Talk:Catawba people

History section copyrighted?
This new history section is nice, but it appears to be a direct copy of the text from http://www.ccppcrafts.com/student.html -- which says at the bottom "Copyright 2005 CCPPCrafts.com All Rights Reserved." Pfly 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed copyvio text, added link to webpage. -- Petri Krohn 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unattributed content
At least portions of this article appear to be quoted without attribution. The section beginning "In 1738, smallpox raged in South Carolina ..." through "...and Mills gives the population in 1826 as only 110." is quoted directly from "Handbook of American Indians" edited by Frederick Webb Hodge: Although source may be in public domain, should at least be cited.--Data2action (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no source for the claim that diseases that devastated them came exclusively from the English. It seems to me this would be unlikely considering the tribe was already greatly diminished by the diseases before the English arrived so it makes more sense the diseases came from somewhere other than the English. Considering that the Spanish were the only other European group to meet the Catawba and had contact with them before the English showed up, is it not more likely that the diseases that devastated the tribe came from that source first before anything they may have gotten from the English. I am going by the fact that the statement says there were tens of thousands of Catawba before the Spanish made contact but that there were only about 1500, if I read the article correctly, by the time the English arrived. This section has no attribution and is self contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:5C7F:B7C8:F9CC:7B59:232E:2DF (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Tribe or not?
The article states that the Catawba people are not a tribe, although the title is Catawba (tribe). Doesn't this contradict? Which is right? – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 04:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Commentary removed from Article Page, November 2012
The information on the original religion of the Catawba is utter nonsense and contradicts everything ever written by Frank G. Speck, the white expert on the Nation, particularly Catawba Texts, my conversations with the director of the Catawba museum and my own studies using all the known sources. The terms used for the deities are not even Siouian, the language of the Catawba, but Algonquian! No original sources, i.e. Speck, are listed as sources. - Catawba traditionalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.25.250 (talk • contribs)

Reserve?
The United States does not use the terminology Indian Reserves, although the usage of it varies in different regions of the country, we generally use the term Indian Reservation, I am editing the article to reflect common usage Adam (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why a disambig link from Sugaree to Catawba people?
There's a hatnote on the page about a Grateful Dead song that sends people here. But there is no mention of "Sugaree" in this page. Shouldn't that hatnote be removed, or the now-defunct Sugaree tribe be mentioned here? Gnuish (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Charles Hanna, disruptive IP-hopper and semi-protection
Does not seem to be a notable historian or author, and does not seem to have ever met any Catawba. IP-hopping user, this addition does not belong in the article. You've been reverted by two editors now. Don't put it back unless you can explain why it's relevant here on talk and gain consensus for the addition. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The disruptive user refuses to stop or engage, and is IP-hopping. This is wasting the time of productive editors. Rather than do a wide rangeblock, I'm semi-protecting the article. As I also edit the article occasionally, if anyone has an issue with this, please feel free to address it here or at WP:RFPP. Best, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)