Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Sources for Language Revitalization Efforts in Schools

Aguilera, D., & LeCompte, M.D. (2007). Resiliency in Native Languages: The Tale of Three Indigenous Communities' Experiences with Language Immersion. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), 11-36. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398541.

Bo-yuen Ngai, P. (2008). An Emerging Native Language Education Framework for Reservation Public Schools with Mixed Populations. Journal of American Indian Education, 47(2), 22-50. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398557.

Hermes, Mary. (2007). Moving Toward the Language: Reflections on Teaching in an Indigenous-Immersion School. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), 54-71. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398543.

McCarty, T.L., & Nicholas, S.E. (2014). Reclaiming Indigenous Languages: A Reconsideration of the Roles and Responsibilities of Schools. Review of Research in Education, 38, 106-136. doi: 10.3102/0091732X13507894.

McCarty, T.L, Romero, M.E., & Zepeda, O. (2006). Reclaiming the Gift: Indigenous Youth Counter-Narratives on Native Language Loss and Revitalization. American Indian Quarterly, 30(1/2), 28-48. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4138910.

Montgomery-Anderson, B. (2013). Macro-Scale Features of School-Based Language Revitalization Programs. Journal of American Indian Education, 52(3), 41-64. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43608706.

Lee, T.S. (2007). “If They Want Navajo to Be Learned, Then They Should Require It in All Schools”: Navajo Teenagers’ Experiences, Choices, and Demands regarding Navajo Language. Wíčazo Ša Review, 22(1), 7-33. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30131300.

Johnson, F. T., & Legatz, J. (2006). Tséhootsooí Diné Bi'ólta'. Journal of American Indian Education, 45(2), 26-33. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398602.

Meghankoos (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Description of map in infobox

The map currently used in the infobox claims to show the percentage of peoples throughout the US and Canada with Native American ancestry. That description is somewhat misleading because there are no Native Americans in Canada, and because there is a disconnect between what the map states it shows and the subject of the article itself. I suggest that the description is changed to read "Percent of population with indigenous ancestry by U.S. state and Canadian province/territory." --PlasmaTwa2 06:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the Pop-up for this page Fixing style/layout errors

I am hoping that I can give you this issue in the correct order: I first noticed this issue on the page Chagrin_Falls_(waterfall). I hovered over the link for the phrase "other terms" and got the following popup - Native Americans in the United States ⋅

actions

popups 277.4kB, 1310 wikiLinks, 50 images, 7 categories, 5 hours 42 minutes old

Native Americans, also known as American Indians, Indigenous Americans and other terms, are the indigenous peoples of the United States, except Hawaii and territories of the United States. More than 570 federally recognized tribes live within the US, about half of which are associated with Indian reservations.

If I Click on the article name, I go to the article in question, if I click on the words "other terms" I am taken to the Main Page of the Encyclopedia. I spot-checked some of the other places that call up this page using the same popup and the same thing happened. Looking down in the code, the obedient thing does exactly what it is told to do and goes exactly where it is supposed to be. I do not want to want to send it to another awkward place so I will let smarter heads prevail.

Please let me know if I can be of any further service. bobdog54 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Reposted on WP:Help desk. Rmhermen (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Students on site is not a reliable source

It's described as a collaboration between students and teachers at Ann Arbor's elementary, middle and high schools and the University of Michigan. It is designed to use local history and geography as a site of innovative teaching and learning for students and teachers at all three education levels."[1] Doug Weller talk 17:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

European men and Native American women, sources

[2] [3] Doug Weller talk 17:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Delaware-2010 census, is this a legitimate correction? or more BS?

Can someone look at this edit and check it for accuracy? I can't seem to find either figure as a definitive answer. I do not know enough to revert, but given the prevalence and history of anon IPs changing census figures arbitrarily in recent years, and that this is an anon IP from the UK with no other edits, I'd like an opinion from someone who knows how to locate this info. Thanks in advance Heiro 01:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"population declined precipitously overwhelmingly due to introduced diseases as well as warfare, including biological warfare, territorial confiscation and slavery"

This sentence in the lede seems to mix things that happened in general with things that caused the precipitous decline of the population, and honestly reads as intentionally misleading to me. I understand the desire to push for awareness of Native American genocide, but Wikipedia isn't the platform for ideological battles. I have removed (and will continue to remove) the bit about biological warfare because it's utter nonsense to interpret any of the listed sources as saying biological warfare contributed to the deaths of a significant portion of the population at the time, and in fact no sources corroborate that claim. But I would like to discuss if "slavery" belongs in this list, as it seems that the number of enslaved Native Americans was in the tens of thousands, and attributing a precipitous decline in population to several tens of thousands of people seems to be pushing a narrative as well. Biological warfare and slavery are both talked about elsewhere in the article, and it seems best to me to remove biological warfare from the lede as it did not have a significant impact on the history of Native Americans in the United States, and to move "slavery" into the next sentence, so that it can remain in the lede but be separated from the precipitous decline thought. User:Oncamera your input would be most welcome, but let's please dispense with the biological warfare bit, as it's more than a little ridiculous. Tkondrashov (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There are four valid sources for the biological warfare inclusion. Please provide sources that back up your reasoning for removing that information and we can discuss that then. Otherwise, learn how Wikipedia operates with the use of reliable sources instead of threatening to edit war which will only get you blocked. oncamera 16:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase as well. About the sources, the first failed verification as it went to a general webpage for the park and even a search for "biological" on their website returned no matches. One source was a passing mention of the same Fort Pitt information already considered inconclusive in the body of the article. The other two were not readable online. Can you post us an short exact quote that supports the claim that biological warfare was a major cause?

Secondly the lead as you would have it does not summarize our article but far exceeds the conclusion drawn in the article about the subject. We would need reliable sources that claim scholarly consensus is that intentional biological warfare was a major cause of population decline. Rmhermen (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be antagonistic, User:Oncamera, but I don't see room for dissent on that phrase. I think maybe the source of our disagreement is that I'm not saying the phrase "biological warfare" doesn't belong on the page, but as phrased, it makes it sound like it was an "overwhelming" reason for "precipitous" decline, and that statement is so blatantly false that I don't think it should be left up for any amount of time while it is discussed. I think that biological warfare should absolutely be mentioned, especially as it is an important part of "American folklore" as one person on this page put it, and the symbolism of it regardless of practical consequences is undoubtedly an important part of the history of Native Americans, and I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be in the lede or not. But it should certainly not be in the lede as part of a false, and seemingly very ideological, narrative. That's all I'm putting my foot down on because it's disgraceful to have content like that on Wikipedia. I'm sorry for threatening an edit war, but I hope you understand my position clearly now. Tkondrashov (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to know your position, and other editors' positions, on that whole sentence and the next sentence, because I think they can both be worked together in a much clearer way and include all that bears mentioning: "Native Americans were greatly affected by the European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, and their population declined precipitously overwhelmingly due to introduced diseases as well as warfare, territorial confiscation and slavery. After its creation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, waged war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies into the 20th century.". I'd propose "The Native American population declined precipitously since the European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, overwhelmingly as a result of disease. Warfare and enslavement of Native Americans was prevalant as well. After its creation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, continued to wage war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies into the 20th century." Tkondrashov (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits since they make it seem like disease was the main the populations declined. Warfare and territorial confiscation resulted in many deaths as well and that should be included. Your edits are downplaying the direct actions taken by Europeans used against Native Americans. That is creating a bias. oncamera 19:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I was trying to capture what I think the original author intended by putting "overwhelmingly" there. I think omitting "overwhelmingly" and agreeing with "The extent and causes of the decline have long been a subject of academic debate" from the population decline page is a better route, so as not to have to make a subjective judgment on whether any cause was overwhelming. Tkondrashov (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

One minor note also, I think the technical term is "conquest" for land added to a country through warfare. Confiscation of land took place in the US after it was formed, but I can only find references of that term in regards to confiscation of Confederate land during the Civil War, whereas that sentence is talking about before the US existed. Tkondrashov (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you think the sentence is talking about the time before the US existed, slavery was a cause of death and extinction for tribes fighting against the New England colonies such as the Pequot War. I still think the way you have written it downplays the direct actions of Europeans as the cause of death to the Indigenous people. oncamera 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write that last bit, that's from Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, I think agreeing with it since it's linked in the same sentence is the best way to go. "The Native American population declined precipitously since the European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, as a result of disease, warfare, territorial conquest, and enslavement. After its creation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, continued to wage war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies into the 20th century." Do you have issues with this formulation? I assume your position is that Europeans played a larger role than is widely acknowledged, but I don't think the consensus exists to make a claim beyond listing contributing factors in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkondrashov (talk • contribs) 20:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

My position is that the factors should remain listed together, as you did in your last edit. Also, I think "overwhelmingly" (or something that captures that degree of genocide) should remain since the population was greatly diminished and that shouldn't be downplayed either. "Precipitously" doesn't seem strong enough of a word to sum up of the loss of millions of lives and hundreds of cultures in a single word. oncamera 21:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should choose words based on their accuracy, not their strength, though I agree with you on an emotional level. I think that eliminating passive voice is a good way to convey gravity while avoiding emphasis for emotions' sake. Unless you have strong objections, I would like to settle on the following at least as far as this discussion is concerned: "The European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, resulted in a precipitous decline in the Native American population through disease, warfare, territorial conquest, and enslavement. After its creation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, continued to wage war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies into the 20th century." Tkondrashov (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Territorial conquest" doesn't result in population declines. "Slavery" is much clearer than "enslavement." How about: "European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, resulted in a precipitous decline in Native American population through disease, warfare, ethnic cleansing, and slavery. After its formation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, continued to wage war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies, later focused on forced assimilation, into the 20th century." Ahalenia (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia

Sounds good to me! Tkondrashov (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I like this version as well. oncamera 05:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat minor..I am curious what your reason is for saying that 'slavery' is clearer than 'enslavement'? It is true that 'slavery' is used much more frequently, but the two words are not identical in meaning. 'Slavery' is an abstract concept; 'enslavement' is the tangible act of causing humans to become slaves. Slavery does fit in the context here; I think enslavement fits better, though. Thoughts? Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Updated 2010 statistics

I'm updating the population by tribal group statistics to the 2010 census results & All I need is for someone to change out the link. I changed the categories to actually represent the census charts tribes. I cant fix the bold writing above the graph to make it centered and flat if someone could fix that it'd be great. The category Spanish American Indian is unknown to me but its reported on the census so I put it in. The source I used is census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.98.179 (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I updated the reference and corrected the table sorting code.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 09:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Controversial statement

I do believe this is a controversial statement. "Russell Means, a Native American activist, opposed the term Native American because he believed it was imposed by the government without the consent of natives." No reason to be this disrespectful to the man. Least we can do is call him by what he referred to himself as. To call him a Native American activist when he opposed the term is quite offensive. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Explorer Sacagawea .jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hitler

I have removed a section claiming that Hitler et al were influenced by the history of Native Americans and their treatment by the US. It seems like this places undue weight on the rationalizations of one of the worse human beings who ever lived. While the material may be relevant SOMEWHERE in wikipedia, it certainly does not belong in a survey article on this general subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It is especially not relevant in that what the Nazis are most notoriously known for - the Holocaust - had nothing to do with American Indians and the English/Americans. It was Hitler's plan for Germans to expand eastward and annihilate/replace all of the Russians and other Slavs that he drew the comparison with...but yes, definitely not due here. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was Jim Crow/US treatment of Black people who influenced him more so than the Natives.

Bomb319 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Genetics

This article is badly outdated in all that refers to Genetics. Citations in this section are of the period 1999-2002. Granted: this was the state of the art of Genetics in the early 2000s, but now, 20 years later, autosomal studies are widespread. It is borderline pseudo-cience to focus only on YDNA and mtDNA haplogroups ignoring the vast array of papers that delve into autosomal DNA. I have just deleted some blatant lies that had {Citation Needed}, but this whole section needs re-writing from scratch El Huinca (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I gave a citation, yet a bunch of people keep on undoing my edit.

The Oshara Tradition did not live from c. 700 to c. 1,000 CE, their culture appeared around 5440 BCE and disappeared around 460 CE. Their culture disappeared centuries before the incorrect date for their culture’s existence in this article. I even gave a citation, and yet people are still undoing my edit. Epictrex (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing here. I've no idea about your claims, but I do know I haven't seen a verifiable citation to a reliable source. The "<ref name=Stiger28-29/>" in your last edit didn't point to anything. Could you provide your citation here, please? It may help people who know more about the topic to evaluate your position. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Gibbon, Guy E., and Kenneth M. Ames. (1998). Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America: An Encyclopedia. New York: Taylor and Francis. p. 798. ISBN 0-8153-0725-X.

and

Stiger, Mark. (2008). Hunter-Gather Archaeology of the Colorado High Country. Boulder: The University Press of Colorado. pp. 28-29. ISBN 0-87081-612-8.

Epictrex (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

These books are referenced in Oshara Tradition, just incase anyone wants to view them. --ARoseWolf 20:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Except you didn't give a citation in your edit to the page, Epictrex, [4]. You added a partial bit of code you copy and pasted from another article. That bit of code you copied tells the software to look for the actual long form reference, but it only works on the page you C&Ped it from. You have to have all of the code, the long form, to make that bit you did transfer over to work properly. Without knowing what page you copied it from, other users have no way of knowing what that citation refers to. The long form information you copied above, needs to be added to those citations if you restore the information to the article. Heiro 21:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ughhh...I basically gave them everything they needed to add the proper citations without doing it myself. The exact references in the exact forms they need them are located in the article on the Oshara Tradition. Simply locate, copy and paste. --ARoseWolf 14:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Made the change with the necessary citations. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you! --ARoseWolf 15:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is way, way too long

See section title. According to WP:SIZERULE, articles greater than 100 kB should almost certainly should be divided. At present, this article is 296 kB, way, way larger than that recommended maximum. The article content certainly does not justify the incredible length, especially when we have many specific articles on Native American topics. Since many of the sections are already split out into their own articles, this particular article needs to see a major summarization. Thrakkx (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Have fun doing that.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, WP:SIZERULE says, "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters." This article: Characters 130,112; thus it is 130KB according to how a page's size should be calculated. It could some trimming but doesn't need half the article deleted.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is way, way too wrong

There is a section in the article that is one of the reasons the article is way, way too long. This section called "Historical population by tribe" is flat-out wrong. It quotes a researcher from Poland name Ludwick Kryzwicki, who made wild estimates on the size of tribes and when they peaked. He published this non-scientific table in 1934. We are repeating this non-scientific mess in 2021 as if it is valid. This whole section needs to be removed. It is one source and most sources have debunked the numbers provided in 1930. For example, this section claims, falsely, that the Cherokee peaked in population at 30,000 people in 1735. That is a load of bull crap. That might be the estimate for 1735, but it is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination the peak of the Cherokee. Today, there are members of the Cherokees all over the U.S., with huge pockets in Oklahoma, North Carolina, Texas, California, etc. The number today is approaching 200,000, well over the 30,000 number given in this deceptive Wikipedia article. This critique of the Cherokee tribal number applies to ALL of the tribes. These numbers given by this European source are numbers from hundreds of years ago. It is not applicable today. It is false. This article contradicts the statement in this section in the next section, which refers to better sources. Another example is the number provided by Kryzwicki in 1930 for the Navajo. He says the Navajo peaked in 1626 with 30,000 people. This is just a false number. Today, there are over 400,000 Navajo living in the U.S. This table from Kryzwicki is incorrect and it just quotes other sources for its numbers. This table does not add anything to the Wikipedia article as a whole since we have updated information from the U.S. Census Bureau and from the tribes themselves, which are superior sources that the junk science quoted in the table. The article is too long and removing this table would go a long way toward trimming the article and removing false information. 2601:2C6:C080:4070:0:0:0:FD1E (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgao29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelJayHawk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

How appropriate is the strong dismissal of the term "Indian"/"American Indian" in this article

"Many people falsely refer to such populations as American Indians or Indians."

Are the Native Americans referring to themselves as Indians doing so falsely?

The article should acknowledge the disputed terms and link to the Native American name controversy as it does. Despite being an exonym the fact Indian is still the preferred term to many is reason enough to not baselessly dismiss it completely. Quinndolin (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That is totally inappropriate. Someone added that uncited POV to the lede relatively recently. I also removed commentary that the US Census doesn't include Native Hawaiians, Chamarro, or Samoans in the term "Native American." In reality, the US Census doesn't use the term "Native American"; they use the terms American Indian and Alaska Native, so I removed that inaccurate comment. Some people define Native American as being an "Indigenous person of what is now the United States", so sometimes these Pacific peoples are included in the definition, and sometimes they are not. Yuchitown (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown

It's an insult to the tribes/nations call themselves Indian, and indeed to any Native American who calls themself an Indian. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the current federal register's list of federally recognized tribes illustrates how many of our tribes use the term Indian today. Quite a few. Yuchitown (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown

If Native American is used it shouldn't be changed without consensus. If Indian, American Indian or Indigenous is used it shouldn't be changed without consensus. If groups that do not associate with the before mentioned names or used within the article and referred to as any of these names then they should be removed and not used in the article. I have worked closely with the Crow of Montana in the past. Many there refer to themselves as Native Americans and the article does include American Indian as a possible alternative as well as other referred to names that some call themselves. Indigenous people of Alaska do not refer to themselves as Native Americans or American Indians or any of the others prescribed in the lede sentence. They prefer Native Alaskan when not using the local or proper names of their tribes. Including them in the article with that title is misleading and misrepresentative of their existence. I know we say that Wikipedia doesn't include or dismiss something based on the wishes of individuals, groups or organizations but in this case, Native American is not expressly used by the governments of the states or federal to refer to indigenous populations in the US in an official capacity. Canada still refers to its indigenous population as "Indians". Whether we agree or don't agree, that's the facts. So, the ones referring to indigenous populations as these terms are people themselves. As such it is best to a) gain a complete and thorough consensus on what to refer to indigenous people in the 50 US states and all other territories and protectorates as or b) we have separate articles on each or c) include every name associated with the respective peoples every time we mention them. Options b and c are ridiculous, I know, but that's the options as I see it in order to not potentially, albeit unintentionally, offend or disrespect those populations. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden's Presidential Order of January 26 2021 'Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships' uses the terms 'American Indian', 'Federal Indian policy' and 'Native Americans'.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-tribal-consultation-and-strengthening-nation-to-nation-relationships/

So presumably all three terms are accepted and acceptable American English usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It feels wrong to continue using the term "Indian" or "American Indian" when that rather perpetrates the mistake that Columbus made in assuming he'd arrived in India. Additionally, "Indian" feels antiquated and borderline perjorative in some ways when used in the U.S., and it is a little confusing as we have many people originating from South Asia living in the United States and Canada. "Native American" or "Indigenous American" seems clearer and more accurate, without the negative historical connotations that are sometimes evoked by the "Indians" name. I appreciate that people have thus far been overall accommodating and inclusive by saying that any of the terms could be continued to be used, but there really should be a consistent style applied to Wikipedia articles, and things could be done willy-nilly everywhere else. A publication, or the collection of publications that is Wikipedia, should have a fairly consistent style applied to it for the sake of clarity when reading -- juggling the terms throughout this article (outside of quotations of historical text) begins to make the article confusing. I would suggest that the Wikipedia community could acknowledge that usage of the various terms is generally fine, while still determining to use one term for the sake of consistent style usage in Wikipedia. I would recommend "Indigenous Americans" might be the most neutral and clearest term. WmLawson (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The majority of living Americans Indians in the United States disagree with you. If we stopped collectively using the term American Indian and Indian in published, secondary sources, then Wikipedia should change, but it's an encyclopedia that reflects the written sources, not individual editor's emotions and POVs. This conversation has been hashed through over and over throughout Wikipedia for years. Read Native American name controversy. Yuchitown (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

The majority of living Americans Indians in the United States disagree with you. Huh? What kind of reply is that, where were the majority of Native Americans polled on this? I missed the survey. Anyway, I agree with WmLawson that Indian and American Indian are confusing and outdated terms.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 11:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a 1995 poll in the article, though it supports a plurality rather than a majority. If there's more recent polling data, it would be helpful here and in the article. I'm with those that note that continued and common self-identification as Indian or American Indian is a signal that the terms are not outdated. Confusing, sure, as are so many racial/ethnic descriptors. Firefangledfeathers 16:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the current list of official names of US tribes reflects Indian being used in official names (which tribes select for themselves and change freely) coast to coast. AndIndian is not a slur among US American Indians; hence, Indian County Today, National Museum of the American Indian, etc. Canadians don't care for the term, but this article isn't about Canada, and it's also up for non-American Indian people to decide. Thanks. Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

I agree with @Yuchitown that we follow the sources here. Regardless of what those sources decide, and subsequently Wikipedia, I will personally choose to remain outdated and associate myself accordingly. --ARoseWolf 18:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Native Americans

Where did the Native Americans come from add text evidence 99.22.134.155 (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Osage nation seal.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders

I'm not sure who has been changing this page, but Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are not grouped with American Indians and Alaska Natives by the US census; they are an entirely different census group. Why are they lumped with Indigenous Americans and Alaskan Natives on the map, and why are they mentioned on this page at all? Also, I have never come across the term "First Americans" anywhere. 021120x (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't state that they are grouped with Native Americans in the census, it says, The US Census groups these peoples as "Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander". Also, if you've never come across the term First Americans when reading about Native Americans, I suggest you read more.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oncamera, The map groups Hawaiian Natives and Pacific Islanders with American Indians and Alaska Natives and accounts for all of their population numbers in its percentages. They have no relevance to this page, and should not be aggregated with Indigenous Americans as a single category. Further, there is no reason to mention them at all on this page. An older version of the map showed the Native American populations for all of Anglo-America - each US state and Canadian province. The boundaries of indigenous groups do not conform to US-Canadian borders; the older version is more accurate. Also, "First Americans" is a projection of the Canadian term, "First Nations". It is not used in the United States. 021120x (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence says they are sometimes included among Native Americans. And definitions update as time goes on -- there's plenty written on what Europeans have called Indigenous from here folks throughout the ages. I personally know a number of folks who are mixed Native from the mainland with Native Hawaiians, so what are they to you? And Natives in the US use the term First Americans too, it's even the name of one of the premiere Native art magazines, First American Art Magazine based out of Oklahoma. A lot of what you're saying just sounds like your personal preference for how things "used to be" or you haven't really spent time learning about contemporary Natives. Time marches on.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 14:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

021120x, not sure why you are bothered by the inclusion of "sometimes including Hawaii and territories of the United States", because sometimes this population is actually included. As Oncamera stated, First Americans is absolutely used as an identifier. Our self-identification terms develop over time, I'm sorry if you're not up on terms. Twenty years ago most of us were not using the term Indigenous. What is important, to me anyway, is that these terms are now coming out of community rather than the dominant culture and how we choose to identify should be recognized, accepted and respected. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Genetics section

The Genetics section is about the genetics of Native Americans in general, not Native Americans of the United States. I propose that this section be moved to Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. Nosferattus (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to remove “Mestizo” from the “Related ethnic groups” section

"Mestizo" is not an official ethnic group or racial classification in the United States. Nor is it used to self-identify by any Native Americans or Indigenous-adjacent people at all. Koire292 (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Statements about the US Census definition of Native American

The article excludes Native Americans from outside of the USA despite US immigrants from South and Cental America being encouraged to check “American Indian or Alaska Native” for a decade now. Would be relevant when discussing demographic changes since 2000. 75.1.19.5 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hawaiians and other Polynesians

The statement that members of indigenous groups not from the Americas are sometimes called "Native Americans", presented in the article's first sentence, is unsourced and not supported by the rest of the article. If no source is found, it should be removed. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I was working on other sections and had an edit conflict. Yes, what sourcing is using this? I tried to fix it but there was some very odd and confusing stuff in the lede. Where's the link to the wording in the census? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Historical Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2023 and 24 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paigeious (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Paigeious (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This article has been heavily edited and is watched by numerous editors. If possible, I would encourage you to select a more obscure or neglected article for your class project Yuchitown (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Massacres

The term massacres is used repeatedly throughout the article but exclusively describing the ones where American Indians were the victims. There are, however, numerous masscres documented where American Indians were the perpetrators. They were in fact quite commonplace. Why are none of those mentioned here? 2A02:8308:7089:1500:F8E4:F3C2:40BF:3925 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a relevant category on the topic: Category:Massacres by Native Americans. It includes only 77 articles. Dimadick (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Alaska Natives

Someone rewrote the introduction to leave out Alaska Natives! About 231 of the 574 federally recognized tribes are in Alaska. Many Alaska Natives are American Indian, e.g. Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, Eyak, and all the Athabascans. Taking this to the talk page in hopes that this does not happen again. 15:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Vandalism and edit-warring

It's easy enough to block the new disruptive accounts. But if this is a continuing problem, should we semi the article? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is still an open question, yes, please semi-protect this article. Yuchitown (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

You can request for it here, though the edit warring that was appearing in early April when this comment was made has died down now seemingly. Tweedle (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the mainland United States

Stating that "Native Americans" are only found in mainland United States is denying the fact that there are Native Americans all over the other 34 countries of America, from Canada to Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:40:28:1155:106B:D393:D310:A085 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Yuchitown (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

@Yuchitown Yes, and they are also Native Americans. Unfortunately, "Americans" have grown accustomed to identifying ourselves in a way that precludes the rest of the Americas. Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@2800:40:28:1155:106B:D393:D310:A085

Yes, I agree that is a misleading statement and untrue. It should be corrected. Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Native American name controversy has the most thorough discussion about nomenclature. Indigenous is preferred in Canada and Indígena is overwhelming the preferred term throughout Latin America, for example, see indígenas de México or Fundação Nacional dos Povos Indígenas. But article talk pages aren't places to have general conversations about the topic. Do you have a specific edit to Native Americans in the United States that you would like to suggest? For instance, do you wish to propose a name change? If so, you can read and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. Yuchitown (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Indigenous Americans vs. Native Americans

Often referred to a "Native Americans", the correct terminology is "Indigenous Americans". This is because the noun "Native" is defined as; a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not. This would include any person that is born in America. Where as "Indigenous" refers to an group of people, plants, or animals that were either the first to inhabit the area or to have naturally evolved into the area. MasterEditor001 (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

First, sorry I requested you start a discussion in my edit summary; I had not yet seen that you'd done so. Native has a synonymous meaning with Indigenous in this sense. I think it's fine to use both terms (as we already do), and that it would be inappropriate in many cases to change from Native to Indigenous (including in the first sentence, source titles and quotes, and templates). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Native Americans is fine, but I feel "Native Americans in the United States" is a bit superfluous, since the term "Native Americans" refers to people in the U.S. most of the time. Elsewhere they're called Amerindians, First Nations, etc. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree "Native Americans" would be fine as only Americans use the term "Native" for peoples. Moxy- 20:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody says "Native Americans of Canada/Mexico/Brazil", etc. There's different terms in those cases. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You can attempt another requested move but it was no consensus per Talk:Native Americans a few years ago. People claimed it can mean any Indigenous person of the Americas even though it's by far most common in the US. If Americans (and the many ethnic groups such as European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans) are the article names for citizens and ethnic groups of the US, not sure why "Native Americans" isn't the name of this article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is also included in two articles: Native American identity in the United States#Factors and terminology and Native American name controversy. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 07:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

1950s US plan to assimilate Native Americans

Can we add info about this to the article to raise awareness about it? Excerpt: "In the 1950s, the United States came up with a plan to solve what it called the "Indian Problem." It would assimilate Native Americans by moving them to cities and eliminating reservations." -Artanisen (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Artanisen:, There is a paragraph in 20th Century History of this article that mentions this period. It has links to articles where that citation could be used. "Mid-century, the Indian termination policy and the Indian Relocation Act of 1956 marked a new direction for assimilating Native Americans into urban life". Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 07:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)