Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 6

Deletion discussion
Please see Articles for deletion/List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas. Badagnani (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First Americans
Hi, native Americans are now known as "first Americans".. There will be a need to move this article to change its name.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about a different topic, evidence of people who migrated to the South American continent from Australia or Melanesia. There is no consensus on calling Native Americans (later migrants and descendants from Asia) "first Americans". In the US, many Native Americans prefer American Indian as a term to describe themselves, so there is no consensus on that either.  Keep the article where it is.--Parkwells (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rezbizfirst.jpg
The image Image:Rezbizfirst.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Dances with Wolves poster.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm taking it off the article until this issues gets resolved. Rob (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kevin C. Poster
This is a joke, right?--Radh (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Photography
Is there any article on historical photography of Native Americans (canada, US)?--Radh (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Certain term usage
I believe that it is in a way biased to say that someone claims heritage when there is no proof that the person maybe lying or is guessing they have Native American descent. To say that Jessica Biel CLAIMS Choctaw heritage is to say that there is doubt. That makes it seem like she is a liar or her heritage is questioned. There seems to be a standard that people that are of partial heritage are questioned. That's why I say it should be changed from claims to is of. It's more clear and claim means that there is doubt that a situation is not true.Mcelite (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course there is doubt. She is yet to prove that she is a member of a state or federally recognized tribe. Also no one is questioning her integrity. Claims (those without state or federally recognized tribal membership) and tribal members are commonly accepted terms for federal government offices and the general public. Read and be enlightened with commonly accepted terms in regards to Native American genealogy: http://www.doi.gov/bia/docs/tracing_Indian_ancestry.pdf, http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/heritage/native-american/ancestor-search.html, http://www.gregathcompany.com/indianancestry.html Rob (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See that's sad. Native American is the only race were you have to fight to prove those are your people. If she said she was part black and still looks how she looks now people wouldn't even question it. Most of us that are without a doubt of Native American descent are not affiliated with their tribe or tribes they are descendents of because of numerous reasons. It's sad it's the 21st centuary and people still have to be full blooded native to claim their heritage somethings really do need to change. Robfergusonjr are you of native descent?Mcelite (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm a federally recognized Choctaw member. I'm not defending the system/systems that is as varied as there are tribes ... the systems were here long before I was born. I wouldn't know where to begin on how to improve it ... however, genetics may offer a more sound solution one day.

I'm sorry if I made that seem like I was being harsh on you personally. It's just unreal how this system has been created which actually harms all the Native American nations. Genetics may help but as of now geneological tests are not the most reliable they don't show all of your ancestry by excluding a good number of your ancestors. A close friend of mine her grandmother is Chippawua (I hope I spelled that right) but she took a ancestry test just curious to see how much of her heritage would show. It showed she had no Native American descent and she was shocked. Because by her mother's parents alone Grandman (Full Chippawua) and Grandfather (Black and Cherokee) something would show, but it didn't. They said something like she was 34% European and the rest African American. I've been doing alot of research on the issue. I'll add alot more to this and the Black Indian article to help people understand the issues much more clearly. By the way I'm part Choctaw. :)Mcelite (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Civil War
I just noticed that there is no mention at all of Native Americans fighting in the Civil War. That needs to be done.Mcelite (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)01:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add the Civil War section very soon like next week when I get time. Does anybody have any suggestions or sources they would like to point out?? Have a great day.Mcelite (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

i like native americans they are cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.108.205 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say Thank You to the other edits that helped improve the Civil War section. I truly appreaciate the other info added, and the improving the section overall. I'm grateful for your participation and time. ;) Mcelite (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

split article(s)
This article is a bit long. I would suggest maybe doing a history one, involvement in wars, demographics, etc.--Levineps (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I created a Native Americans in the American Civil War article to help reduce the size. Rob (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Western-centricism and Deficiency in the Religion Section
In my humble opinion, the religion section of this article seems somewhat deficient and centered upon Western or European culture. It includes a discussion of the Christianity that is now a prevalent religion among Native Americans, and also, The Native American Church is discussed, with its peyote ceremonies. Though these are the section's main focus, they are both relatively modern creations, or at least, they are the result of influence by modern European settlers. The only mention I found of traditional Native American beliefs refers to "spiritualities" and discusses practices like the use of the sweat lodge and natural tobacco; however, no actual beliefs are mentioned. There are some references to given to specific, possibly obscure, modern religions, but I wonder if there are not some basic commonalities found in Native American religious belief? Possibly the beliefs centered around the importance of ancestors would meet this criteria. I'm not very knowledgable in the subject, but I assume that many Native American religious beliefs are centered around belief in the spiritual significance and importance of ancestors, ghosts, and other things along these lines. There is no mention of these things, or really, of any specific religious beliefs at all. I think that it would be helpful to include references or discussion of these things, if I am right in there being such beliefs, and especially if there religious commonalities to be found there.

WaterBottleHackySack (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

More Intro Para Problems
The second paragraph is currently

"Ideologies clashed, old world diseases decimated, religious institutions challenged, and technologies were exchanged in what would be one of the greatest meetings of cultures in the history of the world. European colonization of the Americas led to centuries of conflict and adjustment between Old and New World societies. Most of the written historical record about Native Americans was made by Europeans after initial contact. Native Americans lived in hunter/farmer subsistence societies with significantly different value systems than those of the European colonists. The differences in culture between the Native Americans and Europeans, and the shifting alliances among different nations of each culture, led to great misunderstandings and long-lasting cultural conflicts."

The first sentence is extraordinary and in my opinion absolutely unsuited to an encyclopaedia. (In contrast to the excellent opening of Population history of American indigenous peoples.)

May I propose changing it to something like this:

"European contact with the Americas began in the fifteenth century and led to centuries of conflict and adjustment between the indigenous and the incoming societies. Native Americans lived in hunter/farmer subsistence societies with significantly different value systems than those of the European colonists. These differences, and the shifting alliances among different nations of each culture, led to long-lasting cultural conflicts. These conflicts and other factors including new diseases led to a significant reduction of the indigenous population."


 * "clashed/decimated/challenged" -- please no!
 * "greatest meetings of cultures in the history of the world" -- This reads like the trailer to The Greatest Story Ever Told. Wasn't it more like conventional colonialisation?
 * Referring to "old world" and "new world" is confusing in this context (the newly-arrived are supposed to be understood as "old world")
 * Removed the suggestion that basically there were "misunderstandings"; wasn't it basically there was a huge power shift occasioned by warfare with superior weapons and consolidated by enormous (incoming) population growth and technology?

217.155.120.114 (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Page too long
At 131 kb, this page is in need of some reorganization. Some list sections could be moved into other articles. Some detailed sections could be summarized and the detail moved into new subarticles. Does anyone have any particular suggestions? Rmhermen (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like one of the simplest ways to start would be the creation of two new articles: one for the information on history, and one for the information on society/culture; with what remains in this article being a much briefer summary of the main points. Perhaps the "Native Americans today" section could use its own article too. The "Blood Quantum" section could probably be pared down a bit, since it already has its own article.
 * Also, while this is off-topic somewhat, there are some sections that could do with rearranging or moving. For example, "Barriers to economic development" should really be moved to "Native Americans today", and I'm not really sure where "Depictions by Europeans and Americans" should go - maybe it deserves its own main section, rather than being placed as a subsection of "Native Americans today"? In any case, that might be another good section to make into its own article, with a summarization here.
 * Another somewhat off-topic thought: there sure are a lot of quotations in the article. While quotations might be useful in, say, the section on American/European views of Native Americans, they really aren't necessary in, say, the History section(s). --Miskwito (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph problems
Does this seem slightly skewed to anyone else:

than the rigid, institutionalized, market-based, materialistic, and tyrannical societies of Western Europe. The way that comma delineated list is constructed, it makes it sound like all societies of Western Europe were tyrannical and materialistic.

198.109.221.118 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Dave W.

There are huge problems with the following paragraph:

--As the colonies evolved into the United States of America, Americans conceived of the idea of civilizing Native Americans, and the ideology of Manifest destiny was ingrained into the American psyche. Assimilation, whether it was voluntary or forced, became a consistent policy through various American administrations. Major resistance, or “Indian Wars,” to American ideology was nearly a constant issue up until the 1890s.--

It needs a rewrite or needs to be removed entirely from the opening. Firstly, ¨evolved¨ is not the correct word to use in the first sentence. It is extremely ambiguous and dysphemism. The colonies expanded and violently separated against England. Taking this as an evolution is an incorrect product of his insight and an American POV.

Second, the Americans did not conceive the notion of Westernization and Civilization. When they were apart of the British Empire, this was being already done.

Third, to think that any significant portion of the Native American population voluntarily assimilated into Western ways and Christianity as volunteers without financial manipulations, coercion or threat... is a complete and utter farce and should be made in to a Disney Pocahontas Movie.

Lastly…I’m not sure how many Native American scholars were opposed to American ¨Ideology¨. The issue was not American Ideology; the issue was expansionism (geographic expansionism, slavery, radical Christianity, western superiority, growing capitalist economy and disease).

This is what I have changed the paragraph to.

--As the colonies revolted against England and established the United States of America, the ideology of Manifest destiny was ingrained into the American psyche. The notion of civilizing Native Americans and forced assimilation were a consistent policy through American administrations. Major resistance, or “Indian Wars,” to American expansion were nearly a constant issue up until the 1890s when the better part of the American continent was conquered and settled.--JusticeBlack (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If this article is about Native Americans, why immediately jump to European colonialism and American colonies, as the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs do? Also the idea that pre-contact Indians had "comparatively fewer societal constraints and institutional structures--as well as less focus on the acquisition of material goods and market transactions-" than Europeans is someone's fantasy. Granted elaborate governmental and social structures took serious blows when disease killed the majority of the continent's inhabitants between the 16th and 17th centuries, but tribes certainly had complex governments, courts, warrior and civil societies, and very active trade activities with other tribes. Would people be incredibly upset to see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs relocated to the "History" section or deleted, since they really aren't about Native Americans but rather about Europeans? Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi


 * The lede paragraphs are biased, POV, OR and unsourced in the comparative claims about Native American and European cultures. I made some changes, but someone has changed it back, without discussing here or adding any sources.--Parkwells (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is little in the body of the article that describes differences in societies between Native Americans and Europeans. One area of conflict was the difference in ideas about how land was held or "owned" and used - neither of the group's understood the other's conceptions, of land held in common for use and hunting, vs. land held as private property.--Parkwells (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First documented use of "Manifest Destiny" was in 1839 which is about 40 years after the end of the 18th century so is misplaced in discussions of the immediate end of the Revolution. It came in to popular use in the lead up to the Mexican War. I agree this section should be moved down to the history section.Nitpyck (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship
Is


 * "Native Americans, who were not already U.S. citizens, were granted citizenship in 1924 by the Congress of the United States."

suppose to mean


 * "Native Americans who were not already U.S. citizens were granted citizenship in 1924 by the Congress of the United States."

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.114.232 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * lol, they both mean the same thing. the above sentence seperates the appositive from the rest of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsagali (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No they can be read differently. The first would imply that all Native Americans were not U.S. citizens and all received citizenship. The second would say that "those Native Americans who were not already U.S. citizens" received citizenship. The sentenced could be rewritten for clarity. I think the second meaning is correct. Rmhermen (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To me they mean quite different things, per Rmhermen. I think if the second meaning is intended, then inserting "Those" at the start (as well as removing the commas, of course) could help prevent any confusion amongst people to whom the way the sentence is punctuated is not sufficient indication. 86.142.110.4 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Unable to remove vandalism comment
In this section: Native Americans in the United States, the last sentence reads "The fucked extremely hard and well." which I'm unable to remove. Why is this? Can someone who is able to do so, please remove it? Bhagwad (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)bhagwad

It's gone now Bhagwad (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)bhagwad

Inappropriate style.
I just got to this page because I needed some info, but the unencyclopediac style is very clear. It sounds like it was written like a personal reflection or essay, or at least the beginning, and that's not a very good impression to give to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.159.148 (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Genocide?
Wasn´t it a Genocide, what the white americans and settlers did to the native americans??? It wasn´t just wars, that upressed the natives. There have been cases of infection with ilnesses, which were not incidently. There have been many massacres and the destruction of food of native americans. Natives in reservations didn´t get food rations or they were on land with unhealthy water like in the Bosque Redondo. Isn´t it a lie to not call it a genocide? Steffen 27/1/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.229.97.19 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 January 2009


 * Hi Steffan. Your concerns are discussed here: Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples. It might be useful to provide a link to it in the main body of this article, not sure exactly where though. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm thinking along the lines of  For a detailed discussion of..... see ....etc.(note, add 4 ~ to your comments to leave a signiture). WillMall (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see someone has added it to the Also See Section. Nitpyck (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't say your concerns are discussed at all. Even the title of the article is insulting. Both the title and the body of the article suggest that the killing of American Indians was not genocide at all. Any attempt to edit this article is meet with a quick revert. That entire article is closely monitored by a wiki editorial subset of extreme racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.16.11 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of Native Americans were killed by Europeans. Hey steffen, there actually was an attempt to intentionally spread disease amongst the Indians. He was a "British" officer. Learn some facts about the subject before spewing your hatred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.223.154 (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have no facts to back genocide as the cause of most of the decline in population. No one knows how many lived in the millennium before 1500 BCE or how they died. The Aztecs killed more annually in human sacrifices than the Connecticut settlers did in their "genocide". Clearly we know that a large percentage (maybe 80%) of the population died of new diseases caused by contact with Europe. Large numbers of Europeans also died from new or mutated diseases after contact with the Americas. But these were not deliberate acts. In the areas the British colonized most of the population had already been decimated by diseases which traveled ahead of European settlement. Nitpyck (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Puzzle in "Foundations for Freedom"
Could somebody please clarify this statement in the "Foundations for Freedom" section of the article:

"it is a historical fact that several founding fathers had contact with the Iroquois, and prominent figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were involved with their stronger and larger native neighbor-- the Iroquois." David Trochos (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, lets take a look at what the subject matter experts have to say about Franklin:


 * Bruce Johansen, writer of Forgotten Founders, wrote "One warm summer day in 1744, Franklin was balancing the books of his printing operation when Conrad Weiser, the Indian interpreter and envoy to the Iroquois, appeared at his door with a new treaty manuscript -- the official transcript of the recently completed meeting between envoys from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and the sachems of the Six Nations confederacy at nearby Lancaster. Weiser, an old friend of Franklin's, explained that this was probably the most interesting and noteworthy treaty account he had ever brought in for publication. At last, said Weiser, the Iroquois had made a definite commitment toward the Anglo-Iroquois alliance that Pennsylvania and other Colonial governments had been seeking for more than ten years."


 * It seems that Franklin had deep interaction with the Iroquois. There is significantly more about Franklin's interaction with the Iroquois here: http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FFchp4.html.


 * And what about Thomas Jefferson (and John Adams!?!)?


 * Brian Cook (who quotes Johansen) writes "John Adams and Thomas Jefferson have left us some additional evidence that the Iroquois and the Iroquois ideals of government may have influenced them. Johansen asserts that Adams, in his book [Defense] of the Constitution of the United States, discusses the "fifty families of the Iroquois" as a model for the Americans to follow. (Johansen 1998:75) Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the quintessential libertarian in American history, wrote admiringly to John Rutledge during the Constitutional Convention "The only condition on earth to be compared with ours is that of the Indians, where they still have less law than we." (Johansen 1998:75) These are strong words from a man who was no fan of excessive lawmaking." (http://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqconf.htm)


 * Tracy Marks (who also quotes Johansen) writes "historians point out the both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had considerable contact with the Iroquois, that they studied and respected the political unity of the Iroquois federation, and that they patterned the United States constitution and system of government after the Iroquois system." (http://www.webwinds.com/yupanqui/iroquoisdreams.htm)


 * Jefferson, and Adams, have credited Native Americans for having lawful order with less law, an obvious influence on Jeffersonian thought.


 * What about other authors? In 1967 Elmore Reaman wrote:


 * "(The Iroquois league) was a model social order in many ways superior to the white man's culture of the day ... Its democratic form of government more nearly approached perfection than any that has been tried to date." (http://www.ipoaa.com/vast_influence_of_iroquois.htm)


 * Rob (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But in the sentence "Prominent figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were more involved with their stronger and larger native neighbor—the Iroquois." what does "more" mean? More involved than the other founders, more than the royal government, more than Canada, more with the Iroquois than the Miami? Nitpyck (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Section: Native Americans, African and Europeans
This section is flawed because an editor is misreading, or mis-citing, the sources. For example, the first article referenced is about African Americans and Native American ancestry and has almost nothing to do with European ancestry, so the opening statement is incorrect. An editor has reverted changes meant to improve grammar, spelling and other copy editing issues throughout these paragraphs. An editor has reverted changes that added more substantive explanation to issues about DNA genetic testing, to explain why results may be limited.--Parkwells (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An unregistered user first changed alot of things. I didn't even realize how much the user changed things until I re-read the article. I tried to revert it back to the version you did because it was neutral and I agreed with it. For now it's better I was thinking about adding a bit more, but I'm just trying to focus on getting the main points across and not create an article inside of an article.Mcelite (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made changes to try to make use of sources more accurate in this section. Genetic testing is a complex subject, especially for trying to use it to show Native American and European American ancestries of African Americans.  An editor has tried to have conclusions of one or more articles apply to another that was not their subject, creating inaccurate OR.  In addition, some material was misinterpreted, and authors and publishers of citations were not cited correctly.  While there are scholarly articles used as sources in this section, there are also articles without any footnotes that appear to be polemical interpretations of early American history, and without footnotes, their assertions are questionable. This topic of intermarriage and mixed heritage among the three major groups may deserve a separate article so that issues can be treated at sufficient length.  It gets into complex issues of DNA markers and testing, comparative populations, etc. that are hard to summarize in brief.--Parkwells (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it is too complex to just mention in a short paragraph. Maybe expanding a section in the Blood Quantum section may be the answer.Mcelite (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Native Americans are Turks(Yakuts).They went to North America from Sibirya.Their religion is Tengrism and Shamanism.And their DNAs get along wit Yakut Türks.İn 1930s, Atatürk searched this subject and entrusted Tahsin Mayatepek(Mayakon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KubilayKağan (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of a Dubious line
I have deleted the following line: "No one can control the use of images and words in a free society, and not everyone agrees that certain images are only negative or offensive in meaning" for two primary reasons. It is dubious, and speculative. NPOV may also be questioned in regards to that sentiment. I also think it is worthy of deletion, because it doesn't provide any source material to back up the claim. I am of course open to discussion for any possible re-inclusion into the article. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Colored
Colored,[3] The footnote refers to the fact that some Indians served in Colored units during the civil war. Note there were also Indians who served in white regiments on both sides in that war. Should we also add "White" as one of the names they have been known as? Nitpyck (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because the term colored meant people of color and was used as a form of segragation and to categorize people. This especially in the southern United States there was only colored and white. Native Americans were not allowed to use white facilities but colored facilities decades ago.Mcelite (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK but it needs a better footnote- one that says in the Jim Crow south Indians were considered to be colored. Nitpyck (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can find another source to add. It may prove to be difficult because alot more has been written about black and white and Native Americans excluded or forgotten. Alot of history books make it seem that all Native Americans went west despite the fact that many did stay in the southern and eastern part of the U.S. However, finding another source may not be so far fetched most likely it will be from a source that is recent I doubt that a source from the 80s or 90s will also go into much detail about Native Americans in the southern states past the 19th century.Mcelite (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also find it ironic that we call them "colored" and "red" and what not. That's like having the African-American page starting off with, "They are also known as niggers, spooks and darkies". Indians are also known as Injuns right? ... lol ... I hope my sarcasm made my point. 68.225.235.242 (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point! I don't know, people are always seeming to argue what to call my people; apparently it's very important...  Cheers,  on  camera (t)  15:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavery
There is not section discussing Native American enslavement. I'm going to create a section because this is important and over looked era in American history.Mcelite (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm reading through the Native American slavery section, and I have some concerns:

Traditions of Native American Slavery
 * What Native American tribes are we talking about here (I only see the Creek)? What part of the US is this taking place in?

European Enslavement
 * This part about Pocahontas: "She had no reason to lie about that." That seems out of place.

Native American Adaptation of African Slaves
 * "While Europeans considered both races inferior, made efforts to make both Native Americans and Africans enemies, Native Americans slowly began to absorb white culture [54][59] Native Americans, during the transitional period of Africans becoming the primary race enslaved, were enslaved at the same time and shared a common experience of enslavement." That is difficult to understand clearly.  What is "slowly began to absorb white culture?"  When did this ever happen?  The sentence seems like a run-on.  Again, what tribes/region are we reading about?


 * "Native Americans interacted with enslaved African Americans in every way possible." What tribes?  Are we talking about the Cherokee still?  "They married free and enslaved African Americans, and accepted the children of such unions with few strings attached.[54] They also sold Africans to whites, trading them like so many blankets or horses.[54]"  These statements contradicts what was written earlier about the laws the Cherokee had against who could marry and reproduce with who.  Clarify, please.  What tribes?


 * "Many of these slave-owning Native Americans believed it would be best for the tribes to cooperate, sell their ancestral lands, and move to Oklahoma peacefully." Don't like the use of "Many... Native Americans..." disreputable to use the word "many" I think in this sentence... per Avoid weasel words.

Thanks,  on camera (t)  01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the section of traditions of Native American tribes there were many tribes that practiced a form of slavery but the source doesn't specify how many possibly because there were so many that kept those that lose wars and as punishment had to work for a certain amount of time.

On the section with Pocahontas I guess this can re-phrased to make more since. As for clarity with tribes we're talking about a laundry list of tribes

As for the sectino in Native Americans with African slaves I will move the section with the Cherokee to a lower part in the section to make more since. Especially since you had two sides with Native Americans excepting African Americans and those that hesitated to do so to gain favor with Europeans.Mcelite (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed that section because it already exists in the section Native Americans, Europeans, and Africans and it has its own article to go into detail: Black Indians. This article is not meant to go into so much detail about one topic.  on  camera (t)  04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You did not read the entire thing carefully. There sections that are not mention in the section of Native Americans, Europeans, and Africans or in the Black Indians article. I broke it down alot and just completely moved the entire section to another article because I realize it is alot of information. I will re-read it and see what else can be removed to make the section smallerMcelite (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The link to the main citation (fn 60) for this whole section does not lead to an article.Vontrotta (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Final Section
In the final section "Society, language and culture" several sub-sections still need additional references for verification such as the following: Ethno-linguistic classification (although there is a link to a main article, there are no sources listed in the text of this article), Cultural aspects (none), Society and art (currently has one), Agriculture (currently has two, but section provides more detail that needs to be sourced), Religion (currently only has one), Sports (none currently), Music and art (only one currently), Economy (none),

Thanks, Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added some tags in the Religion section to help editors know where some citations or references are needed. E.g. is it really verifiable that most federally recognized Native Americans adhere to some form of Christianity other than their own tribal religions? Is it verifiable that most Native Americans adhere to synchronistic faith systems? Also, The Eagle Feather Law specifically applies to a particular practice within the religion. It does not however refer to the overall spiritual religion, so this is why I added a citation needed tag to the line that states that Native Americans are the only known group requiring a federal permit to practice their religion. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sports Section
"Native American ball sports, sometimes referred to as lacrosse, stickball, or baggataway, was often used to settle disputes rather than going to war which was a civil way to settle potential conflict. The Choctaw called it ISITOBOLI ("Little Brother of War");[116] the Onondaga name was DEHUNTSHIGWA'ES ("men hit a rounded object"). There are three basic versions classifed as Great Lakes, Iroquoian, and Southern.[117] The game is played with one or two rackets/sticks and one ball. The object of the game is to land the ball on the opposing team's goal (either a single post or net) to score and prevent the opposing team from scoring on your goal. The game involves as few as twenty or as many as 300 players with no height or weight restrictions and no protective gear. The goals could be from a few hundred feet apart to a few miles; in Lacrosse the field is 110 yards. A Jesuit priest referenced stickball in 1729, and George Catlin painted the subject."


 * This section needs to be critiqued by someone familiar of the Native American sports, in a historical context. An expert on the subject, might be a good idea.
 * This section needs to be modified, so that the proper lignuistic terms for ISITOBOLI and DEHUTSHIGWA'ES are used (and it might also be a good idea, to add a phonetic code for the pronunciation of these terms.)
 * "A Jesuit Priest", is vague... what was his name? This needs a citation.

Thanks, Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

American Indian vs Native American
When was the term "Native American" decided to be used instead of American Indian? As an American Indian, I much prefer this term over the more ambiguous term of Native American. Anyone born in the Americas is a 'native American'.

The cite listed on this page which talks about the various names used to describe the descendants of the original people of the Americas is from the Census Dept of the United States. This federal agency's official term is 'American Indian & Alaska Native', not 'Native American'.

I would prefer to see this title changed.

Phil Konstantin (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Phil Konstantin http://americanindian.net

Let's get specific. It is politically correct for people whom are original peoples of the United States to be called Native Americans. Many people of native descent consider American Indian offensive. 2nd the Census Dept is behind and have always been behind. If they had it there way multiracial or biracial wouldn't even be an option the people had to speak up to have it included. Also Native Americans and the census dept don't get along especially the mess they created when they putting people's race on the reservations as whatever they felt the person was not by what the people were telling them. Also what you are talking everyone born in the Americas is native american you are taking the term into regional but it is used to describe an ethnic group in the United States and has become more widely used even more than the word Indian in the 21st centuary.Mcelite (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Phil. The generally accepted term is now American Indian, mostly for the reasons described above with the imprecise use of "Native American". The U.S. Census Bureau and many American Indian nations already recognize this and apply the term "American Indian", as does the National Museum of the American Indian. I would therefore support a page move per Philkon. Best, epicAdam(talk) 06:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

--hmmm... not that my personal life may have much to do with Wikipedia; but I have several "Native American" friends. When I asked them what they prefered to be called; their answers were split. Several were fine with "Native American" wheras, the same argument did arise. Others were contentious with the word "Indian", because of the cultural misnomer of identification (in other words, the term "Indian" for the indigenous peoples on the North American continent, was wrong to begin with. If you payed attention in your history class, you'd know that Columbus mistakenly applied the term "Indian" to the people he encountered when he arrived in what he believed was the "Indies.")  Yes, it may be currently politically correct to say "Native American"; however, but pollitical correctness can shift like the wind. The term Native American supposedly offered a way of eradicating confusion between the indigenous people of the Americas and the indigenous people of India. The term American Indian also served that purpose, but raised other problems: the use of "Indian" in any form may be viewd as pejorative by some "Native Americans." According to my source, Russell Means, the Lakota activist and founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), has strongly rejected "Native American" in favor of "Indian":

"I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian. I prefer the term "American Indian" because I know its origins . . . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as "American Indians", and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose." 208.119.72.6 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the National Museum of the American Indian was conceived and named with much consultation with members of the ethnic group, and the US Census Bureau uses "American Indian", perhaps those two factors can be sufficient for changing the title of this article and moving it to "American Indian". Changes will have to be made within the article, too.  No solution is perfect, but at least we're trying to do the right thing.--Parkwells (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read all of the archives of the all of the debates on this issue. Both here and on Talk:Native American. We even have an entire article on the subject in detail: Native American name controversy . Rmhermen (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

--yes, Rmhermmen, but the specific question is really the appropiate title for "this" article. Do we go with the politically correct title? Or do we go with whatever title the mass majority of "Native Americans" prefer to be called by? Or do we go with an anthropoligical term? 208.119.72.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure what you mean by whatever title the mass majority of "Native Americans" prefer to be called by? I am fully Native American (Dakota) and I live in a city with a large number of Natives, who call themselves "Native" when someone outside of the "tribe" asked them about their ethnicity. And furthermore, most Natives prefer to be called by their tribal name, but being called an American Indian would be offensive if someone called me that. I'd much rather see improvements in the article's content rather than this old debate over "what should we call them indians?" Please, this topic has been debated enough with no new reasons to change the article's name; why not work on the article's content?   on  camera (t)  19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Oncamera.Mcelite (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that this discussion is a month old, but I wanted to record my opinion on this matter. I would not be in favor of changing the name of the article, even though I don't agree with the logic that the term "American Indian" is overly offensive. I know that many of you have friends who are Indians, but they are not reliable sources, by Wikipedia standards anyway. I must point out that the Federal Government of the United States recognizes the term "American Indian". Not just in the census, but in all official congressional documents, even to this day. There is also the Beaureu of Indian Affairs under the Department of the Interior. I know that its PC to use "Native American", but officially the entire demographic is refered to as Indians. Personally I prefer to use the tribe name myself.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but simply put, how has the US Government treated Natives throughout history? You know what happened; you understand my view on the BIA and their terminology.   on  camera (t)  00:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We still come to the same problem. Your and my opinions on the matter don't meam squat when it comes to wikipedia and reliable sources. Our personal feelings aside, the official title is American Indian, although I don't mind the more PC term.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering why this is still in question. Indian historians I know always use the term American Indian. Please change the title of this article as it seems a near consensus has been reached here, and the titles of related articles and various uses of the term within pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * All the references in this article use the term (American) Indian, not Native American. So why is the article using a different and not less confusing term? 91.152.82.246 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not all the refernces in this article use the term American Indian. Your arguement is weak because I've placed several references that use the term Native American. Native American is becoming far more dominant because it is the more politically correct term. More recent publications are using Native Ameican over "American Indian" or "Indian".Mcelite (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As an American Indian, I invariably refer to myself as an Indian or an American Indian in conversation. I have never heard any American Indian in my area refer to themself as a 'Native American' in conversation :  it would sound too pompous, pretentious, and politically correct. If I'm at an international site, such as wikipedia, I might follow my use of Indian or American Indian with the explicatory 'aka, Native American, one of the native peoples of the US', or some such clarification, lest the reader confound me with the totally unrelated peoples of India. Otherwise, it's just Indian or American Indian for me. I have nothing against the term Native American, but how do you differentiate it from native American in speech? How do you pronounce a lower-case n differently? Above all, I am not going to be ordered about by a bunch of media & academic university professor dolts on self-referential vocabulary matters. I'm just not. :)  Peace. Home essentials (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2009 (GMT)

I am in favor of changing the title (back?) to "American Indian." The term "Native American" is a problem, in that it has traditionally been used to refer to all those born in America (see, for instance, old plaques commemorating the "First Native American Methodist Preacher" at Lovely Lane Chapel, Baltimore, Md.), and that is the plain meaning of the phrase. I, as one born in the United States, am fully a native American, but I am part Indian. I am offended by the use of "Native American" in a way to exclude most people born in America. In order to distinguish between the traditional and PC meanings of Native American, people go through long contortions of phrase and add awkward and dissonant syllables to replace shorter words. Furthermore, after half a millennium of European-descended natives living here, it is simply incorrect to use any other phrase than "native" to describe this population. --02:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)TimScH (talk)
 * See WP:SOAP.  on camera (t)  03:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

wars
This section needs to be expanded significantly to give a useful picture of this topic. In every region of the country, at various times, there was warfare both among the Indian tribes and nations and subsequently with the european settlers, colonies, states and the US. King Philip's war is just one example, but if you review other histories (e.g. Iroquois nation) there are many examples (e.g. Beaver Wars, Fench and Indian war) which are very significant both to this article and others. This section also lacks any description of warfare practices, either in the pre-european period and when those conflicts began. It is impossible to understand the antipathy that developed between settlers and the Indians without a discussion of this topic.Vontrotta (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there were so many conflicts it might be better to just list them in a "For More Details" branch. I've honestly haven't seen any articles on warfare practices but if you can find them from reliable sources that would improve the section and make it more interesting.Mcelite (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

World War I?
Not sure if this has been discussed, but why isn't there any significant mentioning of Natives in WWI, yet WWII is mentioned? On that note, the entire "wars" section is really lacking. Just a suggestion (and I'm kind of building on what was mentioned above), but perhaps a separate article regarding Natives and wars (in general) should be created? 4.169.119.63 (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not alot of information on it especially on the web. I'll try to find more on the subject very soon.Mcelite (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Problematic link

 * First Nations Seeker - Indian Tribes - Native Americans. While some pages of this site have solid info, linking only to official websites of the Nations in question, the Cherokee page, for one, looks rather problematic, listing what appear to me to be heritage groups as "Nations" and "Tribes". The link has been added to a few articles. I lean towards removing it, but wanted input. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 22:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion here, and the fact that the site lists known fraudulent groups without any disclaimer, I've removed the link. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Transmuted Native America: Improvements to Assimilation and General Structure
I think the general structure of the 'Transmuted Native America' topic needs to be improved. It's very hard for most readers to understand why and how the extreme idea of reservations and Indian removal came about. People from every other nation on the planet has voluntarily become US citizens so why would some Indians chose to move to a reservation rather than becoming a citizen? The topic needs more practical examples of why assimilation and naturalization failed for some groups of Indians.--John S. Peterson (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on Jay Treaty reaffirmed in Treaty of Ghent and then more recently in federal court case in Minnesota, USA (survivor of canadian scoops placed in US Foster and Adoption Care System finds that his naturalization papers were never completed and must, after decades of living in USA a result of having been brought and placed here by the US Government, obtain his US Citizenship), the correct term for Native American Indians and Aboriginals is North American Indian.

Versus terms: Aboriginals and Native American Indians, the term North American Indian is anchored in the two treaties and,again, reaffirmed recently in federal court; in addition, also encouraging use of the term North American Indian is that doing so would assist the thousands of other survivors of The Canadian Scoops who are now being told, because US Immigration databases have finally caught up with US 9-11 Legislation, that their naturalizaiton papers were never filed, i.e., they are here as illegals.

i started poll on this on linked in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.109.14 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling all actual Native American folks (read below)
Have looked up and down this article and realized there are actually very few images from MODERN Native American life nor many that represent the actual diversity found from band to band and tribe to tribe! There are no images of summer pow-wows (for all you Plains Indians out there.) There are no images of traditional buildings on the pages (no wigwams from Eastern tribes, no hogans from the Southwest, no longhouses, etc.) There are no images of what a reservation looks like and above all most images come from a long time ago.

Anyone care to rectify this?!


 * I'm not Native American, but Flickr has oodles of images under a CC license, and WikiCommons has loads too. Happy hunting. Fences  &  Windows  22:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't quite that simple: just which images would be considered representative? The reservation I live on could provide many images, baring personal and cultural privacy ethics, but that's just one band of one tribe. Also, much of modern tribal life includes starvation, poverty, disease, alcoholism, obesity, and street gangs in addition to modern cultural aspects like dance, political activism, agriculture, Indian rodeos, livestock shows. It would be a monumental task to represent modern American Indians with any workable degree of fairness and inclusiveness. --Desertphile (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got sick of only seeing pre-20th century images illustrating most Native articles too, so I uploaded dozens to Commons. Check out Category:Native American people in the United States. I also created Category:Indigenous people of Canada and Category:Mestizo. I'll add some to this article and please feel free to use any of these images! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Added the photos. Just wanted to make clear that even though I just edited this article, I disagree with about half of it and generally avoid it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Reintroduction of horse
How were the horses reintroduced after being hunted to extinction in 7000 BCE? Should not it read hunted to near extinction? Also, the horses were never reintroduced in Nort America, they were reintroduced to the old world and then introduced to North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.16.2 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Prehistoric" horses existed in the Americas per Modern horses (Evolution of the horse), but became extinct approximately 11,000 years ago. They were then first re-introduced in 1493 when Christopher Columbus stopped by.  on  camera (t)  23:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Most Latinos in the U.S. can be classify as Native Americans
Most Latinos/Hispanics in the U.S., above all immigrants from Mexico, Central America and the Andean nations (Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia) can be classify as Native Americans as they have much more Native American (Indian) blood than most of the American Indian tribes like the Chrokee.--88.24.243.147 (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

this did not answer my querry
im trying to find out the size of the population of native americans living in what is now russia. they were living there as early as 1000 BC i want to know how much of russias population decends from indians that packed up and moved back wesy accross the bering straight and all tribes in russia decending from native americans not ones from paleo siberians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.212.6 (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No Citation Needed
The article states in part "No particular religion or religious tradition is hegemonic among Native Americans in the United States. [citation needed]" That's silly: one cannot provide citations for an indefinite negative--- citation is only needed if the sentence stated there is or was a hegemonic religion among American Indians. Stating one needs to provide a citation in support of the statement is like asking for a citation for the statement that no invisible pink unicorns exist in my refrigerator: the fact that American Indians did not and do not have any hegemonic religion or religious tradition is the default, the null hypothesis. --Desertphile (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is some validity to your statement but not entirely. I could, for example, state that Roman Catholicism does not have hegemony in the Vatican and claim that I don't need a citation to prove an indefinite negative. The reality, of course, is that this statement is false.
 * Granted you do not need have a citation that states the indefinite negative. All you would need is two citations that demonstrate two separate religious traditions that have large followings among the Native Americans. But in general when making such sweeping claims some sort of citation is necessary. In this specific case if some of the other statements are backed up with sources then a specific source for that statement may not be necessary as it is essentially summing up what is said in the rest of the paragraph (though adding a citation to make other editors happy is not a bad idea).
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What I think was intended here, is not a citation for "truth" of the phrase itself; instead I think the editor was trying to convey the obvious; that the phrase in essence is a widespread generalization; so I believe they were wanting to see verification from a respective author who agreed to that claim. [I'm not sure if this was my tag or not, but for the reasons above, I would have tagged it.] Secondarily, Mcoraza brings up a point, if you cite two or more examples of Native American tribes that have large followings that also represent two or more religious ideologies, it will add to the subtext of verifying the claim [that may be suitable without having to verify the indefinite negative]. To reinstate what I have written before somewhat a little more clearly: when someone posts a citation needed tag, it doesn't necessarily mean that they want to see whether the statement is true or false. Instead it can mean that they want to see that the author of the claim, backs it up with a reputable author who agrees to the statement: see verifiability  Wolfpeaceful I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 17:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Terminology
This sequence of edits changes what I think is a reasonably neutral account of the terminology controversy ("Native American" vs. "Indian" or "American Indian") into a POV version. Rather than edit war about these perhaps we should talk about each of these in turn.

1) In the intro, the fact that the terminology is controversial is mentioned with a link to Native American name controversy. If we add many, perhaps most, "American Indians" or "Indians" continue to refer to themselves as American Indians or Indians the article implicitly takes a stance on this controversy.  There is a reference cited in the article about the naming controversy that says 50% of those covered by the term prefer "American Indian" while 37% prefer "Native American".  This reference is not in this article, but even if it were added is highlighting this particular fact in the intro any more informative than saying the terminology is controversial?

2) In the "Common usage" section changing "also commonly known as" to "more commonly known as" has the same issue. If the article is going to say "more commonly", then we definitely need a source (specific to this claim, which is about usage, not about preference).

3) Also in the "Common usage" section, if we're going to recount the history of the origin of the term "Native American" and how it was introduced we need sources. The existing version is not very good (IMO), but adding "introduced by academics" and "supposedly" introduces unwarranted POV.  Let's find sources and then in a neutral way say what the sources say. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, I agree that the recent changes that were made are POV pushing and uses words we should avoid and weasel words. Each point you made shows the non-neutrality of the recent edits.  Perhaps the editor pushing them and calling edits to reverse their edits "vandalism" would like to explain their reasoning...  on  camera (t)  00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

To Rick Block & Oncamera :

Would you two just get a room? (Assuming that there are two of you.   The lightning swiftness of the response is suspicious.)

Even if you don't like us American Indians, you could at least have the civility, the common courtesy, the simple decency to mention our own organic, historical name for ourselves in the introductory paragraph. (Not paragraph # 110, approximately.)

But I wish you two well. Home essentials (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 27 January 2010 (GMT).

Alaska Native?
Surely as Alaska is part of America, any Alaskan 'natives' (which sounds like a very colonial term!) would be native Americans anyway, so referring to "Alaskan natives" is redundant when used in conjunction with "native Americans". (Not that the term 'native Americans' isn't totally misleading anyway, because anyone born in America is a native American). DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

i disagree completely Alaskan culure is diffrent it exstends into russia theres native americans living in russia like part of the chuckchi tribe.

necropolis 99.51.212.6 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Slavery
It is implied that slavery was a "white" institution, which was copied by Native Americans. No so, they had their own slaves. They bought African slaves when they became available because they didn't have to be acquired in war. Secondly, there is an implied association between tribes having owned slaves and having some European ancestry. Again, the connection is spurious.JohnC (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also noticed this here ..We in the Aboriginal peoples in Canada version add some info that might be a good example for here -->see ->First Nations....Buzzzsherman (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From what historians can tell Native Americans originally did not hold people in actual slavery like Chattel Slavery which was brought over by Europeans. People were held as prisoners of war for a time period and released or incoporated into their society. Very different than the slavery both Native Americans and Africans went through. Also clear documentations are showing that the majority of slave owning Native Americans did have European ancestry mostly their father was European American.Mcelite (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's apologetic. Certainly it is true that Europeans brought very unique aspects of their culture. But saying Native American slavery was not real slavery is like saying that Native Americans did not have the concept of a "home" because their construction techniques were different from the Europeans.
 * The simple fact is that they did have slaves and, in fact, many Europeans were slaves of the natives at various times (not just prisoners of war). It is certainly, though, worthwhile to note that most tribes did not adopt traditions that were as harsh as the plantation culture of the U.S. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that comes by opinion because there is a difference between being a slave with no existence of being freed occurring and being forced to work for a certain time frame for attacking the village or killing a member/s of the tribe. That is what I understand as historians stating that the word slave may not have properly applied to people in bondage in those times.Mcelite (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

i dont agree. slavery created a new racial group in Eurasia in the year 500 AD called the slav and there largest civilization was russia. russia civilization mirrora USA-Canada except in northern america or anglo america we have a 2 ethnic american race society and a 2 race proto american socity other races beyond ethnic blacks and white are hispanic and Asian. the native american civilization is in vast decline and in 500 more years there may not be any full blooded left. slavery in america created Afro-African americans and people decending from all three races in the 1900 cencus are classified as other and my dads freind is other hes black(slave) white(anglo-colonial) and native american he looks black but not dark black only colored exsplains. so no races do get created there manufactured constructs. 99.51.212.6 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comanches took, kept, exchanged and sold slaves. Nitpyck (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

New section on genetics
I have made a new section on genetics... could i get all to add the linked article to your watch list! Indigenous Amerindian genetics we need to watch for vandalism..as this is the core article on Indigenous American genetics  and is new with no watchers .. !!!... Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

tribal history in my region is called Glacial Kame Southern ontario part of quebec, michigan indian and ohio western newyork ,western pennisulvania they occupied the region from 14,225 to 11,320 BC a tribe broke off calledBig game hunters of the plains they originated on the border of this region near lake michigan in greater kenosha, wisconsin in town of paris circa 12,500 BC. where as the adena culture apeared about 9,000 BC and had a off shot called hopewell culture which then occupid the site of greater kenosha ,wisconsin. mainly the adena culture was based in mound towns one that gets most credit is moundsville west virgina which 1/4th my ansestors the bavarian americans colonized in 1830's. the main part of moundsville mound was grave creek mound built about 2,000 years ago. scientist use a number of ways to look at pre-euro contact, looking at sizes of weopons , metalurgy. radio carbon and my favorite mito condrial DNA my direct mito condrial dna is that 1/4 bavarian. so looking at paleo americans i look at my self as part of a giant future american tribe that will mostly decend from the 76 million americans in 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.212.6 (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Montana picture is not discriminatory
I think that the 1941 Montana picture which says "no beer sold to indians" is not discriminatory but all the opposite as it tried to prevent alcoholism, a common problem among indians by then. Alcohol was used as a weapon against indian tribes so the owner of the bar tried to prevent its deadly effects among indians.--79.154.90.215 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have to say, that I think your logic is a bit faulty, and also lacking the proper references to back up your opinion. Yes, Indians did have problem with alcohol poisoning, but then again so did the European settlers, and so do many people even in the modern era. Secondarily, we don't know for certain why the owner of the establishment did not sell to Indians; all we can do is speculate: some will speculate as you have that it was to prevent them from getting sick, and some with speculate that it was a discriminatory act. Until we can verify either with a reliable source, I suggest leaving out the picture. I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 18:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Wolfpeaceful

I also forgot to mention that Wikipedia has a very strict policy on the usage of images and photgraphs. I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Wolfpeaceful

The picture of Chief Seattle
The caption reads: "Chief Seattle was a Suquamish chief who made 'one of the most beautiful and profound environmental statements ever made,' photo taken in the 1860s"  There are three problems with this Caption. #1: The first is that "one of the most beautiful and profound environmental statements ever made" assumes that the reader comply with the beliefs of Chief Seattle's original statement. #2: The second is that the statement itself is not quoted (in fact it can't be: see #3) #3: The third is that the statement in reference is actually non-quoted; As explained in the Chief Seattle article, no one has recorded exactly what he said in his speech, therefore this Caption is inaccurate. I'm not sure if the person who wrote it meant their caption as wit or not, however even so wit is not a necessary writing style for a Wikipedia article... and even if not... it remains a poor representation of Chief Seattle for an educated reader. -- Wolfpeaceful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.248.110 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This article does not make any mention of native americans living in urban areas they make up

anywhere between 50 to 60% of the native american population  yet htis article is still

confirming to the stereo type of native amercans as being reservation bound

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.134.252 (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

BCE/CE equals "PC"
I deeply resent the use of the newspeak "BCE/CE" vs. the BC/AD method. Not only does this smack of politically correct revisionist history driven by a determined fringe minority of left-wing fruitcakes, it also serves as a serious impediment to actually deriving some understanding of the subject matter.

I come to wikipedia seeking basic knowledge for the subject purportedly covered, and not to be used as a lab animal in some crackpot's social engineering experiment.

````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Using a term that is more applicable to the international community that is wikipedia is not revisionist. I think you have a misunderstanding of the meaning of that term. Poisoning the well by claiming the use is some sort of "fringe" effort is ludicrous propaganda. It's teh same principle as taxonomic nomenclature. I may call a vulture a buzzard, and someone from England may call a type of hawk a buzzard. However, by using internationally common naming, I know that his Buteo buteo is a specific kind of hawk, not the Cathartes aura Turkey vulture I am calling a buzzard. There are different local ways of calling the same thing, so when something is intended for a multinational audience, a commonly accepted standard is used. That's not politics, it's necessity. Though I am probably wasting time saying this as you're not likely swayed by reason, with the blinders of political demagoguery so firmly attached.

Regardless, I'd like to know what impediment there is to referring to a date with a CE suffix as opposed to an AD suffix...the date is the date. You obviously know the equivalents, so I find it hard to believe your "impediemnt " is anything but trumped up ideological bluster.Jbower47 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence is self-contradictory
The lead sentence currently is:

"Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, including parts of Alaska and the island state of Hawaii."

This is self-contradictory. The "boundaries of the present-day continental United States" do not include Hawaii, and depending on one's definition they include either all or none of Alaska. (The article Continental United States says "the term is sometimes qualified with the explicit inclusion or exclusion of Alaska to resolve any ambiguity.") I came to this article hoping to find out whether Native Hawaiians and Eskimos in Alaska are included in the definition of Native American. May I suggest one of the following wordings, depending on what the answer to my question is:

"Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples within the 49 North American states of the United States."

OR

"Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples within the 49 North American states of the United States, with the exception of Eskimos."

OR

"Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples within the 49 North American states of the United States, with the exception of Eskimos and Aleuts."

OR

"Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples of the 50 states of the United States."

I'm guessing that the second or third one above is the correct one, judging by this sentence that appears in Section 5.3 on terminology differences: "Native Americans are more commonly known as Indians or American Indians", but I'll leave it to an expert to make the appropriate correction. 75.183.96.242 (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that the article Native American name controversy says the following:


 * The term Native American was introduced in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s by those who hoped it would be more accurate than Indian and free from its negative stereotypes. What it means exactly depends on the context of its use, and who is using it, and is thus often a great source of confusion. It can mean:


 * 1. All Indians of the Americas;
 * 2. All Indians of the Americas, excluding the Inuit, Aleut, native Hawaiians and some others who arrived later;
 * 3. Indians indigenous to pre-Columbian America who are presently living in the United States, including Inuit, Aleuts, Hawaiians and native Pacific Islanders (Native American Languages Act of 1990);
 * 4. All Indians of the Americas, including the U.S. and Canada but not including Mexico or further south; and
 * 5. Anyone born in the Americas, including those of European descent, for example.


 * Now #5 is surely incorrect because it fails to distinguish capitalized Native (= of an indigenous group) from native (= born there); and #1 and #4 are outside the scope of the present article "Native Americans in the United States". Also, the above wording uses "Indian" as synonymous with "indigenous", which non-standard according to my understanding; and it wrongly uses Inuit instead of the broader term Eskimo, which in the US includes both Inuit and Yupik.  But based on #2 and #3, I propose the following as a replacement of the article's lead sentence:


 *  Native Americans in the United States refers to the indigenous peoples of the United States, possibly including and possibly excluding Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians.

75.183.96.242 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of the sentence is to explain that the Indigenous peoples of the Americas who happen to reside in the United States boundaries are (or referred to as) the Native Americans in the United States. That has to include the Alaskan and Hawaiian natives because they fit those qualification.  The sentence is not self-contradictory.  on  camera (t)  23:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures in the info box
Hi I was curious why in the info box it shows full bloods, and those mixed with European blood (Jim Thorpe) when there are also plenty of those that are black indian (Billy Bowlegs III, Henry Armstrong, Della Reese) or a Metizo? I'm not trying to start something but it just seems odd me to when it would be far easier to find a representative in that area.131.230.74.108 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I know i'm just a kid but still is nobody going to answer my question?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.74.125 (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No particular reason that I know of. To add one now would require removing one of the current ones (or perhaps cutting down on Thorpe and Herrington's images). Mestizo or Metis are not terms much used in the U.S. where the general term multi-racial is used instead. Rmhermen (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence
Hi,Oncamera! I'm puzzled as to why you reverted my cleanup of the lead sentence of Native Americans in the United States. The version you reverted to reads "Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, including parts of Alaska and the island state of Hawaii." But this makes no sense at all&mdash;it is self-contradictory in a couple of ways, as I discussed on the article's talk page. The "boundaries of the present-day continental United States" do not include Hawaii, and depending on one's definition they include either all or none of Alaska. But this sentence wrongly says that the continental United States includes Hawaii and part of Alaska. Moreover, the sentence is false in saying without qualification that Native Americans includes Native Hawaiians&mdash;by some definitions it does, and by some it does not. See Native American name controversy.

Can you tell me why my version "Native Americans in the United States refers to the indigenous peoples of the United States, possibly including and possibly excluding Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians" is confusing? And can you come up with an alternative version that is neither confusing nor self-contradictory? Thanks! 75.183.96.242 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's confusing to add " possibly including and possibly excluding" because that would seem like someone's point of view. And adding "(See also Native American name controversy)" shouldn't be in the first sentence, as this is not what the main focus the article. Doing so, creates an argument that's best left on the controversy page. It seems to me, if they are included (Alaskan and Hawaiian natives) SOMETIMES, then the sentence Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, including parts of Alaska and the island state of Hawaii. reads true. Cheers, oncamera(talk) 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As it stands, the present sentence is nonsense. Saying "continental United States, including ... Hawaii" is like saying "all shades of blue, including red."  Furthermore, the current version is POV because it takes one side in the naming controversy, pretending that there is no controversy about including for example Native Hawaiians.  Even if we don't go with my version that you reverted, we can't stick with the current POV, self-contradictory version.


 * Can someone suggest a NPOV version that is self-consistent? 75.183.96.242 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You make rather harsh statements like "the present sentence is nonsense" that I can already tell where these kinds of discussions go. Still, I don't see how that lead sentence creates a POV.  This article is about the People. Consider that.   on  camera (t)  23:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wisconsin Indian Mascot Law
In April of 2010, Wisconsin passed a law which set up a system where people could file a complaint with the Department of Education and set up a hearing in order to make a high school change "race-based" mascots, most notably anything which sounds like "Indians." So far, three schools have lost their mascots Dele3344 (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have removed some edits that are just not needed see here ..I dont see how this individual crimes help the article at all..the people involed are not even notable enough to have articles here..What should be here is info on legislation not a few random hate crimes..what makes this notable over the thousands of others that happen?? Moxy (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess an edit war started i will not go over the 3 revert rule so i guess i will get others to look at this edits to this over sized article. Again dont see how this random stories help readers in understanding the main topic at hand. Perhaps they could fit in the main articles of the tribes...But they are just pointless here and grammar needs to be fixed + a few liks are dead.Moxy (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Moxy - I have twice removed (second removal here) an anecdote that doesn't support any sort of anti-Native-American 'Societal discrimination, racism and conflict' (the section heading), since the the perpetrators thought the victim was an illegal immigrant, not a Native American. Further, hosting a random collection of purported hate crimes against Native Americans doesn't help the article.  --CliffC (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And on it goes, IP-jumping editor adds the same irrelevant stuff, with minor variations, and won't discuss here. --CliffC (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

American Indians
Since polls and interviews have shown that my people prefer the term American Indian or Indian why not name the page that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.201.91 (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange this page doesn't mention the little fact that the indians were genocided
through killing, shooting, starvation, slave labor, and forcibly spread diseases. Maybe I should go over to the holocaust article which describes on and on how the jews were killed in about a hundred thousand sentences, and just make it instead similar to this one. Wait, how dare I call the American settlers genociders, what a load of POV, right! -- Propaganda328 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading the article again i would say it mentions the above concerns alot. With sections like "Native American Slavery", "Societal discrimination, racism and conflicts" and "Assimilation" ..It also has links to more information like Indian massacre, Native American boarding schools,  Slavery among Native Americans in the United States and Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. Could you be more precise in what you believe is missing here or in the lager main articles on the topics?Moxy (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because they weren't. Lots of them are still alive. Check the article!Batvette (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would this page mentioned the obvious? Some porition of Native peoples were 'genocided' and is mentioned, but getting into the rare details is the greatest advantage of a collobrative wiki article ... I have ton's of rare Native American sources (mainly because of my father's professional collections) that is never quoted. Also, with this information age, data is easier to obtain than ever. When new information is translated/obtained from Spain, France, England and other colonizing European nations, that too will be added to the body of knowledge of the article. This is an exciting time for historians. Rob (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it's also an "exciting time" for people attempting to push certain POV agenda and rewrite history with that intent. (not implying anything about you personally)Batvette (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How dare anyone compare the holocaust to the native american genocide! What ignorance! The holocaust killed an entire ONE THIRD of the jewish population, while the american genocide killed hardly 99% of the native americans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.96.34 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Too long
At 200kb, this page is "too long". I would suggest splitting off the population statistics as a start but more will probably need to be done. Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jay Treaty
Based on recent (2004, federal court case in Minnesota, USA) recognition of The Treaty of Ghent reaffirmed in The Jay Treaty, both of which explain that native amerian indians (USA)and aborigninals(Canada)are to be considered North American Indians, there is a growing movement towards encouraging media, legislators, populations of both countries to use terms North American Indians.

Recognition of these peoples status as North American Indians also protects survivors of the Canadian Scoops who were placed in the USA and are now trying to afform their US citizenship.

American Indians
Since polls and interviews have shown that my people prefer the term American Indian or Indian why not name the page that?

I don't see why not.

Recent additions again
Could we get some one to look at this addition again. It was originally moved to Iroquois passport and Iroquois. Not sure how relevant this is to have its own section in this overview article.Moxy (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Move to American Indians in the United States
Based on the information that the term American Indian or Indian is preferred by the people in question I propose that this article be moved to American Indian's in the United States with this one made into a redirect. If no one objects I will go on ahead and do it. If you do object please come up with a good reason that the known and already sourced self ID of this group should be ignored?--Hfarmer (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it should be called Indigenous peoples of the United States as Hawaiians and Alaskans are not refer to as Indians. That said there has been many attempts to move to a few different titles without any luck. Moxy (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, what polls? And no unilateral page moves on a topic such as this without consensus on the talk page. Also, it's at this location because thats what most people searching for them would look for, qualified by country. I'm sure as Moxy states above that this is a can of worms that has probably been hashed over countless times, I'm just too tired to look in archives right now. Suffice it to say, lets just leave it here.  He  iro 06:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just FYI...  Talk from 5 August 2009 and .....  Talk from 29 June 2008 (with  old poll info from 1995).Moxy (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hfarmer, if you're speaking of the poll from 1995, that is a bit of outdated information to use as a sole reason to move this page. That census survey chose 60,000 households, a combined total of Caucasians, African-Americans, Hispanic and Native Americans.  It does not mention the total number of Native Americans who were actually surveyed.  And I'll mention that I'm fully Native American and that's the term I use to describe my people in general.  I suggest leaving the page titled as it currently is.   on  camera (t)  07:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussions go back to at least 2002 - both here and at Talk:Native American/Archive 1 and 2 and 3. There has been quite a lot of discussion. Rmhermen (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The term Indian and East Indian can get mixed up. Native Americans is best. The term Indian goes back to Columbus who thought he was in India. The term Indian and Native American can both be used in the article, however, Native American distiguishes between the two races. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no issues with using the term American Indian, however, this depends on what the East Indian peoples want to call themselves. Are they content with the term Asian Indian?

I doubt that they would prefer "Indian American", as that is clearly misleading and shows ignorance about their cultures. The term "Native Americans show more respect, although some other Americans born on the continent, probably might react, as they might think that they are also Native Americans. --Oddeivind (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hostile Native Americans
Some Native American tribes killed American settlers and trappers. The Umpqua, Modoc, and Comanche. Should a violence segment be in this article or how violence was an acceptable practice with some Native American tribes, just as violence was acceptable to some white Americans? Was violence a right of passage for some tribes?


 * Intergroup violence is a human universal, i.e. all people do it. There's no need to make a particular story out of it in this article. The article should not give the impression that violence was a one-sided affair, with only white people attacking Indians, not vice versa; or that Indians only fought back in cases of obvious self-defense. On the other hand, it should not create a false equivalence by ignoring the fact that on average Indians tended to get the worst of the violence and it had a much more destructive effect on their societies.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Panderica
Early Americans and Indians followed a community called as panderica, its mixture of both Indian and American culture.they worship both Jesus and Siva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamRedBull (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

American Indian map
Is there a map of American Indians showing tribal dispersal in the United States region? If so it should be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

1924
The 1924 law is said to have been fully implemented in 1948. I want more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 gives details of the wait till 1948. Both dates, 1924 and 1948, are just after a World War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

George Washington
'George Washington advocated the advancement of Native American society and he "harbored some measure of goodwill towards the Indians.'

This seems a bit of a simplistic and misleading caption, considering he ordered his men to destroy native settlements, murder entire villages, and became known among native Americans as 'town destroyer'. I'm not experienced enough with wikipedia to be comfortable making changes on what will probably be a controversial topic, but I just thought I'd flag it up 92.28.39.160 (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Time period (20th c.) when this (clumsy) term was coined
I "stole" it from the Native American name controversy article: it was in the 1960s and 1970s. I'd appreciate if anyone with editing rights could put this into the article in the Common Usage section. I currently can't due to the protection. Thank you. -andy 77.190.60.3 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Iroquois Paragraph in Pre-Columbian needs work
The paragraph about the Iroquois at the end of the pre-columbian section needs work. It seems inconsistent, out of place, and needs writing help. First, the previous paragraphs in the section provide an overview of each group that included a geographic area and timeline. The Iroquois section does not. Second, according to the Iroquois article, it is not pre-Columbian. Finally, the comment by the Temple professor comes out of nowhere and has nothing to do with this article. It is an interesting comment, just misplaced and without transition. --EricE (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTESSAY
Wow. Where to start...

This entire article is written like an essay, in contravention of standard Wikipedia practices. While it may be nice to add sugar like "Many Native Americans and advocates of Native American rights point out" or "They were often disappointed", this is not the way to go. In times past, people would look something up in a book, likely an opinion pace of some random author, and put it in an essay like it was fact, often translating it into their own words. This is a time of Google Books people, and this type of editing will just not fly; I demand every bit of information in this article be thoroughly and verifiable sourced. This means page numbers people. Please see other articles for inspiration. The organization is usually extremely dry, with short concise headings, as encyclopedias usually are. Contrast this with the writing style of an essay: "Transmuted Native America" is a good example. Transmuted is an opinion or an interpretation or something else, but is arguably not a fact. This would be like calling someone fat; the correct method of ascribing this feature in an encyclopedia would not be to say "is fat", but that "so and so said" or "according to , ... is overweight/fat". This may even be common agreement among the experts in the field, but even so keep it out of the title, and cite sources which mentioned transmuted or similar terminology or concepts.

Each such issue may be insignificant, but taken together make an article that reads like an essay, with facts that are difficult to tell from analysis/OR and are extremely difficult to verify. For added measure, I will be going through many of these sentences and checking them against citations, but before that I will be reorganizing. (Bold, I know...) Note that when reorganizing, material may get duplicated but not removed, I'll leave that for fact checking and the like. It may result in sections that is full of material that plainly had little to do with the subject at hand, so these will need to get merged in somewhere, re-written, or removed later.

For example, the article currently has history mixed in with almost every part of the article. The historical events should be mentioned in the history section first, where they are completely/significantly explained, and other sections should build upon that. For instance, the bit about the "Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act" of 1975 way down towards the bottom should be introduced in history, and should be expanded on in other sections as it applies. The significance and context of this act may be interpreted in as many ways as their are authors; it may be in the context "policy changes", or it may be in the context of continued oppression. Mention who or what states these contexts, and leave it for the reader to decide. I disagree that it marked the "culmination of 15 years of policy changes", this is an example of an opinion or original research. There are so many examples of this I will not be changing them until the organization is reasonable.

For good measure, I will be adding most if not all historical material into the history section, which will likely grow considerably and need changes to the current organization, although the current organization seems good as of now. As such it will likely deserve its own article. Int21h (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are proposing a monumental task. This has long been needed. I will help were i can. Good luck old timer :-)'  and thanks for letting us know your going to be doing some major changes.  Moxy (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain
After the colonies revolted against Great Britain and established the United States of America

Note: you can't revolt against an island. Great Britain is an island not a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.30.93 (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in the 1700s, though. Rmhermen (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate wiki article: UND Fighting Sioux mascot NOT retired and won't be
NOTE: North Dakota has NOT in fact retired their mascot based on a Native American head. Last week the ND legislature passed a law requiring the continued use of the Fighting Sioux logo.

Thus, this wikipedia article is inaccurate, as it indicates that the University of North Dakota has in fact retired the logo/nickname, when they actually have not, and now are legally disallowed from doing so.

The wiki page should remove UND Fighting Sioux as an example of a university that has changed their mascot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.133.190.55 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ per reliable media citations that support your assertion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Split
This article is incredibly long at about 16,000 words. Perhaps the 6,000-word history section should be split into a history of Native Americans in the United States in summary style? —Mrwojo (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there's a natural split in this article between: a) history of the indigenous peoples; and b) current situation of the indigenous peoples, or possibly a three-way split: a) history prior to contact with the settlers; b) history of the interaction with the settler society; and c) current situation. So, I would support breaking out the history section and generally refactoring the article on the basis of a historical/contemporary split.


 * I've been a bit surprised to notice how not interested I seem to be in reading articles like this one, given that I think I'm generally quite interested in the subject. I think it comes down to something related to the question of what this article is really about. In what sense is American Indians in the United States a discrete topic? Indigenous people living here before 1776 certainly didn't know they were in the United States (and for people in, say, the Pacific northwest, they didn't become in the United States until much later). And yet, their history certainly didn't begin at that time. I should really say histories because we are hard-pressed to say very much about their histories and cultures that was universal or anything close to universal. There may be some commonalities, among them a common physical type, but they are not so easy to find &mdash; if you take a look at wals.info, there are a battery of linguistic typological traits that are much more common in North America or the Americas generally than in the rest of the world. Even then, I'm not sure they belong in this article because there's no reason to think they begin at or near the Rio Grande and end at or near the 48th parallel.


 * So, it seems unavoidable that this article is going to be primarily about the history of interaction between Indians and American state/society and about contemporary Indian issues in the U.S., because there is nothing else that makes the American Indians of the U.S. of the U.S.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support It's certainly far too long, per WP:SIZERULE. --Trevj (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Broken formatting
The table (at least I think that's what it is) at the beginning of the article is quite obviously broken. I'd fix it myself, but I don't have the know-how to do so. Someone really needs to fix this. ☠ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk''') ☠ 23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It was an IP vandals attempt at humor, that due to major server lag didn't show up as being fixed by a bot. It seems to be fine now. Wish they'd stop adding new stuff to the preferences and rollback whatever they have done over the last few weeks, whatever it is has made this problem(server lag) quite a pain in the butt lately.  He  iro 23:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Similarity of the languages
1.) How similar are Native American languages?

2.) Are there large groups of Native American peoples with completely different languages?

3.) I've heard that North-American natives came across Bering sea (and are basically descents of North-Asians), and South-American natives hopped the islands all the way across south pacific (and are basically descents of Indonesians) - is that true?

4.) What is the translation of the word 'land' in Native American languages - and what about word 'motherland'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.113.148 (talk • contribs)


 * A.)There are thousands of native languages in the Americas from several major linguistic trees. Some are as similar as English is to Japaneese. B.)See A or go read this Indigenous languages of the Americas. C.) First part is true for both North and South America, second part is not borne out by genetic studies. D.)Every one of the languages has a word for these concepts I'm sure. Probably several thousand different words for several thousand different languages here. And finally E.) This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for asking questions better suited for Reference desk/Miscellaneous. From now on, use the reference desk to do your research for your school paper, not this page. Thank you. P.S. Sign your posts with ~ from now on also, so it posts a signature and time code.  He  iro 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ranting
NATIVE AMERICAN Calling them "Native American" is ridiculous because AMERICA is a European name given by the German cartographer Waldseemüller in honor of the Italian explorer Americo Vespuzzi. So there is nothing "native" in the name AMERICA. It is absurd, ridiculous and an insult calling the indigeneous peoples "AMERICAN". Precisely, their nations fought AGAINST AMERICA, and were invaded by the AMERICAN NATION. It is true that now, decades or centuries later, most of their descendants have been assimilated by the AMERICAN TRIBE, which is one of the Germanic tribes (English, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Dannish, Icelandic, Norwegian, American)--81.32.109.157 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not what this talk page is for. This is not a forum for discussing your persoanal opinions or views on history. This is the common name used to describe the indigenous peoples located here by thousands of reliable sources. Please do not repeat this behavior.  He  iro 01:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You opinion that Native Americans is more appropriate than American Indian is also an opinion.Phil Konstantin (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Was the native Americans not Europeans?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmfR7OvYghE

Is this reliable? --Jimmyson1991 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PLs see Know Nothing.Moxy (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It says this "Traditional history tells us that European settlers discovered America about the time of the Renaissance. But revolutionary new archaeological data and the latest DNA research reveal that Europeans visited our shores far earlier some 17,000 years before Columbus was even born."--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hokum recently latched onto by white supremacists(, , , and [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/t751641-2/] for example) and pseudohistorical sensationalists at the History Channel( the channel that gives us programs on Bigfoot, Ancient Aliens and Nostradamus 2012 for example). See here Solutrean theory and Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Please follow the linked footnotes for the paragraph in the last link, they are particularly informative.  He  iro  16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OOOOOOOOOOOO i see - Well if he/she is interested in what mainstream society thinks Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas is a good place to start (got some nice videos at the external links section). I do think its odd such a channel airs this types of things - there supposed to help in understanding not push unscientific POV theories .Moxy (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have done a pretty good job over the last year putting all of that together. I was just trying to point them in the direction of why the Solutrean business is discredited, but showing what scientists have actually discovered would have been helpful as well. An, incidentally, the History Channel is almost useless anymore, a real shame. Cheers.  He  iro 16:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you - it does need a good long copy edit - I wish more "Digitizes  Book" were out on the topic as journals (the refs i used) are not very coherent to the average reader when clicked on.Moxy (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So it is not true at all? I just came across it and was very curious.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the scientific evidence, no. Go to the two links I posted and follow the links to their footnotes. It gives a pretty good rundown of why it doesn't work. The biggest obstacle, the 5000 years between the European Solutrean culture and the Native American Clovis culture, but other stuff as well.  He  iro 06:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

American Indian vs. "Native Americans in the United States"
As an American Indian (and frequent Wikipedia contributor) who does not like the term "Native American" to describe us as a group, when did the title "Native Americans in the United States" become the title for this page? Almost any of the six or seven other common phrases would be better than NA. "NA" has the more obvious meaning of "anyone born in the United States".

I prefer just the term American Indian; however the following terms would be preferable over "Native Americans in the United States"

American Indians in the United States - Aboriginal Americans in the United States - First Americans in the United States - First People in the United States - First Nations in the United States - Indigenous in the United States - Indigenous Nations in the United States - Native Peoples in the United States - American Tribes in the United States - Native Tribes in the United States - Indigenous Tribes in the United States -

Could we please get some non-European Americans involved in this?

Phil Konstantin (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Phil - Enrolled citizen of the Cherokee Nation (Tribal enrollment number C0189288) - Author of "This Day in North American Indian History" - Co-author of "Native American History For Dummies" (Yeah, I don't like the title and we discussed it in the book, but the "Dummies" people decided this without our input) - Contributor to "Treaties With American Indians" - Webmaster for Americanindian.net -


 * I think these designations are based on the official designations used in the U.S. census; for the same reason, Canadian nations are referred to as "First Nations" since that's what's apparently used in Canada. This is not an endorsement, it's an explanation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good that means we should change the title. The US Census uses the title "American Indians and Alaska Natives." The do not use the phrase "Native American" anywhere that I know of except to talk about people being born in the US. To be specific here is listing from the US Census website:


 * "The U.S. Census Bureau today released the Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 for the United States, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Virginia. The demographic profiles provide 2010 Census data on age and sex distributions, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship and type, the group quarters population, and housing occupancy and tenure (whether the housing occupant owns or rents). With the release of data for all the states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, profiles are now available for the nation, regions, metropolitan areas, American Indian and Alaska Native areas, and other cross-state geographies." WEBSITE: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn144.html


 * Interesting; must be a change for the 2010 census. If they really changed it, then it should be changed here as well of course. (As a minor quibble, those born in the United States are not spelled with a capital "N", but that now irrelevant) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the 2010 census form; you're right, it says "American Indian". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: your first question - check the history, the article seems to have started in 2001 as "Native Americans". I presume the "in the United States" was added as there are quite a few native Americans not in the US. We edit and discuss as WP editors - not based on our genealogy. If you want to rewrite the article or re-name it, you will need to find consensus among wikipedia editors - some of whom may not share your POV.
 * If you feel a move/rename is warranted based on the census bit above (we're not required to follow the census folks), then suggest it here for discussion or make a formal move request. Vsmith (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I prefer "American Indians" to describe Indians, it doesn't cover non-Indian Alaska Natives. However, does "Native American" include Hawaiian Natives? I hate to say this, but Indigenous peoples of the United States might be the best term. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Hawaiians are barely mentioned in this article; and FWIW, there's Native Hawaiians Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, since Native Hawaiians have a completely different legal status. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Comment: I once witnessed Simon Ortiz take Daniel Heath Justice and several other younger scholars to task for using the term Indians. The younger folks pointed out that Native Americans had been using the term for 4 centuries, but it was clear that some of the elders, like Ortiz, had real problems with using the Indian moniker. FWIW, Aristophanes 68   (talk)  06:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussions that led to the current page name are hard to find, but are archived here. —Kevin Myers 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States → American Indians and Alaska Natives – As discussed above, the official designation for this group has apparently changed with the U.S. census 2010. It should therefore be moved to the appropriate name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Better to have Alaska Natives to be explicitly mentioned. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Support, but with a cautionary comment. If one applies common names policy then Native americans clearly wins by a 20-30% margin in google, scholar, and news over American Indian.  It is a delimma.  Maybe an RFC would be useful to get the sense of the community. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This does not cover all American Indians, only American Indians in the United States. The suggested title is misleading, since Wikipedia is not the United States Wikipedia. "American Indian" is a generic term used to describe all aboriginal peoples of the Americas or some subset of that, depending on context and audience. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "American Indian" does not refer to Inuit, Cup'ik/Yup'ik, Iñupiat, Aleut, or Alutiiq peoples. Or metís or mestizo peoples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * They do, but not always. As I said, depending on context and audience. See this book on American Indian culture, where the Eskimo are covered as part of its remit. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For instance, describes the native people of Guatemala as "American Indian"s. Which is not the coverage of this article, the proposed title does not differentiate between American Indians inside and outside of the USA. 65.93.15.213 (talk)


 * Comment a more reasonable page name might be American Indians of the United States and Alaska Natives 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree that American Indians of the United States and Alaska Natives would be a more reasonable page move, certainly more accurate.--JayJasper (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I ran a Google search for .edu sites with "Native American Studies" and it looks like "Native American" is still the official academic moniker at major universities in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Montana, Dartmouth, Syracuse, Berkeley, Southern Oregon, Nebraska, etc. I agree with the "common use" idea that Native American is still the more common term in academia.... Aristophanes 68   (talk)  06:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per Native American studies and because the work involved in converting all  the corresponding  articles with the word  Native in the title (see: Category:Native American topics). Would support Indigenous peoples of the United StatesMoxy (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - If the official designation has changed so the article should change. This will help avoid cherry picking terms.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  07:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are interchangeable but Native Americans is still more common -  its what you  Americans teach your kids in grade 4 to 8 as per  Moxy (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They teach a lotta stuff in school... like that "First Thanksgiving"-bullshit... just saying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I want to warn about anonymous IP user 65.93.15.213 from Toronto, Canada. He is canvassing votes across several WP projects . His IP might be rotating, so other users or projects could had been targeted and we don't know about.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  07:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hes an old editor - hes/she is the IP that post all the notices to the Wikiprojects for a long time (has many many many IPS).Moxy (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVAS: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion. -- In this case, WikiProjects that are directly related to the topic of "American Indians", since the suggested title of this article is "American Indians and something else". 65.93.15.213 (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * CANVASS does allow for this, but see WP:CANVASS, the notifying editor should announce that they are making such notifications, and those notifications should be done in a neutral manor. Without being open such canvassing can be seen as secret, and thus innappropriate and possibly violating the guideline. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The US Government does not always do "the right thing" when it comes to the indigenous people of this country. However, the US Census has been using the term "American Indian" for many decades. Here are examples found on the US Census website: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/censr-28.pdf - 2000   (American Indian and Alaska Native) http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/cp-3-7.html -  1990   (American Indian and Alaska Native) http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tabB-02.pdf - 1980   (American Indian and Alaska Native) http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tabB-03.pdf -  1970 (American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut) http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/appB.pdf -  1960  (American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut) Phil Konstantin (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Phil


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL. Powers T 20:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose but would be fine with: Indigenous peoples of the United States--Enos733 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The terminology used on the US Census Bureau forms does not necessarily conform with common usage (in this case it does not). Even if it did conform with common usage, the scope of the article is not defined by the Census Bureau classification. The topic of the Census' sometimes peculiar "race and ethnicity" classifications is covered in Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, not here. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The title was the best of many choices after much debate (spread over years of talk pages). Indigenous peoples of the United States might be doable but only if we are certain we want to expand the content to the mostly unrelated (culturally) Inuit and the completely unrelated Hawaiians. Rmhermen (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, common use is "Indian" &mdash; it's just that we can't user that since it can also mean "people from India" (that's what they're called in Northern Arizona. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: note that some Alaska Natives, such as Athabaskan-speaking peoples, are commonly referred to as American Indians (unlike, say, Inuit or Aleuts).&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of the 36 Tribal Colleges in the United States which are part of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), lest than half use the term "Native American" to either describe their courses or departments. Here are the details:

Bay Mills Community College - NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES

Blackfeet Community College - no listing

Cankdeska Cikana Community College - ASSOCIATE OF ARTS IN INDIAN STUDIES

Chief Dull Knife College - Native American Studies

College of Menominee Nation - ENG207 American Indian Literature - HIS121 Survey of American Indian History

College of the Muscogee Nation - A.A. in Native American Studies

Comanche Nation College - Department of American Indian Studies (AIS)

Diné College - Navajo and Indian Studies

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College - ANTH 1001 Introduction to American Indian Studies

Fort Belknap College - American Indian Studies

Fort Berthold Community College - Native American Studies

Fort Peck Community College - AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES

Haskell Indian Nations University - The department of American Indian Studies and social sciences provides the foundation for the interdisciplinary baccalaureate in American Indian Studies

Ilisagvik College - Inupiaq Studies

Institute of American Indian Arts (New Mexico) - Indigenous Liberal Studies - AA Degree in Native American Studies and a BA degree in Indigenous Liberal Studies

Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College - Native American Studies

Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College - Native American Studies

Leech Lake Tribal College - Indigenous American

Little Big Horn College - Native American Studies

Little Priest Tribal College - Indigenous Studies

Navajo Technical College - seldom uses any word other than Navajo - the Navajo population has grown to become the largest American Indian Nation in the United States.

Nebraska Indian Community College - ASSOCIATE OF ARTS - NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES

Northwest Indian College - Native American Studies

Oglala Lakota College - Lakota Studies  - LLit 213 American Indian Literature, LPol 213 American Indian Political Systems, LPsy 323 Native American Indian Psychology, LSoc 303 American Indian Women, LSoc 403 The Culture of the American Indian,

Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College - Associate of Arts Native American Studies

Salish Kootenai College - Native American Studies Program

Sinte Gleska University - Lakota Studies

Sisseton Wahpeton College - Dakota Studies

Sitting Bull College - offline

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute - SIPI accepts as students, American Indian and Alaskan Natives - HIST 270 American Indian History (3) - They also use Native American in some course descriptions

Stone Child College - Native American Studies

Tohono O'odham Community College - Tohono O’odham Studies - TRIBAL LAW (TRB) Legal problems specific to American Indians and tribes.

Turtle Mountain Community College - HIST 261 Indian History I to 1850 - HIST 262 Indian History II To Present

United Tribes Technical College - Tribal Management (TRM) Department - TRM 115 -  Tribal/Federal Law: Tribal/Federal Law will examine tribal government and the history of the United States government's relationship with American Indian people

White Earth Tribal and Community College - Native American Studies

Wind River Tribal College - no details Phil Konstantin (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Phil


 * And even fewer use "American Indian". So what's your point?  Powers T 13:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is that someone else said it was "commonly used" in academic course titles.


 * Comment. Remember that we got to this point through "political correctness." Everyone used "American Indian" up until the 50s and 60s. These folks' ancestors immigrated just like everyone else's except African. Africans are the only "natives" in the world! Nice to get rid of that here.
 * Why not two or more articles? "And" articles are discouraged anyway. Hatted comments at the top point to other article(s). Student7 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's not an issue of "pc"; it's an issue of accuracy. The subject of this article is the various groups who are indigenous to the land that is currently the United States and who have a particular legal status within the United States government. That's why Native Alaskans and American Indians are both covered the article together. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

oppose rename as proposed Instead, rename to Indigenous peoples of the United States. This is a neutral name, not dependent on what people refer to themselves as, not based on census categories and not based on college course names. It matches the WP general name used for original Indigenous peoples of various countries throughout the world, as in Category:Indigenous peoples and its various subcategories and articles. Hmains (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Trouble is &mdash; that's not the topic of this article. Hawaiians and Inuit are not included here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are mentioned in the article. I cannot imagine a reason to not include Alaskan Inuit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Oppose. This article is about a demographic, not a government census category. We're under no obligation to move our articles according to official categories. Said category would be ambiguous in a global context anyway, since there are (obviously) "American Indians" outside the U.S. Indigenous peoples of the United States would be a better proposal, but the current name is fine aswell. Rennell435 (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck comment. Didn't read the comments above and forgot about Hawaii. Stick with the current title. Rennell435 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure you have that right "Indigenous peoples of the United States" would include all groups as it does with Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Native Americans is actually  the one that technically excludes "Native Hawaiians" as they are part of the "Polynesian Triangle group of  Indigenous peoples" (Oceania like with Guam). Were as  Native Americans usually means those for the American continent. Indigenous peoples of the United States tells us they are part of The United States regardless of the continent. Moxy (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Was this an edit conflict? Rennell435 (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" would require us to rewrite this article to include Inuits but still exclude Native Hawaiians, "Indigenous peoples of the United States" would require expanding the article to both those groups. (And it is already too long as it is.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I proposed the change and Indigenous peoples of the United States would be better than "NA". I added the census information because it is still officially used by the government and it is the most "common usage" word among we American Indians.Phil Konstantin (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

American Indian Ancestry in the United States Census 2000 - What's Going on Here?
Can someone help me interpret what this means?

According to this Census 2000 Brief on ancestry, approximately 7.9 million US citizens identified American Indian ancestry, for a total of 2.8% of the total US population. This is much higher than the American Indian and Alaska Native population reported for the Census 2000 question on race, which numbers to 4.1 million US citizens or 1.5% of the total population.

To make matters even more confusing, there's a seemingly contradictory discrepancy between the population trends for American Indian and Alaska Native as a race contrasted with American Indian as an ancestry when you compare this 2000 Census to the 1990 Census. The number of people reporting American Indian or Alaska Native racial identity increased between 1990 and 2000. While the 1990 Census didn't tabulate multiracial responses, the undifferentiated 1.9 million American Indian and Alaska Native figure from 1990 is smaller than both the single race population (2.5 million, for an increase of 26%) and the multiple race population (4.1 million, for an increase of 110%). Meanwhile, in terms of the ancestry question, the number of individuals reporting American Indian ancestry declined from 8.7 million people (3.5% of the population) to 7.9 million people (2.8%), which is a decrease of 9.4%.

So, what does this mean? By looking at the public raw data for the Census 2000 ancestry question, I reached a figure similar to the 7.9 million by adding all of the total responses related to "American Indian" under "Other Responses" - Central American Indian, South American Indian, Native American, Indian (separate from Asian Indian), Cherokee, American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo, and Inuit. The Cherokee number listed there (734,748) closely matched the number under the American Indian and Alaska Native race response, in which respondents were asked to "print name of enrolled or principle tribe" (729,533). I'm led to believe that the data on tribal affiliation was compiled separate from the ancestry data which resulted in the 734,748 Cherokee number, but I'm not sure.

So what happened? One possibility that I can see involves the new, more precise method of counting multiracial individuals in the 2000 Census. A number of individuals who have a smaller percentage of American Indian ancestry but are otherwise predominantly white, black, or another race probably identified their American Indian heritage as a secondary ancestry in 1990 and a secondary race in 2000. This would explain the large drop of nearly 1 million people reporting American Indian ancestry between 1990 and 2000, compared with the 1.6 million people who identify as American Indian and Alaska Native combined with another race who show up on the 2000 Census. This might also then reflect the natural increase.

Accordingly, when I take the figures from the raw ancestry data and subtract those who listed American Indian-related responses as a secondary ancestry (about 3.2 million) from the total (7.9 million), we get 4.7 million people who identify their primary ancestry as American Indian, a number not far off from the 4.1 million figure for total American Indian and Alaska Native as a racial response. Presumably, the ~3.2 million people who list American Indian ancestry as a secondary response do not consider their amount of American Indian ancestry to be significant enough to identify themselves as multiracial.

Still, should the 7.9 million people who reported American Indian ancestry be referenced somewhere in this article? --74.103.150.125 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. This is about people who are Native American, e.g. tribal members, and as such, an answer "American Indian" on the census is understood as enrolled in a specific nation. There certainly are more people who have some great-great-great-grandmother who was Native American, but that doesn't make them "American Indian" (just as Franco-Americans aren't French). It has partially to do with the fact that (unlike the other purely racial classifications) "American Indian" is also a political status, e.g. member of a nation with a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship vis-a-vis the Federal Government. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Census numbers are self-reported, no one checks your family tree if you check, for example, German ancestry to see if you are really descended mostly or partly from Germans. Rmhermen (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure you understand how the census works. According to [|this source], 40% of people who claimed "American Indian" as a racial identity in 1990 are not enrolled in tribe recognized federally or by a state. If you look at the raw data for the 2000 Census, you can see that there are still many people identifying as American Indian without official enrollment in a tribe. Race is the modern US census is a matter of self-identity for the most part, just like the "ancestry" question in previous censuses, and no one checks to verify tribal enrollment.
 * Also, I don't understand your opposition to adding information about "American Indian ancestry" to this article. Your point that Franco-Americans aren't French is irrelevant to the matter, considering that there is information about Franco-Americans in the "French people" article. This article is titled "Native Americans in the United States" and as such should cover all things related to that topic - After all, tribal enrollment is a modern phenomenon that does not apply to the Pre-Columbian history discussed in the article. For a similar comparison, the article on Genghis Khan discusses descendants of Genghis Khan even though these descendants are not Genghis Khan himself. --74.103.150.125 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All this might be true, but due to space constraints, this article's topic has been defined as "Native Americans" (and "in the United States" to boot) not "Complete synopsis on Native Americans from Canada to Chile, their ancestors, and anyone who claims to be of partially Native American ancestry".
 * Maybe my example of "Franco-Americans" vs. "French people" was inappropriate, but not in the way you understood it: "French," "German," or "Dutch" are each one people/ethnicity (supposedly) &mdash; "Native American" is not. There is no "Native American people"[singular]. What this article is about is "People who are part of political entities which have a sovereign government-to-government relationship with the United States", or in other words, "people who hold dual citizenship in two political entities"
 * The other point where the "Franco-American" example might not be the best choice is that those are emigrant-colonies &mdash; so... if you find sources which tell us about, say, a notable community of Cherokees whose ancestors emigrated to Japan and who have been maintaining major aspects of Cherokee traditions and language in the heart of Tokyo for generations, then you should definitely add it to Cherokee people under the heading Cherokee-Japanese. I doubt you'll find any such case, though.
 * Your Genghis Khan-comparison is way off track as he was one single person. I am quite certain no-one will object if you want to add a line or two about the descendents (where notable) of Sequoyah or Manuelito. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems as if this raises fairly substantial cultural and political issues for enrolled members of tribes and the tribes as collective entities, e.g. the problems around "wannabes" affecting perceptions of Indians & perpetuating stereotypes, potential gains in political influence, if persons who may be eligible to be enrolled, but aren't, were enrolled, vs. problems that might arise from people who don't identify or are ignorant culturally enrolling. The space issue seems to point back to the question of splitting off the history section raised above, perhaps? Chris Lowe (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting aside your misunderstanding of how analogies work, what, in your opinion, would be the proper article for the data concerning Americans who claim Native American ancestry in the census? As you pointed out, this article is called "Native Americans in the United States". The data I have brought up for discussion concerns the topic of "Native Americans in the United States". It discusses people who claim partial ancestry from Native Americans in the United States. It does not discuss ancestry from indigenous peoples beyond the United States, nor does it specifically discuss ancestry from particular nations (Cherokee, Tsimshian, Akimel O'odham, etc). It is directly relevant to this topic - Nothing more specific or less specific. I also do not see why you feel there is a limited amount of space concenring how much can be discussed in a wikipedia article - Where's the character limit?
 * Also, there is, in fact, a "complete synopsis" article like the one you've described - "Indigenous peoples of the Americas," which does discuss "people with indigenous ancestry who are not directly indigenous in a cultural sense, such as Latin American mestizos and Canadian metis. Furthermore, mestizos are discussed in that article despite that many mestizos do not identify with or acknowledge their indigenous ancestry, unlike these United States citizens who identify with their alleged Native American ancestry.--98.114.176.218 (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs to be split, just as for example Germans and German-Americans is split. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As other editors have suggested above, this is about booty. Tribes granted status in their state may set up legal gambling on "historic tribal reservations." People who are enrolled members of the tribe may share in the resulting loot. This has nothing to do with reality, unfortunately. But it has to be reported because "it is census." Student7 (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please put your elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please avoid WP:PERSONAL.
 * I have relatives, descendants and in-laws who are A-A, and Asian. And three "native American" ancestors. Just none close enough to help me gain membership and claim the loot from the gambling casinos. I doubt than any "native" east of the Mississippi besides Cherokee and Seminole are more than 50% native after 500 years of European integration. No legislature to date has even tried to require DNA proof of descent. Student7 (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please avoid (or learn English). You said "loot" again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This also goes back to America's dark past and present day of racism...in the south it was worse to be Native American than African American. So those who were that admixture largely passed as black and also because of pressure from the civil rights movement that if you had ANY African heritage whether it was only one ancestor you were pressured to say you were only black. Then you have those that were of Native/Caucasian admixture that were trying to pass for white if they could..even though that admixture isn't as high as those of NA and AA admixture largely due to racism that's a population that continues to avoid recognition. Even those who are 1/2 Native and African American are largely called African American even when they themselves don't consider themselves don't solely recognize only 1 part of their heritage i.e. Della Reese and Radmilla Cody. It's really messed up and the Native pop will eventually not exist of the tribes don't at least decrease the blood quantum requirements.Mcelite (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Radmilla Cody is universally recognized as being Navajo. Many of the East Coast tribes are largely of Native-African descent, i.e. the Pequots, Seminoles, etc. It's all about belonging to a tribe or not.-Uyvsdi (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi