Talk:List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes/Archive 2

Kaweah Indian Nation
I don't know what to do with this but it's related. It's a tribe with a loose geographic identity that was later invoked as part of a scam. Nonrecognized. don't know where to put this information in relation to this article.

Kaweah Indian Nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.74.133 (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They are already listed twice on the listing: once under Kansas and again under North Carolina. However, I will go ahead a wikify the entries to link to the stub article. CJLippert 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia-recognized tribes?
I created this page to give some place where Wikipedia can discuss Tribes that have not been recognized by the federal or state government. I mean no judgment on the legal validity of claims or more importantly on what a tribe is, what it takes to be a tribe, or what this is all about. This article is supposed to be for groups that for whatever reason simply did not get the government to recognize them. I also changed the Federally recognized tribe article to make clear that federal recognition is not what makes a tribe or nation, that is just a designation the US government makes for its own purposes. The same thing with state state recognition. It is important in terms of benefits and programs, opportunities, etc., but that is an external definition, and even there only for legal and political purposes.

Unfortunately we have another problem / issue, which is that Wikipedia has its own standards for recognition. An article on any subject has to meet notability guidelines, which means that a very small group of people without any historical context or importance doesn't qualify. It also has to be verifialbe and have WP:RS reliable sources. That is the real problem. It means that in order to write an article or add material and not have it deleted, you have to find some third party source that has written about it in an objective way - a newspaper, book, etc., that is reliable and not self-interested.

Indian nations do not get mentioned in the news much, which makes sourcing very difficult. Even more troubling, the reason the mainstream press doesn't write about them is often the same reason they don't get federal or state recognition either: sources are hard to find, proof is hard, the majority culture does not care about them, they have been oppressed or scattered, etc. I dont' see any good way around this but maybe this article can help. At least the rules here on Wikipedia are not designed to exclude. It is simply the best way to keep the encyclopedia trustworthy. There are invalid and even fake claims made about tribes, and about every subject on Wikipedia, so we can't just include everything that anyone wants to add.

If you are from a tribe or you care about a tribe, the best thing to do to help Wikipedia is to find an article somewhere off Wikiepdia -- any article -- and post a citation to it to show that the tribe is a real one. If the tribe has a headquarters, or a petition, or even better a website, that is a good link too. Wikipedia frowns on email addresses but a website about a tribe is a good link. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we can get quite a bit of unrecognized tribes in the US listed here, even if they aren't notable, since this is basically a list and not an article about each of the non-notable unrecognized tribes. However, to prevent people from just making up a claim of a tribe, as you have already stressed, it has to be  verifialbe and have WP:RS reliable sources.  The State recognized tribes article also needs major clean-up since there are some now who are Federally recognized and a lot of unrecognized tribes mix into that list.  CJLippert 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Choctaw Nation of Mississippi River Clan
The reason this came up is that the below notice was added to the State recognized tribe article. It seems sincere, and important. But it's hard to figure out where it fits in Wikipedia. I did some quick google research and couldn't find a source. If this is for real, it would be shame if our rules mean that a tribe can't be mentioned here. Maybe someone with better google skills than me or some information can help. Thanks, Wikidemo 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Togeather We Are Reuniting the Sacred Circle of the Tree of Life! Aho!
 * Choctaw Nation of Mississippi River Clan- Soverign Nation that has, and continues to exist on Turtle Island "nothamerica". Members of this Federally, State and U.N. recognized Tribe, were scattered during the Choctaw Trail of Tears 1830 to 1833; and again in the early 1900's when the U.S. Federal Government declared that this Tribe, and these People did not exist. My Grandfather is still here... and I am still here....WE STILL EXIST! The U.S. government CANNOT determine wether a TRIBE or People exist or not. This to be determined by the Tribe or People themselves; according to U.N.law. I am Shaman RedHawk Choctaw Nation Mississippi River Clan, WE STILL EXIST! Aho! We encourage other "lost" or "scattered" members of this tribe to contact Tribal Headquarters: NAC.ChoctawMississippiRiverClan@yahoo.com


 * The thing is, wikipedia can create things, and perhaps this should be discouraged. If someone claims to belong to a group that doesn't have wide recognition, but they can point to a WP page about their group, it gives the group some credence, independent of any references, something that might influence a city council or something like that.  And I'm afraid that isn't our job.  What you say is true, if a citation can be found, even in a local weekly paper that isn't available online, then at least we can have a citation.  Wikipedia has a lot of power, and if wikipedia recognizes something, it is important.  I support wikipedia recognizing things which can be cited (your favorite obscure artist, for instance), as it enriches and personalizes the experience of editors and readers.  But without any citation, I think we are overstepping bounds, especially when the issue is sensitive. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Southern California
There are a few unrecognized tribes of descendants allegedly of Luiseno (the Temeku Rancheria of Temecula), Serrano (the Rancho San Timeteo of Calimesa), and Cahuilla (the San Cayetano band of Palm Desert) tribal origins fought for federal or state recognition. Often they are considered remnants of Californio or Spanish Californian origin, due to their Spanish surnames and Mexican cultural features they possessed (or legally called Latino).+ 71.102.53.48 (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Their genealogical and legal records are required for verification by federal or state authorities, and need to confirm they are Native American descendants. There are 3 others came to mind: The Las Palmas band of Cahuilla, the Western Apache community of the California Desert whom lived among the Cahuilla and the Mission Creek Indian Reservation of the Cahuilla, all located near Palm Springs. Mike D 26 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "mlist" :
 * Fixed. mlist = manataka. cooday8 had the wrong ref tag. CJLippert (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Boldface
Really should get rid of most boldfacing in article in accordance with WP:MOS, specifically: WP:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)Student7 (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But in this list and the list called State recognized tribes, the names listed are not just a list but they act as Definition lists, which according to the WP:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting) is an acceptable use of boldface. These groups identifying themselves as a "tribe" in general is not noteworthy to warrent an article for each and every one of them; however, they are worth noting on as a whole, where some do have more than just their name and what official source they appear, and that is where their titles act as a Definition list. CJLippert (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just removed this before reading your note. I did not deliberately ignore it. If I had seen it, I would not have proceeded. (I don't agree, but I would have held off. Sorry to seem precipitous). Student7 (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Latgawa
I ran across this article today. Katr67 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bogus tribe, but as far as the US is concerned, they are extinct, mostly absorbed into other recognized tribes, but there is one group claiming to be the Latgawa tribe, but I cannot find any Indian Advocacy groups or any government organizations explicitly citing them. If they can't be referenced by a reliable source, they can't be listed in the list of unrecognized tribes. CJLippert (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't saying the tribe itself was bogus, just the currrent claim to its legacy. I figured if it got deleted it could be recreated as a properly sourced article, but I didn't have the time to do it. Thanks for the cleanup! These seem to be the same folks listed in this article as "Confederated Tribes: Rogue, Table Rock & Associated Tribes". I ran across some articles referencing some interesting business dealings as well. A search on "John Grey Eagle Newkirk" provides the background. Though not recognized, the group claiming to be the tribe seems to be somewhat notable, if slightly notorious... Katr67 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee
The recent state compilation was an uncritical listing of 42 Native-American-related organizations founded in the state since 1970, the vast majority of which no longer exist, few which meet notability guidelines, only two can lay claim to an organization history prior to 1970, none of which have provided a provable 19th-century historical context, none that are publicly verifiable prior to 1970, and one (USET) that is a respected organization of federally-recognized tribes. These are not "unrecognized tribes" but culture clubs that wax and wane with movies and development-money talk. See "an incomplete historical catalog of Native American and Native-American-related organizations in Tennessee", with dates, leaders and historical references. tpk (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's opening line says it all:
 * "Unrecognized tribes are those groups that are (or claim to be) domestic Native American by ethnicity, but are not recognized by either the federal government (through the Bureau of Indian Affairs) or state government in the United States." emphasis added
 * If an actual article on a specific group, that group would need to show notability, but this is only listing... and the listing is limited to only those with documented sources. In this case for the groups deleted out and undeleted under the Tennessee listing, the documentation is the listing provided by the Cherokee Nation on unrecognized groups claiming to be Cherokee or Cherokee-related. Because some culture clubs are really a true unrecognized tribal members (where some have ample state and federal documentation) and others are just culture clubs, yet many others fall somewhere in between, this listing makes absolutely no distinction on where in that spectrum they fall. CJLippert (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The primary word here is "tribe", not "unrecognized". There is no "official" list of unrecognized tribes in Tennessee, but if one were to exist, it should be limited to groups that have some semblance of tribal identity according to federal or state guidelines, like a history older than 10 years, like current existence, like genealogical and geographical proximity. Tennessee has had state tribal-recognition guidelines in the past, and is working on them again; very few of these organizations have ever expressed an identity much less an interest in recognition as a tribe. We are not talking Mdewakantonwan or Little Shell groups here; we are talking 'Watab Band of Sauk Indians' and 'Remnant Izatis Nation of Dakota' - fictional creations of descendants long removed from tribal reality. FYI, the Cherokee Nation (CNO) resides in Oklahoma, not Tennessee, and can hardly be considered an authority on what exists in Tennessee today or in the recent past. Was just up in your neck of the woods in july. Next time you drive by Onamia, give a shout out to my brother at Lakedale. tpk (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"making that distinction is not our role; citing where we got the information is." I disagree. You're in Minnesota, i'm in Tennessee. Those who know the difference between uncritical lists of organizations and groups that are tribes have a responsibility to clarify and correct lists composed by people who have no direct or historical knowledge of the topic. For example, you constantly include "United South and Eastern Tribes", an organization of federally-recognized tribes here in Nashville that is offended by people referring to them as a tribe. They have never sought any recognition as a tribe, but are continually included in lists that have no human critical review. Another example: the "Ani-Kwatani Mission of Chickamuga Cherokee" existed as a mental aberration here in Chattanooga from 1996-1998. The founder claimed to offer sexual healing of an s&m variety, never claimed to be a band or tribe, never had a following of more than 3. Please, quit messing with lists of organizations you know nothing about. tpk (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you are making these edits in good faith, however I have to disagree with the assessment that the "geographic" location of an editor should really be what's pertinent here. If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you're challenging the placement of some of the referenced material in the article based on your own personal observations, without offering any supporting reliable references to support your conclusions. I'd suggest that if you really want to move ahead in this situation, please provide other editors with some reliable sources to support what you're contending, without them, in my opinion you're engaged in WP:OR. If you're attempting to challenge the validity or appropriateness of the source(s) currently being used to support the inclusion of material, please provide other editors with your reasoning for disputing their usefulness. Also, please do not continue to remove material from the article until consensus regarding the issue has been reached here on the article talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * tpk, I have reverted your edit, but have also commented out all the entities that were listed only on the Fraudulent Group List ("CFlist" in the wiki-citation) published by the Cherokee Nation, and had no other comments associated with them. We need to resolve this issue and commenting them out is only a temporary solution. Whether real or fraudulent, they are all unrecognized entities claiming to be tribes, all from a reliable list. Maybe a solution would be to rename the article as "List unrecognized entities claiming to be Indian tribes in the United States" and also work on the article's opening paragraph. Another solution would be to split off those who are legitimate unrecognized tribes (such as the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin) from those non-legitimate ones. If splitting the article, there will need to be reliable source(s) chosen to separate the two groups apart. BTW, there are NO entities in Tennessee qualifying as being recognized either by the DOI-BIA or by the TN-CIA, so even legitimate unrecognized tribes in Tennessee would be considered "fraudulent" under those guidelines, and as long as even an entity is formed by legitimate tribes, as long as they don't meet either guidelines, they too would be considered fraudulent groups in Tennessee. Splitting the article may also resolve a similar issue the current article is facing under the "Arkansas" section. Any other ideas? CJLippert (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you that the edits of tpk have been reverted. I believe, however, I would need to disagree with the statement "making these edits in good faith". There is a great deal of political distress here in Tennessee by those who wish to denigrate the American Indian entities in Tennessee.  There has been a great deal of strife bethween those who seek actualization and suffrage as American Indians and those who have ties or commitments to American Indian entities which are not a part of the Tennessee Indigenous American Indian community.  Yes, Not all American Indians who are not part of the Tennessee Indigenous American Indian community (TIAIC) have attempted to denigrate, but, it would seem, they are a minority voice.


 * There has been a much proliferation of mis-information regarding the standing of what A State can do in regard to the NON-recognized American Indian Entities. We as members of the TIAIC seek the means whereby to continue as we have for the past several hundred years.  We seek to further association with those American Indian entities, within and outside the state of Tennessee, who seek to further the aims and means of the TIAIC.
 * What those who seek do not seek the best interest of NON-Federally recognized American Indians forget to mention that


 * In 1823 the Supreme Court handed down a decision (Johnson v. M'Intosh) which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands.  Subsequently the American Indian Removal Act of 1830, members of the “Five Civilized Tribes” were removed to the West.
 * It wasn’t until 1879 that the following ruling was delivered by a court of the United States in Nebraska by Justice Elmer Dundy in his decision in United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook:

"'Webster's describes a person as 'a living soul; a self-conscious being; a moral agent; especially a living human being; a man, woman, or child; an individual of the human race. This is comprehensive enough, it would seem, to include even an Indian.'"
 * Until the Civil Rights act of 1924, American Indians were not even given the opportunity of citizenship in these United States of America
 * In Decisions of the Supreme Court of These United States of America, Federal Tribes are determined to be Dependent Domestic Nations or wards of the Federal Government and have No jursidiction outside of their own individual reservations. Yet they, some of their members, and some of the descendants of their members continue to attempt to influence states to forego the rights embued to each state in the Constitution of These United States of America
 * A lack of trust in the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs and certain members thereon has led those entities seeking recognition to not surrender / submit their documents of  proof  to said Commission
 * A Member of the council of a Federal Tribe (one of the Five Civilized Tribes) has stated that "All the Indians" were removed west with the relocation/forced migration. What does this mean for the "Tribes" which remain east?


 * The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
 * The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians</li>
 * <li>The Band Poarch of Creek Indians</li>
 * <li>The Seminole Tribe of Florida</li></ul>
 * With this statement one can see that the Politics of WHO is American Indian extends not only to NON-recognized American Indian Entities but extends even to Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes. If it was just this statement, it would seem like a new idea, but it is and has been contention between Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes for years.  Recently the Cherokee Nation of Okalahoma acknowledged that there actually are three (3) Federal Cherokee American Indian entities.
 * <li>American Indians continue to remain the only minority group required to have a  Card  to claim such standing</li>

</ul>


 * So, while it may seem that there may be a "simple" solution to how to list NON-recognized American Indian Entities, the contentions between "haves" and "have-nots" as well as between "haves" and "haves" continues to be one that will require an answer from the States (Amendment 10 of the Constitution of These United States of America) and from the Federal Government of These United States of America. mje —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

note that it is now march 2014. as of 30 june 2010 the State of Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs terminated, and no legislation has since been proposed to re-start it. also note that there are no Tennessee state-recognized tribes in Tennessee, that there is no locatable or state-registered entity known as "Tennessee Indigenous American Indian community (TIAIC)", that 2014 is the first legislative session in the past ten years in which no new legislation was proposed to "recognize" a group of people as a tribe, and that a federally-recognized tribe, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, now has Tennessee land placed in federal trust. tpk (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Tanasi" groups
Is Tanasi Council the same as the Tanasi Native American Group? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know. Will look around and see if they're the same or different with names being muddled together or distinctively different entities. No matter what, the list will be edited to reflect what I find. Thanks for noticing and asking. CJLippert (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, this is what I've found:
 * Tanasi Council [of the Far Away Cherokee] is based out of Memphis, TN
 * Tanasi Native American Group is based out of Knoxville, TN
 * So, the two entities are different. Now the "Tanasi Council" was tricky because I was getting a lot of hits for the Girl Scouts of Tanasi Council, but once putting in the full name, it was clear that the two entities in question were different. CJLippert (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am part of the Tanasi Council and it is different from the Tanasi Native American Group. You can contact our Chief Alice Henry for more information about the Tanasi Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniswolf (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tribes that are part of recognized tribes
Why are tribe such as the following included in this list?
 * Alabama Tribal Town. Currently recognized only as part of the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma.
 * Apehkv (Arbeka) Tribal Town. Currently recognized only as part of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
 * Arapaho Tribe of Oklahoma.

They are federally recognized; they are just part of a larger group. This is the situation of most large tribes - that smaller groups are included (Yuchis in Muscogee Creek Nation, Natchez in Cherokee Nation; Suhtai in Cheyenne-Arapaho tribes, etc.). Including federally recognized tribes in this list just confuses matters. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * I pulled them since they were uncited anyway. The Shawnee Tribe has been independently recognized since 2000. I left the Yuchi, even though they are part of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation because they have actively sought independent federal recognition. Someone with a lot more knowledge about Minnesota tribes might review the Minnesota section. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * The tribes that are not independently federally recognized were here because they by themselves are not eligible to receive services, and they qualify to receive services only as part of the larger group. There are caveats to this even with the federally recognized tribes! In the federally recognized tribes' case, only those who are the main entry may receive services from about 1/2 of the federal agencies (such as HUD, DOE, DOD, etc.), while all listed entities are eligible to receive services from the other 1/2 of federal agencies (such EPA, CDC, USDA, etc.) The ones who are considered part of another and not listed on the BIA's listing are not eligible to receive services directly... which is why they were listed here. Maybe a better solution would be to create another page or re-organize this page somehow? (Originally, if I recall (maybe faultily), state recognized tribes and unrecognized tribes were originally a listing of all non-federally recognized tribes, but the list became confusing, so it got split, likewise, we may need to do a similar thing here, but keep in mind, there are also state recognized tribes that are not independently recognized by the federal government, just as there are tribes that are not state recognized who are also not independently recognized by the federal government.) CJLippert (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But how many federally recognized tribal governmental entities are amalgamations of different ethnic/cultural tribes? The majority of them, especially in the case of California rancherias, where a single federally recognized rancheria can easily include members of a half-dozen ethnically diverse tribes/bands. Including members of federally recognized tribes just confuses this list, especially if they aren't actively seeking independent federal recognition. The diverse groups that compose a single federally recognized tribal governmental entity are typically listed in that tribe's article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * But here is a case in point: The Rice Lake Band of Mississippi Chippewa, who are recognized only as part of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, do not seek independent federal recognition, they do not have separate state recognition, but yet, economically, they make themselves separate from the rest of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. If even with the amalgamation, if "historical component tribes/bands" still actively identify themselves as a separate entity, but they don't have direct federal or state recognition as that independent entity, then they should be listed here or a new list should be generated for these cases and listed there, as they won't qualify to be listed in the listing of federally recognized tribes per the BIA publishings in the FR, nor listed in the state recognized tribes/bands as they may not be recognized by the state as a separate entity either. CJLippert (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't touch the Minnesota section because I don't know the political situation there. Ethnic/linguistic/cultural groups do not directly correspond to the political federally recognized tribes today; it's apples and oranges. Trying to list them all would be impossible and undesirable, as it confuse this list to the point of uselessness. For instance the Caddo (Caddo Nation of Oklahoma) and Wichita (Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie)) are both confederacies of many smaller tribes and even today, especially the elders know exactly whether they are Hasinai, Kadohadacho, etc. Susanville Rancheria includes Achomawi, Atsugewi, Maidu, Northern Paiute, and Washoe members. The Round Valley Indian Tribes include Achomawi, Cahto, Maidu, Pomo, Nomlaki, and Wailaki members. All the "Confederated Tribes" in the NW include several smaller tribes. If a group belongs to a federally recognized tribe, they shouldn't be listed here, unless they are seeking independent recognition. If you do want to start a new list, I'll help out. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * I agree with Uyvsdi that bands or groups that are part of a federally recognized tribe or a state-recognized tribe should not be listed here. If they later acquire separate status, that can be acknowledged where appropriate. But it will make it far too confusing to list them here.Parkwells (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

SOL Opinion?
The article has several references to a "SOL opinion" of a certain date. What does SOL stand for? Who (or what body) issues these opinions? I'm guessing that SOL stands for "Statue of Limitations" but I'm not sure and I don't know who issues the opinions. Including that information in the body of the article or an explanatory footnote would be helpful. Thanks! -  Mark D Worthen PsyD  02:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * SOL stands for United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. Will somehow work into the introduction the definition of SOL. CJLippert (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Reduce number of cites
There is nothing to be gained by having multiple cites for non-controversial information, especially since most must be drawing from the National Congress of American Indians, or the government's list of Non-Federally recognized tribes, and similar official sources. Manataka Indian Council is a non-profit and marketing organization that does not appear to have any separate reliability or standing; I recommend it be deleted as a source. Have not seen it add anything that was not already cited.Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061009081832/http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/00fr76662a.pdf to http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/00fr76662a.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100420113922/http://www.aaanativearts.com:80/article1406.html to http://www.aaanativearts.com/article1406.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211005810/http://www.mcnaa.org:80/contact.html to http://www.mcnaa.org/contact.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010923234724/http://tongva.com/ to http://tongva.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420113922/http://www.aaanativearts.com/article1406.html to http://www.aaanativearts.com/article1406.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420113922/http://www.aaanativearts.com/article1406.html to http://www.aaanativearts.com/article1406.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211005810/http://www.mcnaa.org/contact.html to http://www.mcnaa.org/contact.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111134058/http://southcarolinaindianaffairs.com/members.html to http://southcarolinaindianaffairs.com/members.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513173319/http://www.doi.gov/bia/off_fed_acknowledg/status_summary_021507.pdf to http://www.doi.gov/bia/off_fed_acknowledg/status_summary_021507.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Another tribe
Me(o)lungeons? Sea Captain Cormac 23:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111230321/http://taskforce.cherokee.org/ to http://taskforce.cherokee.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140820075011/http://www.manataka.org/page237.html to http://www.manataka.org/page237.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211210424/http://nipmuc.50webs.com/index.html to http://nipmuc.50webs.com/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801081932/http://www.gabrielinotribe.org/legal_articles/KoenigSteinFederalism_formatted_for_publication_113007.pdf to http://www.gabrielinotribe.org/legal_articles/KoenigSteinFederalism_formatted_for_publication_113007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727114224/http://www.ncsddc.org/upload/wysiwyg/documents/Fact_Sheets/OHIO.pdf to http://www.ncsddc.org/upload/wysiwyg/documents/Fact_Sheets/OHIO.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727114224/http://www.ncsddc.org/upload/wysiwyg/documents/Fact_Sheets/OHIO.pdf to http://www.ncsddc.org/upload/wysiwyg/documents/Fact_Sheets/OHIO.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120210150011/http://www.wildapache.net/NativeAmericanSite/ to http://www.wildapache.net/NativeAmericanSite/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130706041200/http://www.usa.gov/Government/Tribal-Sites/J.shtml to http://www.usa.gov/Government/Tribal-Sites/J.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102201038/http://www.state.sc.us/cma/pdfs/s_c_tribes_and_groups.pdf to http://www.state.sc.us/cma/pdfs/s_c_tribes_and_groups.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902045830/http://scindigenousgallery.com/ to http://scindigenousgallery.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041205192642/http://www.tntlaw.net/attorneys/tuke.bio.html to http://www.tntlaw.net/attorneys/tuke.bio.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313145054/http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText06/HouseText06/H7236.htm to http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText06/HouseText06/H7236.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)