Talk:Indian termination policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Termination list[edit]

Caroline and others at UNC, nice work on this page. I would think somebody would have a list all the "special relationships" with specific tribes. BIA? A clever search of the Library of Congress database? Wish I could be of more help --Rcollman (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I am looking for a list. The 109 number includes tribes and bands. Not sure of the source but..'Between 1954 and 1964, Congress passed 14 acts that ended federal acknowledgment for 109 Indian tribes and bands.' Here are some pieces until I find "a list".[reply]

If there were 109 to start with and California had 41 (all accounted for) and Oregon had 62 (not all accounted for ... yet) then the remainder would be 6 tribes. From the Bureau of Land Management list http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-23R/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-23R.htm I find:
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Oct. 27, 1966; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Aug. 3, 1959; Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma Aug. 2, 1959; Catawba Indian Nation (of SC) July 2, 1960; Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas July 1, 1955; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Mar. 1, 1957 and Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Apr. 30, 1961.
But that is 7. Interesting that I have seen the Oregon list at both 61 and 62. I am also curious about the California number because the 2nd list had 7 additional reservations, though 2 appear to have been erroneously shown and from the initial 41 rancherias 3 reservations were never terminated. So, any way you figure it, California actually had 43, but in the count to 109 did that include the 41 on the order or 38 that actually resulted? If they used 38 that plus Oregon would be 100 so there are 9 additions and the above list of 7 leaves us 2 short. Complications! SusunW (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rethinking this. WE don't have any way of knowing what made up the 109. I just wrote a piece on the Oklahoma terminations. There was a law passed terminating the Wyandotte and they were restored though the government claimed they were never "officially" terminated. In addition, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah included 4 bands (Shivwits, Kanosh, Koosharem, and Indian Peaks Bands). So...it seems more logical to try to find 14 pieces of legislation than trying to figure out what tribes/bands were included in that 109 number. SusunW (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ponca[edit]

  • April of 1962, Senator Frank Church of Idaho introduced a bill terminating the Northern Ponca band's federal trust relationship. On September 5, 1962, Congress passed Public Law 870-629, in effect terminating the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.

Oregon[edit]

"The Tribes of Oregon were hardest hit by the Termination Acts. Of the 109 Tribes terminated in the United States, 62 were from Oregon. Additionally, 98% of all individual Indians losing their federal status were from Oregon. All Tribes terminated in Oregon were situated on the West side of the Coast Range; those tribes with the large timber holdings." U of Oregon Page 1 The Isaac I. Stevens and Joel Palmer Treaties, 1855–2005 | Oregon Historical Quarterly, 106.3..

  • CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE SILETZ -Confederation of 27 bands originally ranging from northern

California to southern Washington

    • 5 Lost recognition as a result of the Termination Act of 1954 (5 restored 1977).
  • CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE -Rogue River, Umpqua, Chasta, Kalapuya, Mollala, Salmon River, Tillamook, Nestucca (
    • 5 Lost recognition as a result of the Termination Act of 1954 (5 reorganized 1974, restored 1983)
  • KLAMATH INDIAN TRIBE
    • Klamath, Modoc, Yahooskin Band (restored 1986)
  • CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER UMPQUA AND SUISLAW INDIANS -Coos, Lower Umpqua, Suislaw
    • (restored 1984)
  • COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE -
    • (restored 1989)
  • COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA INDIANS
    • (restored 1982)

California[edit]

41 tribes or bands were terminated California Rancheria Act. Please note that locations are not always tribal/band names. [http://digital.library.okstate.edu/KAPPLER/vol6/html_files/v6p0831.html#mn1 Public Law 85-671 August 18, 1958] H. R. 2824 72 Stat. 619 "To provide for the distribution of the land and assets of certain Indian rancherias and reservations in California, and for other purposes."

To provide for the distribution of the land and assets of certain Indian rancherias and reservations in California, and for other purposes.1958] lists 41 names (Band noted by RCC): Alexander Valley(Wappo), Auburn(multiple groups), Big Sandy(Mono), Big Valley(Band Pomo), Blue Lake(Multiple groups:Yurok & Wiyot), Buena Vista(Miwok), Cache Creek(Pomo), Chicken Ranch (Miwok), Chico(Mechoopda), Cloverdale(Band Pomo), Cold Springs(Mono), Elk Valley(multiple groups), Guidiville(Band Pomo), Graton(Miwok), Greenville (Maidu), Hopland(Band Pomo), Indian Ranch, Lytton(Band Pomo), Mark West, Middletown(Band Pomo), Montgomery Creek, Mooretown(Maidu), Nevada City(Maidu, North Fork(Mono), Paskenta(Band of Nomlaki), Picayune(Chukchansi), Pinoleville(Band, Pomo), Potter Valley(Band Pomo), Quartz Valley(multiple groups-Karok, Shasta and Upper Klamath), Redding(combined), Redwood Valley(Band Pomo), Robinson(Band Pomo), Rohnerville (Bear River Band- Wiyot and Mattole), Ruffeys (unk), Scotts Valley(Band, Pomo), Smith River(Tolowa), Strawberry Valley(Maidu), Table Bluff(Wiyot), Table Mountain, Upper Lake(Pomo), Wilton(Miwok).
  • Modocs while from California were "moved" to other states
    • Modoc Tribes OR Terminated 1954
    • Modoc Tribes OK Terminated 1954 (restored 1978) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.10.60 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pinoleville Band of Pomo Indians


Just finished working on the Modocs. They were NOT from California, were from Oregon, and partially on the Klamath Reservation. The part of the tribe that were taken as prisoners to Oklahoma in 1873 after the Modoc Wars were terminated along with the Klamath. Congressional hearings showed most Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri Modoc did not know they were part of the Oregon Termination. Thus, they were restored in 1978. Took almost a decade for the rest of the Klamath. I listed termination under Klamath and restoration under Oklahoma terminations/restorations and pointed them to each other on the page. SusunW (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created a table to handle the data in a more logical fashion. Not all dates are available with what I have found so far, but I was able to complete a lot of the data. I am fairly new to Wiki editing and am not sure how to deal with the sources which are repeats. Anyone who wants to edit or assist, please jump in. SusunW (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put all 41 tribes that were on the initial California list in the chart, then discovered the supplemental list and added them to a separate chart, as they cannot be part of the 109 tribes referred to as terminated per the 1958 Act. However, I also found 3 tribes on the list below of terminated CA tribes that were dropped from Indian Health Care. How should they figure in or be presented?

Coyote Valley Rancheria terminated 10 July, 1957; Laguna Rancheria terminated 4 February, 1958; and Lower Lake Rancheria 29 March, 1956 SusunW (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another list but not complete[edit]

bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/

Public Law Tribal Group Termination Date
85-671 Alexander Valley Rancheria,CA August 1, 1961
85-671 Big Valley Rancheria, California November 11, 1965
85-671 Blue Lake Rancheria, California September 22, 1966
85-671 Buena Vista Rancheria, California April 11, 1961
85-671 Cache Creek Rancheria, California April 11, 1961
86-322 Catawba of South Carolina July 1, 1962
85-671 Chicken Ranch Rancheria, California August 1, 1961
85-671 Cloverdale Rancheria, California December 30, 1965
85-91 Coyote Valley Rancheria, California July 10, 1957
85-671 El Dorado Rancheria, California July 16, 1966
85-671 Elk Valley Rancheria, California July 16, 1966
85-671 Graton Rancheria, California February 18, 1966
85-671 Greenville Rancheria, California December 3, 1966
85-671 Guidiville Rancheria, California August 30, 1965
85-671 Indian Ranch Rancheria, California September 22, 1964
83-587 Klamath Tribe of Oregon August 13, 1961
80-335 Laguna Rancheria, California February 4, 1958
84-443 Lower Lake Rancheria, California March 29, 1956
85-671 Lytton Rancheria, California August 1, 1961
85-671 Mark West Rancheria, California August 1, 1961
85-671 Mooretown Rancheria, California August 1, 1961
85-671 Nevada City Rancheria, California September 22, 1964
85-671 North Fork Rancheria, California February 18, 1966
85-671 Paskenta Rancheria, California April 11, 1961
85-671 Picayune Rancheria, California February 18, 1966
85-671 Pinoleville Rancheria, California February 18, 1966
87-269 Poncas of Nebraska October 27, 1966
85-671 Potter Valley Rancheria, California August 1, 1961
85-671 Quartz Valley Rancheria, California January 27, 1967
85-671 Redding (Clear Creek) Rancheria, CA. June 18, 1962
85-671 Redwood Valley Rancheria, California August 1, 1961
85-671 Rohnerville Rancheria, California July 16, 1966
85-671 Ruffeys Rancheria, California April 11, 1962
85-671 Scotts Valley Rancheria, California September 3, 1965
83-762 Shivwits, Kanosh, Koosharem and
Indian Peaks Bands of the Paiute
Indian Tribe in Utah March 1, 1957
85-671 Strawberry Valley Rancheria, CA April 11, 1961
85-671 Table Bluff Rancheria, California
83-588 (Western Oregon) Certain tribes, bands, groups or communities of Indians located West of :::the Cascade April 11, 1961
Mountains in Oregon August 13, 1956
85-671 Wilton Rancheria, California September 27, 1964
83-671 Ute Indian Tribe of the Unitah and Ouray Reservation in Utah.
(Mixed blood members only.) August 27, 1961
Thanks for the list. Supplied a lot of the missing dates for the California tribes. Apparently it is the list of effective dates they were terminated from Indian Health Services. SusunW (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Does anyone working on this page know the name of the female history professor of Native descent who describes how peoples will still not accept $20 but ask for 2 $10's and she also goes on to describe Andrew Jackson as America's Hitler? Her comments were late in the episode of the November 2007 original airing of the Presidents:Andrew Jackson on the History Channel. Alatari (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strengthen section on Alaska[edit]

The article is interesting but needs to provide some additional context for understanding unique aspects of Alaskan Native Americans' issues. As a lay reader without much background, I don't understand the references to state land and aboriginals' land selection.--Parkwells (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Administrations?[edit]

The article says that the policy "was developed by Republican administrations during the 1950s and 1960s"

How is this accurate considering that from early 1961 to early 1969 the White House was occupied by two Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson) and this time period (1950 to 1969) only saw two Republican presidents, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, and Nixon was the president responsible for ending Termination? If it was policy formulated under Eisenhower then the article should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.160.66 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the strongest advocates of the policy were Republican, I agree that this is misleading and should be reworded. Kennedy and Johnson inherited and continued the policy; it was during the Nixon administration that the federal government began to reverse course on this. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Termination originated under the FDR's administration in the 1940s according to The encyclopedia of Native American economic history By Bruce Elliott Johansen. Termination started under a Democratic administration, not Republican. Throughout history Republicans have supported Native Americans. Republican had Native American Charles Curtis as vice-president. And as far as I know, Republicans are the only ones to return back land to Native American control. Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=BIQLMYyfHncC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=Indian+termination+history+Franklin+d.+roosevelt&source=bl&ots=tcWvvwflMH&sig=oXp5CzcoBAatxoDa8nRjTTmjZDw&hl=en&ei=tooASpj2McSFtgeh6JGWBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2 Rob (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Termination, while incredibly complex, was not new by the 1950s and 1960s. It wasn't even new by the time of FDR. For decades, if not a century or more, there had been advocates of termination-like policies. In the modern sense, though, it developed in the late 1940s under the Truman administration (see works by Thomas Cowger, among others). The word "termination" wasn't even used regularly to describe the policies until the 1950s. It was also supported by politicians on both sides of the political aisle (Pat McCarran being a top Democrat who supported it vigorously). Many Republicans did support it in the late 1940s and 1950s because they favored limited government and saw termination as a means to downsize the Bureau of Indian Affairs and cut off the burgeoning federal bureaucracy (which had exploded with WWII). Many also associated Native rights groups with Communism for various (often completely wrong) reasons. By far, geography - rather than politial party - was a better indicator of a politician's support for termination in the 1940s and 1950s. Not all Western politicians were terminationists, but terminationists often tended to be Westerners, who supported the policy for various reasons. Some wanted to downsize the government, some wanted to encourage assimilation of groups outside the mainstream, and some - as hard as it may be to believe - genuinely thought that termination was in the best interest of Native groups, particularly those living in poverty on a failed reservation system. It's also important to keep in mind that opinions of termination were far from universal among Native groups. Some - especially those that had problems with the Indian New Deal of the FDR administration - actually found elements of termination policy appealing. Again, it was a complex policy that makes generalizing difficult. Harry Yelreh (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am trying to rework this section Politics and keep it politically neutral. I cannot really find any politicians that did not support termination. It seems to me that all supported it, the only question was whether it should be immediate or delayed and if the Indians should consent or not. But, I am troubled by the inclusion of E. Morgan Pryse. He appears to be of somewhat questionable loyalty to either side. See https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=OZwAnfQj62cC&lpg=PA254&ots=zCtSdvQEMQ&dq=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination&f=false There isn't a source cited for the claim "An unusual aspect of the Klamath tribe termination hearing was that E. Morgan Pryse, the BIA area director from Portland, Oregon, testified against termination. He testified that the process would put Klamath land ownership at risk, because he knew individuals would be pressured to sell their lands. Most people affiliated with the BIA were understood to favor termination.[citation needed]" but I don't really think the few things I can find support that. https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=zf6ZU2M8NMQC&lpg=PA50&ots=c5otDwbd2W&dq=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination%20klamath&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination%20klamath&f=false seems to indicate he was more concerned with the government than the Indians and this passage, which shows the questioning of Pryse http://history.rutgers.edu/honors-papers-2009/148-federal-termination-and-its-effects/file clearly shows what he thought was going to happen but does not indicate that he was arguing against termination, but rather giving his personal opinion of what he thought might happen. SusunW (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Relocation Act of 1956[edit]

No mention here of the Indian Relocation Act of 1956. Probably should be. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added it to policy section SusunW (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeframe[edit]

I have cited Getches, Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, for a period between 1945 and 1961. The timeframe is debatable. Anyone believe it should be otherwise? Afwm1985 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to use a less definite time-frame, from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. Afwm1985 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Health Service[edit]

As currently written, the article is quite contradictory with regard to the Indian Health Service. At the start of the paragraph about health care, it states that one of the negative aspects of Termination was that once tribes were terminated, their members were no longer eligible for care by the Indian Health Service. At the end of the paragraph, the creation of the Indian Health Service was one of the few positive developments coming out of Termination. Well, which is it? It obviously can't be both. 75.216.136.125 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I finally fixed this issue. It wasn't the creation of the the Health service that came out of termination, it was the transfer of the service from control of BIA to the Public Health Service -- recognizing it wasn't an "Indian" problem, but a "health" concern. SusunW (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14 Termination Laws[edit]

Instead of the 190 tribes, I have been researching whether it is simpler to identify the 14 laws of termination. I sent to the US code and via various searches, found this (my numbering):

key words: tribe termination

1. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XXXV- WYANDOTTE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
2. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XL- MENOMINEE TRIBE OF WISCONSIN: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
3. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XXXVII- OTTAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
4. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XXXVI- PEORIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
5. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XIII- KLAMATH TRIBE: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
6. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XLVI- PONCA TRIBE OF NEBRASKA: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION

key words: indian termination

7. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XXX- WESTERN OREGON INDIANS: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
8. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XXXI- ALABAMA AND COUSHATTA INDIANS OF TEXAS: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
9. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, SUBCHAPTER LXXVIII—YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO: RESTORATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION (§§ 1300g–1300g7) (This led me to try to find this tribe, which apparently like the Alabama-Couchatta transferred jurisdiction from the Federal Government to the state of Texas and thus, I found: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/90/hr10599/text
10. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XXXII- PAIUTE INDIANS OF UTAH: TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION
11. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter XXVIII- UTE INDIANS OF UTAH: DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS BETWEEN MIXED-BLOOD AND FULL-BLOOD MEMBERS; TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION OVER PROPERTY OF MIXED-BLOOD MEMBERS

I was surprised that none of this search turned up the Choctaw or the California Rancherias. So, I input Choctaw and came up with this:

12. Act of August 25, 1959, Pub. L. No. 86-192, 73 Stat. 420 (Choctaw Termination Act)

and with key words: rancheria

13. 25 U.S. Code Chapter 14, Subchapter LXXXV- GRATON RANCHERIA RESTORATION

No mention of the termination of the Rancherias but it clearly happened as PUBLIC LAW 85-671 72 STAT. 619 AUG. 18, 1958

I find no other laws about termination other than the 1964 amendment to the California statute, which would then be the 14th statute:

Public Law 88-419 78 Stat. 390 August 11, 1964

Does this seem feasible as the list we are seeking? SusunW (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other possibility I see is that the 14th statute (since PL 88-419 was an amendment) would be the initial Resolution 108, which terminated The Flathead Tribe of Montana, the Klamath Tribe of Oregon, the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin, the Potowatamie Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, and those members of the Chippewa Tribe who are on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, North Dakota. Interestingly, it mentions that all offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the States of California, Florida, New York, and Texas should be abolished. But I see no tribes in Florida or New York on the list of terminated tribes? http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol6/html_files/v6p0614.html SusunW (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the list of 14 is wrong any way you count it. Don't know where that number came from I'm up to 15 already without counting Resolution 108 or the California Rancheria amendment. SusunW (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if a number is used, it should reflect the total number of completed termination acts, which is 12. Wyandotte was never completed, nor was Seneca, nor was Choctaw and while the Brothertown ended up terminated (see Emigrant Indians of New York it wasn't due to a termination bill, but a technicality. SusunW (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page format reorganization[edit]

I realize that the way the page is currently constructed is to keep it in chronological order, but that causes the reader to look in two different different places ("terminations" and "restorations") to follow the chronology for a specific state or tribe. I think it would be easier for the reader to understand the specifics for each entity if they were in a single unit.

I propose that all of the discussion for policy occur first in a chronological manner and specific state/tribe discussions follow, also arranged chronologically. In this manner it will be much easier to follow when termination was implemented and revoked both from a policy standpoint and within a given entity. SusunW (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest doing first is a section-by-section improvement. (Like remodeling a house, first see what can be fixed by fresh paint and a new carpet before you start tearing out walls...) Add sources, reword, delete the cruft, etc. Then, as you go, some ways to improve organization will come together - I personally hesitate to move away from a chronological order without a real clear improvement, but as it sits this article is too scattered already. I'd clean and consolidate first. Montanabw(talk) 07:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that is what I have been doing. If you go back to the version when I posted my comment originally, you had to look in 3 sections to follow the history for a single tribe. That was too confusing, so I consolidated all the information about a single tribe in that tribe's heading. First tried to get the underpinning policies. Then worked through the ones that were terminated. Then worked through the ones that never actually got terminated. Then I passed over Alaska, I know nothing about it and moved on to politics. Has been a major project, but slowly and steadily it is improving. SusunW (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of tribes/bands terminated?[edit]

Here is the count I come up with:

  • Emigrant Indians of New York: Brothertown 1
  • Menominee Termination Act: Menominee 1
  • Klamath Termination Act: Klamath, Modoc, Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians 3
  • Western Oregon Indian Termination Act (act specified 61 bands, but the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community and Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians were conglomerates of the other bands. So is this in actuality 59?)
  • Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Termination Act: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 1
  • Ute Indians: only effected ½ of the tribe as only mixed bloods were terminated .5
  • Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah: Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes 4 bands
  • Oklahoma Termination Acts: Ottawa Tribe, Peoria Tribe, Wyandotte (but Wyandotte wasn’t completed) 2
  • California Rancheria Termination Act: 3 rancherias terminated prior to Public Law 85-671, 41 mentioned in Public Law 85-671, an additional 7 included in the amendment of 1964 and 5 that were never terminated but were listed, correcting the number of California Rancherias terminated from the oft-cited 41 to 46
  • Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Termination Act: Catawba Indian Tribe 1
  • Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Termination Act: Ponca Tribe of Nebraska 1
  • Tiwa Indians of Texas Relinquishment Act: Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 1
If you use 59 for western Oregon and count the Ute as 1/2 TOTAL is 120.5
If you use 61 for western Oregon and count the Ute as 0 TOTAL is 122

In any case it is not 109, cited in the article. Which should be used? SusunW (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable, third party source with a count that matches up. Annoying as it is, in a case like this, WP:SYNTH probably applies, which means, basically, that our analysis doesn't cut it, we need to find a source that agrees with us. (Possibly look for law review articles) Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source cites 109 (I have reviewed over 20 sources - all repeat the same incorrect number). The few that cite the number of laws, cite 14. I'll keep looking, but in the mean time, as I am doubtful that anything will be found, wouldn't it be more accurate to say more than a hundred instead of 109 which is clearly wrong? The article uses that number twice. SusunW (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur V. Watkins[edit]

Not sure where to go with him. On the one hand, I am tempted to give a brief overview of the various "terminationist" congressmen here and then flesh out their personal pages with a section on termination. But, is that appropriate for Watkins, as he was the main proponent?

In any case, how does one avoid that his motivation for much of what drove his policy was his faith? https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=8lvBQBOP3icC&lpg=PA7&ots=JnYVULxNvP&dq=racism%20and%20indian%20termination&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=racism%20and%20indian%20termination&f=false p 30 - 37 and http://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/getfile/collection/USHSArchPub/id/6870/filename/6905.pdf are just two of multiple examples.

Finally, the unattributed quote, I can find no where. I think it needs to be eliminated, if we cannot document its source. SusunW (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely toss what can't be sourced. If there were other editors, you could slap on the "citation needed" tag for a few days to see if anyone jumps in, but given this article seems abandoned, I'd just toss it. If anyone cares, they can revert and restore. Then you can discuss (see WP:BRD for how this works). Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement[edit]

Hi SusunW. I'd say that until someone comes along to help, I'd start making careful edits along the lines you suggest, sourcing as you go. You could also sandbox sections and lay with them until they are ready for prime time. Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from Maunus[edit]

The article is extremely impressive in its thoroughness and scope. But it has one problem which is that it is very unwieldy in size and layout. I think ideally this should be broken into a series of articles and this article should simply be a summary of those. So I think the best thing to do would be to spin off some of the heaviest sections to form daughter articles, and then find a way to keep this article as a general overview of the topic of Indian termination, relegating the detailed information to the daughter articles. I think the most important part of this article is to give a coherent overview of the history of the topic, from the beginning to the end, written in a way that lets the reader understand why the policy was adopted, what its consequences was and why it was abandoned. This is all in the article already, but it is located in different parts, separated by long lists of tribes and legislation that is probably not useful or interesting to most readers. This detailed information, including the veeeery long tables, is what I would spin off into daughter articles. This is my suggestion, for how o structure the information which you can take or leave as you like - though it would seem to be in keeping with our MOS and general guidelines (see e.g. Summary style and Article size. As I say the amount of information and detail is truly impressive and your work is top notch, but at this point I think the presentation of the information in a way that makes it accessible should be the focus. All the best.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus and Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·: that is kind of what I thought. You will see that I have linked to main pages and done a short overview with some of the topics. Those are mainly ones I found articles on, or that I wrote. I am not really sure how to "move" sections to pages, but will try it and see how it goes. Yes, it is monstrosity of a file and the tables are long, but I thought the easiest way to present the information, as a list, would just have made the file even bigger. SusunW (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can create the new daughter pages by simply making a redlink e.g. Indian Termination policy in Alaska, and then go to the link and copy paste the content in. The tables are fine (better than bare lists I think), but they break up the reading flow of the page somewhat brutally so they may be better to include in smaller detail oriented articles, or in list articles, such as e.g. List of Indian Terminations in Oregon or something like that. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Maunus and Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·: @Montanabw: okay, if I did this right, there is now a page for The Western Oregon Indian Termination Act. SusunW (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You did, you'll feel confident doing this soon. :) User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, last one for tonight, I am exhausted and going to bed. @Maunus and Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·: @Montanabw: California Rancheria Termination Acts. I'll divert some more sections tomorrow. Thank you both tremendously for your help.SusunW (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian termination policy. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indian termination policy. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indian termination policy. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian termination policy. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Indian termination policy. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_termination_policy&oldid=1204082294"