Talk:Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TruthWithin&LightWithout.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

NAGPRA, PROS and CONS
I believe NAGPRA needed to be created because so many of the early and current scientists in America blatantly disrespected the sacred remains of the Native American ancestors.

Very tall, red-haired people did exist in central western Nevada long ago, and there remains have dissapreared. The Indian tribes of that area (Paiute) even have a tradition of these red-giants.

But the physical evidence seems to be reburied. 216.99.204.85 05:05, 25 August 2004

Revamping of the article
I just reviewed the article for the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. I do have some comments to improve this article. The NAGPRA article is currently much more than s stub, but still lacking substance. Some suggestions in improvement include having more info on the background of this act and the scope of coverage of this act, as well as links to the actual federal codes establishing NAGPRA and the NAGPRA home-page. By presenting these these coverages more fully first, when the article then covers the problematic issues such as the repatriation issue mentioned in the article, the reader will become better aware of the problems and the possible solutions. CJLippert 22:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Canada?
How does this law affect tribes that are based (now legally) in canada but have artifacts in the US. Also the same question for tribes in mexico (papago tribe traverses this border)?
 * NAGPRA only affects US institutions that are publicly funded, so Mexican and Canadian tribes would not be able to use NAGPRA nor can it be used to repatriate items in private collections. -Uyvsdi (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Editing Proposal
I propose to edit this article by adding a detailed overview of the provisions of NAGPRA, including definitions of objects and land which this act treats. Links to the NAGPRA home page should also be added. Scheherazade510 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. ✤ JonHarder talk 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul
Hey, it seems that people here seem up for a re-do of this page. I'll go through it over the next few weeks and make it more informative about the act itself and its consequences. There are some things that seem tangentially related presented as if they were the point of NAGPRA, and I believe that should change in order to bring this up to encyclopedic standards.SMSpivey (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Act Violations and Blatant Disregard for the Act and People Behind It.
I just wanted to take the time and write this information, about how the Federal Government treats this 'Act' as a joke. In Maryville/Townsend, TN on US 321(East Lamar Alexander Parkway) starting around 1999 or 2000, The Tennessee Department of Transportation started building more lanes and extending 321. During this process they violated this act in SEVERAL ways. Sometimes they would find graves, not report it and flatten them with "Steam Rollers", so they could pave a new lane, right on top of the grave. In other cases, they would remove the contents of the grave and freely give out these contents to anyone that would buy them, even though living relatives of the person in the grave were in the same town, the act was ignored and grave contents sent off to whom ever would pay for them. Many more types of violations were committed and hardly anything was done about it, even though local Natives protested and asked them to stop doing this, repeatedly. Here is just one quick source I could find on the subject: http://members.home.nl/aeissing/00578.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.142.179 (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

More recent ruling on NAGPRA
There is additional and newer information of interest to Native American peoples and scholars. It is available via the Federal Register, Part III, Department of the Interior titled:

43 CFR Part 10 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Regulations—Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains; Final Rule

KSRolph (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll also take on 'preponderance of evidence.'KSRolph (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Link of interest

 * Native American grav e found by accident 1921 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.89.128 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruption of Indian Burial trope without knowing
I don't know how long this will take for an answer I very very very confused and why did it take me almost a year to figure the trees out 2600:1700:6750:3221:D943:1DF:F8AE:578A (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Injurious Falsehood.
25 U.S. Code Chapter 32 - NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) NAGPRA-​ARPA-​NHPA Procedures (nps.gov) Applicability: (4)

“Federal agency” means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. Such term does not include the Smithsonian Institution. ANY department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. Federal or federally assisted undertakings in any State. Applies to State, local and private land; also Federal land (Section 110) and tribal lands (5)

“Federal lands” means any land other than tribal lands which are controlled or owned by the United States, including lands selected by but not yet conveyed to Alaska Native Corporations and groups organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.].

Smithsonian is supposed to adhere to the 1989 act, enacted approximate 1 year prior, as well as its 1996 amendment. The injurious false hood is that the act in topic as described does not apply to States or private collectors. The definition of Federal Land, etc is described as "*any* land...controlled... by the United States..." States are still legally obliged to follow it...whether or not they actually adhere to it is a different topic. 173.80.5.106 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Repetition n Background and Description
The background and description are pretty solid; however, I feel that you repeat yourself by starting the first sentence the same and so there should be a little variance to not be repetitive -Bruin236 (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC).