Talk:List of Indian massacres in North America/Archive 1

Loaded language
This article really could do without POV terms like "squatter". Jaquestheripper (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Trail of Tears
I am not an expert in this area. But I remember, growing up in Alabama, the story of the Trail of Tears, in which many Native American people were forced to leave Alabama (and other places, perhaps), and walk to Arkansas or something like that. Many of them died along the way. Would that count?

(Notice that I am not only not an expert, this edit is more of a question than a comment, so perhaps someone could fill in the Trail of Tears page with some facts, and then this comment could be removed from this page.) --Jimbo Wales

Title of this article
Do we want this under "Indian" massacres? Should we, for that matter, include it under "Native American" massacres? That term is overlimited too, making that assumption peculiar to the United States that the United States is the only country in America. (Native American, for instance, does not refer to Incan, Mayan, or Aztecan peoples; and so "Native American massacres" would presumably not include Spanish atrocities against people indigenous to South America.....) --KQ


 * It seems that nobody has noticed this remark? I'd be inclined to revise the article, starting from its title, to reflect that the majority of the continent's indigenous people lived and still live in places where the language is Spanish (and the fact that the first recorded massacres were committed by a dude called Cristóbal Colón, aka. Chr. Columbus and probably Cristoforo Colombo in his own native language, as well as by those that came after him), many decades before any other Europeans had set foot on the northern part of the continent. The scale of the massacres (not talking of genocide here!) largely overwhelms anything committed there. Incidentally, is Mexico North America or Central America? Any comments? · Michel 18:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At some point, a well-meaning but misguided person changed the title of this article from "Indian massacre" (the ubiquitous historical term) to "Native American massacre" (either a Wikipedia invention or a recent "PC" innovation). Unless your name is Winston Smith, rewriting the past should be avoided. --Kevin Myers 06:12, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks like a PC weirdness to me, too. Should it be moved back? Feel free to add to Requested moves... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about PC (I'm a Mac man, har-har)? We're getting closer to a time when people will wonder if this article is about Kashmir. Remember, there's an entire planet of English speakers who are using this website and don't necessarily connect Indian with Native American. Bobak 01:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These days, I'm inclined to disagree with my statement above from a couple of years ago. An unambiguous, descriptive article title is better than using an old term. Feel free to rename the article as far as I'm concerned. —Kevin Myers 12:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not possible to make every title unambiguous. That shouldn't be the goal. The planetful of English speakers should probably scroll down and read the first sentence or two of the article if they come here seeking information about Kashmir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B060:72A1:6CAC:2FF5:BDA0:EED (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It really should be changed. It doesn't help Wikipedia to use outdated and loaded terms, and Wikipedia might actually attract more diverse editors if their concerns weren't dismissed as "PC". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaquestheripper (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Other governments, etc
(What about the British, Spanish and French governments? or local government, even posse action? How are we dealing with deaths through war, not necessarily singular incident.)

Sinking of steamship Monmouth

 * Oct 27, 1837 - Sinking of steamship Monmouth - 311 Creeks killed on Mississippi River during forced relocation (perhaps 3500 Creeks died total during removal?)

I removed this one as it is an accident, not a massacre. The total killed in relocation would also not count as a 'massacre'. However, I think such instances should be included, and that the list should not be limited to massacres as such, but to any instance of death that could plausibly be considered murder. This would include deaths due to forced relocation, when necessary provisions are not provided by the government. So if anyone can confirm this 3500 number, that should be added to our list. - TS

Fox Indian Massacre

 * 1712 - Fox Indian Massacre - Grosse Pointe, Michigan - more than 1000 Fox Indians killed by French army and Huron and Ottawa allies (this sounds exaggerated but is taken from a Michigan historical marker; also, this is not an action of the American government.)

This seems to have been a battle, not a massacre, apart from not being an action of the American government. - TS

anonymous comments
sorry but i doubt the accuracy of the assumption of literacy, or the existence of a 'free press'. printing presses were not growing on trees in colonial america. there were owned by the elites who often had a vestted interest in lying about native americans. furthermore, many of the immigrants having fled from poverty, many more having been in the near slave-like state of 'indentured servitude', would not be expected to be able to read nor write. particularly in the southern colonies.

The accounts that exist are from colonial newspapers, pamphlets, or from personal diaries, and to ignore the obvious biased perspective of these authors is to ignore the truth. IE. they are almost all european americans, or native americans orally dictating to european americans, often with a religious, political, or racial bias that was inserted into what they wrote down.

But even if you do have some kind of maniac body count brigade that accurately counts up all the indians killed in each fight, you are still going to have probllems. For example, what are you going to do with Amherst intentionally supplying native americans with smallpox infected blankets? How many did that kill? Did the CDC go out and interview the natives about how many were dying? Another example is the practice of enslaving native americans and sending them to the carribbean. How many died on these trips? How many died on the plantations?

I just wanted to point out how many thousands of hours of work you all have ahead of you, and to wonder if maybe there wwerent other more productive ways of comparing the Nazi-jew thing to the USA-indian thing.


 * I know...if you don't like the conclusions, impugn the method. - Tim

If you dont want to use the right method, dont do it at all. There are plenty of arguments out there about how the Indian slaughters were like Nazi Germany, there are plenty of backwards ass european rednecks who wrote very clearly that they thought the indians were a savage race of subhumans who needed to be destroyed. the racist christians who wanted to 'convert the savages' to christianity, english dress, etc, were often harshly criticized by the towns they lived in for being 'too liberal' for not wanting to exterminate the indians. The entire philosophy of 'manifest destiny' is nothing more than a fancy word for 'ethnic cleansing'. Sherman, the "great" civil war leader, was instrumental in the strategy of murdering all the buffalo in order to deprive the indians, who had been largely shoved into the great plains, of any food supply. and on and on and on. even in my history classes in 1993 i was told "they were savages and needed to be moved out".

There are plenty of ways nazi germany was different. Ive never thougt about it much before, but im sure you could if you wantted to. im writing this down in a laame attempt to prove that i dont give a fuck about the conclusion, the method is everything.


 * Tim says, "if you don't like the conclusions, impugn the method". Yet since this is not a complete listing yet, how can it be that any conclusions are being drawn?  Is there a desire to draw a conclusion of state innocence before all the numbers are in?  Addressing the method at this early point is entirely appropriate.  In fact, it is not at all certain that any significant quantity of non-military massacres were actually recorded, and this casts serious doubt on the whole method.  The method hinges on the entirely untenable assertion that any numbers recorded historically must be true, and assumes that the number and size of massacres for which no quantities in the massacre exist can be dismissed; to me, this claim is not 100% obvious and requires deliberate and careful proof, which is currently absent from the discussion.


 * Personally, in addition to being improper science, I feel that this whole method may act to trivialize the scope of culture-loss experienced by native americans due directly to US expansion. Nor, on the other hand, should this be viewed as an attempt to deny the importance of western culture or to insist it unfair that one culture should overtake and destroy another; such is the way of evolution, and to suggest otherwise would be to claim that this force of nature is wrong or evil.

The method being used is the method used for historical studies in general: study the original sources, first-hand accounts (or records of such accounts), and secondarily, later sources and other, second- or third-hand accounts, and try to reconcile apparent contradictions and fill in the gaps that will likely arise. For the specific purpose of counting total killed, establish a range of likely possible totals, and estimate a most likely total from within that range. Then publish your research so someone can see it and add it to our list. If this method is not valid, then we have to abandon everything we know about the Holocaust, the Soviet genocides, etc., and start over, because what we know about these events results from this same method.

If there is another method that could possibly lead to accurate conclusions, please describe it here. - Tim

You and many others on this talk page are conflating massacres with genocide. There is probably a page for genocide against American Indians, and that is the place to go into depth about such issues. Don't complain that a page specifically about incidents that qualify as massacres doesn't go into sufficient detail about things besides massacres — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B060:72A1:6CAC:2FF5:BDA0:EED (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

original research
Doesn't this article need to be removed as a poorly done attempt at original research not appropriate for Wikipedia? I know I was one of the contributors but that was back in the old days of the Wikipedia before we had all these guidelines. Besides the article fails to prove its point and doesn't even follow its own elaborate rules. Rmhermen 13:42 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Rmhermen, I noticed that you removed the Killough massacre and then put it back. I don't have strong feelings about whether it should be here, and wasn't sure about its appropriateness to the article (and am not too sure about the article), but the list makes a nice place to find articles like the Killough (which isn't linked elsewhere) & Fort Parker massacres (which I saw that you added). Although the Fort Parker massacre is more widely known than the Killough, there were actually many fewer people killed. The Killough massacre is also significant in being, I believe, the last of its kind in Texas. - Rlvaughn 05:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

anthroplogical books on native american indians have been existing since the late 19th century, i know that by then most of the indians had been wiped out the map for america's western colonial expansion (no offence intended here to americans - but it was all about land grabbing), nevertheless there are hundreds of ethnographies about people that don't exist anymore and even how other things wiped them out: eg the introduction of alcohol into some societies completely disabled their functionability and weakened their cultural resistance to western culture.

As a humble European, (there's only a few of us left) I can't help noticing that the Indians seem to have been almost invariably "slaughtered", the Whites have only been "killed". Seriously, if the same ethical standards were applied to each side, the Indians would be considered savages, which of course was the prevailing opinion of the Whites in the Indian wars. The atrocities commited by the Whites against the Indians are rightly deplored, but it is foolish to excuse Indian atrocities by appeals to their "different culture". The treatment of captives by each side shows the difference. I have heard it said that "we should know better", but people who make this argument don't seem to realise that this view is tantamount to saying that European ethical values are superior to those of the Indians.

So we should, for so they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.80.201 (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The stockbridge indian massacre was real
A battle of the American Revolutionary War that rebel propaganda portrayed as a massacre. ??

Tarleton promised safety to the indian who surrendered. Some of them took the offer and surrendered. They were slauthered by Tarleton. This happen in the summer of terrorism when the british panic after the french entered the war

You should include all massacre since Simcoe did the one against Hancock juge In the hancock massacre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plains2007 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You miss one :-)
The Saint-Francis indian massacre of Amherst in 1759, he send Roger Ranger agains the indian town of Odanak

what about Wolfe order to burn and kill in Quebec city in august 1759 ? They commonly executed prisoner and civilian, and provocked starvation as a tool of war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plains2007 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a list I compiled
My excel file on conflicts between Indians and whites has about 340 listings. It includes all those on the existing list.

I would guess that 250 of these have the death statistics. Since I originally started this for my own curiosity, I have taken license, such as:
 * If an event (skirmish, battle or massacre, etc.) occurred and indicated "40 to 50 deaths" I put in 45.
 * If an event occurred in "spring" I indicate month 3, so it sorts at least into rough chronological order.
 * If I have an event name and date, I list it even if I don't have deaths for one or both sides. Later on, I try to track those down.

Also, I show the number killed on BOTH sides. I have some info on those wounded or captured, but I'm not consistent with that.
 * I list the tribe name and sub name when available.
 * I list the geo area when available (almost always)
 * I list the battle name if there is one.
 * I only list casualties in the current continental US, between 1515 and 1890.
 * If I have an overall number of deaths for a particular war, say 600, then if I also have info on one or more battles, then I subtract the totals of all battles from 600 and enter a line with the remainder so it balances.

So, before I submit this, will someone tell me what I might encounter? Does this info start to muck up the original intention of this page, etc.

I've never posted to Wikipedia before. Please keep me from slipping on a banana peel!

graphiclite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphiclite (talk • contribs) 06:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
How can a book possibly be cited that lists the Amerind death toll at 9,156???

That is totally outrageous. The book American Holocaust by Robert Stannard cites the death toll of native people of the western hemisphere at the hands of the Europeans to be more around 100 million.

Why is this titled "Indian Massacres" when it discusses both sides? This should really just be merged with the American Indian Wars article or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.165.134 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 100 million is patently absurd. That's more than the entire population of the United States in 1900. You understand that this article is only about massacres, right? Not incidental deaths or those caused by disease, famine, relocation, and war. And 9,156 is the number of European settlers killed by Indians; number of Indians killed is only 7,193. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The estimate of 100 million is at the high end, but it is a real estimate when the entire Western Hemisphere is taken into consideration. Estimates for the death toll in 16th-century Hispanola alone range as high as 8 million (though that was an unusually densely populated island). The Incas had 10-20 million people, there just as many in Brazil, Aztecs were 5 million or so, Mayans were similarly large, the area that is now the modern United States may have supported 15-20 million natives, etc. When you factor in that the killings were not a one-time event but one that repeated over and over across many generations and hundreds of years, a death toll in the tens of millions is certainly believable.

The 7,193 certainly isn't possible though. Benjamin Madley in An American Genocide has shown event-by-event documentation for more than twice that many killings in California alone solely within a 27-year period from 1846 to 1873. And that's only direct murders/massacres - the overall population loss during that time was 120,000, 80% of the remaining California Indian population. Even when we only count direct killings (and no other death tolls, not the Holocaust nor Stalin's purges nor Mao nor Pol Pot, etc., are ever limited solely to direct killings), you'd still have to be talking about many hundreds of thousands of direct killings, and tens of millions of deaths overall.Dankster (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This list reflects the jingoism that is too prevalent at Wikipedia
This list has a long, colorful past, and reflects the jingoism that is too prevalent at Wikipedia. My run-ins with Wikipedia on this and related lists are well documented:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/wikimass.htm

Somewhat surprisingly, the greatest offenders were often the Wikipedia administrators themselves. These kinds of biases in favor of white people make Wikipedia seem more like a parody of an encyclopedia rather than the real thing.

User:wadefrazier 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Execution of Lucy and James Sample
By what manner of stretching of what definition of the term can the deaths of two people be termed a "massacre"? Propose deletion of this item. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Decided to "be bold"; it's gone. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

this is true I found out a lot of articles that unfavored of western civilization are slanted or biases against non-white it has becoming too common, it's getting ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.96.245 (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A humble switch of terms
I decided to go ahead and switch who committed the "atrocities" and who committed the "retaliations."

User:adancingmonk 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that switching from one POV phrasing to the opposite POV phrasing is the best approach. Possibly a more neutral approach would be to simply use the word "atrocities" in both places, dropping "retaliation" entirely.


 * I'd make the change, but I'd rather just delete the entire paragraph (section) entirely, unless somebody can justify regarding "amateur historian William M. Osborn" as a reliable source. As far as I can tell, this is the only book he's published and most mentions of either him or the book title on Google are either copies of Wiki articles or simple listings by book dealers. Have any academics formally reviewed this book? What makes it a good source for the introduction to this article? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I suppose I have to agree with you on every point. This is one of my first changes and I wanted to tread lightly. I thought the Jingoism charge mentioned above was interesting (if a little broad and heavy handed). I suppose I was just experimenting with the language. Really, the one of the main issues that I find with this page is that by the time you are going back to the 1500's, the decision to contain the examination to the "Continental U.S." is pretty arbitrary. Thanks for your comments. User:adancingmonk 9:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the change to duplicate the term atrocity for actions attributable to both "whites" and "Native Americans." User:adancingmonk 9:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Balance American Massacres against Native Americans
Article is nice, however it should link to the massacres committed against native americans. Is there such an article in wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematically

THe article makes no difference between murdering of women and children and killing soldiers in a fight. It´s all called massacre. But there is a difference between Sand Creek and the so called Grattan Massacre.This article seems to be revisionist. And i never heard about the so called last massacre in 1911.

Steffen 05/06/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.24.92.244 (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Misleading, partisan and bad-faith opening statements
Opening statement goes like this:

"in the history of the EUROPEAN Colonization of North America, the term "Indian massacre" was often used to describe either mass killings of EUROPEANS by indigenous people of the North American continent (Indians) or mass killings of indigenous people by the EUROPEANS."

In other words it seems that it was always Europeans to either lose to Indians or to kill Indians, and never United States Citizens....WOuld you call Wounded Knee (named below in the article) a massacre made by "Europeans"? Or "Little Big Horn" a fight lost by Europeans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.26.82 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Even "European" is a generalisation since different europeans countries had different attitudes toward the natives. 78.117.25.181 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete or Merge
This page is important. Why Delete or Merge ? These arbitrary changes! --Kmoksy (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Because there are other less POV titles out there. "Massacre" is emotional and subjective.  When used to describe Native victories, was historically implied with racist intent.While there are instances of unprovoked attacks against wholly noncombatant, unarmed civilian populations, most of the things here are battles, some one-sided, but battles nonetheless. While individual articles might be historically named "massacre" for one reason or another, (for example, alternative names for the Fetterman Fight) - usually a political reason (the non-Indian-involved Boston Massacre being a classic example) -  a List or overview article should not use such a title, the better practice is a neutral title such as Wars of the indigenous peoples of North America or its related category.   Montanabw (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree, first of all the idea of a one-sided battle is nonsensical. That is a massacre. Secondly, massacre is not necessarily pov anymore than for example genocide is. So should we not mention genocides because really they were just onesided wars against civilians? This article should be renamed to "list of" because it is a list. Then we should consider whether it makes sense to have massacres by and against the same group in a single article. Im divided on that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Native americans were not an undifferentiated group, and they often formed alliances with other tribes, or with europeans, to further their own ends. So you can't really draw a clean line between massacres of and massacres by... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

{{legend|#D2FF78|Massacres of Indians by European-Americans|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend|#CCFFCC|Massacres of Indians by European-Americans with Indian allied|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend|#ADD8E6|Massacres of European-Americans by Indians|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend|#FFCCCC|Massacres of Indians by Indians|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}}
 * The Turkish Wikipedia version (ABD Kızılderili katliamları = Indian massacres of the United States:
 * 3 Subdivisions:
 * I. Tarihöncesi (Kolomb-öncesi) = Pre-Columbian
 * II. Kızılderili Tehcir Yasasından önce: 1500–1830 = Before Indian Removal Act (1500–1830)
 * III. Kızılderili Tehcir Yasasından sonra: 1830–1911 = After Indian Removal Act (1830–1911)

--Kmoksy (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow - that's not bad. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after it's decided to keep this article around, I'd support adopting a similar format. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I never would have guessed the turkish wikipedia would have better structured article on this than we do. good on them, bad for us!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha-ha! I wrote that article on the Turkish Wikipedia ("good on them, bad for us" just as tr:Kızılderili soykırımları = Indian genocides, tr:İnyupikler = Alaskan Inupiat Eskimos, tr:Awa’uq Katliamı = Awa'uq Massacre, tr:Sahtular = Canadian Sahtu Athabascan Indians, Koyukonlar = Alaskan Koyukon Atabascan Indians, tr:Holikaçuklar = Alaskan Holikachuk Athabascan Indians, tr:Ahtnalar = Alaskan Ahtna Athabascan Indians, tr:Guçinler = Alaskan-Canadian Gwich'in Athabascan Indians, tr:Kar gözlüğü = snow goggles (Inuit, Indian, and Siberian); there are only on the Turkish Wikipedia: tr:Nunivak Çupikleri = Alaskan Nunivak Cup'ig Eskimos, tr:Alaska Atabaskları = Alaskan Athabascan Indians, tr:Yuki Soykırımı = Yuki Indian genocide by Californian settlers, tr:Aşağı Tananalar = Alaskan Lower Tanana Athabascans ... --Kmoksy (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * well, well done! :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. The thing here, for me, is that many things called "massacres" were not, and some things that weren't so labeled actually were. A "wah mommy, we were caught out unprepared" fight isn't a massacre, other than being later classified as such by the winners of the war -- Battle of the Alamo is not, for example, called a massacre, even though one-sided. Montanabw (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Alamo is not considered a massacre because it wasn't one-sided in the manner a massacre is. While they took 200 or so casualties themselves, they inflicted around 600 casualties themselves before they were wiped out. Obviously not a massacre (though if a small group surrendered at the end and were executed, that execution of POWs could be considered a massacre). There is a huge difference between a battle where both sides inflict significant casualties, even if one of those sides loses in the end, as opposed to a "battle" where one side just kills a few hundred people without sustaining any casualties at all. Those actually "one-sided" battles imply that the losing side was either unarmed or effectively unarmed, or was not prepared to fight. Thus, a massacre.Dankster (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sappa Creek Massacre - most sources say April 23, not April 10
"1875 	April 10 	Sappa Creek Massacre 	Soldiers under Lt Austin Henly trapped a group of 27 Cheyenne, (19 men, 8 women and children) on the Sappa Creek, in Kansas and killed them all."

Sappa Creek Massacre - most sources say April 23, not April 10

For example, 4 Medals of Honor were awarded for this fight. All list April 23rd: AYERS, JAMES F. Rank and organization: Private, Company H, 6th U.S. Cavalry. Place and date: At Sappa Creek, Kans., 23 April 1875. Entered service at: ——. Birth: Collinstown, Va. Date of issue: 16 November 1876. Citation: Rapid pursuit, gallantry, energy, and enterprise in an engagement with Indians.

http://www.history.army.mil/moh/indianwars.html#DAWSON DAWSON, MICHAEL Rank and organization: Trumpeter, Company H, 6th U.S. Cavalry. Place and date: At Sappa Creek, Kans., 23 April 1875. Entered service at: ——. Birth: Boston, Mass. Date of issue: 16 November 1876. Citation: Gallantry in action.

GARDINER, PETER W. Rank and organization: Private, Company H, 6th U.S. Cavalry. Place and date. At Sappa Creek, Kans., 23 April 1875. Entered service at: ——. Birth: Carlisle, N.Y. Date of issue: 16 November 1876. Citation: With 5 other men he waded in mud and water up the creek to a position directly behind an entrenched Cheyenne position, who were using natural bank pits to good advantage against the main column. This surprise attack from the enemy rear broke their resistance.

HORNADAY, SIMPSON Rank and organization: Private, Company H, 6th U.S. Cavalry. Place and date: At Sappa Creek, Kans., 23 April 1875. Entered service at: ——. Birth: Hendricks County, Ind. Date of issue: 16 November 1876. Citation: With 5 other men he waded in mud and water up the creek to a position directly behind an entrenched Cheyenne position, who were using natural bank pits to good advantage against the main column. This surprise attack from the enemy rear broke their resistance.

Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Meeker Massacre is usually listed on September 29, not 30th
Even your own listed source says the 29th: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/soldier/sitec3.htm "On September 29, 1879, before they arrived, the Indians attacked the agency, burned the buildings, and killed Meeker and nine of his employees."

More sites listing September 29: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Meeker On September 29, 1879 before troops arrived, the Utes attacked the Indian agency, they killed Meeker and his 10 male employees.

http://www.townofredcliff.org/meeker_massacre.html On 29th September, 1879, Chief Douglas and a group of warriors killed Meeker and seven other members of the agency. This became known as the Meeker Massacre.

http://www.greeleyhistory.org/pages/white_river.html On September 29, 1879, The Utes were already fighting the soldiers that Meeker had asked to come and help him force the Utes to farm. When they heard that Meeker had plowed up the race track, they went to the agency and killed all of the men.

http://www.coloradoresort.com/region/mknathan.asp He was later to lose his life in this spot during the Meeker Massacre which took place on September 29, 1879. During the massacre, the Ute Indians destroyed the Agency on the White River, killing Indian Agent Meeker and ten male civilian employees. The women and children were kidnapped but were later released due to the heroic efforts of Colonel Adams, Chipeta and Chief Ouray.

Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Three Knolls Massacre -- 1865 or 1866?
This is odd. I have what I would normally consider fairly reliable sources, some giving 1865 and some 1866.


 * 1865
 * California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation
 * [http://books.google.com/books?id=9iQYSQ9y60MC&pg=PA111&dq=three+knolls+massacre&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AAXPU62XAYOdyAThg4KACg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=three%20knolls%20massacre&f=false Thornton, Russell, "American Indian Holocaust and Survival: a Population History since 1492", University of Oklahoma Press, 1990, 312 pages, ISBN 978-0-8061-2220-5 This is actually used in this article a ref for the Three Knolls Massacre as a whole. And in this article we use the date 1866. So this is a miscited ref to the extent that it's used to cite the date rather than the massacre as a whole.
 * Ishi's Hiding Place published by the National Park Service
 * Ishi in Two Worlds, a book by Theodora Kroeber. If I'm reading it right it seems to indicate 1865. Starting around page 80. Reading down a few pages Kroeber describes another similar massacre of Yana in 1866, and then another in "1867 or 1868", the final massacre of the Yana. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion as there were two or more massacres. Kroeber uses the actual term "Three Knolls massacre" just once and it seems like he's referring to the 1865 one although I'm not certain of that.
 * Trauma Bond: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Evil, a book by Lawrence Swaim. It's not about Indians specifically and Swaim is just using the massacre as an an example and probably didn't research the date much.
 * Ishi's Brain: In Search of America's Last "Wild" Indian, a book by Orin Starn. Starn says 1865. He also says a lot of the details can't be known and some were made up on purpose. He gives a date for the final massacre at Kingsley Cave as six or seven years after Three Knolls, rather than 1867 or 1868 as Kroeber does.


 * 1866
 * In this article, "Scheper-Hughes 2003, p. 55" which devolves to Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, "Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology", Wiley-Blackwell, 2003, 512 pages, ISBN 978-0-631-22349-8 (Don't have access to the book, so I don't know if it gives a date or not or what date it gives. All I know is that this article gives 1866 and this is one of the two refs, although not for the date specifically but for the massacre as a whole.
 * THE STORY OF ISHI: A CHRONOLOGY by Nancy Rockafellar published by University of California San Francisco

It looks to me like that decision to name one of the massacres The Three Knolls Massacre was kind of arbitrary, but (without looking further which I'm not willing to do for now), what is named the Three Knolls Massacre occurred in 1865. Against this I have one book I can't access which may give no date or may say 1865 (after all our other reference did) and one web page which I gather is one person's work, scholarly though it may be.

So I'm changing it to 1865 for now, subject to discussion. Some of these references should be formatted and put into the article; I may do that presently or I may forget. Herostratus (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Request to delete the Kidder fight of 1867 from this list
Hello,

the article on the 1867 Kidder_fight has received an overdue makeover (previously it contained basically info on Kidder and on Custer finding him but no info at all about the actual fight). The fight was not an Indian ambush but a chance encounter between a dispatch patrol of 11 soldiers and an Indian guide in search of Custer on the one hand and two groups of Cheyenne and Oglala Lakota buffalo hunters on the other hand. We have a more detailed account now in that wikipedia article with sources. The Indians won the fight, suffering two fatalities whereas all 12 of the white combatants were killed. It was a chance encounter that became a short but hot skirmish which ended in an Indian victory. 12 army guys travelling during a war through Indian country bumped into Indian buffalo hunters and lost. That's not a massacre. Any objections against deleting this fight from the massacre list? Lookoo (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Large revert of IP edits
I reverted a long series of edits by an IP editor, because even though some of the edits did improve the article overall they did not. Here I explain why. It was a good idea to rephrase some of the sensationalist wordings e.g. "brutally slaughtered" to "killed". However the edits also changed what sometimes read as a pro-native bias to what seems like a pro-settler bias - instead of just making it neutral. For example when Settlers killed native women and children this was changed simply to "civilians" while simultaneously Natives killing civilian settlers it was changed to "women and children" and the taking of scalps was described in detail. This kind of change simply changes one bias for another. The edits also frequently added context to massacres of Natives by settlers while removing it from massacres by natives on settlers. Edits also removed massacres against natives even though they were duly sourced. Overall the edits did not serve to make the article more neutral, but just switched one bias for another.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Indian Holocaust in lead
Xenophrenic keeps adding, "The centuries of massacres as a whole that led to the decline of Native Americans in the Americas have sometimes been referred to as the Indian Holocaust" to the lead. There are several issues with this statement being in the lead. And, a misleading statement of this type does not belong anywhere in the article. .OoflyoO (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is a non-constructive edit: It does not help to summarize the article. This page is about Indian massacres (see definition in lead). The page is not about holocaust or genocide, etc... The place for indian-Holocaust is the "Genocide in History" page.
 * 2) The statement is false:  Centuries of massacres did not lead the decline of Natives. The decline was led by disease---not indian massacres (see definition in lead). Besides, the source has issues.
 * 3) The statement is misleading: "Centuries of massacres..." The statement uses the term "massacre" as if it is interchangeable with the term "Indian Massacre."  These terms are not interchangeable. Basically, the statement is not relevant and has no place in this article.
 * 4) It does nothing to improve the article.  It makes it worse.
 * In the interest of accuracy, Xenophrenic doesn't "keep adding" that sentence, as you claim. Someone else added it (most recently here by User:Prinsgezinde).  You keep deleting it (at least 3 times now).  I've read your deletion reasons in the edit summaries and found them either insufficient or inapplicable, so I reverted your deletions. (1) You say this page isn't related to the holocaust/genocide of the indigenous American people, yet it is categorized under Native American genocide; it has (or had) other articles about the genocide of native Americans redirected here (which you are fully aware); content in the article cites reliable sources about the genocide of native Americans. (2) You say that the statement is false, yet there are countless reliable sources which convey that the massacre of native Americans was part of a genocide of indigenous peoples.  The sentence is poorly worded, but certainly not false.  Your theory that because of disease, the massacres of indigenous peoples should not be considered part of a genocide is not unique, but is certainly not the only, or even a very persuasive, point of view in this matter.
 * Your assertion that one of the many available sources is "discredited on this subject" (an incorrect assertion, by the way; and please remember that BLP Policy regarding disparagement of living people applies on Talk pages as well as article pages) is not a reason to delete factual content. (3 & 4) Massacres of indigenous peoples of the Americas did indeed occur from the 15th century through the 19th century, so if by "Indian" you mean the indigenous peoples of the Americas then the phrase "centuries of massacres" is not inaccurate, although I'll grant you that it is cumbersome wording.
 * Your assertion that one of the many available sources is "discredited on this subject" (an incorrect assertion, by the way; and please remember that BLP Policy regarding disparagement of living people applies on Talk pages as well as article pages) is not a reason to delete factual content. (3 & 4) Massacres of indigenous peoples of the Americas did indeed occur from the 15th century through the 19th century, so if by "Indian" you mean the indigenous peoples of the Americas then the phrase "centuries of massacres" is not inaccurate, although I'll grant you that it is cumbersome wording.


 * I've reverted your bold edit per WP:BRD. If you still have concerns with the sentence, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you — but please refrain from expressing your opinions about the motivations of your fellow contributors. It poisons the collaborative atmosphere (and is against Wikipedia policy as well).  I don't have a personal "POV" in this matter, but rather I concur with what is prevalent in reliable sources.  This brief document, if you are interested, gives a fair description of my perspective on genocide/holocaust, massacres, and related matters we are discussing.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarify: I first added it here when I found that "Indian Holocaust" redirected to this article. You (OoflyoO) changed this redirect only a week ago (which I kind of disagree with, as the new target articles is much more general, but I'm not too bothered). Another justification for me was that two of the sources that were already in the article (specifically Thornton and Churchhill) had the term in the title of their book. I didn't give it equal value, and clearly noted that they "have [only] sometimes been referred to" as such. As for maybe POV wording, I tried to convery that the process was referred to as the "Holocaust" and not the individual massacres. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (Prinsgezinde)]] (talk) Yes, i redirected it because this article is not about Indian Holocaust. A much better fit was Genocides in history. Why? Becasue that page is about genocides and has a section for the USA.  This article is about a completely different subject (Indian Massacres).  You may think the new target is much more general.  If so you can contribute to that page under the section United States Genocide of Natives.


 * Also, the justification that two of the sources that were already in the article (specifically Thornton and Churchhill) had the term in the title of their book isn’t good enough. Those books were cited as references to specific Indian Massacres listed in the article.  They were not cited as reference to genocide/holocaust until you did it.  This article is not about genocide or Holocaust.  OoflyoO (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic (talk) I didn't think it was a personal attack to say that the sentence in question smells of POV pushing.
 * :::I keep deleting it because it was a significant change to the lead. The change was not discussed in talk.  And, it does not improve the article.
 * :::This article is not categorized under Native American Genocide. And, if it is or was it should not be. The place for that is Genocides in history or Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas.
 * :::If content is added that does not pertain to the article, it doesn't really matter if that bad content cites reliable sources. Does it?  The bad content in this case is about the alleged genocide of Native Americans.  This article is not about thatit is about Indian massacres.
 * :::My assertion that Churchill is discredited is found here. Regardless, it doesn’t matter if the source is reliable. Holocaust and genocide do not apply to this subject.
 * ::: When I pointed out the phrase "centuries of massacres" it wasn't to contest the word centuries. It was to point out that this article is not about massacres.  It is about indian massacres.  The two terms are not interchangeable in this way.

So what is wrong with this sentence you created and added, "The massacres of indigenous peoples of the Americas over five centuries have contributed to the severe population decline of Native Americans in the Americas, which has sometimes been referred to as genocide or the "Indian Holocaust".[1][2]"?


 * 1) the sentence has nothing to do with the subject of this article. The sentence is about massacres in the Americas, population decline and alleged genocide/holocaust of indigenous people.  Those subject already have their own wiki pages:  Genocides in history and Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. This article is about Indian Massacres not massacres of indigenous peoples.
 * 2) even if we take the sentence as relevant, Indian Massacres barely contributed to the severe population decline of Native Americans.  Totals come to about 7,000 Native American deaths.  If you look at Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas., you'll see Indian massacre accounts for .o7% (less than 1% of the population decline, assuming the low end of population estimates).
 * 3) the sentence references the Americas. The Americas include Canada, USA, Mexico and South America).  Indian massacres are only concerned with the continental USA.OoflyoO (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about Indian Massacres not massacres of indigenous peoples.
 * Well, now you lost me. Are you saying "Indians" and "indigenous peoples of the Americas" and "Native Americans" refer to different things?  I disagree, but I am willing to listen to your explanation.
 * Indian Massacres barely contributed to the severe population decline of Native Americans
 * That is one line of argument. Another, and recently more prevalent, line of argument is that the massacre of Native Americans was one of the key reasons that the native population suffered such devastation from disease, instead of withstanding and rebounding as other populations (including European) have when confronted with similar pandemics. We can't present just one of several prevailing narratives.
 * Indian massacres are only concerned with the continental USA
 * Apparently not in this article. I see line entries for Canada (Quebec), etc.  And even though "North America" is mentioned in the lead, the link goes to "the Americas", so I think the implied scope is bigger than you realize. Are you suggesting that we need to strip out everything not relating to the USA? Also, can you point me to a source we can use to define "Indian massacre", especially one that conveys that it applies in the USA, and equally to both "by Indians" and "against Indians"?
 * This article is not categorized under Native American Genocide.
 * Yeah, it really is. Appropriately so, in all likelihood.
 * I didn't think it was a personal attack...
 * As soon as you said "Joe Editor's attempts ... smell strongly of POV pushing", you attacked a fellow editor. You can criticize content or wording as not adhering to neutral point of view all you want, but once you start accusing other contributors of bad faith actions as you did, it just goes down hill from there. But that's water under the bridge... Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, lost me too. I misspoke. This article is about Indian Massacres not genocide or holocaust of indigenous peoples.
 * Indian Massacres relate to is a specific incident wherein a group of people (military, mob or other) deliberately kill a significant number of relatively defenseless or innocent people—usually civilian noncombatants or to the summary execution of prisoners-of-war. The term refers to the killings of Euro-Americans by Native Americans (Indians) as well as to killings of Native Americans by Euro-Americans and/or by other Native Americans.
 * It is common knowledge that disease was the key reason for their population decline. Disease started before the massacres by Europeans. In the area that would eventually become the continental United States, the results of the only published study revealed that 7,193 Native Americans were massacred by Euro-descendants.   I’ll wager that many more died in battles over the centuries. Regardless, is this a topic for “Indian Massacres” as defined in this article or is it better suited in Wikipedia’s Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas?
 * You have misinterpreted the link out. The lead was very specific in saying North America.  Otherwise it would have said Americas.  Was it a bad choice to link to that page considering there isn’t a page for “European Colonization of North America”?  I guess so.
 * Yes, I believe so. Are there any historical documents showing the Canadians, Mexican, Brazilians, etc.. used the term Indian Massacre?
 * There are many historical documents that use Indian Massacre to describe “by Indians” and all of these are from the current boundaries of the continental USA. Just a quick and dirty Google search yield some examples:
 * “First Indian massacre occurred in Virginia at which time 374 whites were killed.” The New American Encyclopedic Dictionary: An Exhaustive Dictionary..., Volume 5.
 * “Almo, Idaho, dedicated to the memory of those who lost their lives in a most horrible Indian massacre, 1861. Three hundred immigrants west bound, only five escaped” Inscribed on a large concrete memorial, erected in 1938 in Almo, Idaho to commemorate the legend of the Almo massacre. The Legend of the Almo Massacre page 10.
 * “Indian massacre in 1676” U.S. Department of State publication USA Literature in Brief.
 * “The Minnesota Indian Massacre” is the tile starting on chapter 1 and on every other page is “Minnesota Indian Massacre” --The compilation by Charles Bryant “A History of the Great Massacre by the Sioux Indians, in Minnesota. 2nd edition titled Indian Massacre in Minnesota
 * August 30, 1813: Worst Indian Massacre of Settlers in the South (Fort Mims Massacre: here and here.
 * Dictonary.com uses the term Indian Massacre to describe Fort Mims:
 * Page 40 find the use of Indian Massacre (“by Indians”). The Indian question.: By Francis A. Walker, late U. S. commissioner of Indian affairs. Walker, Francis Amasa, 1840-1897.
 * “People escaping from the Indian massacre of 1862” Photo caption first page. “War is Cruelty” The Civil War Lessons of the Dakota War of 1862 by Alexandra E. Stern.
 * “In the autumn of 1711 a terrible Indian massacre took place in North Carolina. Hundreds of settlers fell victims of the merciless tomahawk.” -- Colonial North Carolina - History of the USA
 * Powhatan wars became known as the Indian massacre of 1622. A “by Indians” example. Source and source
 * August 30, 1813: Worst Indian Massacre of Settlers in the South (Fort Mims Massacre).
 * Where do you see this category? If so, why is it appropriate?


 * This page is not about Native American Genocide. Wikipedia already has a page for Native American Genocide. It is found in Genocides in history under the sub section for United States titled Genocide of Natives.


 * This page is about Indian Massacres as they relate to specific incidents wherein a group of people (military, mob or other) deliberately kill a significant number of relatively defenseless or innocent people—usually civilian noncombatants or to the summary execution of prisoners-of-war. The term refers to the killings of Euro-Americans by Native Americans (Indians) as well as to killings of Native Americans by Euro-Americans and/or by other Native Americans.


 * Ok.

This is what happened: Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) comes to this page via a sketchy redirect from “Indian Holocaust.” Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) does not find the subject of “Indian Holocaust” mentioned in the article. Therefore, even though this page is not about “Indian Holocaust”, Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) feels justified in adding a sentence about it in the lead. He does this simply because he was somehow redirected here. He does not consider that the redirect was a mistake in that the topic of Native genocide/holocaust is covered in Wikipedia’s Genocides in history page and is not covered here.

To further his justification Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) spies two books (in the Bibliography section) that were used to cite a couple of specific “Indian Massacres”. The two books have title, “A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas” and “American Indian Holocaust and Survival: a Population History since 1492” Those two tiles have the term Holocaust. Apparently, this is enough for Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) to construct a sentence about the subject he wants to find: Indian Holocaust.

Never mind that he uses “massacre” instead of “Indian Massacre”. Never mind that an investigation revealed Churchill had engaged in research misconduct (plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification). The investigation also noted "he has decided to publish largely in alternative presses or journals, not in the university presses or mainstream peer-reviewed journals often favored by more conventional academics.

Without reading the books, or understanding what this page is about, Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) comes up with this gem, “The centuries of massacres as a whole that led to the decline of Native Americans in the Americas have sometimes been referred to as the Indian Holocaust. Yep, this is based on two book titles and a problematic redirect (that has since been fixed).

Which page(s) in Churchill’s book does he say that centuries of massacres as a whole lead to the decline of Native Americans? What page does Churchill say these massacres are sometimes referred to as “Indian Holocaust”? As for Thornton, what page does he say centuries of massacres are sometimes referred to as “Indian Holocaust” or that massacres lead to the decline of Native Americans?

I think I can rest my case. The addition by Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) is not constructive and it adds no value to this article. His justifications for changing the lead are weak.

I tried to fix this by deleting that edit. Enter Xenophrenic (talk) who is undoing my reverts.

Xenophrenic (talk) attempts to “fix” the dubious edit by adding this statement (also referencing Churchill and Thornton),

“The massacres of indigenous peoples of the Americas over five centuries have contributed to the severe population decline of Native Americans in the Americas, which has sometimes been referred to as genocide or the "Indian Holocaust".

First of all, this statement is more applicable on Wikapedia’s Genocides in history page under the United states sub section “Genocide of Native Americans” and/or Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. Why? Because the focus of that statement is about the population decline of indigenous people and genocide. This article is only about Indian Massacres---that is the focus.

Secondly, which page(s) in Churchill or Thornton’s book do they make a link between massacres of indigenous people contributing in any significant way to the “severe population decline” of Native Americans?

Which page(s) in Churchill or Thornton’s book do they make a link between, for example, the killings of Euro-Americans by Native Americans (Indians) or the killings of Native Americans by other Native Americans (Indian Massacres) and an alleged “Indian Holocaust”?

The genocide and holocaust addition should be removed from this article. The questionable content was entered on the basis of flimsy justifications. The content in question doesn't pertain to the focus of this article. Read the lead and overview: it is very clear the subject is about "Indian Massacres" within the current boundaries of the continental USA. The subject is not disease, population, genocide or holocaust. Wikipedia already has pages that offer a better fit for these very topics: Genocides in History: United States and Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Genocide of indigenous peoples.---OoflyoO (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed explanation, OoflyoO, of what you feel has transpired in this matter. However, a couple of my questions remain unanswered.  I had asked you if there was a source (or sources, preferably) that defines the term "Indian massacre" as both attacks upon, as well as by, "Indians".  Is the definition located in one of the links you provided from your Google search?  Is there a definition provided elsewhere?  When I look at our article, I see examples of attacks both "by" and "upon" Native Americans, yet when you provide examples, it is just of attacks by Indians. You further ask a question about "the killings of Euro-Americans by Native Americans (Indians) or the killings of Native Americans by other Native Americans" as if that were the definition of "Indian massacre", to the exclusion of attacks by colonists upon the indigenous peoples. Should we not include attacks "upon" Native Americans by Euro-Americans in this list?  Sorry to be repetitive, but I'm trying to ascertain a definitive answer on this point.  Xenophrenic (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You questioned whether or not Indian Massacre really included killings of Euro-Americans by Indians. I answered that for you by listing some examples of that in use.  I asked the question about "the killings of Euro-Americans by Native Americans (Indians) or the killings of Native Americans by other Native Americans" in an attempt to point out that by putting undue weight on "attacks by colonists upon Indians" in the lead while at the same time shifting the focus to genocide and holocaust is changing the focus and subject of the page.  Besides, Wikipedia already has pages for genocide and population decline.OoflyoO (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No; I did not question whether or not the term "Indian massacre" really included killings of Euro-Americans by Indians. I asked you a reliable source which defines the term "Indian massacre", and you instead listed some examples of it's use from a Google search. I will now again ask you for the reliable source that defines the term "Indian massacre".  If you continue to answer that it is simply whatever is listed in a Google search for the term, then we have many more examples from all over the hemisphere to add to this article.  (And I agree with your observation that a subject (i.e.; genocide) can indeed appear on multiple Wikipedia pages.) Xenophrenic (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would suggest adding a hat note stating that "this article is a list of massacres involving Native Americans, for the role of violence in the demographic decline of Native Americans in the US see Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with your proposed addition, but I don't see it as a solution to the bigger issue we're discussing here. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would help if we could refocus this discussion. In a nutshell, if I understand the above discussion correctly, OoflyoO doesn't want it mentioned in this article that the massacre of Indians (many examples are presently in our article) is considered by many scholars to be a significant component of an "Indian holocaust" or genocide.  OoflyoO has deleted a sentence conveying as much, and I have reverted three of those deletions based on the edit summaries he/she gave.  The reasons given for deleting the content have been evolving over time:
 * The earliest objection was that this article covers massacres of "both Euro-American AND Native Americans". True, but it is still a fact that scholars view the Colonist-on-Native half of the massacres as a component of sustained genocide, and that is made clear in the text you deleted. Since the scope of the article apparently (at present) includes massacres of Native Americans, the information is not out of scope.
 * Another objection is that other Wikipedia articles exist which cover in more detail the subjects of genocide in history and genocide of indigenous peoples. True, but that isn't a reason to exclude relevant content from this article. Wikipedia has other more detailed articles on many of these massacres, but that is no reason they can't also appear in this article in abbreviated form - and they do.
 * Another objection is that one scholar cited for this information, of the many scholars that can be cited if needed, was accused of academic misconduct on an unrelated matter. That isn't a reason to exclude the information, and isn't even a reason not to cite that source.  If sourcing is the issue, we can raise the concern on the appropriate noticeboard and resolve it.
 * The next objection was the assertion that "Centuries of massacres did not lead the decline of Natives. The decline was led by disease." That was just clunky wording, which has since been fixed. It is common knowledge that disease was a factor in reducing the population, just as it is common knowledge that massacres of indigenous peoples were a factor in the genocide of the Native Americans.
 * Another objection was that the sentence was in the lead section, while not being a summary of content covered in the article. That can be remedied, but first I've been pressing for a clear explanation of what "Indian massacre" entails, and the exact source(s) that convey that explanation.  The above explanation says to me that the scope and definition of "Indian massacre" is an original research derivation arrived at after a "quick and dirty Google search".  I'd rather see a reliable source actually say that "Indian massacres" are confined to the "continental USA" (Alaska, Hawaii and territories are excluded?), rather than look at some selected hits from a Google search and drawing personal conclusions.  Likewise, I'd like to see the source which explains that it is a term used equally for all three circumstances ("by Indians", "upon Indians", and "between Indians").  Xenophrenic (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I (OoflyoO) already explain, in some detail, why I don't think the statement belongs here. Interested parties, please read that explanation.  No, "the scope and definition of "Indian massacre" was not....derivation arrived at after a "quick and dirty Google search"."  The quick and dirty Google search you speak of was to make it clear to you: Indian Massacre did in fact also apply to Indians who massacred Euro-Americans.  After reading the lead and overview, it is very clear the subject is about "Indian Massacres" within the current boundaries of the continental USA.  The subject does not include all of the "Americas" (i.e. Canada, Mexico, South America, etc...).  Furthermore, the subject of the article is not about disease, population, genocide or holocaust of Indians. OoflyoO (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read the lead and the overview. It is still not clear where the definition of "Indian massacre" was obtained.  There are zero references in the lead, and only one reference in the overview - a cite to a single book which strangely enough doesn't define or even mention the specific term "Indian massacre", but does mention genocide and atrocities and devastation by disease.  Are you saying that the scope and definition of the term "Indian massacre" is the product of original research by a Wikipedia editor? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Really too much text for me to read through it all. Coming fresh to the subject, here's what I came up with. OK, we are making two statements:
 * 1) The massacres of indigenous peoples of the Americas over five centuries contributed to the severe population decline of Native Americans in the Americas.
 * 2) This [severe population decline] has sometimes been referred to as genocide or the "Indian Holocaust".

I'll accept the second proposition for now. Regarding the first proposition, common sense tells us that it must be true to some extent. Being regularly massacred certainly couldn't have helped the Indians in maintaining their demographic integrity, n'est-ce pas? It's true if the contribution to severe population decline was 0.001%. True in the sense of being literally true. However, if it's that low, it's misleading. It's kind of like "Toenail Clippings, part of this nutritious breakfast (which also includes eggs, fruit, and whole grains), so eat some Toenail Clippings today", if you get my point. "People getting their scarves caught in automobile wheels contributes to the death rate of American dancers".

If we're saying "The massacres... contributed to the severe population decline" we are, by clear implication, saying "The massacres... contributed materially and significantly to the severe population decline". Otherwise we wouldn't say anything.

Well this is something we ought to be able to look up and figure out. Right? We're an encyclopedia. Looking up stuff is what we live for.

So... looking through the list and counting Indian casualties in my head, I get about 20,000 casualties over the course of about 400 years. Maybe 20,000 is way off, and maybe the list is woefully incomplete (I think it probably is). Maybe 200,000 would be a better figure. But we can't just pull numbers out of the air. So let's say 40,000. That's about 400 a year. That's a lot of murders. Still... is it enough to have "contributed to the severe population decline"?

Here is something, and sourced to Russell Thornton who is one of the two sources used for that statement in the article. He says the Indian population in what is now the USA went from 5 million to (looks like about) 250,000 in 1900 which is about when the massacres ended.

So that's a net loss of 4,750,000 souls over 400 years. 40,000 is 8/10 of 1% of that. (Even if I'm off by an order of magnitude, 400,000 massacre deaths would still be just 8% of the population loss.)

Hmmm. Part of this nutritious breakfast, to be sure. Was not helpful to the Indian population, to be sure. But... it sure puts me in the mind that surely some greater forces -- disease, food supply destruction, social and/or environmental stresses leading to birth rate collapse, warfare (against whites and also other tribes), jump in the suicide or infant mortality rates, etc. etc. -- must have been in play here.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how deaths factor into population decline, statistically. I'm not a demographer. Maybe killing a small percentage of the breeding population will cause a population collapse. I'm willing to be instructed.

I'm just saying, we want to be careful about saying "The American Indian population declined precipitously over 400 years [true], and the primary cause, or at any rate a primary cause, was the flat-out one-by-one murder of individual persons with guns and knives [quite arguable]". Because that's pretty much what we're saying. If we want to say that, we want to be really really sure we're right, because it sure goes against what everybody else says (which doesn't prove its wrong; it just means we need lots of good refs).

The numbers don't add up IMO. They don't support the statement.

I would be OK with "The massacres of indigenous peoples of the Americas over five centuries contributed (although probably only to a very small extent) to the severe population decline of Native Americans in the Americas, which has sometimes been referred to as genocide or the "Indian Holocaust". (Bolding added for emphasis only).

However, such a statement would be silly and pointless. My inclination is to remove the sentence entirely. Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the sentence "The centuries of massacres as a whole that led to the decline of Native Americans in the Americas have sometimes been referred to as the Indian Holocaust" was added about a month ago, and has not gained consensus. Consequently I don't consider it part of an accepted stable version and I'm rolling it back per WP:BRD. Obviously its engendered a lot wordplay so its something people feel debating in depth, so let's have a proper RfC, make a succinct version of the cases, and let a neutral admin adjudicate. Herostratus (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Herostratus. Would it be fair to summarize your comment thusly:  Since "Indian massacre" casualties apparently amount to less than 1% of total demographic decline, which is not a material and significant part of the severe population decline of millions ("Indian holocaust"), you feel mentioning it as a factor would be "misleading"?


 * That sounds like common sense on its face, and normally I would agree, but I've become aware of several important overlooked factors. Taking as sincere your "I'm willing to be instructed" attitude, I offer the following three points for your consideration:


 * According to some popular academic positions, the millions of indigenous people (more than 90% of the population) demolished by disease died before ever seeing a "white man", as the new diseases quickly spread far ahead of the carrier colonists, reducing those millions to merely thousands in its wake. With that in mind, the "genocide" claim appears to focus on the subsequent depredations against the surviving few, which changes the ratio and raises the significance of its impact considerably.  And as noted in Plagues in World History (see the quote-box of text above), Europeans similarly suffered deaths by the millions due to pandemic disease, but were able to recover because they didn't have to deal with invaders bent on conquest and killing at the same time.


 * According to what I've read above, and in our article, "Indian massacre" means whatever a "quick and dirty Google search" says it does, which means it may include a much larger count of events. Are we to include massacres of Indians across the hemisphere, and beyond:
 * The Indian massacre perpetrated by government troops in Rancas, Peru in 1962? (The Cambridge History of Latin American Literature)
 * It was the worst Indian massacre in Brazil since 1910, when killings so shocked Brazilians that the Government created the Indian Protection Service. (New York Times; 1993)
 * Indian massacre at Nulato, Alaska, a trading post on Yukon (Historical Records and Studies, Volume 14 By United States Catholic Historical Society)
 * British PM regrets "deeply shameful" colonial Indian massacre (east Indians this time, but it still says "Indian massacre", and it's in Google!)
 * The Indian massacre of Sitka, Alaska (see the Tlingits, 1879)
 * Do we include fake Indian massacres, like the highly publicized one that never occurred at Almo, Idaho? According to these sources, including this list, Indian massacres happen beyond the borders of the continental USA, contrary to the assertions of another editor; so do we include those?  Understanding what constitutes an "Indian massacre" is key to deciding the appropriateness of the "genocide/holocaust"-related content.  To chose an extreme example, some Indian massacre content would settle the matter rather readily.


 * According to the highly reliable sources that argue the holocaust narrative, the genocidal intent inherent in many of the "massacre" incidents makes them a key component of their argument. These massacres are cited in these sources not because of the numeric casualties involved, but because of the "intent" factor.  The many reliable sources already present in our article, which are just a tiny subset of those available, all mention Indian massacres as they make their larger case of genocide against the indigenous peoples of the Americas:
 * Madley, Benjamin California’s Yuki Indians: Defining Genocide in Native American History in Western Historical Quarterly 39 (Autumn 2008)
 * Madley, Benjamin, The Genocide of California's Yana Indians in Samuel Totten and Williams S. Parsons, eds., Centuries of Genocide: Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, Routledge, 2012
 * Lindsay, Brendan C., "Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873", University of Nebraska Press, 2012
 * Rohde, Jerry (25 February 2010). "Genocide and Extortion: 150 years later, the hidden motive behind the Indian Island Massacre". North Coast Journal
 * Norton, Jack, "Genocide in Northwestern California : when our worlds cried", Indian Historian Press, San Francisco, 1979
 * Thornton, Russell, "American Indian Holocaust and Survival: a Population History since 1492", University of Oklahoma Press, 1990
 * Churchill, Ward, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present, City Lights, 1997
 * Stannard, David E., American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, Oxford University Press, 1993
 * Kiernan, Ben, "Blood and Soil: a World History of Genocide and Massacre from Sparta to Darfur", Yale University Press, 2007
 * Seeing these sources, I can't help but feel that the relevance between massacres of Indians and 'genocide' might be incorrectly understated. I would welcome your thoughts on the matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And, Wikipedia already has pages that offer a better fit for these very topics: Genocides in History: United States and Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Genocide of indigenous peoples. The focus of this page isn't the massacres of Indians. It is about "Indian Massacres" which also includes massacres of Euro-Americans by Indians, etc... Why give undue weight that changes the focus and character of the article---especially when Wikipedia already has pages for the topics you want to introduce?OoflyoO (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * May I again ask where you obtained that "focus of this page"? Reliable Source (including page number), please, so I can review the scope? I would like to read where it is defined.  As for your comments about "topics I want to introduce", I don't understand what you are saying.  I'm not introducing anything.  I'm only conveying what reliable sources say.  When you say what amounts to "Wikipedia already has pages that offer a better fit for the topic of Virginia, so don't mention it here", it doesn't make sense to me.  "Virginia" will be mentioned in many Wikipedia articles, regardless of whether it is the "focus of the page". I await the reliable source(s) which define the scope of "Indian massacre".  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know. Its a complicated question and difficult to answer. This (copied from above) seems like it could be cogent:
 * There's no question the native population collapsed. There's little question that disease was the most important factor here; most people hold with this I think. That doesn't mean that other factors weren't materially significant worth mentioning. I would doubt that the actual physical one-by-one murder of non-combatants could account for a drop of the magnitude we had. (Although we don't even know how much of a drop there was -- according to our article on Native American population (can't find it right off) 1492 population estimates of (what is now) the USA range from 2+ million to 15 million! We don't even have consensus on a rough ballpark estimate of what the population even was! -- but it was probably a lot).
 * There's no question the native population collapsed. There's little question that disease was the most important factor here; most people hold with this I think. That doesn't mean that other factors weren't materially significant worth mentioning. I would doubt that the actual physical one-by-one murder of non-combatants could account for a drop of the magnitude we had. (Although we don't even know how much of a drop there was -- according to our article on Native American population (can't find it right off) 1492 population estimates of (what is now) the USA range from 2+ million to 15 million! We don't even have consensus on a rough ballpark estimate of what the population even was! -- but it was probably a lot).


 * That the actual physical one-by-one murder of non-combatants didn't account for a drop of the magnitude we had doesn't mean it couldn't have had an indirect effect -- maybe an occasional massacre is enough to demoralize a population, make them feel hopeless enough about the future, that secondary effects take hold: suicides, lack of desire to bring new children into the world, depression and consequent lassitude about infant care or life in general, desire to flee to new surroundings where your tribe is less able to sustain itself, and probably other stuff.


 * I don't know but it seems reasonable that this could be so. The thing is, this is rank speculation on my part, and I don't know if anyone even knows how much something like this contributed to population collapse, compared to disease, forced relocations, war, and habitat destruction. Since we can't get a clear answer on it (I guess), and since this article is about, and only about, actual physical mass murders of individual non-combatants and not about the general phenomenon of the secondary effects of occasional (or regular) mass murders of the American native population, I question whether we ought to include it.


 * BTW IMO it'd probably be an improvement to split this article in two, one about killings of settlers and another about the general phenomena of mass murders of the American native population including its secondary effects, which would include the appropriate portion of the list as a section. Herostratus (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the article is split into two then the subject of "Indian Massacres" that occurred within the current boundaries of the continental USA is lost. One editor argues that the subject of this article spans the Americas (to include Canada, Mexico, South America). I don't get that. When reading the lead and overview it is very clear the subject is about "Indian Massacres" within the current boundaries of the continental USA. The subject is not disease, population, genocide or holocaust.  And, Wikipedia already has pages that offer a better fit for these very topics: Genocides in History: United States and Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Genocide of indigenous peoples.OoflyoO (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we can slice it however we like. I don't know as there's any particularly good reason to include events that took place in Spanish areas that occurred in areas that, by historical accident became part of the United States in a later century, rather then including them under the aegis of Spanish America.


 * I also am pretty unsure about mixing mass murders of settlers and of natives in one list. It doesn't make sense. These are two different phenomena with different motives and methods, to some degree anyway. At the least, if they are all to be in one article for some reason, there should be two separate lists.


 * You then have the problem of where to take someone searching on "Indian massacre". But we're always going to have that problem. It if was 1952 we'd know she was probably looking for info on massacres of settlers. But it's not 1952, and John Wayne is dead. So there's no way to know what is really wanted by someone who types "Indian massacre" in the search box. Probably different things for different people. Regardless, I think "Indian massacre" ought to be disambig page which could point to this current page (renamed to List of Indian massacres (or whatever it gets split into)), the genocide of Native Americans page, List of massacres in India, and perhaps other pages such as Indian massacre of 1622 and maybe even some John Wayne movies or whatever.


 * (BTW and FWIW my uneducated understanding of the Black Death is that it usually killed less than 50% of most populations, and it also killed throughout Eurasia (thus, devastating not only Europeans but anyone who had the means and motive to attack Europe). My understanding of the Native American plagues is that they were a lot worse than that, and didn't much affect the Europeans to any great degree.) Herostratus (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One editor argues that the subject of this article spans the Americas (to include Canada, Mexico, South America).
 * Please point out that editor. I would ask that editor the same question I asked you: Can you point me to a source we can use to define "Indian massacre", especially one that conveys that it applies in the USA, and equally to both "by Indians" and "against Indians"?  I've been asking you for several days to please indicate the reliable source that defines the scope of "Indian massacre" as the subject of this article.  So far, all I've received in response is a "quick and dirty Google search".


 * The suggestion to split the incidents into two articles (or at the very least, two sections within an article) by victims (natives/settlers) has a lot of merit. But the scope of what constitutes an "Indian massacre" still needs to be reliably sourced, if that phrase is to be used as the name of this list article. It is not reliably sourced at present. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

RrC: Refer to Indian Holocaust in lede, or not?
Should following sentence (or something close to it) appear at the end of the lede paragraph?
 * The massacres of indigenous peoples of the Americas over five centuries have contributed to the severe population decline of Native Americans in the Americas, which has sometimes been referred to as genocide or the "Indian Holocaust".

There are currently two refs for the statement (both entire works with no page numbers given): This question has engendered significant discussion, which can be seen in the above section, Talk:Indian massacre; readers may consult that, and the person closing the RfC may also wish to. This RfC might be a good place for succinct distillation of the pro and con arguments, to the extent that that's possible for this complicated question. Herostratus (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Churchill, Ward,A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present, City Lights, 1997, 381 pages, ISBN 978-0-87286-323-1
 * Thornton, Russell, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: a Population History since 1492, University of Oklahoma Press, 1990, 312 pages, ISBN 978-0-8061-2220-5

Survey

 * I don't think that specific phrase, which is not very commonly repeated in the literature needs to be mentioned in the lead. I do think a link to the article on the discussion of genocide would be a useful substitution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in modified form. Per our editing policies, summary wording of significant content should appear in our WP:LEAD section. As noted by ·maunus, the specific phrase "Indian Holocaust" isn't as common, so that exact phrase need not be mentioned, but the association between the Indian massacres and genocide is extremely prevalent in our reliable sources, and should be succinctly summarized in the lead. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't Support not even in a modified form. The term "Indian Massacre" covers killings of Euro-Americans by Native Americans (NA), killings of NA by Euro-Americans and NA killing NA. If this page were only about massacres of Native Americans then making those types of entries to the lead (or, more recently the overview) would be on firmer ground. This page is about "Indian Massacres" as defined--not simply massacres of Indians. --OoflyoO (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This information definitely belongs in the lede for WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. JerryRussell (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
I would say that if we say "The massacres of indigenous peoples of the Americas over five centuries have contributed to the severe population decline..." we are essentially saying by implication "The massacres of indigenous peoples of the Americas over five centuries have contributed materially and substantially to the severe population decline..." (otherwise, why would we mention it at all?). Is that something we want to say? I dunno, but it's clear that the actual one-by-one killings of individual people in massacres -- most of which resulted in well under a thousand casualties -- in total amount to a tiny fraction of Native American population decline.

However, it's complicated. Massacres can be a catalyst for changes resulting in much broader demographic decline (such as a population fleeing to barren terrain, or losing key people, or many other things). Still, I'm reluctant to say it and I'm leaning against including the sentence. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the troublesome part is the "contributed to the severe population decline" wording, which according to some sources is indeed significant, but without the detailed explanation as to how, is confusing the issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's true that there were massacres in which civilians on both sides were killed. But in the final analysis, the indigenous people always lost all these wars, and disease and famine followed as an inevitable result of loss of territory. There's no doubt which side suffered a genocide. For that matter, the title of the main article Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas should read 'American Indian Holocaust'. There is no other NPOV way to describe what happened. Here's a third reference that uses the phrase in the book title, American Holocaust JerryRussell (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Splitting of articles and etc can be done in other discussions. The consensus supports this move, and I'll move the disambiguation to the plain title. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Indian massacre → List of Indian massacres – And them make this page into a disambiguation page that looks like this:

Indian massacre may refer to:
 * List of Indian massacres [the new name of this current page]
 * Genocide of Native Americans
 * List of massacres in India

(You can already see this in action at Indian massacre (disambiguation). Reasons for doing this:
 * 1) This is really a list article. Like many list articles, it contains a couple-few paragraphs of expository text, but it mainly consists of a list.
 * 2) We don't know what people searching on "Indian massacre" are looking for, but I believe that there is not one single primary topic (we have a very large number of readers in India, remember), therefore a disambiguation page is the best place to take them.
 * 3) (Less important) there's contention over how intertwined "Indian massacre" and "Indian genocide" are, and making this page point to both allows us to ellide that point of contention; let's let the reader answer that question for herself. Herostratus (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I support this move proposal. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that we use the term Native American for the page as opposed to Indian which is pretty controversial (though I think that using the current name as a DAB page as suggested by the nominator is a good idea). I therefore Propose: Indian massacre → List of Native American massacres. Ebonelm (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, but the question is not "which term is more uncontroversial/non-insulting/modern/culturally sensitive/accurate/etc" but "which term is used more often, now and in the recent past"? This Google Ngram on various terms shows results for "Indian massacre" being much the highest, so I'm inclined to think that "Indian massacre" is the more common term. (There are complications, such as "Indian massacre" peaking around 1900 indicating it's somewhat archaic (although not obsolete); and probably people write a variety of different terms now instead of the once-idiomatic "Indian massacre". Still, it's what we have, and the best term IMO; redirects can help people searching on "Native American massacre".) Looking on our own corpus, we have "Indian massacre of 1622" not "Native American massacre of 1622" and also "Stockbridge Indian massacre"; and at The Last Wagon and Escort West we ourselves say "...survivors of an Indian massacre..." and this is a probably more common formation than "...survivors of a Native American massacre...", particularly when speaking of a massacre by rather than of aboriginals, which half of this article does (I suggest it should quite possibly be split in two, but let's deal with one change at a time here). Herostratus (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * support moving Indian massacre → List of Native American massacres and after moving Indian massacre (disambiguation) to Indian massacre, so we may stop an editor recreating the moved page. --Robertiki (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The term Indian Massacre includes the killings of Euro-Americans by Indians. It is not only a list of Native American Massacres. Therefore, changing "Indian Massacre" to "Native American Massacre" does not work.--OoflyoO (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OoflyoO (talk • contribs)
 * The term Native American Massacres includes the killings of non Indians by Indians. Adding Native does not change the meaning referring to the victims, only specifies who is the Indian side. --Robertiki (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I Do Not Support this move proposal. I Do Not Support moving Indian massacre → List of Native American massacres. A list of "Indian Massacre" and a list of "Native American Massacres" are two completely different things. --OoflyoO (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I get the second point, you don't support moving to "List of Native American Massacres" (which isn't the original request anyway). But you also say you support keeping this page as "Indian massacre" and not moving it to "List of Indian Massacres". Why? I can think of reasons for saying this (such as, we ought to expand it to be more than a list, or at any rate leave that option open), but you haven't expressed any reason. Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mainly, I'm simply ok with the page as it currently is. Also, I think a disambiguation page that says "Indian massacre may refer to....Genocide of Native Americans" is misleading. The term "Indian Massacre" does not refer to "Genocide of Native Americans". -- OoflyoO (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not even obliquely? Were they soirées? We are here to serve the reader, not your personal sensibilities. It strikes me as very likely that some non-trivial percentage of readers entering "Indian massacre" in the search box are indeed either looking for or would be interested to learn more about the genocide. whether the two things are closely related or not is arguable, but they're certainly not unrelated. (We can tie them together with a hatnote or a link in the text (or not at all), but to my mind and IMO a disambig page would be better.) Herostratus (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe obliquely. It is more logical and more likely that if a reader were looking to learn about genocide of Native Americans they would search for "Genocide Native Americans".--OoflyoO (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "Indian Massacre" may perfectly be used to refer also to "Genocide of Native Americans". --Robertiki (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so perfect. For example, the indian massacre of 1622 where Native Americans killed 347 non-combatant colonist (men, women and children of all ages). How do you make the term "indian massacre" in that sentence also refer to "genocide of Native Americans"?--OoflyoO (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reflect about the meaning of also. --Robertiki (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A list of "Indian Massacre" and a list of "Native American Massacres" are two completely different things only in the meaning that it excludes "Asian Indians". --Robertiki (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the page and tell me why you think it has anything to do with "Asian Indians"? The term "Indian Massacre" as it applies to this page has been in use since at least 1622, where it was used to describe the massacre of 347 Jamestown settlers (men, women and children of all ages) by Native Americans. In the context of this page, the term includes the massacre of Native Americans (NA) or Euro-Americans (EA) by either side.---OoflyoO (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said that the page has anything to do with "Asian Indians". And the reason to use the term "Native Americans"" is because the page has nothing to do with "Asian Indians". --Robertiki (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support moving/re-naming this article to a "List of..." article, because it is obviously a WP:List article, and I support replacing this article with the proposed disambiguation page. As for whether the destination page should use the word "Indian" or "Native American", I am neutral.  There are good arguments for either.  This move/re-name still doesn't resolve the problem of scope mentioned above (only continental US? Date range?  What defines "massacre"?).   Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, to be addressed later. I've seen it done as "X can mean this or this, (while a such-and-so is a Y); this article only covers definition A [or: covers both definitions]". Herostratus (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support This is a list article, and it should continue to include massacres of European settlers as well as massacres of American Indians, for neutrality. The title 'Indian Massacre' is used by historians to describe atrocities by either side, so it's a good title for the list article. I also support the proposed creation of a disambiguation page by the existing title of this article. JerryRussell (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, and split and disambiguate further, since the present list is about two completely opposite things, and that is not really permissible in WP articles. List of massacres of Native Americans and List of massacres of European Americans, or something to this effect.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Overview June 2016
Currently, there isn’t a decision to include a questionable entry in the lead about genocide/holocaust---With this in mind; Xenophrenic decides to work that very topic into the overview. There are many problems with the new additions.

The new entry doesn’t add anything constructive to the overview. Instead it cleverly weaves a narrative in the first paragraph where whites labeled all Indian victories massacres and labeled all massacres of Indians as mere battles. A story where white people didn’t have a history of massacres (by Indians) and were then driven by false news stories to fear and massacre Indians. One quote, when put in context, is referencing a specific town and newspaper in Colorado. But from reading the entry a reader would assume this was common or applied to all news at the time.

In the second paragraph, he makes his move to morph the page into the subject of the alleged genocide of Native Americans.

For the third paragraph, he took the old, stable overview and altered in a trivial way that does nothing to improve upon the original.

I reverted those entries to the last stable version (Re non-constructive). The narrative didn’t focus on “Indian Massacre” as a whole but rather steered the reader to other topics such as "genocide"……where no attention was placed on the genocide tribes inflicted upon on each other, nor the desire of Natives to exterminate whites, etc….

My revert was in vein.

Therefore, I made some additions. I still believe the older stable version was indeed the best. OoflyoO (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your insertion of several weasel words, and your deletion without explanation of basic factual info and sources. If you really feel there are "problems with the new additions", I would like to discuss that with you, if you can set aside comments like makes his move and cleverly weaves.  Comments like that tend to poison the collaborative atmosphere.  Regarding one concern of yours:
 * One quote, when put in context, is referencing a specific town and newspaper in Colorado. But from reading the entry a reader would assume this was common or applied to all news at the time.
 * Could you please be more specific about which quote? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * IF you have problem with my sourced additions and clarifications of previously sourced material then discuss instead of deleting.
 * Could you please be more specific about which quote?
 * "stories in the News continued to stir those fears: wild rumors of Indian conspiracies were heralded as fact; any violence at all between whites and Indians was reported as an Indian 'massacre'" OoflyoO (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We are discussing your proposed changes. Thank you for clarifying which quote you were referring to as "when put in context, is referencing a specific town and newspaper in Colorado".  I've reviewed the quote, and note that it refers to all of Colorado, not just a town, in a run-up to the Sand Creek massacre.  I also note the source clarifies about this one particular example, "It is, moreover, representative in its savagery of innumerable other events that differ from it only because they left behind less visible traces."  Nonetheless, I've expanded the text to clarify that it was specifically about the Colorado situation. Please let me know if that is satisfactory.  As for another concern of yours, you apparently don't want our article to mention that Mr. Osborn wrote The Wild Frontier, cited in our article.  May I ask why? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You deleted all of my sourced edits without talk. I incorporated my edits into yours without deleting your entire edit (and maybe we should simply revert to the last stable version). Please remove any a weasel word, etc..  However, we either leave my version up while we talk about your concerns for improvement or we revert to the last stable version---the one before your edits to the overview.  OoflyoO (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic lets get a third party opinion. OoflyoO (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The "talk" regarding your sourced edits is just above in this section. Is there a reason why you deleted the mention of Osborn as the author of The Wild Frontier? As for much of your additions, such as those from Fehrenbach's Comanches book, there were two very obvious problems.  The first is that some of his more ethnocentric accounts have been vigorously disputed (but that doesn't necessarily disqualify his POV), and the second is that you excerpted descriptions of indigenous peoples from his writing, but omitted his descriptions of colonists from those very same paragraphs.  We should discuss how to properly convey the content you wish to introduce.  Since you apparently have concerns with some of my edits, and I have concerns with yours, and the older version was mostly unsourced, and had other problems, it seems like a waste of time to debate which unacceptable version we should have.  Let's work on an acceptable version. ( Xenophrenic (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The older version of the overview was properly sourced and neutral. Since we disagree to each others edits we should revert to that version---the last stable version. When I tried to go back to the last stable version but you would not let it be. Therefore, I added my edits which are sourced correctly. I am reverting your edits to the last stable version while we wait for the third party opinion. Otherwise, we should keep the hybrid of our combined edits. OoflyoO (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. The older version was a book review, not an overview of this list article.  A review of a book that isn't even used as a source for much of the list article.  And the citation was for the numeric totals, while the rest is unsourced.  If you want to get serious input on development of an overview section, open up a RfC (as suggested to you on your Talk page) and petition for wider community input.  By the way, you are still able to wait for 3rd party opinions regardless of what is presently in the article.   Is there a reason why you deleted the mention of Osborn as the author of The Wild Frontier? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By that logic we can say your edit is also not an overview of this list article and that is why I made properly sourced edits to it. Maybe you should open the RfC . OoflyoO (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm considering it. Would you like to help in the wording of it? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion: Overview June/July 2016
This page is about “Indian Massacres” defined as massacres of Euro-Americans by Native Americans, massacres of Native Americans by Euro-Americans and Massacres of Native Americans by Native Americans.

A stable overview was heavily edited by Xenophrenic. Editor OoflyoO found the edits to be non-constructive because the edits created a point of view that 1) whites labeled all Indian victories massacres and labeled all massacres of Indians as mere battles. 2) white people didn’t have a history of massacres (by Indians) and were then driven by false news stories to fear and massacre Indians. 3) morphed the page into the subject of the alleged genocide of Native Americans.

The edit didn’t focus on “Indian Massacre” as a whole but rather steered the reader to other topics such as "genocide"……where no attention was placed on the genocide tribes inflicted upon on each other, nor the desire of Natives to exterminate whites,

OoflyoO reverted to the stable version and Xenophrenic reverted back to his edits.

Therefore, OoflyoO added to Xenophrenic's edits. The additional edit was an effort to balanced and bring the focus back to “Indian Massacres” as defined.

Xenophrenic reverted back to his edit, and OoflyoO reverted back to his, etc...

A Third Party Opinion is requested. Which overview better represents this page:


 * 1) The original
 * 2) Xenophrenic's edits
 * 3) OoflyoO's edits

A Third Party Opinion is requested. OoflyoO (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would favor Xenophrenics version, although it can doubtless also be improved (and as I have noted before I don't think the this is the place for discussions about genocide). The fact that Indian military victories have been labeled massacres and massacres of Indian civilians have been labeled battles is however well documented fact. Additionally Osborn's book is not a particularly good source, he is not a professional historian and the book has been criticized for its one-sidedness and overt political stance, and hence it should not be privileged. I think Russell Thorntons work also bears mention, if we are to write a paragraph weighing the two types of violence against eachother.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In an era where blatant revisionist history is the norm and historians routinely seek to exploit and foment popular sentiment against the past, it becomes extremely difficult to craft any article on tough topics like this in an NPOV manner. The mere inclusion of revisionist ideas and opinions almost always tends to skew the POV in favor of the new “version of history” despite the facts. Of the current overviews, I find that ’s version the most NPOV of the lot. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been the third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fourth, by my count. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ·maunus was not a neutral third party from the 3o request page. And is correct.  OoflyoO (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right about what, exactly? And by the way, Cline also wasn't from 3O. (Hint: 3O is only for when there are two editors having a disagreement, not several as in this situation - but personally, I welcome all productive input at any time.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with "Maunus". Osborn was a lawyer, not a professional historian. Indeed, it is not a particularly good source and his book/list contains a number of blatant inaccuracies. For example, he states that “no less than 850” militiamen (out of ca 950) were "massacred” by Indians at the River Raisin in January 1813. However, most historians report less than (or about) 300 militiamen killed during the battle and between 30 and 100 prisoners killed in the ensuing massacre. More than 500 militiamen taken prisoners were actually paroled back to the US in February 1813 (see e.g. G. Glenn Clift’s “Remember the Raisin”)... Also, Osborn overlooked a number massacres (Paspahegh Massacre, Canyon del Muerto Massacre, Circleville Massacre, Sacramento River Massacre, Owens Lake Massacre and many more). Not surprisingly, his numeric totals are not supported by other studies. Historian Benjamin Madley recorded many more atrocities against Natives in California than Osborn (see “An American genocide-The US and the California Indian Catastrophe”). In my opinion, when it comes to numeric totals, Osborn's book does not meet the standards for inclusion as a reliable source. .Arhaas bian (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There's only like 4900 colonizers killed by natives listed
It doesn't match the 9156 figure mentioned earlier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.169.178 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Definition of massacre
I've boldly removed and modified many entries; including ones where the victims were soldiers killed in combat, and the ones where too few were killed to be considered a "massacre". A massacre by definition is towards civilians or individuals with little chance of defending themselves with a substantial casualty toll (I used 5 as the threshold, which is probably still quite low). 172.56.7.92 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move: Change "Indian" to "Native American"
Move to List of Native American massacres. It's the 21st century. They are Native American people, not Indians. This also confuses this article with massacres in the country of India. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 23:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Indians tend to say "Indians" not "Native Americans." That is good enough for me. Carptrash (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was going to say the exact same thing. It always bugs me when people argue this. Presumably they have no knowledge of American Indians or many of their tribal names. Sure, some say Native Americans, but that doesn't mean we should change the normal usage. Doug Weller  talk 14:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Indian Massacres" refers to the killings of Euro-Americans by Native Americans as well as to killings of Native Americans by Euro-Americans and/or by other Native Americans. It is an ubiquitous historical term and it is a specific phrase, which is commonly repeated in literature. Changing "Indian Massacres" to "Native American Massacres" doesn't make sense.OoflyoO (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge tables & add sortable region column
From a first time visitor to this article, I was curious why there are 3 tables? I wanted to sort by a high level region, but it's not possible, though adding a high-level region column would make it easier for people to find massacres for a specific regional area. Since wikitable sorts text from the left side, cities / counties / rivers would need to be removed to make it work. Instead of "Madison County, Indiana", the text "Indiana" should be used; but text on the right side is fine, such as "Arizona Territory" would sort properly with "Arizona". If a region column was added and 3 tables merged, it might be more useful. Discussion, thoughts, ideas, ... • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 12:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Indian massacres
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Indian massacres's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Brown": From Battle of the Big Hole:  From Cayuse War: Brown, J. Henry (1892). Political History of Oregon: Provisional Government. The Lewis & Dryden Printing Co.: Portland. p. 114 From List of massacres in Sri Lanka:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Small Massacres that Occurred as well

 * 1571 || February 19  || Jesuit Martyrs  || Virginia || A small mission made up of 8 Jesuits and 1 alter boy was founded in 1570; the local indians killed 8 of the Jesuits and their assistants; a young alter boy was spared. Only recently has the Richmond Va Roman Catholic Church has  become aware of the Jesuit Martyrs who have become "Servants of God"||8 Missionairies ||
 * 1812 || September 10 || Zimmer Family Massacre || Ohio ||A party of Indians killed 4 members of the Zimmer family (2 parents and 2 children) in Ashland County, Ohio.|4 (settlers)||
 * 1812 || September 15 || Copus Massacre || Ohio ||A party of Indians killed 1 settler and 3 soldiers in Ashland County, Ohio. [At least 2 of the attackers were killed while 1 settler and 2 soldiers were wounded] |7 (settlers and Soldiers)||  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.89.128 (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)