Talk:Beothuk

Is extinct the right word to use?
Is extinct the right word to use when a nation or ethnic group dies out? I've only seen extinct used about animal species.--Sonjaaa 13:06, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think extinct is the right word to use, at least for an ethnic group. I can't think of any other word that could be used. --Lairor 03:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Extinct would be the correct word to use if the Beothuck were extinct. As it is, there are about 50 000 of us living. You are simply repeating government propaganda. If you are interested in the truth of the maytter, please communicate with me. Dr. Ronald Ryan. execontrol@gmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.80.132 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * According to extinction scholar Dr. Thom van Dooren, extinction is a long, drawn-out process of ongoing loss of lifeways/ways of life. Extinction can affect any species, not just animals since humans are animals too. Yes, there is a history of equating certain humans with animals in order to validate bad treatment, but this has more to do with human bias and human claims to exceptionalism than any true human-animal value difference. The Human/Animal divide is as bad for humans as it is for animals. Species in this context is not about the biological organism so much as it is about a way of life, a way of being in the world. Extinction can be understood as a process of severing and undoing this way of life. It is complex, and does not mark a definitive "end," even though we often approach it as such. Saying the "last" Beothuk for example is not accurate. New DNA evidence has shown that there are Beothuk descendants, however Beothuk people are not defined by their DNA. Historically, categorizing a people by their DNA alone (or biological characteristics exclusively) has led to government-sanctioned genocides because ultimately this mode of identification is a colonial tool for identification, separation, and exclusion. The Beothuk, like any community, are defined by their place, their language, their values, their relations, their customs and originary practices that endure through time--everything that comprises their culture and a particular way of life. I can't speak to whatever new communities have been created around claims of Beothuk DNA or heritage. While meaningful for individuals, this does seem to be something of a revival rather than an endurance, but I will hold my judgement until I learn more. Cupbearer1980 (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Santu's song
Date of Santu's song changed from 1929 to 1910 on the grounds of Beothuk language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.5.5 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 January (UTC)2005

Extinction again
I was taught in grade 9 history/social studies that great numbers of the Beothuk were basically rounded up and mass murdered by european settlers, and this was largely how they became extinct.... can't remember any specific texts, but I find it interesting that there's no mention of that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.91.171 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This page contains quite few small erros, and should probably be rewritten. In response the the above person, that is completely wrong. The Beothuk basically moved inland and starved to death as Europeans drove them from the coast. Which I learned from a 3000 level Newfoundland History course offered at MUN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.96.40 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard that some of the Beothuks were reported to have red hair and other Norse characteristics, from contact with the norse during Leif Erickson's time. Anyone else heard this theory? Ernestleonard 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

MUN being Memorial University of *Newfoundland*, wouldn't it raise some questions for the university to completely deny that the Beothuk were eradicated by European settlers in Newfoundland? CKSCIII 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC) .....................................

Note on "extinction", "Norse characteristics" and modern descendants.
Unfortunately, the link to the Beothuk song no longer works. I contacted the CBC about it but they said they could not release it due to copyright problems. I wrote a letter to the email address I got for the Professor who spoke about it on the program but never got any reply. Can anyone else help out here? It would be wonderful to be able to listen to it again.

As to the Beothuks becoming "extinct" - the situation is rather like that of the Tasmanian Aboriginals in Australia. There are, of course, no "full-blood" people left, and the culture has disappeared - however, there are descendants of the Beothuks (and my family claim to be among them). We are making arrangements at the moment to have DNA studies done and I will report here if and when we get some results. In the meantime you might like to check the link I have just made to an article (downloadable in pdf form) which refers to some fascinating DNA research done at McMaster University on DNA taken from Beothuk skulls.

Finally, as to the question about whether some of the Beothuk had Norse characteristics - I have never heard anything like this and imagine it is probably just a story based on the fact that there was a brief Norse settlement at Anse aux Meadows. As far as I know, the Norse sagas indicate that relations with the "Skraelings" were not friendly (can someone who really knows help out here please?) and so it is unlikely there would have been enough mixing (if any) to make such a major contribution to the gene pool. I would suspect that, if there were any Beothuk with red hair, etc., it would more likely have come from early English, French or Basque fishermen. The drawings of the Beothuk women taken to St. John's show them with straight black hair and features that look mainly Amerinidian. Also, photos of my ancestors, who family tradition insist were part Beothuk, show pronounced typical Amerindian looks. John Hill 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In a visit to the new large museum in St. John's in June, 2006 I read that it is unlikely that the Beothuk existed in Newfoundland at the time of the Norse settlements at L'anse aux meadows. The thinking is that the Beothuk came to Newfoundland after the arrival and departure of the Norse. The museum text stated that the "skraelings" which the norse came in contact with were probably in Labrador. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.29.6.116 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 August 2007
 * This is excellent news to hear that there are still Beothuk descendants left! That there were no people left was always a very, very sad thought. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This site is simply a pooling of ignorance and gossip. For example, "There are, of course, no "full-blood" people left, and the culture has disappeared." What do you mean by "full blood?" and, "What was the culture that no longer exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.80.132 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)  Rev. Dr. Ronald Ryan, B.Sc., B.Ed., DA., PhD.,  Rev. St. John's, NL


 * Beothuk First Nation have full blood membes and so far were dna tested over 100 induviduals who paid to be tested and have a letter of reccomendation  from Terra Nova DNA Inc to test with Family Tree DNA. The test remain private status on Family Tree DNA and Terra Nova DNA Inc has no signed authorization  to speak publicly in this case.
 * Out of all these tested not one is Chinese. 2603:6080:7B06:C800:755D:31D:430B:E29E (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote
I removed the following quote from the body of the article. The sentiment is admirable and apt, but I think our purpose here is to document, not mourn (not overtly, anyway). Regards, Rodney Boyd 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "The beauty and genius of a work of art my be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last individual of a race of living beings breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again." William Beebe, The Bird, 1906

[Untitled]
I think they did an excellent job on this!! I did other research and it was almost right on!! GOOD JOB!:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.39.110 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 13 September 2006

"The Labrador" Link
"The Labrador" Link is now bad. They only keep the past three months issues available online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.116.223.190 (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

History and Culture
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, should "previous" be "subsequent"? I hesitate to change it, as it might reverse the contributor's intended meaning. DavidOaks 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Should I put that "Nancy April was believed to have been the last beothuk"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.202.195 (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Unconquered UNSURRENDERED SOVEREIGN Beothuk First Nation and also known as Beothuk First Nation Tribe  are on every Canada Supreme  Court  and Crown Victoria entry as supeanoned on May 2023 . Approximately  100 Mitachondria  test were submission and with a letter of reccomendation  emailed from Terra Nova DNA Inc which proof showed then being the 40,000 ancient Red Ochre Indians and 30,000  descendents  of Nonasabasett  and Demasduit.  Not one of these had Chinese Asians autosomal percentages.
 * as in referring to Dr Ron Lloyd Ryan who claims he is eurasia haplogroup H and whom made false claims  that Beothuk are chinese;  no ancient Asian Buddhist temples are created by Beothuk  in Newfoundland Labrador nor any other location ; buddhism s not the religion of the Beothuk nor is the word " Beihanke " of the  beothuk language but are  false online claims created by Dr.Ron Lloyd Ryan online social media, youtube and his entries at Munn University and Harvard. 2603:6080:7B06:C800:755D:31D:430B:E29E (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

DNA Testing
Until the DNA testing is done, I think the part about people having possible genetic ties to the Beothuk should be removed. It is only speculation at this point and might only be the result of shoddy research or rumour. Anyone could make such claims. Would they all get mentioned here? But, if testing proves otherwise, it should of course be added.

Jmutford 13:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)John


 * Mitachondria DNA test results were completed and assigned on year 2007 from the  Beothuk skull remains of Nonasabasett ( Mitachondria  Ydna haplogroup:X2a1b ) and is found in the Supreme Court  entries of the Unconquered UNSURRENDERED SOVEREIGN Beothuk First Nation Tribe and the Beothuk  woman Demasduit Mitachondria  mtdna: C1c and other mitachondria of   3 other beothuk ancient remains.
 * The Supreme Court submission was made by the origonal  50th Unconquered UNSURRENDERED SOVEREIGN Beothuk First Nation Tribe signatories complaintiffs of AIN Tribunal which is not of any affiliation of the Dr. LLOYD RYAN  WITH ONLINE EVIDENCE  showing him as eurasian (non beothuk/ beothuck ) Mitachondria haplogroup:  H descendent. 2603:6080:7B06:C800:755D:31D:430B:E29E (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

DNA Testing and oral histories
In reply to John's comments above - I would point out that the section about present-day descendants of the Beothuk is clearly introduced as "oral history" and "family history," so there is no chance that the stories can be mistaken for well-recorded historical "facts."

DNA testing is now being done on a female descendant of Susannah Manuel (Anstey) - who is directly descended through the female line - but it may prove inconclusive as so little is known about Beothuk DNA to compare it with. Only a couple of specimens from two skulls have so far been tested (see the link to the pdf article on these tests).

However, the stories are not solely based on "rumour" or "shoddy research," but on strong and persistent family traditions (maintained over the years in spite of prejudice against people of "Indian" descent). Furthermore, copies of a (rather unclear) photo of Susannah Manuel (Anstey), and a much clearer one of her daughter, Mary Pond (née Anstey, 1858-1895) are in my possession. The photo of Mary Pond, especially, clearly shows facial features indicating native American descent. While this certainly does not "prove" anything on its own (and could possibly be explained away as a result of Mi'kmaq or Inuit inheritance), it does add some credence to the strong family traditions of Beothuk descent.

So, my feeling is that, as the family traditions are clearly marked as "oral history" and, as so very little is known about the Beothuk and their ultimate fate, the stories should remain because of their inherent interest. They may also help spur further interest and, hopefully, discoveries. Also, I believe that, when there is a lack of firmly established historical facts and written records, there is a valid place for family histories, legendary accounts, and the like in the Wikipedia - so long as they are clearly marked as such. Many other articles in the Wikipedia refer to legendary and mythological material, and it is commonly accepted by scholars that such material often contains valid historical information.

If and when the results of the recent DNA tests become available (and depending on the permission of the person having the tests done) they may well be published. If so, they will be reported on here. John Hill 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mitachondria DNA test results were completed and assigned on year 2007 from the Beothuk skull remains of Nonasabasett ( Mitachondria Ydna haplogroup:X2a1b ) and is found in the Supreme Court entries of the Unconquered UNSURRENDERED SOVEREIGN Beothuk First Nation Tribe and the Beothuk woman Demasduit Mitachondria mtdna: C1c and other mitachondria of 3 other beothuk ancient remains.
 * The Supreme Court submission was made by the origonal 50th Unconquered UNSURRENDERED SOVEREIGN Beothuk First Nation Tribe signatories complaintiffs of AIN Tribunal which is not of any affiliation of the Dr. LLOYD RYAN WITH ONLINE EVIDENCE showing him as eurasian (non beothuk/ beothuck ) Mitachondria haplogroup: H descendent. 2603:6080:7B06:C800:755D:31D:430B:E29E (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"extinct"
I agree with Sanjaaa that the use of the term 'extinct' is highly problematic, its modern usage is only appropriate in the context of non-human species. What happened to the Beothuk people was genocide and clearly fits the definitions stipulated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948/1951). A more accurate reflection of land-theft, racist policies, and a chronology of Settler massacres of Beothuk communities needs to be added to this entry. Using "extinction" and minimizing the direct agency of European settlers in stealing Beothuk lands, massacring whole communities, and enslaving the people (most notably women) is highly problematic practice tantamount to genocide denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petokraka78 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 July 2007

Removal of Speculation
I removed the speculative part about the Beothuks having a bloodline that may or may not still exist today. Again, I maintain that it should only be added if proven, but not until that point- not even as "oral history." History, as is my understanding of the term, should be as close to fact as possible and does not include rumours. Reading John Hill's Wikipedia User Profile, I see the sentence "I am of English and French background with a dash of Beothuk" as if this is already an accepted fact. Romantic as an idea as that is, it isn't proven. I find the motivations of people making such claims too suspect and even offensive. I do not agree that mythological and legendary material has a place in this particular article, as John Hill implies above. They were a very real people. Jmutford 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)John

Speculation? Seeking others' opinions
Dear John: I am not trying to argue with you but the "oral histories" I referred to are not based solely on speculation - there is some evidence. Unfortunately, there is no complete "proof." But then, what and how is anything completely "proven"? After all, there are many articles in the Wikipedia with statements such as: "so-and-so had a French (or a Jewish or a German or an American) father". Now, how can this possibly be "proven" without actual DNA testing? Yet we generally accept church records and family traditions on such matters.

There is a very strong and persistent family tradition that we are part Beothuk (and my mother, myself and brother and sister have all been to Twillingate, Lewisporte and other places in northern Newfoundland, where we checked with a number of our relatives who all confirmed this story). Also, we have copies of photos of Susannah Manuel (Anstey), 1832-1911, who is supposed to have been half Beothuk, and her daughter Mary Pond (Anstey) 1858-1895, which show strong "Native American facial features". I can provide scans of these if anyone wishes - though the one of Mary Pond (Anstey) is much clearer than that of her mother.

Now, of course, someone might say that the facial features could have been due to mixing with Mi'kmaq or other native peoples, but this seems most unlikely to have happened so early in the region near the mouth of the Exploits River - and the family stories are quite clear about later mixing with the Mi'kmaq in some (but not all) branches of the family. All sources agree that Susannah Manuel (who was born in Lewisporte in 1832) definitely had a Beothuk mother.

This seems very possible indeed, as Shanawdithit (who died in 1829 and is often billed as the "last of the Beothuk") reported that a number of men and women (some 12 or 13 in all) from her tribe managed to escape when she was captured. Ingeborg Marshall in her excellent book, A History and Ethnography of the Beothuk, pp. 224-225, reports a number of sightings and incidents involving Beothuk in this region after 1829 - from 1834 to at least 1845, and there is a report that Beothuks "had lived in the watershed area of Bay St. George in the 1840s and 1850s and were said to have intermarried with the whites."

My mother and sister have paid to have DNA studies done and, while all the results are not back yet, it is unlikely they will "prove" much definitely either way - as there is only some DNA garnered from two stolen Beothuk skulls to compare it with - not enough for a proper sampling. Hopefully, though, they may give some supportive evidence. When and if any evidence is forthcoming from these studies I will certainly post it on this page.

While it is usual for material in the Wikipedia to require some well-referenced source for information such as this - it is my belief that, because so very little is known about the Beothuk people, whatever crumbs of information have survived are precious and should be recorded. The fact that a number oral stories and photos are the only "evidence" we have at the moment should, I believe, be of enough interest for a short entry with, of course, appropriate qualifications.

I would be very grateful to hear what other people think on this subject or if they have anything to add to these stories. Please reply on this page or, if you wish, contact me directly at: wynhill@bigpond.com Many thanks, John Hill 06:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is interesting for a family to trace descent, that does not alter the fact that the ethnic Beothuk group, with its culture and language, no longer exists as a whole - that is the meaning of saying the group is "extinct". I don't think one family's descent has a place in the article.  People do carry all kinds of ancestry.  For instance, a while ago in England, they found that many contemporary males in Cheshire, England had Y-DNA linked to the 6,000-year-old "Cheshire Man", showing relative stability of population in the area.  If a university undertook such a local study in Newfoundland, for instance, found persisting Beothuk genes, and published their results, such material would be valid for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Parkwells (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Song
Ah, that song, I used to actually have that recording too from the CBC, but at some point I must have lost it. It's nowhere to be found on my hard-drive now. If anyone out there does still have it, it would be good to hear it. User:Benstox 3:56, 14 August 2008.


 * Oh, yes, I would love to hear it again too! I wrote to the CBC about it once but they were very unhelpful. Can anyone else out there find it again, please? John Hill (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also had trouble trying to get this from the CBC. They didn't cite copyright however, but essentially told me they had lost it by claiming the file was no longer to be found on their network. Further, I also received no response from the professor via email. Looks like this language is still lost for the purposes of the general public. User:TheTyrant —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
 * The Santu father was named KOP and had relations with a man surnamed Toney. The mikmaq Tony and Googoo were interviewed with out discussion on the male PATERNAL  side KOP FAMILY and the KOP family whom are still alive in the near location as the Santu visit to her family ; these Kop were interviewed on their relative Santu " KOP"-TONEY. The Kop family still have a percentage  of Native American and higher percentage  of European  and Mitachondria  proved not to be of beothuk after they had prior to submission  the Frank Speck  story of their family Member Santu " KOP " was disinformation  and cultural misappropriation forced upon them by the mikmaq ; the Kop family expressed how their grievance and stated, they are Chippewa  and neither beothuk or mikmaq. The evidence was presented in the Supreme Court  entry and AIN Tribunal  Indigenous courts. 2603:6080:7B06:C800:755D:31D:430B:E29E (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Murdered
Thanks again to another wandering Italian. Giovani Caboto and his imported Mikmak's, proceed to murder and starve the native population for the good of the foriegn country payings his wages. Think Columbus was bad. There are No more beothuks' left. 76.71.17.88 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perheps there are, at least some kind of ancestors. See here: Researchers turn over new Leif in Canadian Viking mystery --88.149.99.14 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Names and italics
How exactly are Demasduit, Shanawdithit, and Nonosbawsut not the names of the people in question? The article is inconsistent on the formatting, and MOS:Ety says "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to (see Words as words)." There are a few instances where the wrds could perhaps fall on the mention side of use-mention (if anything, Mary March looks like it could be that), but for the other instances, if they really aren't names then that should be mentioned in the article and the formatting made consistent. Ergative rlt (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. I hadn't seen how muddled up that was. All the italics from their proper names are now gone (I think), only the names given to them by the English are italicized, as these were not their proper names and moreover, this is noted as such in most sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of discrete
The phrase "discrete ethnic group" is used in the last sentence of the lead. Is this some ethnographer's use of discrete that I'm not aware of, or should this read perhaps "distinct"? The Interior (Talk) 01:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm a boob, I was thinking of "discreet". However, "distinct" might be better, I'm probably not the only one who doesn't know about "discrete".  The Interior  (Talk) 01:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Discrete is the fit word. discreet has another meaning altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Red Indians"
Does the claim that red ochre led to the term "red Indians" need a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.71.171 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2013

Linguistic classification
Marshall does not claim that "most modern linguists and historians" support the Algonquian hypothesis, her actual words are that there is a "tendency" to support Alogonquian. Also, note that Marshall's work is a general overview from 1996, while Mithun and Campbell are both specialist works on the history and classification of North American languages, postdate Marshall, and list Beothuk outside of Algic/Alogonquian.

Mithun additionally does not hedge by saying "definite purely linguistic based judgements", and anyway linguistic judgements are the only sort that are valid for linguistic classification.

The claim that "certain linguistic sources regarded it as a language isolate, linked to assumptions about the isolation of the Beothuk from the rest of North America" is supported by Holly only with regards to a single source: Gatschet, writing in the 19th century, with the possibility of other, unnamed early researchers doing the same. These notions aren't involved in the modern debates about the classification of the Beothuk language, and Holly doesn't claim they are. Furthermore, the "all fail to support the isolation argument" is about claims of geographical/cultural isolation, not status as a linguistic isolate, as the surrounding context make clear. Using supposed isolation (per Gatschet) to imply a status of isolate is clearly wrong, but at the same time status as an isolate does not imply cultural/geographic isolation, nor do cultural/geograhic connections imply linguistic relatedness: these are distinct concerns, which Holly makes clear later in the article. Holly in fact never states whether Beothuk is an isolate or not, instead focusing on how claims about the Beothuk language have been used as fodder for those engaging in an ethnographic othering of the Beothuk - a process not limited to those favoring status as an isolate, as several authors mentioned as being responsible for such othering are explicitly treating the Beothuk as an Algoquian group. Ergative rlt (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The people who write about the Beothuck language have no idea what the beoithuck language was or is. Neither Marshall nor Hewson nor any of the other "experts." They even ignored the information in sources that they quote. I, on the other hand, do know what the language was and, furthermore, there were still active speakers of that language until at least 1939. It was not Algonquin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.80.132 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * absolutely correct. The Santu Kop paternal side were interviewed  and were not beothuk  or mikmaq and made complaints on the Frank  Speck story stating the mikmaq  attempted  to force assimilation  on them to say they are Beothuk- mikmaq and they did not live on Newfoundland Beothuk Red Indian but are still living in New England USA to this day even since their family Member Santu came to visit the Kop family in the early 1900s as well as her son named Joseph  Toney and not the recent misspelling Tony. The KOP PATERNAL  descendent  described how grievance  and disproval of the cultural misappropriated  and  misinformation  came out of the Frank Speck story on their PATERNAL  SIDE  surnamed:KOP.
 * On year 2018- 19 some of the Miawpukek mikmaq attempted to false identification change the Santu " Kop" name to a mispelling of " Cope " online records showed thus to be evidence.  Santu KOP  family did not live on Newfoundland Labrador BEOTHUK Red Indian Lake  but is mistaken by Frank Speck for Red Indian Lake USA  with recent years a name change deletion  the word" Indian ". The Beothuk are identification is Red Ochre Indian. The current dna of the KOP paternal  side showed no beothuk Mitachondria  and a autosomal  test of native American  and European.  The paternal  Kop are of the Chippewa  nation and off reserve  located in New England where Santu Toney visited her family the Kop and her son Joseph Toney. The Googoo and Tony families of the Nova Scotia  mikmaq  were interviewed,  the Googoo were not aware of possible Beothuk  descent from the Frank Speck  story Santu Toney and have claimed they are now Beothuk  without knowing the Kop family have made submission  they are neither beothuk or mikmaq  but Chippewa  and the same is for the Tony family of the Mikmaq  of Nova Scotia  reserves. The book title The Last Beothuk  by author  Collins was published in haste without proper research and false presumption . 2603:6080:7B06:C800:755D:31D:430B:E29E (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cayuga people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Beothuk people → Beothuk – target is redirect to current title, redirect created by Kwami on Feb 2 2011, citing the naming convention he'd just authored; original article created as "Beothuks" on June 15 2003 by Adam Bishop  Move was contrary to WP:UNDAB Skookum1 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * target is redirect to current title, redirect created by Kwami on Feb 2 2011, citing the naming convention he'd just authored; original article created as "Beothuks" on June 15 2003 by Adam Bishop
 * Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.
 * There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited.  But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people".  — kwami (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412  T 02:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as per the policy Article titles and the guideline Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Article titles also applies given that Beothuk redirects here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it doesn't. The guideline says the articles should be at Beothuk people and Beothuk language, with 'Beothuk' a dab page.  The only reason it redirects here is that Skookum threw a shit-fit when I started following the guideline.  Now, I don't much care either way, but we shouldn't have one guideline for Canadian peoples and languages, and a contrary one for the US, or one for America and another for Europe.  If Skookum wants to change the guideline, he should have the decency to start a discussion on the guideline talk page about changing it, so we have the same criteria for everyone.  — kwami (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I've started a new section at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) to address the mistaken belief as to what the guidelines say. The guide is fine as is and indeed covers all people throughout the world. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First Nations European DNA
The following paragraph from this Wikipedia page is a non-sequitur:

"In 2007 DNA testing was conducted on material from the teeth of Demasduit and her husband Nonosabasut, two Beothuk individuals who had died in the 1820s. The results suggest the Beothuk were linked to the same ancestral people as the Mi'kmaq, either through mixing of the populations or through a common ancestor. It also demonstrated they were solely of First Nation indigenous ancestry, unlike some earlier studies that suggested European admixture."

All First Nations peoples had European ancestry before European colonization. Their DNA is derived from Upper Paleolithic Europeans. This was discovered in 2013 from the sequencing of a genome from a skeleton in Mal'ta, Siberia who is genetically similar to modern day European people and Native Americans:

DNA analysis shows Native Americans had European roots:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/dna-analysis-shows-native-americans-had-european-roots-a-954675.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38061/title/European-Roots-for-Native-Americans-/

http://www.nature.com/news/americas-natives-have-european-roots-1.14213

Additionally many Scandinavians show "Native American" 'admixture', just as Native Americans had European signatures in their genes:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121130151606.htm

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/amerindian-like-admixture-in-northern.html

So the insinuation that Beothuk were "First Nations aboriginals" with no European admixture is a nonsensical statement. First Nations aboriginals had European heritage before they stepped foot on this continent. The source given for this erroneous statement predates the definitive evidence linked above. I am going to delete the statement and its source in one week and make sure that a new one reflects the reality of Native American origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EF4E:4300:105A:D7C9:FF60:DBFE (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct as outlined at Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. It looks like it originate through gene flow from the Upper Palaeolithic period from a common ancestor...not that a more modern  European population is the source. Here is the original find  October 29, 2013  that states they are "west Eurasian [genetic] signatures". This only really solved the problem of when the admixture happened during ancient population over European colonization. This is what the section is saying....no interbreeding between the populations...so whats the problem?  -- Moxy (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the DNA IS the same as modern Europeans. The Mal'ta genome is closest to modern Europeans, so much so that some populations in Europe (Scandinavians, for example) show up on DNA tests as having Native American admixture. The Upper Paleolithic people are the ancestors of both Europeans and Native Americans. They were European and Caucasoid and the same as todays Europeans. First Nations aboriginals had White European heritage before they even got to this continent. This fact apparently causes some people serious discomfort --- none of whom are Native Americans themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EF4E:4300:C9CC:4678:4FB0:C08A (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement is saying that its not recent ....as was proposed in the past. There is noting wrong with stating this fact. Its not they are of European decent its that they have a common ancestor. Perhaps best to read over  -- Moxy (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Moxy: Perhaps you ought to re-read the source. Native Americans have dual origins, consisting of Upper Paleolithic European and ancient north Eurasian ancestry. Any claim that they do not have European heritage is false. Europeans today are genetically identical to the European component in Native Americans. They are part European.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/11/genome-of-kostenki-14-upper-paleolithic.html

The new paper shows that K14 was definitely European (or more correctly West Eurasian or Caucasoid), as it was more similar to modern Europeans than to East Asians or other non-West Eurasian populations. Thus, the morphological description of the sample as "Australoid" by some early anthropologists did not reflect its ancestral makeup. Also, this proves that Caucasoids existed 37,000 years ago, which most physical anthropologists would believe, but it is nice to have direct confirmation. This pushes the lower bound from 24,000 years ago (because MA-1 was West Eurasian according to the results of Raghavan et al.). It will be nice to push the lower bound further to the past as there are much older bones (and plenty of teeth) from earlier Upper Paleolithic Europeans.


 * I dont know how to explain this any better...its not modern thats what the article is saying ...its saying the same thing you are. The European DNA traits is from the founding population of peoples to the Americas....thus its not new....is what the article is saying. I a have tried to word this better for you in the article, -- Moxy (talk)

Disturbing trend towards erasure of Indigenous voices
In reviewing the history of the Beothuk page and this talk page, I have to say I find the repeated erasure of Beothuk voices and presence very alarming. Repeated edits from living Beothuk people or those who have done extensive research is deleted by editors who have done no research but instead just offer hypothetical scenarios about how it is possible for individuals to state untruths on wikipedia. This is alarming to me because those acting out of speculation are trumping those contributing from a place of knowledge (even if they don't always follow expected norms for entering material into wikipedia). Indigenous peoples across Canada and the planet are currently struggling to survive ongoing genocides. In Canada this is often described as cultural genocide because of the dominant role policies of assimilation have played in attempted erasure of Indigenous presence. This context is important to understand when editing supposedly objective records like Wikipedia to ensure that we do not reproduce the biases of past generations in these records. The continued refusal of the editors of this page to allow even an acknowledgement that there are still people proudly claiming Beothuk identity is an act of violence (although I see the most recent attempt to add these claims has not yet been deleted, and having lasted a week it is has been one of the more successful attempts). This is an erasure of people and is unwittingly complicit in the genocidal agenda that has pushed so many Indigenous peoples towards extinction, which can be a long road that happens through many tiny acts that often aren't intentionally malicious. Jghampton (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the evidence appears to be that there are no "living Beothuk people", and anyone who has done extensive research need simply cite that research. The past and ongoing literal and cultural genocides of indigenous people here in Canada and the rest of the world are tragic and horrifying, but that doesn't change the need for verifiable sources on Wikipedia, as per WP:VERIFY. Similarly, someone can't just claim to be a descendant of Abraham Lincoln, however proudly, and have it added without question. --tronvillain (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for your complaint; it is attempted extermination genocide. 2603:6080:7B06:C800:755D:31D:430B:E29E (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Beothuck people are NOT extinct. There is no evidence to support the contention otherwise. NO research has been done on the Beothuck people except a little that was done by Ingeborg Marshall. Everything else is people quoting each other. I have been working on a research project on the Beothuk for the past 10 years. I now have FIVE books in a series called, "They Called it Vinland" each 300 + pages. (none published). I realize that this sounds pompus, but I am the expert. I have publicly challenged the provincial government and academics at Memorial University and every expert on the Beothuck People in the world to meet me, all alone, in a public forum, and to bring all of their evidence to show that the Beothuk are extinct. All I have heard has been a deafening silence. They are incompetents. They are cowards. They are ignorant of history. There has been no response. Rev. Dr Ronald Ryan, St. John's, NL. . Execontrol@gmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.80.132 (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. UNLESS an entry in Wikipedia can be verified by a third-party source (see WP:RS), the information is not likely at all to pass muster. Hope this helps. Regards,  Aloha27  talk  15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

== Add reference to Pope et al. 2011 correcting interpretation of Kuch et al. 2007 on "close relationship"; clarify 2016 testing as a bogus claim by the company, which likely did not do any test at all. ==

I would be obliged if someone would correct the citation of Pope et al. (2011), which is evidently not formatted properly.

We showed that although the only two known Beothuk mtDNAs are in the C and X lineages, just as are some Mi'kmaq, there are definite differences between the Beothuk and Mi'kmaq sequences. Given the short fragment length (< 400 bp), the complete mtDNA would likely be quite difference and thus not evidence of close relationship at all.

The problem with the so-called "test result" is that it was likely not done at all. The comparative SNP data are not in the standard database, and the company was not aware of either the 2007 or 2011 papers until reporters told them. They have been furiously back peddling ever since. If the original "results" were produced, they would doubtless show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Steven M Carr (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beothuk. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108130959/http://visitnewfoundland.ca/beothuk.html to http://visitnewfoundland.ca/beothuk.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108130959/http://visitnewfoundland.ca/beothuk.html to http://visitnewfoundland.ca/beothuk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Appears pertinent and authoritative
And also contradicts several things this article says. Update required, I think? Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements

 * Writing in a manner throwing up questions is not recommended. There is an implicit question without question mark in the Archeology section. I would recommend to establish first the artifacts, to then perhaps draw a conclusion. But the conclusion is missing from the paragraph: They had nails and fish hooks, which they supposedly had found or stolen. Ergo they did or didn't take part in the fur trade?

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it has no bearing on the Description section. It does have bearing on the accuracy of the description, but that is a different matter and would objectively have to find a better place.
 * I would like to remove a notion lamenting the quality of written records.


 * A description of the relation with settlers is of course important, but that should follow a description of their previously uninterrupted lifestyle, which I just assume they had. The article doesn't mention it. The way it is right now seems highly biased and that throws a bad light on the issue even if the bias might turn out to be correct. The way the notion about source quality is presented between sentences about the population numbers, it appears as if the source were relevant to that, because otherwise it would be really out of place. But the lament is much more general than that. If the cited source has a different idea about the numbers, it would help to cite that instead. I read two pages from the cite and didn't find anything like that.


 * In the pages I read, I was surprised to find a mention of contact with settlers in the 16th century. That would be an important fact to have. But how does that fit in with the lede that says the culture formed beginning in 1500? That would explain why little of their previous lifestyle is known.


 * The section on notable Beothuk people is simply a copy of the specific articles about those people. That should be shortened to a minimum.

I understand that the topic is difficult. But following the source it's not as if there were no sources at all, just no written sources from Beothuk. Otherwise, if the source quality was really that bad, that would imply to cut the whole article after that notion: They dwelled in Neufundland -- end of story. I don't think that's in anyones interest. Rhyminreason (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "Hant's Harbour massacre" paragraph and reference
I have removed a paragraph and reference added in December 2017, referring to an alleged massacre of 400 or more Beothuk near Hant's Harbour. The paragraph is a reference to a 1951 Maclean's article written by Harold Horwood. That article is a significantly sensationalized account of an earlier oral tradition which does not appear to be supported by historical evidence. For a skeptical analysis of the Horwood article, see "Archaeology, History and the Beothuks", Ralph T. Pastore, Newfoundland Studies 9, 2 (1993); link here [SELF EDIT: corrected link]. Note also that the Heritage Newfoundland website article on the disappearance of the Beothuk never mentions this alleged incident at all. A google search turns up only references back to the original Horwood article.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: removed two similar claims, both based on the same 1951 Maclean's article by Horwood, which remains unsubstantiated by historical evidence.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: removed again; same claims, same Horwood reference, same problem: unsubstantiated by historical evidence.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The updated link to the Heritage Newfoundland website is here.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph
“Scholars disagree in their definition of genocide in relation to the Beothuk, and the parties have different political agendas.”

How is this source relevant for the claim made in this sentence? The article doesn’t even mention the word “Beothuk”. It’s very misleading. Besides, I have so far only found articles who confirm this genocide and none that denies it. Are we sure this genocide is still questioned? I feel like this Wikipedia article tries to hide the genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.151.185.192 (talk • contribs) 12:33, July 23, 2020 (UTC) 31.151.185.192 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please sign your talk page posts.
 * Perhaps that sentence does need to be improved. If the source does not discuss the Beothuk in particular then it should be corrected, and I don't see where the comment about political agenda is coming from, but the point that scholars do not agree over what should or should not be called genocide is still germane to this article and should not be removed. And how does that justify your earlier attempt to add "The Beothuk are most noticeably known for being killed off for fun by European Colonists." followed by the only slightly better "The Beothuk were systematically hunted by European colonists with the intent to eradicate them from the island." ? It is difficult to WP:AGF when a user starts off with something that outrageous. Meters (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that I already agreed on the user's talk page (11 days ago) that that line could do with improving. Meters (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "The Beothuk are most noticeably known for being killed off for fun by European Colonists." is a literal translation of what is written in the Dutch version of this article, with the same source you rejected. The second sentence "The Beothuk were systematically hunted by European colonists with the intent to eradicate them from the island." is a paraphrase of what was written in the Vancouver Sun. You confirmed that this article was reliable enough. I’m actually quite shocked that Wikipedia accepts irrelevant articles to prove ones point. In what way do you want that sentence to be improved? You can’t claim that the genocide on Beothuks is questioned by scholars without a reliable, and in this case, relevant source. If you want to make clear that scholars don’t agree on when something is a genocide or not, you should write that separately so it’ll be clear for readers that it has nothing to do with the Beothuk in particular. You can only make that connection when you find a reliable source for that. The article/source we‘re talking about is not relevant for that. 31.151.185.192 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please indent your talk page replies.
 * What some other Wikipedia has in their article is irrelevant. Wikipedia, in any language, is not a reliable source. You cannot claim that it's OK to make a statement in English Wikipedia simply because some other Wikipedia makes the statement. That would open the door to copying unsourced or improperly sourced material, mistakes, POV, outright vandalism, etc. It there's reliably sourced material in some other Wikipedia you may reuse the sources (they do not have to be in English) or the sourced material, but there is no guarantee the English Wikipedia will accept a source just because some other Wikipedia did. By the way, when you translate material from another Wikipedia you still have to attribute the content (see WP:COPYWITHIN). And you did not make "a literal translation of what is written in the Dutch version of this article" as you claim. Per Google Translate the Dutch Wikipedia nl:Beothuk_(volk) version of this sentence is actually "European settlers did not shy away from systematically murdering Beothuk or even hunting them, including women and children." That's a far cry from your  "The Beothuk are most noticeably known for being killed off for fun by European Colonists." It's not even close to a literal translation. The Dutch Wikipedia sentence says nothing about what the Beothuk are best known for, or that the killing was for fun. Yes the title of the source uses the term "fun", but I challenged that in my very first undo. One 60-year old headline is not a sufficient source for that claim.
 * Please don't try to put words in my mouth. What I said about the Sun article was A blog is not a reliable source. The Sun piece is better, but your claims exceed what the sources support, and certainly do not belong in the lead
 * As for the genocide sentence, I've said several times that it needs to be fixed. I asked you to discuss your edits on this talk page almost three weeks ago, and with regard to removing that sentence almost two weeks ago. You are on the talk page now, and have posted twice, but you still have not proposed a change to that sentence. I've already said that "the point that scholars do not agree over what should or should not be called genocide is still germane to this article and should not be removed". If you're content to let me rewrite the sentence on my own then I will, otherwise propose what you think it should say and we'll see what we can agree on. Meters (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Again you’re using a unreliable source to prove your point. Do you know Google Translate’s reputation? The verb “terugdeinzen” can mean “shy away”, but that’s not the nuance here. In the context “deinsden er bij momenten overigens niet voor terug”, it does imply that one also has fun doing so. Like in “you’re not afraid in doing so and are having fun too because of that”. It’s a bit similar to how phrasal verbs in English can change the meaning of the verb itself.
 * About the article, have you even read it? You keep talking about the headline and I’m not sure you read the rest of the article. And can you explain me why that article isn’t good enough just because of its age? What makes it unreliable?
 * “A blog is not a reliable source. The Sun piece is better,[...]” Doesn’t that imply that the Sun piece is good enough? Have you heard of context? Stop being so sensitive please!
 * As for my proposal, I don’t want you to make that connection between the Beothuk and genocide question, unless you find a good source. The source that is given right now doesn’t mention the word Beothuk. So there is no connection in that article, which means you can’t use it to make that claim. The current sentence is “Scholars disagree in their definition of genocide in relation to the Beothuk, and the parties have different political agendas.”. The Beothuk part needs to be removed from the sentence because it’s unsourced. The new sentence would be “Scholars generally disagree in their definition of genocide, and the parties have different political agendas.” The word “generally” will imply that this sentence is meant for genocide in general, and not specifically the genocide on the Beothuk. —-31.151.185.192 (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not using any source to prove my point. Again, what another Wikipedia contains is irrelevant. I'm asking you to prove your point with reliable sources. I've challenged the source you have used to support the wording you have used. Of course I have read the article. I'm bending over backwards to assume good faith in you and you ask me that? I'm not in the habit of challenging sources without reading them.The headline of the article uses the word "fun". The article does not. It mention motives of profit, revenge, and eventually, sport. Maybe "sport" can be considered fun, but it was not the only reason for the Beothuk extinction, as you claimed.. And neither the headline nor the article state that the Beothuk are best known for being killed for fun. And no, I do not consider a 60-year old magazine article headline an adequate source. The article itself contains no sources,for its many claims, and headlines are just sensational eye catchers that are not even written by the person who writes the article. Meters (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You said; “And you did not make "a literal translation of what is written in the Dutch version of this article" as you claim (your point). Per Google Translate (your source)[...]”.
 * Here is one paragraph from that article;
 * ”The Beothucks, who were never armed with any weapons deadlier than bows and arrows, were hunted first because they were considered a nuisance, and later for the sport of pursuing and killing such elusive game. A Beothuck came to be regarded as the finest “big game” prize the island of Newfoundland had to offer, and it was a common saying among the fishermen that they would rather shoot an Indian than a caribou.”
 * Maybe they didn’t use the word “fun” in the article, but it definitely becomes clear that the European settlers killed the Beothuk for fun. The word “game” here gives that away. Besides, this article was written by Harold Horwood. He became a member of the Order of Canada for his “contributions to Canadian literature”. I refuse to believe that is article is not good enough JUST because of it’s age. We use old articles all the time as long as it’s a reliable source. You will have to come with a better argument for not accepting this source. Perhaps my first edit was bit over the top. But it should definitely be noted that Europeans did in fact kill the Beothuk PARTLY as a sport. There is no need in denying that!
 * I have already proposed a revision of the genocide sentence. It still hasn’t been accepted or edited yet! —31.151.185.192 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not using a source to attempt to add something to the article. You are. I don't speak Dutch so I used Google Translate to see what the article you referred to said, and it did not appear to support what you were claiming (a literal translation). Now you claim that a Dutch word has some subtle meaning that can indicate fun in this case. Maybe so, I don't know. Would everyone who speaks Dutch agree with you that this is what is meant here? In any case, it does not matter. For at least the third time "what another Wikipedia contains is irrelevant." The Dutch content is based on the English source which I have challenged. The source does not state that the Beothuk are "most noticeably known" for being killed for fun, or even that there was fun involved at all. The headline says that it was for fun but, as I've already pointed out, the headline was written by an anonymous editor looking to catch readers' interest. The wording of a headline is not a reliable source. You interpret the word "game" in the article as definite proof "that the European settlers killed the Beothuk for fun"; however, your grasp of English is faulty here. "Game" in this context simply means a mammal that is hunted. There is no definite connotation of fun in this usage.
 * The issue I have with your change to the genocide sentence is that I cannot verify the "the parties have different political agendas" part, or even tell which different parties are meant. I'll rewrite it without that claim, and if you think its inclusion is justified by the full source then you can add the claim (with a clarification of who these parties are) and take responsibility for it yourself.  Meters (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's clear the parties are the historians themselves. I've rewritten it as "Historians sometimes disagree over what constitutes genocide, and their disagreements may be based on political agendas." I have not used your "generally disagree" since the meaning would be "normally" or "commonly disagree" in their definition of genocide, rather than "imply that this sentence is meant for genocide in general, and not specifically the genocide on the Beothuk" Meters (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see the section immediately above this one. The Horwood article is not invalid as a reference because of its age;  it is invalid as a reference because there is little or no confirmed historical evidence supporting it. See the link provided in the section above for a sceptical analysis of the Horwood article. Horwood may have received awards and honours for his writing, but that does not make them factual or supported by the evidence.  As for the references and the wording of the Dutch article, I strongly suspect that the Dutch version of the article is itself a Google translation of an older version of the English one.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yup. I didn't challenge it simply because of its age. Meters (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Beothuk researcher" wording
This phrasing caught my eye, "Beothuk researcher Ingeborg Marshall", as it's grammatically ambiguous whether it means Marshall is a researcher of the Beothuk people or a researcher who is Beothuk. As I read on in the article, it seems that it's more likely that the meaning is that Marshall is not Beothuk but researches the Beothuk people. Is there a better way to word this to remove the ambiguity? "Researcher of the Beothuk, Ingeborg Marshall" is an option but a bit wordier. Elfangor9 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Genocide
At the moment, there is a section called "Genocide" that just begins "Scholars disagree in their definition of the term in relation to the Beothuk, and the parties have differing political agendas". Presumably the term in question is "genocide" but the section seem to take for granted that some genocide has been assumed by the reader. Nothing in the preceding section really suggested genocide, only that there had been some hostile encounters and starvation. Source links seem dead, but without some explanation as to why genocide is being put forward and by whom, the section doesn't really make a lot of sense. If it's not the mainstream view, I propose it be the section just be merged with the above section on extinction with more elaboration as necessary as to the exact claims. 2600:8800:23A2:9600:207F:4E1E:2600:119D (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)