Talk:American Indian Wars

June 2,1924 is the exact end date of the Indian wars.
On June 2, 1924 American congress passed the citizen act that recognized Native Americans as citizens of the United States. Before that date a native American was not a citizen ore even recognized as a human being. In many areas if an Indian was killed the person who murdered the Indian would get off Scott free and never be charged. All they would have to do is claim the Indian was a savage on the warpath and had tried to kill him. If charged he would never be convicted as no Indian could sit on a jury because they were not recognized as citizens or humans just savages. Once the June 2,1924 the mass murder by the US army and citizens stopped as Native Americans were now human and citizens. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ever hear of NPOV? Intothatdarkness 18:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thousands of Amerindians and tribes had citizenship before 1924. What the Act did was give Citizenship to all Tribes.
 * This was because Tribal Citizenship was generally considered mutually exclusive with US Citizenship.
 * You are also saying that juries won't convict people of the same race, which is factually untrue. 80.195.3.151 (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ever heard of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And by making this change the IP seems to be saying that the Indian wars were continuous rather than intermittent. Meters (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Indian wars ended on June 2,1924 when the American Indian was recognized as a citizen and human. ￼ No longer a savage non-human. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pushing your POV isn't acceptable here. Intothatdarkness 15:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The truth is the truth it's not a POV if it's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest you acquaint yourself with what Wikipedia's about, specifically this essay. This one may prove helpful as well. You are pushing your POV without any kind of adequate sourcing. Intothatdarkness 01:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you learn what truth is. Truth is never POV it is just truth. Let me explain it to like a 3-year-old child. The color yellow is yellow that is a truth. IF you go to a communist state like California and say yellow is not yellow it is Blue. Then that is a POV only recognized in Communist California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Competency is required. Intothatdarkness 14:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even one such as you should be able to tell the difference that yellow is not blue. A three-year-old can identify the difference. ￼ 50.102.147.20 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * NPA is also a thing. I'll just leave you to talk to yourself now. Intothatdarkness 18:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This is still going on. There's no consensus here that we should include an exact day (June 2, 1924) as the end date, and this has been removed 4 times (by multiple editors) in the last week. Meters (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * And they're at it again. As I've said multiple times, I am aware of NO secondary RS that uses 1924 as a date for anything. And the IPs are unable to provide anything, so they either ignore talk or resort to personal attacks as seen on this page. The standard date range, used by all RS, is 1890. Intothatdarkness 15:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a note to all that I have submitted an edit warring report regarding this. Not sure how much good it will do with IP hopping, but thought it was procedurally correct. Cheers, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about both starting and closing dates
This article currently dates the American Indian Wars as running from 1609 to June 2, 1924. Neither one seems right to me.

The claimed geographic extent here is North America, but that includes Central America and the Caribbean — in which case, it seems strange to start with 1609 and skip over the many wars in Mexico and Central America, much less Juan de Oñate in New Mexico. It seems there'd even be reasonable justification for 1492 as a start date here.

The ending date seems even more questionable. June 2, 1924 was the date the Indian Citizenship Act was enacted — which could be a perfectly reasonable date to mark the integration of Native Americans into the United States polity, but makes no sense as the end date of a war (or series of wars). I'm not expert enough to confidently propose an alternative, but the Battle of Bear Valley in 1918 seems to have far more justification (as the last actual time the United States Army and Native Americans engaged in combat). Thoughts? Flaggingwill (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article is Anglo-centric.  I've been thinking of adding material about the Spanish wars in Florida (beginning about 1565) and New Mexico (beginning about 1598) although you can go back further to battles of Francisco Coronado and Hernando DeSoto in the 1540s -- but those might be characterized as raids rather than wars. The last Indian War of which I'm aware was the Posey War in Utah in 1923, which was not much of a war -- but if nobody has a better date, maybe that should be the end date.


 * Maybe also the article is mistitled and the correct title should be "North American Indian Wars." That would solve your problem of the lack of coverage of Central American and Caribbean wars. Smallchief (talk)


 * We could rename the article "Anglo-American Indian Wars", although I think we would have trouble finding reliable sources that use that term. AFAIK, there isn't much to add about conflicts between the Spanish and indigenous peoples in what is now the Southeastern U.S. There was Ponce de Leon's attempt to plant a colony in southwestern Florida in 1521, when the local people, presumably the Calusa, drove off the Spanish and motally wounded Ponce de Leon. Both the Narvaez and the de Soto expeditions engaged in skirmishes and battles with indigenous groups, with the Narvaez expedition, in particular, not faring well, but I agree that it is hard to describe those battles as part of a war. In the 1660s, first the French and then the Spanish took sides with various chiefdoms along the coast from southern South Carolina to northeastern Florida, but that was providing assistance in existing conflicts betweeen indigenous chiefdoms. During the mission period in Spanish Florida, the Spanish did not fight indigenous groups very much. There were the Guale and Timucua rebellions, in which a few non-indigenous people were killed (five Spanish missionaries in the Guale Rebellion and two Spaniards, a Mexican, and two African slaves in the Timucua Rebellion). In both cases, the Spanish sent retaliatory expeditions, the indigenous groups surrendered without a fight, and the Spanish executed a few leaders. I just learned a few days ago of a Spanish/Apalachee raid that captured a Chisca fortress in the Florida panhandle in 1677, in retaliation for Chiscas killing a few Apalachee Christians. The big conflict is the series of raids against Spanish missions by groups backed and encouraged by the English in South Carolina, especially during Queen Anne's War. Aside from the Guale Rebellion and the Apalachee Massacre, I am not aware of stand-alone articles about conflicts in Spanish Florida. Part of that is because the information is scattered in various sources, and because there often isn't much information readily available. We also do not have an article about the Westo War, which has a single paragraph in Westo. - Donald Albury 16:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * THere's also no coverage of various indigenous conflicts which occurred prior to the arrival of Europeans. Wikipedia writ large has issues with covering this period (the so-called Comanche Campaign which only exists as an Army lineage definition is one example, with the Army on the Frontier being another), so I'm not surprised this article carries on that trend. The 1924 date seems to be tied more to a POV-pushing IP than anything else, and frankly I'd prefer something earlier (the 1918 date if you want to consider conflict involving Government troops, although I'm not opposed to 1923 if we want to broaden the definition). Intothatdarkness 18:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The June 2,1924 end date is exactly correct. Prior to that date the American Indian was treated worse than a dog. They had no rights whatsoever and could be shot down like a mad dog by anyone who claimed the Indian was on the warpath. The Indian citizenship act changed all that. ￼ The Indian was identified as a human from that point on and a citizen of the United States. It is not a POV its the truth. ￼ After June 2,1924 the killings stopped because now killing an Indian was murder and not just putting a savage down. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute the importance of that date, but it doesn't mark the end of a war or series of wars. African Americans faced intense legal discrimination for a century after 1865, but I wouldn't date the end of the Civil War to the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965. Flaggingwill (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignore the POV-pushing IP. Intothatdarkness 00:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comparing Jim Crow to the mass murder of Indians is not logical. From 1865 on black people were recognized as human and were not considered savages. Black people were considered second class citizens under Jim Crow in the south until the Civil rights act of 1965. In the north they were treated much better. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to the confusion is the separate List of American Indian Wars, which includes conflicts from 1540 to 1923, at least three of them in modern-day Mexico. (Maybe a separate issue, but there's also some definitional work here around what counts as a "war." We have 20th-century "wars" here with a single casualty, but nothing involving Columbus, Oñate, or other Conquistadors.)
 * There are also a Wars involving indigenous peoples of South America and a List of indigenous rebellions in Mexico and Central America, though they're relatively sparse. Maybe this needs to be specifically focused on what became the U.S. and Canada to define the scope? Flaggingwill (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say focusing it as perhaps North American Indian Wars would be a start, although again it ignores pre-European conflicts. The conflicts in Mexico, Central, and South America are in my view significant enough (or should be) that they need their own individual articles. There are enough issues in the treatment of the North American conflicts to work on as it is. Intothatdarkness 00:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The indian wars in Mexico pretty much died out after the death of Pancho Villa on July 20,1923. His support for their attacks on the Mexican government was key. One of the main reasons Pancho Villa was killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Once the United States recognized Native Americans as human and citizens of the United States on June 2, 1924. The government in Mexico soon followed suit in recognizing Indians as humans and not out of control savages. Without Pancho Villas support of money for guns, Ammo and supplies by June of 1924 the Indians in Mexico had nothing left to fight with so pretty much stopped fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.244.15.179 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you know of any reliable sources that say as much? Donald Albury 17:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There aren't any I'm aware of, yet this date remains in the infobox. Intothatdarkness 19:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And the 1924 date remains in the infobox, with IPs occasionally adding a specific date. I have yet to see any RS that confirm the 1924 date as being generally accepted as the end of the Indian Wars writ large. The handful of sources all tie back to Arizona and appear far more localized. The vast majority of broader historiography uses 1891 or thereabouts, and since we seem to have a fetish for naming conflicts after the Army's official campaign titles (Which in some cases have little connection to historical reality) this also makes sense. There are no official campaigns listed after Wounded Knee, unless you want to include Pancho Villa. Intothatdarkness 14:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that the subject of this article is very poorly defined, and the military conflict infobox is not a good fit for it. Some editors seem to have regarded this article as covering every incident in North America since 1492 involving American Indians and Europeans, in which someone was killed. A more U.S.-centric view would be that expressed in a Library of Congress study guide, The term Indian Wars reflects the sense that the multitude of individual battles and campaigns against specific native groups formed a broader, centuries-long struggle for American expansionism on the one hand, and indigenous resistance on the other.LOC: Indian Wars And entirely U.S.-centric is the use of the term "Indian Wars" in this piece from the Hoover Institution, which confines the term to conflicts between the U.S. government and Native Americans.
 * One problem I see with using the infobox is that some editors have shoehorned in every European power that ever had a colony in North American as a belligerent. On the other hand, The list of Native American belligerents is very short, but a complete listing would include a great many tribes, bands, chiefdoms and towns. I think an equivalent use would be an article that used the military conflict infobox to try to cover every war fought by Rome (republic and empire).
 * As for the starting date, if we do include Spain and its colonies as belligerents, then the Narváez expedition, starting in 1528; the de Soto expedition, starting in 1539; and the Coronado expedition, starting in 1540, fought battles with Native Americans in what is now the United States, with large losses of life on both sides. So, are those part of the American Indian Wars? Donald Albury 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. I'd rather see it better-defined. But I have yet to see any RS that uses the end date of 1924 in North America aside from a handful of regional (as in Arizona-specific) pieces. And of course there's also the question of what to call some of these conflicts even if you stick with just the United States (there is no such thing as the Comanche Campaign, for example, aside from an Army lineage designation covering a series of conflicts that have their own historical names).
 * In an ideal world I could see having a number of individual articles (Colonial-era conflicts, the United States, Mexico, Inter-tribal conflicts, and so on) instead of this odd combination. That would make far more sense and allow for the actual distinctions seen during these conflicts. Intothatdarkness 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And it looks like the IPs warring about the exact date are back in action. I'll just repeat: I don't recall seeing any major RS that uses 1924 as the end of the "Indian Wars," let alone an exact day. The Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars (a 3-volume set published in 2011 by ABC-CLIO) sets the dates as 1607-1890, which strikes me as reasonable if you want to include colonial conflicts. Using 1924 as the end date, unless it can be supported by significant RS, strikes me as OR or SYNTH. Intothatdarkness 21:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The United States government recognizes it as the end of the Indian wars, and they stopped considering Indians as out of control non-human savages. Recognized as human citizens of the United States on June 2, 1924. That is when the Indians wars ended. 2600:1015:A025:9697:54D:DE07:B29C:E7D1 (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide some RS to prove your contention. It doesn't appear to be supported by anything I've seen. The standard "end date" for the Indian Wars is 1890. Your assertion is not a reliable source. Intothatdarkness 15:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the documents of exactly what was signed for yourself on June 2,1924 i have. ￼ I have no time to baby feed you information. ￼ 2600:1015:A025:9697:7C0D:E9E0:415B:F220 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't feel the need to "baby feed information," IP, perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. I suspect you'll only find frustration.  All the best.  Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you were a research history scientist ￼ you would be worth 1 second of my time. 2600:1015:A011:CA8A:3BD4:BD9C:63CE:AAF3 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And removed again and IP warned. Meters (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of changing the nested note by the dates as well. To me it feels a bit misleading. Intothatdarkness 20:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Meters (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. But there's no guarantee our persistent IPs will pay any attention. Intothatdarkness 13:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Counting of casualties
The article as is cites a single source for about 1,000 casualties for the United States. The source only includes conflicts from 1817 to 1898, while the scope of the article covers conflicts from the 17th century to early 20th century.

I’m sure there are many casualty lists for the individual conflicts on Wikipedia itself, so perhaps there should be an effort to reach a realistic total that encompasses the entire scope of the article.

This oversight makes the casualties for settler nations appear dubiously low while not listing casualties for any indigenous nations. For now I have merely denoted the range of time available in the source for the U.S.A.’s casualties. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * See Second Seminole War for some figures on the longest and most costly of the "Indian Wars" fought by the United States. Sources for deaths vary, and may or may not count deaths from diseases together with killed-in-action. In general, cumulative numbers were not kept for either "Seminoles" or white civilians killed in that war. Trying to piece together a death count from many sources of varying quantity sounds like original research, which we cannot use in articles. Donald Albury 15:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

If the sources vary far too much and there is no source that encompasses the casualties of the entire American Indian Wars, then perhaps that casualty count should not be included whatsoever until there is a verifiable source which offers numbers for the entirety of the conflicts. Otherwise it would seem more appropriate to cover them on an individual scale on their respective articles. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it can be very hard to distill something that is very vague and poorly, if at all, sourced, into a "fact" that fits in a slot in an infobox. Most of what we know about the "Indian Wars" comes to us in accounts by Europeans and Euro-Americans. As has been said elsewhere, history is written by the victors. Even numbers for regular US Army soldiers killed can be problematic, and numbers for White irregulars and for Indigenous people even more so, especially as we go back in history. If we find a reliable source that states an estimate of numbers killed, we can use it, but I suspect we will often find that even reliable sources differ on such estimates. Donald Albury 20:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "then perhaps that casualty count should not be included whatsoever until there is a verifiable source which offers numbers for the entirety of the conflicts. Otherwise it would seem more appropriate to cover them on an individual scale on their respective articles."
 * I don't think removing verifiable infomation is right, there is rarely ever going to be a perfect accounting of all casualities. And the stats we have so far, gives readers a fair estimate of the scale of the wars. 80.195.3.151 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And now I found an article in The Annals of Applied Statistics, which looks like it is a reliable source, that estimates the number of casualties in what it calls the "American Indian War", from 1778 to around 1890, at 12,000 for U.S. forces and 60,000 for Native Americans. I think this is worth including in the article, but would welcome discussion of where and how to incorporate it. - Donald Albury 20:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The only quibble I'd have (and since I can't see the article I can't confirm if the author included this or not) is the possible lack of inclusion of civilian casualties (both White and Hispanic when you look at the border regions). The language "forces" as opposed to "Native Americans" suggests he didn't. And the number of soldiers killed can actually be estimated with some precision (at least during the post-Civil War period) for part of the Army based on published sources. If Gillespie's information is included, I'd suggest noting it as a statistical estimate and not a hard number. Intothatdarkness 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was able to download the article with no problem. It presents an argument that the number of deaths in battles in the American Indian Wars follow a power law, and then develops an estimate of combatant deaths using Bayesian statistics. (Note: It has been 50 years since I studied statistics in grad school, and I don't remember learning about Bayesian statistics, so I cannot vouch for the efficacy of the use of that method in this study.) From what I have seen reliable sources for deaths are fairly robust (but not perfect) for US military forces, and poor for Indian combatants and non-combatants, both white and Indian. The author notes that rounding errors are probably higher for reported Indian deaths than for US Forces, which created more uncertainty in the estimate of the number of Indian deaths. Donald Albury 23:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I agree it could be added somewhere provided the limitations were noted. Presenting it as a factual number would be in my view problematic. Intothatdarkness 15:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Re-adding of flag icons
has restored many of the flag icons I removed after the discussion in the section "Flag icons in the infobox" above. I feel that those flagicons are excessive, and violate the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. I have invited Korg82Champ74 to discuss this here. Donald Albury 15:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Amerindian
Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Not sure changing to a portmanteau of American Indian = "Amerindian"  is less offense then just Indian. Could see an argument to change to "Indigenous" Moxy - 13:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As a card-carrying member of an Indian tribe, I don't find the word "Indian" to be offensive. If there is a need to distinguish between the people of India and the people of the Americas when Columbus arrived, the words "American Indian" can be used. "Amerindian" may not be a recognizable word to many. Smallchief (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the wide usage of the term "Indian", I feel like the term should be primarily used in historical contexts, such as official names of organizations (Bureau of Indian Affairs) and events (American Indian Wars) as well as quotes. Plus, "Indian" is also considered by many to be a misnomer. Even if the word "Amerindian" isn't widely used, it still refers to the same people. And though it is uncommon, some people can conflate indigenous peoples with American immigrants living in India in the context of the term "American Indian". Guyana is also a country that widely uses "Amerindian". For a comparable example, you could use the word "aborigine" in reference to the indigenous peoples of Australia, especially in historical context, even though it is considered derogatory nowadays and many people outside Australia are unaware of that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRealPrinceZuko (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Adopting euphemisms in place of terms that may have acquired negative connotations for some people is rarely effective for very long. Leaving aside several examples I am sure all of us can think of, I will mention an obscure example. I worked for 23 years in a program that provided services to "economically disadvantaged" people. In that time period, we went from calling the people who received our services "clients" to "participants" to "customers", because negative connotations began to accrete to each term. I do not use a term for any group when I know that a significant part of that group finds the term offensive. I am less concerned about people who are not part of said group being offended by the term. Ideally, we should refer to every group by a term or terms that members of that group have said they prefer. As it happens, however, groups are rarely monolithic about such things. Donald Albury 18:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, considering that you're just referring to the status of disadvantaged people in general, while I'm referring to an entire racial group. Also, several articles about indigenous peoples in certain countries like Colombia and Venezuela frequently use the term "Amerindian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRealPrinceZuko (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Amerindian usually has a significant regional/geographic connotation. Although this does remind me of the failed attempt to impose the term "First Nations" on tribal groups in the United States. Intothatdarkness 00:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be clearer. 1. Switching to a new term for a group is often just papering over systemic bias against that group. 2. We should not be deciding what to call a group without considering what members of that group would prefer being called. Donald Albury 01:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are European-descended peoples who prefer to be called "Caucasians", and yet I fail to find any articles about these people featuring the word being commonly used. We also have an article about "Araucanian languages", even though the word "Araucania" is considered to carry colonial connotations among the Mapuche. There are also African-Americans in the United States who generally preferred to be called "black", and yet the article for that group is titled "African-Americans". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRealPrinceZuko (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to learn to sign your posts. Also, the vast majority of literature regarding groups in the US uses either "Indian" or (more frequently these days) "Native American." Amerindian is rarely, if ever, used in this context. Your personal preference is, to use your own word, irrelevant. Intothatdarkness 12:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not these terms are commonly used. And it's not just a matter of preference. We also have an article literally titled African Pygmies, even though the term "pygmy" itself is considered derogatory by the people, and that article also refers to them as "Central African foragers". Overall, either replace the term "Indian" with "American Indian" or "indigenous peoples" aside from quotes and official names of organizations and events. DaRealPrinceZuko — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Common use DOES matter because we need to harmonize when possible with RS. Your Amerindian idea doesn't do that, since it isn't used in RS to refer to this specific group of peoples. And your "otherstuff" example isn't persuasive in this case. Maybe you should work to change the title of that article. Intothatdarkness 16:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a right (as determined by the United Nations) for an ethnic group or race to be called what they want to be called. A survey established that 50 percent of Indians want to be called "Indians"; 37 percent want to be called "Native Americans"; and 13 percent something else. Moreover, the National Congress of American Indians calls Indians "Indians" and the most important media source about Indians is called "Indian Country Today." That's definitive. It is acceptable to use the word Indian to apply to the people who lived in the United States before the Europeans arrived.Smallchief (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They prefer to be called "American Indians", not just "Indians". And like I said, the official name of an event (American Indian Wars) doesn't affect the terminology of a group of people as long as it's used in historical context. And yes, my "otherstuff" examples is much more persuasive than you think it is. You also ignored my point about how the term "pygmy" in reference to a Central African ethnic group is considered derogatory and that African-Americans generally prefer to be called "Black Americans", so why don't you send a request for those articles to be renamed if you're such a strong advocate for preferred terminologies for ethnic groups? DaRealPrinceZuko — Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, much of what you're saying isn't as persuasive as you think it is. But I'll leave you to it. You seem to have missed Smallchief's point as well about both common name and preferred name. You'll notice the survey they mentioned has 50% preferring "Indian," while only 37% preferred "Native American." Intothatdarkness 18:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it not persuasive? Also, the only difference between "American Indian" and "Amerindian" is that the former is two-worded and the latter is one-worded, due to being a portmanteau. The fact that most of those people prefer to be called "(American) Indian" is no different from the fact that most African-Americans prefer to be called "Black Americans", and yet there is an article with the title "African-Americans", which is a double standard to the point you're trying to make in regards to American Indians and you're ignoring the terminology for African-Americans, despite my points being literally the same as yours in regards to indigenous terminology. And as I've stated before, article titled in reference to official names are exempt from being changed. DaRealPrinceZuko — Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Try coming back when you've got some more experience here and learn to sign your posts. Intothatdarkness 19:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, how is "(American) Indian" any different from "Black American", which are both preferred terms by their respective groups? DaRealPrinceZuko 19:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The majority of scholars and RS do not use the term "Amerindian" when discussing these peoples. You may prefer Amerindian, but the vast majority of RS do NOT use the term in this context. We follow RS, which tend to use either Native American or Indian depending on the source and the context. And since you seem to be new, RS means Reliable Sources. Intothatdarkness 20:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't care about what I prefer. Also, you didn't answer my question about the double standard applied to Black Americans, which is exactly the same circumstance to "(American Indian)" that you're conveniently ignoring. Also, you just provided statistics without providing any citations. By the way, stop tone policing me. DaRealPrinceZuko 20:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You continue to ignore the question of RS. There's nothing else to be done here. Intothatdarkness 20:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't provide any RS yourself. You never provided any sources or references to the supposed UN statistic about ethnic terminology. It's a way to say "Look at this statistic that proves me right, yet which I curiously didn't cite in this discussion". Also, there are various articles about racial demographics of countries like Bolivia that officially use the term "Amerindian" (i.e. CountryReports and IndexMundi). DaRealPrinceZuko 20:55, August 28 2023 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with the terms used in this case American Indian Wars and American Indian Wars Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:DaRealPrinceZuko has at least once changed a quotation which read "Indian" to "Amerindian"
And as I don't want to add to a closed discussion, I will add this paragraph here from Indigenous peoples of the Americas

"The term Amerindian, a portmanteau of "American Indian", was coined in 1902 by the American Anthropological Association. It has been controversial ever since its creation. It was immediately rejected by some leading members of the Association, and, while adopted by many, it was never universally accepted. While never popular in Indigenous communities themselves, it remains a preferred term among some anthropologists, notably in some parts of Canada and the English-speaking Caribbean.   " If this sort of behaviour continues, a report to ANI may be required. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If they're changing quoted text to match their preferred word usage, I'd say it's a pretty clear case of NOTHERE. While Amerindian may be in more common usage in Central and South America, it certainly isn't in the United States...especially in scholarly work surrounding the Indian Wars. Intothatdarkness 13:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I did not notice the quotation. I was using CTRL+F. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @DaRealPrinceZuko you need to stop these mass changes. Doug Weller  talk 20:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of these articles already had the term "Amerindian" used frequently that predated my editing. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's okay, but each article is self-contained; just because we do things one way in another article doesn't mean we must do the same here (though that can be an argument for doing so). The advice here is more that mass editing is just a bad idea in general.  Errors like the one you encountered here are bound to crop up eventually.  Better to go slow and account for context.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This article as currently written violates the MOS
This article should be with a link to a disambiguation page containing a listing of wars against Indigenous nations prosecuted by nation states other than the United States. Most people coming here for “Indian Wars” seek information about the series of greater than forty wars by the United States against Indigenous nations over a period of no more than 125 years. Moreover, the term largely refers to a specific period in United States history coming after the American Civll War and before the Progressive Era (viz. 1865-1890) coinciding with a period of rapid annexations of Indigenous territories from the High Plains to the Sierra Nevada range. (see also generally e.g. Indian Campaign Medal (1865-1891)). But, in its most general sense, the term has always meant the United States’ wars against Indigenous nations. The “What Links Here” page is almost entirely pages from United States history for events or persons occurring after 1775.

Wikipedia’s MOS states “Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.” For this title, the reliable sources refer to wars between the United States and Indigenous nations. The scope of this article is far too broad. The information about Spanish conquistadors is frankly irrelevant and draws the reader away from the common meaning of “Indian Wars,” especially considering the Spanish conquest of the Americas is the most well known name for that series of wars. The way this is written, with the needless inclusion of 500 years of various wars by multiple nations across multiple continents, is so broad such as to water down the actual history. Like an article trying to link to World War 1, but having to link to “European Wars,” an article spanning several hundred years beginning after the Peace of Westphalia and ending at the end of the Cold War. What is being referenced (WW1) is included in the article, sure, but the article isn’t actually about what is desired for the linked referenced to WW1.

I believe this article should be reorganized with the removal of all wars against Indigenous nations by Great Britain, France, Spain, Canada, Mexico removed or placed in new articles like “American Indian Wars (Canada)” or “American Indian Wars in Mexico.” Regardless, the way it is written now makes it one of the worst catch-all style articles on this site. It would be akin to the article “Americans” starting in 1492 talking about all the various White colonists in North America who called themselves “Americans,” or maybe even starting with the Land Bridge talking about how Indigenous people as Americans for one third of the article until 1775 when it transitions to the creation of the U.S., which the the term everyone comes here looking for (even though many people in Latin America use the term to refer to themselves). Indigiwiki (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait, so is this page about US-America, Canada, or anything in North America with Indians between the 17th to 19th century? Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Based off how the terminology is used, this page should be nearly entirely on the US, as that would properly reflect how the term "American Indian Wars" is used/discussed in reliable sources.
 * However, I believe what Indigiwiki and myself (see my comments at Talk:American Indian Wars) is pointing out is that the scope of the term has been incorrectly expanded well beyond what its supposed to discerns.
 * For the record, I do support paring down this article to be more reflective of how the term is used in academic sources and spin off the non-US content (although with regards to the last suggestion, I'd avoid making splits that use the "American Indian Wars" name as that would not reflect the local/common term that the scholarship uses to categorizes these events for those regions). Leventio (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * + 1. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * +2. Donald Albury 12:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox
Please see the infobox documentation first: Template:Infobox military conflict. You used the "partof" parameter incorrectly. Mellk (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)