for those in which there is no doubt? And also have some historic significanence? So far, she is only a professor and a candidate. There are others that can easily fill the slot, from Chief Mc'Intosh to Sitting Bull or Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Having Warren listed only invites partisian conflict. The slot is better served by someone who has actually made historical contributions and will stand the test of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.2.142.12 (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Did some research on the history of this page. Elizabeth Warren was only added 3 days ago (October 15th), and that change has been altered several times since. Prior to her addition, Charles Eastman was listed for a few years. Since it's evident there is no consensus for Warren's addition (nor evidence she has any American Indian blood), the page should remain listing Eastman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.2.142.12 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

She obviously has Lenape ancestry judging from how she looks, however, in the absence of any significant social or cultural connection with any group of Native Americans she has no business in the lede. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"Native Americans" re-direct

Shouldn't Native Americans redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas rather than to Native Americans in the United States? Isn't the current situation like having Europeans redirect to French people instead of the correct article, which is Ethnic groups in Europe? --MrStoofer (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

MrStoofer: To answer you question, no, because "Europeans" is never used to refer to the French specifically, while in many contexts "Native Americans" refers specifically to indigenous peoples from the U.S. However, Native Americans should *not* be pointing to Native Americans in the United States: either this article is the primary topic of the term, and should be title simply Native Americans, or Native Americans should be a dab page. I don't think it would be productive at this stage to redirect Native Americans to Indigenous peoples of the United States. Doing that caused the confusion and moves in the past that have left us in the current situation.--Cúchullain t/c 14:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
What I had in mind was that at Native Americans there would be a DAB page which said something like this:
Native Americans refers to the indigenous peoples of the Americas, in particular Native Americans in the United States.
It may also refer to:
--MrStoofer (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
There's now a dab page at Native Americans (disambiguation). That seems to me the most logical thing to put at the base name.--Cúchullain t/c 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you know? (re: "Native Americans")

Hope I'm not being insensitive here, but I find this a little confusing at a glance. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if my proposal above wasn't clear. I agree that the list of other indigenous peoples of the Americas should use the agreed article titles such as First Nations, Aboriginal peoples in Canada and so on.--MrStoofer (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This is starting to lead us into what caused most of the confusion to begin with. Disambiguation pages aren't for listing all related topics. They're for listing topics, related or not, that are known by a particular term. The disambiguation page needs to list the topics that are known as "Native Americans" or "Native American", not (necessarily) all articles on indigenous peoples in the Americas. "Native Americans" may be used for First Nations people in Canada, but it isn't used, for instance, for the Inuit, though both Inuit and First Nations are aboriginal peoples of Canada. We need to keep it ordered or it's likely someone will move the articles around again and we'll soon have a setup as confused as it was before.--Cúchullain t/c 16:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem with aources

We have the line "Three major migrations occurred" sourced to 2 refs...Both mention that the second and third waves were only in the Arctic..so i am not sure how helpfull it is to mislead our readers on the genetic diversity in the USA below the 60 parallel. We need to reword this or find sources that support the statement. --Moxy (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2016

There is a small error where words are repeated that i would like to fix. DisgustingFish (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC).
Note: or you can wait until you are an extended confirmed user and edit the page yourself. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC).
In the second paragraph, second line, known as is written twice, is this an error or not? If so it should be fixed. Sincerely, DisgustingFish (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Subheading added

In order to reduce the length of the Introduction, I have inserted a new subheading: Overview.

--Doctor Gregory (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ending Confusion

I know how people on Wikipedia have a hard time accepting new edits so I'll muster all the sensitivity that I can: the term 'native' or 'indigenous' or 'aboriginal' is kind of a cop-out or an acceptance to forming opinions about "things" that are unknown or uninformative. I've studied the history of Americas quite extensively, and to help with potential distance between peoples who have nothing to do with each other, I've tried to classify the 'game changers' between two factions centering around or near the Great Lakes people: A) Algonquians (the people who fought in the Beaver Wars [for French], French-Indian Wars [for French], American Revolution [for English], War of 1812 [for British]), B) Iroquoians [Cherokee People, Haudenosaunee people, Huron People].

This usually helps at a discussion table when people generally want to know the story of our great Continent without confusion of who fought for who and who didn't fight at all. Now in Canada (where I live), people are generally classifying themselves as 'native' or 'Great Lakes People' regardless of race or religion. Good luck to you all. 216.223.90.33 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Native Americans in the United States. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Native Americans in the United States. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

proposal for "Trauma" section

I would like to add a sub-section titled "Trauma" under the Contemporary Issues section. The following citations are sources I plan to use.

Braveheart-Jordan, M., DeBruyn, L. (1995). So She May Walk in Balance: Integrating the Impact of Historical Trauma in the Treatment of Native American Indian Women. In J. Adleman & G. M. Enguidanos (Eds.), Racism in the Lives of Women: Testimony, Theory, and Guides to Antiracist Practice (pp. 345-366). Binghamton, New York: Harrington Park Press.

Cole, N. (2006). Trauma and the American Indian. In T. M. Witko (Ed.), Mental Health Care for Urban Indians: Clinical Insights from Native Practitioners (pp. 115-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gone, J. P. (2009). A Community-Based Treatment for Native American Historical Trauma: Prospects for Evidence Based Practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4). 751-762. doi: 10.1037/a0015390

Grayshield, L., Rutherford, J. J., Salazar, S. B., Mihecoby, A. L., Luna, L. L. (2015). Understanding and Healing Historical Trauma: The Perspectives of Native American Elders. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 37(4). 295-307. doi: 10.17744/mech.37.4.02

Myhra, L. L., Wieling, E. (2014). Psychological Trauma Among American Indian Families: A Two-Generation Study. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 19. 289-313. doi: 10.1080/15325024.2013.771561

Paul, T. M., Lusk, S. L., Becton, A. B., Glade, R. (2017). Exploring the Impact of Substance Abuse, Culture, and Trauma on American Indian Adolescents. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 48(1). 31-39.

Weaver, H. N., Brave Heart, M. Y. H. (1999). Examining Two Facets of American Indian Identity: Exposure to Other Cultures and the Influence of Historical Trauma. Journal of Human Behavior in Social Environment, 2(1-2). 19-33. doi: 10.1300/J137v02n01_03

Weaver, H., Congress, E. (2010). The Ongoing Impact of Colonization: Man-made Trauma and Native Americans. In A. Kalayjian & D. Eugene (Eds.), Mass Trauma and Emotional Healing Around the World: Rituals and Practices for Resilience and Meaning-Making (pp. 211-226). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Willmon-Haque, S., Bigfoot, D. S. (2009). Violence and the Effects of Trauma on American Indian and Alaska Native Populations. In R. Geffner, D. Griffin & J. Lewis III (Eds.), Children Exposed to Violence: Current Issues, Interventions, and Research (pp. 48-63). New York: Routledge.

KyleMasonVance (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)KyleMasonVance

I don't understand what the section is going to be about. Can you give like a one-sentence description of what it's going to cover that's not already in the article? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I am going to add a sub-section under "Contemporary Issues" titled "Historical and Intergenerational Trauma". This section will talk about Historical Trauma in terms of the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890 and Dawes Allotment Act of 1887, Impacts of Intergenrerational Trauma in terms of substance abuse and boarding schools, and Solutions for Trauma in terms of culturally sensitive mental health practices such as burning sage and speaking one's own tribal language.

Here is my current list of references of which I will summarize.

Braveheart-Jordan, M., & DeBruyn, L. (1995). So She May Walk in Balance: Integrating the Impact of Historical Trauma in the Treatment of Native American Indian Women. In J. Adleman & G. M. Enguidanos (Eds.), Racism in the Lives of Women: Testimony, Theory, and Guides to Antiracist Practice (pp. 345-366). Binghamton, New York: Harrington Park Press.

Cole, N. (2006). Trauma and the American Indian. In T. M. Witko (Ed.), Mental Health Care for Urban Indians: Clinical Insights from Native Practitioners (pp. 115-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Coyhis, D., & Simonelli, R. (2008). The Native American Healing Experience. Substance Use & Misuse, 43. 1927-1949. doi: 10.1080/10826080802292584

Grayshield, L., Rutherford, J. J., Salazar, S. B., Mihecoby, A. L., & Luna, L. L. (2015). Understanding and Healing Historical Trauma: The Perspectives of Native American Elders. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 37(4). 295-307. doi: 10.17744/mech.37.4.02

Myhra, L. L. (2011). “It runs in the family”: Intergenerational Transmission of Historical Trauma Among Urban American Indians and Alaska Natives in Culturally Specific Sobriety Maintenance Programs. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 18(2). 17-40. National Center for American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research.

Myhra, L. L., & Wieling, E. (2014). Psychological Trauma Among American Indian Families: A Two-Generation Study. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 19. 289-313. doi: 10.1080/15325024.2013.771561

Paul, T. M., Lusk, S. L., Becton, A. B., & Glade, R. (2017). Exploring the Impact of Substance Abuse, Culture, and Trauma on American Indian Adolescents. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 48(1). 31-39.

Weaver, H., & Congress, E. (2010). The Ongoing Impact of Colonization: Man-made Trauma and Native Americans. In A. Kalayjian & D. Eugene (Eds.), Mass Trauma and Emotional Healing Around the World: Rituals and Practices for Resilience and Meaning-Making (pp. 211-226). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Willmon-Haque, & S., Bigfoot, D. S. (2009). Violence and the Effects of Trauma on American Indian and Alaska Native Populations. In R. Geffner, D. Griffin & J. Lewis III (Eds.), Children Exposed to Violence: Current Issues, Interventions, and Research (pp. 48-63). New York: Routledge.

KyleMasonVance (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the "Contemporary Issues" section of this article has a main article at Contemporary Native American issues in the United States, I think you should consider putting the bulk of your work into a new section in that article and then putting a briefer summary of it in this one. Eventually this should possibly also have an article of its own. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you LacrimosaDiesIlla for your recommendation. I believe you are correct about this topic needing its own article. I had considered creating a specific article for this topic but do not have the time for it at the moment because the reason for my contributions are to fulfill requirement for a 6 week summer graduate course. Maybe once I do more research and add more to these articles mentioned I will undertake that task. For the time being I will add a my current work to Contemporary Native American issues in the United States and leave a summary on this page as to be able to direct users to additional information. KyleMasonVance (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, good luck! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Bio warfare not factual

"There are a number of documented cases where diseases were deliberately spread among Native Americans as a form of biological warfare. The most well known example occurred in 1763, "

Been spending some time investigating the above subject.

In fact there seems to have been only one such recorded case (Fort Pitt 1763 ) and it is not clear that the attempt achieved anything.

I therefore suggest the sentence be reworded to:

There is only one documented case where an attempt was made to deliberately spread disease among Native Americans as a form of biological warfare. That example occurred in 1763...

Cassandra.

You must provide source to statement "only one documented case" Cathry (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. It seems to be true. Discussions of this at various articles, eg History of biological warfare and Native American disease and epidemics only mention this one. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% up to speed on the latest research here, but this has been in the news lately with name changes around places named after Jeffery Amherst, in both Canada and the US. He and his compatriots may have been involved in more incidents than those mentioned above (see Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst#Biological warfare involving smallpox). It's my understanding that there may be some lesser-known documentation about other incidents in the archives at either Amherst College or UMass, Amherst. I think some of this may be coming online, or accessible in pdf form, at some point. Until this is looked into deeper, I would not say there is "only one." Propose simply removing some of the text, to simplify it to something more like:
"Smallpox was deliberately spread among Native Americans as a form of biological warfare. A documented example occurred in 1763," - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Suicide

I am interested in contributing information about the prevalence, causes, and context of suicide among Native American populations in the United States. There are plentiful academic resources available on the subject, and no significant Wikipedia coverage. Please see my user page for further information about me, as well as the sources I will prospectively be using. --Marycneal (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I will be adding a subsection “5.9 Suicide” to the “Contemporary issues” section of this article. I plan to organize the subsection as follows: 5.9.1 Recent rates 5.9.2 Causation 5.9.3 Demographic correlations (including age, gender, and location) 5.9.4 Approaches to prevention.

If it proves to be more desirable, I will instead create a new article for “Suicide in Native Americans” with the same information and organization. Please see my user page for more information, such as my proposed sources. I welcome any comments or suggestions.--Marycneal (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Native Americans in the United States. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Date style, again, by the same person as last time

Linking to the archived previous rendition of this subject here Talk:Native_Americans_in_the_United_States/Archive_7#Date_Style, in case you forgot that this was decided several years ago, User:Primus128. Heiro 02:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, there was this Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_19#Cahokia on the same subject. Heiro 03:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


Each article is separate. If the BCE style was used first, that is the style that should be used. If BC, then that should be used. It's done to prevent people with an agenda from starting edit wars. I am assuming you must be one of those people with an agenda Primus128 (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Read both of those discussions linked above, they SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THIS ARTICLE. A consensus was reached for the date style on this article, to use the BCE/CE style. Do not revert this again. It was pointed out to you repeatedly in those discussions that your reading of MOS:ERA was incorrect. Heiro 18:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Primus, why are you still claiming that WP:ERA says use the first style? In 2012 I wrote, in reply to you, "Primus, you've been reverting BCE on a number of articles over the past few months. You've been invoking something that WP:ERA specifically no longer says about the first style having priority." Also Look, you are using an argument about 'originally' that was removed from the guideline. If you didn't realise it had been changed, you should say so and back away, with hopefully an apology to show good faith. If you can't or won't do this, then it's hard to agree with you that you are only here to enforce the 'rules' (which I would take more seriously if you ever changed from BC to BCE". Do we need to take you to WP:ANI or will you admit that you are not correct about WP:ERA. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
And when you took it to DRN, the moderator wrote "Primus, Dougweller has a good point - WP:ERA doesn't appear to actually say what you have said it does. It's probably a good idea to back off from this dispute now, before things get too heated; pursuing it further will not end well, in my opinion. There seems to be a consensus at both talk pages to keep the date styles as they have been for the last few years, and this is also supported by the present wording of WP:ERA. Also, I strongly recommend that you leave the article at its present version even after 24 hours is up, as edits do not have to break 3RR to be classed as edit warring. With a little more experience, you will realise that sometimes on Wikipedia you have to put up with things that you might not agree with, for the greater benefit of the encyclopaedia. There are times when it can be worth sticking up for something on this site, but I'm afraid that this does not look like one of them. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)" I doubt you've forgotten this. User:Parkwells was also involved in that discussion so I'll ping them. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Native Americans in the United States. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Redskins Considered a Racial Slur

It states in this article that "Redskins" is considered a racial slur. It doesn't say who considers it a racial slur, and there is no citation. The fact is that many people consider it a racial slur and many people don't, including Native Americans who have gone on record to state they consider it an homage. This leads one to believe that the sentence in question refers to the opinion of the author of that sentence himself, and does not refer to any objective or verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.84 (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Citation added. From the reference: The legacy of racism which was established by the team’s owner, George Preston Marshall, is an important component to the story of the Washington football team name, in addition to its violent origins in American popular culture. The term originates from a time when Native people were actively hunted and killed for bounties, and their skins were used as proof of Indian kill. 16 Bounties were issued by European companies, colonies, and some states, most notably California. By the turn of the 20th century it had evolved to become a term meant to disparage and denote inferiority and savagery in American culture. By 1932, the word had been a term of commodification and a commentary on the color of a body part. It was not then and is not now an honorific. In 1932, the term was selected as the new name of the Boston Braves by the team’s new owner, George Preston Marshall; considered the league’s most notorious racist owner in the formative years of the NFL. The term has since evolved to take on further derogatory meanings. Specifically, in the 20th Century the term became a widely used derogatory term to negatively characterize Native characters in the media and popular culture, such as films and on television....
The NFL’s Washington football team has justified its use of its racist moniker by stating that the name is an attempt to honor Native peoples, citing that then-new owner of the Boston Braves, George Preston Marshall, changed the name to the Boston Redsk*ns, to both accommodate a branding conflict with the Boston “Braves” baseball team and to honor new coach William “Lonestar” Dietz in 1932, whose false identity as an American Indian was exposed in a federal court proceeding and an extensive FBI investigation. The Washington franchise persists in its mythology that the team was named to honor Dietz, who was German.
Work permit (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Indians, Native Americans, Indigenous Americans or American Indians?

copied ex Talk:War of 1812

The article references Indians 82 times, Native Americans eleven times, American Indians six times, and indigenous peoples three times. Given this, and given the contention around the naming conventions and the debate between historical and accurate, is there a standard across Wikipedia for the referencing of indigenous Americans? Is there a reason that there are different names across this one article? Should there be one standard, or is there a logic behind having multiple ways to refer to indigenous Americans.  Matt Sylvester  Talk  04:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question. Hundreds of editors contributed to this article, bringing many different perspectives. Wikipedia's rule is to follow the reliable sources, and in this case the reliable sources are highly divergent on the terminology for the war of 1812. scholar.google.com counts word usage from many thousands of reliable sources, both books and articles. A quick check gives this count:
  • 42,000 "american Indians" "war of 1812"
  • 20.000 "aboriginal" "war of 1812"
  • 12,900 "native americans" "war of 1812"
  • 7,300 "american Indians" "war of 1812"
I recommend the fascinating short discussion by Canadian military historian Carl Benn on how he decided on terms to use at Carl Benn (1998). The Iroquois in the War of 1812. U of Toronto Press. pp. viii–ix. Benn avoids the word "Indian" because it conjures up subhuman and superhuman stereotypes. He rejects 'aboriginal' and 'native', as transitory and inadequate in the same way that "Amerindian" was used a generation ago. He rejects 'Native-Americans' "because of its dissonance to Canadian ears" and because its too much like 'Italian-American' or 'Irish-American'. All in all, he rejects them all. He tries to rewrite his paragraphs to refer to highly specific tribes or nations, such as the Iroquois. With some trepidation, he does use the terms 'warrior' and 'chief'. Rjensen (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I just want to point out that the word "Indian" is used by many Indians in their tribal name. I was once told by an Indian that there was a bit of a geographical difference in the US as to whether they used Indian or Native American in referring to themselves. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's better to use specific tribe names where it is possible to do so without it being detrimental to the prose quality. Seraphim System (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
oops the first line of the table should be 33,000 "Indians" "war of 1812" Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Massive changes, past-tensing Natives

I'm going over these massive changes and have some concerns. Important text like, "at the time of contact" and similar, is being cut, in exchange for a voice that past-tenses Native cultures. If this turns out to be an inherent POV push, and too intrinsic to weed out, massive reverts are going to be needed. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Um...this needs to be reverted. All of it. Then corrections can be made. I cannot believe what I am reading. Is it a student project? Indigenous girl (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Article restored--Moxy (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Past-tensing in many of these instances is unacceptable and needed to be either corrected or reverted. However, it looks like many of those problems are still there in the restored version.--Cúchullain t/c 22:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this has needed a major overhaul for a while. Though not as a student project using florid, 18th century frontier memoirs. Seems to be a lot of that going around lately. If it's not school projects, it's Boy Scout Badge quests or similar. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits

Sorry if my edits have offended everyone. My only intent was to tidy up a badly organised article and add what I thought was some uncontroversial material. UtDicitur (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

UtDicitur: No worries. The article does need a lot of work. Hopefully it starts moving in a better direction soon.--Cúchullain t/c 15:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Beringia

I believe this has come up before, but it's not the case that the population model involving Beringia has been debunked. In fact, all credible theories involve the crossing of the Bering Strait from Asia. What's been challenged is the idea that the Native Americans' ancestors must have crossed by land over the Bering land bridge. Current evidence suggests it was by boat (the land crossing model isn't "debunked", but the water crossing model appears to be increasingly favored in the scholarship.) The sections need to be rewritten, but there's no reason to remove them.--Cúchullain t/c 22:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that the migration theory has always been pushed by certain factions in academia, and that more recent archaeological finds in North America support that indigenous peoples have always been on this continent, yes? The problem is one of inherent bias, both in academia and on Wikipedia. When we're dealing with the subjegation of indigenous people, normal issues around fringe do not apply in the same ways. This brings in problems with sourcing as, even as these finds are documented and written about, those who are going against the tide with this are having trouble getting published. Even when they are published, it's a struggle. We have several good studies now in academia, and can add them soon. It may be a little while before I can compile it all, though. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
This is wrong. The Beringia migration hypothesis has a very broad consensus behind it. There are several versoins of it with different timings, and different emphasis on coastal migration. But there are no serious alternatives to the Beringian land bridge theory at all. The "we have always been here" is a religious claim, it is not compatible with observable reality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: this is something I keep up with, but I don't know of the archaeological finds you mention, or at least I don't think I know what you are talking about. You seem to be saying that Native Americans are a unique species not related to homo homo sapiens, which originated in Africa, but I hope I've misunderstood that. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The Clovis-first model has been seriously challenged, and claim of the icefree corridor being the only point of entry has been seriously challenged too[14] - but this only means that the migration across the strait probably took place somewhat earlier and by other routes than previously believed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
"Always been on this continent"? Anatomically-modern humans have only existed for about 200,000 years. I'm a strong believer that American indigenous people have been given short shrift by historians and anthropologists (notably, I'm a subscriber to Stephen Lekson's Chaco Meridian theories) but I'll need some extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that Native Americans are an entirely-separately-evolved species of hominid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
no guess work pls.--Moxy (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
There's some new research suggesting that the migration was more coastal, through an ice-free corridor along the then-exposed continental shelf of what is now Southeast Alaska, rather than interior (because the "ice-free corridor" in central Canada is now rather questionable), but I don't believe there's any serious scientific doubt that significant numbers of people crossed via Beringia in some form or another. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan:: Your comment is so off base that I'm having trouble responding. I don't understand what you mean by "indigenous peoples have always been on this continent." I also don't know what you mean by "certain factions in academia" pushing the Bering Strait theory. It was pushed by most academics, as it was the only model that fits the available evidence. As I and others have said, current models are variants of the same idea, focusing more heavily on ocean travel than land travel. And lastly, reliable sourcing standards and WP:FRINGE very much do apply to this article. We follow the sources, and those indicate that the Americas were peopled from Asia across what's currently the Bering Strait. The text does need to be updated, but that also needs to be according to up-to-date reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 20:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This said, the section, like most of the article, needs a ton of work. It doesn't currently reflect the most up-to-date work.--Cúchullain t/c 01:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
So, if the Beringia theory is correct (12.6 cal kyr bp) then how do we account for Meadowcroft, Paisley Cave, Monte Verde, Clovis, Topper Site and many other sites that pre-date Beringia by over a thousand years? Also, linguistic development, according to University of California-Berkeley linguist Johanna Nichols would have taken about 19,000 years to develop. While migration likely occurred from Beringia is was in no way first wave or even close to that. Every Nation has it's own Creation story and I feel that considering the topic, this also needs to be given equal consideration. We have always been here. We are the First Peoples. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
No myths.......academic article .....lets start with an overview Bridge to the New World.--Moxy (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure [15], [16], Also, on the necessity of respecting indigenous accounts of the historical record [17] Indigenous girl (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
That Science Magazine piece is not saying that humans didn't cross the Bering Strait, only that the first wave took the coastal route across the strait instead. It's certainly not saying that the ancestors of indigenous Americans didn't migrate from elsewhere. As for oral accounts, they're certainly useful and increasingly used in academia, for comparatively recent periods of time. In this case, we're talking about many thousands of years, and there are hundreds or thousands of different accounts from across the continent that aren't all consistent with each other. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow us to take such accounts (or interpretations of them) over academic sources.--Cúchullain t/c 15:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Is is possible to say something along the lines of, "There are multiple migration theories within academia with the Bering Strait theory being one of the most popular. Some indigenous nations themselves have migration stories that parallel several of there newer theories." I would be happy to gather sources in a day or two, I'm currently recovering from a migraine so I can't get on it immediately. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

We ought to cover all the models that are currently held in academia here. But again, all of them are essentially variations involving crossing from Asia over the Bering Strait. I don’t believe we can say that indigenous accounts better fit some of these models than others, and many dont resemble any model. Various Southeastern U.S. cultures hold that they emerged from the earth in their historical homeland, for instance.—Cúchullain t/c 14:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps best to read over Settlement of the Americas.--Moxy (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Areas

Ok, so I think it would be a good idea to say a few words about Native American cultural areas in the background section, as it is a good introduction to the topic. Maybe using the classification in Native American cultures in the United States with a link to the article for each main cultural area, accompanied by the map of the areas. Any objections? UtDicitur (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing the title?

I suggest changing the title of this article to The indigenous peoples of the United States as this is the term generally used in related articles. Rwood128 (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I realize that this would involve adding other indigenous peoples from outside of mainland United States, but "native" sounds dated to my Canadian ears, and even derogatory. Rwood128 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I now see that the Inuit of Alaska are, somewhat confusingly, called Native Americans. The indigenous people of Hawaii should be included; the definition the American census uses is too narrow here. Is the term "American Indian" still acceptable in 2018?Rwood128 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see the archives of this and related pages and the entire page on Native American name controversy. This is a carefully worked out system. And, by the way, some "Inuit" in Alaska still prefer the term Eskimo because it covers both the Inuit and the Yupik peoples. [18] Rmhermen (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
CorbieV, many thanks for these most helpful comments. Most interesting. I have learnt a lot!
However, my main point was that the term "indigenous" is most generally used in similar articles throughout Wikipedia. Interestingly the USA has an Indigenous Peoples' Day. Note also the articles Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and Indigenous peoples of California. I see also that American Indian is the preferred term amongst indigenous Americans, rather than Native American.Rwood128 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore Hawaiians are indigenous people, however the USA Census classifies them. The "except Hawaii" in the first sentence of the lede doesn't make sense. Rwood128 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Rwood128 Hawaiians are Pacific Islanders and not decedents of the same migratory pathways of Native Americans. We are an unrelated group living in the same country.Mcelite (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Mcelite, maybe I should have been clearer. My point is that Hawaiians are indigenous to Hawaii. Rwood128 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rwood128: "American Indian" is not the preferred term. It is actually the more dated term. Recently some efforts akin to vandalism have been happening on the 'pedia, involving wholesale insertion of language that is not supported by the sources - usually the deletion of other terms to insert "American Indian". This is inappropriate and not supported by sourcing or consensus. Please read the NAJA guidelines. Native American Journalists Association takes priority over opinions of editors on WP, but we also have general consensus at the Indigenous Wikiproject to use the NAJA guidelines. Stick with what is in the sources unless it is offensive. Use people's self-descriptions. Those from outside the communities are not in a place to dictate what is or is not offensive. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on my main point? CorbieV, I do appreciate the guidance you offer. NAJA sounds like a good source to follow. Sorry for any ignorance–I need to learn to be a little more cautious. Thanks again. Rwood128 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The title fits the scope of this article which does not include Native Hawaiians or Chamorro, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The lede is now clearer. Rwood128 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in Article's data

The Map with the native American share of population for each state at the top of the article shows much large population shares for native Americans in each state than the tables Demographics section of the article. One of them got the Data wrong, and should be updated to reflect the correct data.Emass100 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Source for "correct data"? oncamera 01:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Both use the 2010 US census as reference.[1]Emass100 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of documented cases where diseases were deliberately spread?

"There are a number of documented cases where diseases were deliberately spread among Native Americans as a form of biological warfare."

Though I'm sure that this is a honest quote, the trouble is that it is not true. There is only ONE documented case, that at Fort Pitt. The idea that diseases were deliberately spread seems to have become embedded in American folklore, but there really is zero actual evidence. If anyone thinks otherwise then do try and find some solid evidence. I've tried hard and can find none that can stand up to investigation. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.167.189 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Non linked ref [22] removed, looks like someone scraped this from Spanish missions in California

Too late tonight for me to fix this. Doug Weller talk 21:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ "State and County QuickFacts". Quickfacts.census.gov. 2013-02-20. Archived from the original on 2012-03-04. Retrieved 2013-06-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_Americans_in_the_United_States/Archive_7&oldid=1257416921"