Talk:Native Americans in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Native Americans in the United States is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Native Americans in the United States as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
To-do list for Native Americans in the United States: edit · history · watch · refresh

*Featured Article Candidacy information - remove as corrected :)

  • format external links in the texts into citations.
  • red links
  • expand political structure, cultural groupings, language, religion, and history
  • fix prose "The Bering Strait Land Bridge theory" section. also, this section makes several self-references (see last section of lead), which isn't good.
appears to be fixed? what do you think? plange 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • in-line citations, sub-categories need them especially, but also throughout, in sections like "Economy", "Society", "Indian princesses", "Early relations", "Settling down".
  • several POV sections, including European
  • the organization is poor and the focus uneven.
  • In the "Cultural aspects" section, the scope of coverage is almost wildly inconsistent from subsection to subsection.
  • In "Society", three groups are mentioned, Iroquois, Navajo and Pueblo. Are these three groups representative of "Native Americans"? And the various descriptions of arts and crafts, tribal stories, and relationships with the spirit world is kind of random and hardly seems to describe "society", then or now.
  • "Religion", entirely ignores the past and only says something about the "most widespread religion at the present time".
  • "Gender roles" hardly says anything--"social and clan relationships were matrilinear and matriarchal" with no elaboration--and ends after all of two sentences with: "The cradle board was used by mothers to carry their baby whilst working or traveling"?
  • "Music and art" is jumps about from contemporary popular music (Shania Twain?!), to pow-wows, to Johnny Cash as fake Indian? Finally,
  • "Economy" is a mash-up of references to dugouts, agriculture, tobacco, firearms and alcoholic beverages. This all seems very hastily written, doesn't summarize anything, and is in parts quite bizarre: Shania Twain? Johnny Cash?
  • Other sections are problematic in similar ways, particularly with sentences that are oddly worded or say nothing: "Native Americans were stunned to learn..." or "While exhibiting widely divergent social, cultural, and artistic expressions, all Native American groups worked with materials available to them and employed social arrangements that augmented their means of subsistence and survival."
  • no inline citations in "history" and several of the sections, "Other archaeologists have disputed the dating methodology employed, and have also suggested that these "artifacts" are naturally-formed, rather than of human manufacture. Other recent claims for pre-Clovis artifacts have similarly been made in some South American sites. The notion of pre-Clovis habitation continues to be a subject of scholarly debate, and the issue has not yet been satisfactorily resolved." - evidence of weasel words. I added an inline citation for that.
  • lots of weasel words—for example, "is believed to have reached the New World", "They are believed to have reached Alaska", and "molecular genetics studies have suggested". The first one I can't fix (I had nothing to do with writing the article), the second and third examples I found a reference for. The fourth I added "mitochondrial DNA", which I learned in biology but it would be best if somebody could verify this.
Page moved
This article (Native Americans in the United States) was formerly located at Native Americans, which has now been turned into a disambiguation page. The corresponding Talk page was not moved; see Talk:Native Americans for the archived talk and the discussions which resolved to make this change.
These discussions should be referenced before contemplating any further move of this page.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] A Transatlantic view

Forgive me in advance, but as an outsider I find it very hard to take this and related articles, including the one on the United States. The United States of America has, of course, a very short history - by European standards - though it would be certain that a history of Great Britain would begin with the Romans at the latest. Histories before that are difficult to construct. Likewise, even the high cultures of Native Americans before the European invasion, may deliver little history though I imagine that equivelants of the Icelandic sagas exist. I find nothing about the tribes about which I know little more than names. Everything is written from a European perspective. I would expect that there would be huge amounts about the tribes and their histories and culture. When I look at the article on Native Americans I face material on the invasions almost immediately. I don't understand. I feel that I should be presented with links to articles on all the known tribes together with material expressing their point of view as a balance to the material presented. I can add nothing myself since I know little. Surely there are Native Americans who can correct what I regard as gross distortion. I am sorry to be so fierce; I was just very surprised that a nation that prides itself on its breadth of view should not see that, even if the population of pre-invasion North America were only ten million, it requires extensive treatment; if it were over a hundred million with a history of thousands of years it requires equal treatment. If someone can show me that I have failed to use links properly and that my view is myopic, I should be delighted. Roger Arguile 13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're looking for something like Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which is prominently linked. This article is specifically for those in the United States. I would not expect an article on "Britons in the United States" to mention Roman times. I agree that the treatment seems very deficient in areas, but I don't think it quite warrants a POV warning. --Golbez 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be interested in the article about the pre-Columbian era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-columbian and the other articles in the category of Pre-Columbian cultures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pre-Columbian_cultures

I do agree that there should be more information about Pre-Columbian cultures in the United States, but I don't think that automatically makes the article POV. Its just deficient in that area and needs to be improved. Asarelah 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in regards to your concerns of lack of Natives looking at this article, I'm fully 'Native American' and I don't find this article to be too POV either or which way; so I don't agree with the POV warning either. If you look in the "see also" section, you will find the Classification of Native Americans (which is also found in the opening sentence of this article wikilinked as large number), which shows an organised list of tribes. Is that something you were looking for? oncamera(t) 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have looked at the referred articles and here is my report: in Pre-Columbian (sic) therre are 10 lines on North America; in History.. there are eleven; in United States there are three lines; in Indigenous peoples... there are six lines. In Classification... there are lists but no overview. If native Americans such as Mr. Oncamera are happy with this, I am surprised. From here it looks very exocentric. Roger Arguile 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't refer to me as "mister," and just because something is inadequate doesn't make it POV. I'm sure someone who really was interested in this sort of thing would refer to a history book, rather than an encyclopedia. oncamera(t) 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

O h yes: I forgot to say: westindians are not from India; gypsies are not from Egypt; Australian aboriginees are not aboriginal; though I am English I am not an Angle - they were German; I don't know whether you still use the word WASP, but some of them are Catholics. And as for Americans, most Americans speak Spanish or Portugese and live south of the Rio Grande but I get into terrible trouble when I say so. It's a funny old world. Roger Arguile 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what motivated your visit to this page, if it was a pat on that back for your country's well-documented history, or to contribute to the world's pasttime of scorning American historiography generally, or whatever else... I'm sure your views to this very serious topic as a member of another civilization would be greatly valued, yet I would counsel you to consider a more *tactful* self-introduction. It's striking, for me at least, to note how Europeans seem to press upon the self-redeeming renunciation of a "Euro-centric" worldview with the same pretentious haughtiness with which they instituted colonial hierarchies in the first place. And in the same manner: with themselves in the position of moral rectitude--- To actually consider the more valid points of your comments, namely the lack of any cogent "history" of pre-European America (United States) available in print, we must recognize a critical historiographical problem concerning American Indians. Few tribes north of the Rio Grande possessed written languages by the end of the 16th century. Most tribes, even in urban contexts, left relatively little ecological evidence of their presense. Indeed, "history" in its grander, dramatic sense did occur in what is now the United States; yet due to sparse historiographical evidence, consensus has not been reached among historians. It is very possible (though not likely provable) that the civilizations of the eastern half of the North American continent were undergoing wrenching territorial change in the centuries before "contact." We know of several clear examples of documentable shifts in tribal groups between 1300 and 1600 (ie. the movement of the Tuscarora north from what is now the Carolinas to join the Iroquois confederacy; the migration of the Ojibwe from the Maritimes to the Great Lakes); also, certain political confederacies and alliances at the time of contact can be joined with previous historical narratives at least several centuries long; but many of these changes would have been quite difficult to periodize or verify, due to the very nature of the cultures under study. With most tools of historiographical inquiry (written records; permanent urban ruins; ecological impact; etc.) unavailable to historians of Indian North America, other methods (models of linguistic shift; oral tradition; DNA analysis of periodized burial sites; etc.) must be used, with obvious controversy ensuing. In short, American Indian historiography is exceedingly difficult, and wrought with controversy. Some thoughts about "Contact": European/Russian contact provides ample historiographical data, and even an opportunity to speculate on pre-contact environments that would be impossible to discern otherwise, and these data should not be dismissed as being "Euro-centric," but merely anayzed by a wary and modern historical eye. Furthermore, like I said, Indian civilization did not simply "exist," as is, for eternity, before contact, and then proceed to disappear after it. Contact was an event in Native American history, just like many that came before it; Indians responded to this event in dynamic ways, as they did before contact, and these responses have yet to cease. In many ways, this is a history that can not easily be committed to writing. So when wikipedia lacks material on Indian history, it is a lack of verifiable historiography, supported by consensus. It is not a lack of a history itself. [D. Pritchard, Chicago]75.22.196.54 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I had thought that the opening section should give an overview. This article simply engages in a definitional discussion. I know that nomenclature is now a very sensitive subject, but I would have thought the whole of that section could be reserved as a footnote. My reason for feeling that POV is justly deserved is that, as I have shown, decent presentation of the history of North America before the conquests is marginalised. I understand that articles about the United States could be thought as only referring to the union, but that has added states in my lifetime and it seems arbitrary not write about the land and people rather than only the political unit.

I do confess that from over here it looks very unbalanced and, as the lawyers used to say 'Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi'. There is, it appears to me, no room at the inn in any mainstream articles about the United States for native Americans.Roger Arguile 12:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

After nearly 72 hours it appears that WP editors are of the opinion that 29 lines (see above) is quite enough space to give to the culture and hisotyr of Native Americans in the United States prior to the European invasions. The most I have been offered is to expand the article curiously and obscurely entitled Pre-Columbian(sic). I shall defer to the opinions offered, but with a heavy heart. Roger Arguile 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add more about the pre-Columbian cultures to this article, then by all means do so. Nobody is stopping you. Asarelah 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently editors made the decision to treat earlier history under "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". The link is featured.--Parkwells (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Words mean things

I find it very inapropriate that people are posting comments that make the claim that American Indians are not from the Americas. I also feel a little offended as to the want of change for he termonology. If wikipedia really wants to be accurate then they should only list the Tribe of the person talked about and not force a group catagory, and if they do use a group catagory then it should be what Indians call themselve. WHITE people have no right to have a say in the term for Indians. Haven't y'all done enough?!!! So let me see if I understand, because of the Bering Straight theory you can claim that Indians aren't Native to this land. How many Indians accept this idea. I suppose then that we can go back to the tower of Babel and say that Whites aren't from Europe. Asians aren't from Asia. We are all really just Africans. Well thank you but NO. I just might be possible that people were here in the Americas before there were people in Europe. I just might be possible. Here is another one for you, some of use (though not me in particular) feel that the Bering Straight theory is a RACIST plot to remove the sacred status of the Indians in connection to the land from them and force more assimilation (which is really just anialation). I see the the English Language site has many problems. You will notice that many of the other languages supported by Wikipedia do not have this kind of irregularity.--Billiot 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Assimilation =/= annihilation. Haven't you ever watched Star Trek? 2. You highlight an amusing point. Since you seem to think going back to our original heritage as Africans is not a good idea, why should we go back n-thousand years, and not just go back to when we were born. Ergo, everyone born in North America is an Indian or whathaveyou. 68.144.197.71 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific racism

This quote was written by an Indian and can be viewed at www.allthingscherokee.com.

The reasons are diverse and personal, but there are two popular reasons. The first reason is habit. Many Indians have been Indians all their lives. The Native people of this continent have been called Indian throughout all of post-Columbian history. Why change now? The second reason is far more political. While the new politically correct terms were intended to help ethnic groups by giving them a name that did not carry the emotional baggage of American history, it also enabled America to ease its conscience. The term Native American is so recent that it does not have all the negative history attached. Native Americans did not suffer through countless trails of tears, disease, wars, and cultural annihilation -- Indians did. The Native people today are Native Americans not Indians, therefore we do not need to feel guilty for the horrors of the past. Many Indians feel that this is what the term Native American essentially does -- it white-washes history. It cleans the slate.

I hope this can be illistrative to English Speakers.--Billiot 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that excise the Bering Strait theory from this article? Are you saying that the use of the word Native American on Wikipedia is innappropriate and must be changed? I'm sorry but it just isn't clear to me as to what your point is. Asarelah 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
All this name debate has driven me to become a member just to address it. 'American Indian' is the legan and widely accepted term. The Bureau of Indian Affairs uses it, courts use it, and most if not all of the people I've encountered personally have used it (and get annoyed by the use of 'Native American'). The technical specifications are really negligible in this case. American Indian is the more accepted term, both by the target ethnicity and legally.
While it would be nice to be able to address each individual tribe/nation/band, I'm afraid that's not a feasible approach. There are over 200 Federally recognized tribal groups in the United States alone, and that doesn't even include groups that have been recognized by the state only. It would be ridiculously clumsy and inefficient to describe a large group of people that way.
In summary, if this article is to approach accuracy, the name needs to be changed. And Billiot, I'm sorry an informational database like this can't go into the details you'd prefer, but the different groups of American Indians are too diverse to use anything else to refer to them as a whole. It is regrettable, but it's not personal to Indians. Every ethnicity is referred to in a general way. JPL Archivist 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
JPL, Welcome Aboard! We are glad to have you in the community. Let me know if I can assist. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If giving indians the blanket term of 'indians' is infeasable, then shouldn't the blanket term of 'human' be even more clumsy and inefficient?68.144.197.71 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

This must be approached from a position of verifiability. Whatever the relevant sources use, that is what we must use. To go beyond that is to engage in original research and to move dangerously close to a WP:NPOV non-neutral point of view]]. Furthermore, the article make us of a consistent name throughout. So, let's bring it here, to the talk page, with sources and we will allow community consensus to decide. As an administrator I would remind editors that we use care not to personally attack one another as that will not be tolerated. Please list your choices for the name below with appropriate sources. Let's do this right and not allow it to get out of hand. JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The first sentence

...seems to be a fragment. It should probably either be mreged with the second, or be changed to "Native Americans are the..."
Thanks, --Grant M 07:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The "are" was mysteriously deleted by this edit. I've added it back. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Native Americans & Baldness

Could an expert please chip in, and state whether it is really true that genetically pure Native American males do not bald as they get older ?

Please sign your posts using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the page. Anyway, in regards to baldness among Native Americans, I remember reading somewhere that it does happen. I wish I could remember where I read it, but there were reports of male pattern baldness among fullbloods. I'm not sure how relevant this is to the article though. Asarelah 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The truth is that male pattern baldness is more common in whites than any other race.[1] 70.15.116.59 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article scope

L ooking back at Roger Arguile's comments from a few months ago, I find that I have a certain degree of sympathy for his criticisms, if not his level of fierceness. The article as it stands does give a lot more weight to Indian interactions with the Western world (i.e., European perceptions of Indians) than to descriptions of Indian societies. I began to wonder, what exactly is this article supposed to be about? Is it an ethnographic article about the various peoples who are indigenous to the land area that is now the United States, or is it a historical article about the interactions of those people with the U.S. government and American society? I had assumed (ever since this article was split from Native Americans) that it was about the former. However, the problem with this topic is that it is an unnatural category. The boundary separating the U.S. from Canada and Mexico is completely irrelevant to the local peoples, except when it comes to the history of their interaction with the settler states. Many northeastern, Pacific northwestern, and Great Plains peoples (e.g. Anishinaabe, Huron, Cree) lived in areas that cut across the U.S.-Canadian border, and southwestern peoples such as the Yaqui lived in areas that straddled the U.S.-Mexico border. Assuming that we do want to expand this article's coverage of indigenous history and societies, what are we really going to be able to say about these different groups of people that will be true in general, for people from Maine as well as the Puget Sound as well as the Mojave Desert? "Native Americans in the United States" isn't an ethnic group, it's various ethnic groups, grouped together arbitrarily.

If we say that, instead, this article is supposed to be about the interactions between the U.S. and American Indians, the problem is that this article is one of the main destinations of links that say "Native American" (i.e. [[Native Americans in the United States|Native American]]). There are some cases where this completely irrelevant (for instance, Hiawatha, Ancient Pueblo Peoples, and many, many other articles about things that happened before European contact link here), and I'm not sure that it's ever really appropriate. I'm starting to wonder if we should consider refocusing on a different set of articles, based on a more reasonable regional breakdown of indigenous (as used, for instance, at Classification of Native Americans). Once we get down to the level of region such as Plains Indians, we might find more things to say about history and society (not that article is particularly satisfying at present).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contraversial edit

I undid this edit, which added the word "genocide" with respect to the conquest of America. I suspect that the edit is simply trying to be provocative, but I don't know enough about the issue to say whether it is appropriate. If anyone wants to re-insert or comment on the issue, feel free to do so. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it was a genocide. It is true for any know definition of genocide! - Paul
    • I too think it was a form of genocide. However, that is a personal POV, not a neutral POV. The article should certainly mention that it has been called a genocide (citing sources, of course) but I am sure there are sources that disagree with that lable, and this too should be mentioned. Someone with vastly more knowledge than me would have to do this.Pelegius (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical population

Does anyone know where to find the historical population statistics for Native Americans? The other article does not have the statistics, only history. How many Native Americans were there at their peak? --Shamir1 05:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Impossible to tell. possibly as few as 700,000. Possibly 10+ million north of the Rio Grande. Note: there are over 800,000 reserved and 1.5+ unreserved "Native Americans" in the United States today. Canadian figures I don't have. It is an oft-repeated axiom that "there are more Indians today (in real numbers) than there were before contact;" This is almost certainly false, and is definitely false for most tribes in the eastern one half of the continent geographically. This axiom probably is true concerning the Great Plains/West alone (semiotically, archetypal Indian Country) since much post-contact migrations relocated Eastern tribes to this region, or to the Canadian Plains. Reserved Indian population east of the Mississippi River today is (I am guessing) less than 50,000 in total.75.22.196.54 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
More American Indians today than in 1890? This is a geneological theory on maybe more Americans of any race have a bit of Indian than they realize. 50,000 east of the Mississippi? I knew North Carolina has 80,000 of identifiable American Indian ancestry, but one-eighth or 15,000 are the Cherokee tribe living on a reservation (The Eastern Band Cherokee) near Jackson next to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. I came to believe the American Indian population east of the Mississippi is near 200,000, but 80 percent of the total American Indian and Alaska Native population in the U.S. are indeed west of the Mississippi River and to narrow it down: 60 percent of them west of the Rockies with about 800,000 in California alone. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worst article on Wikipedia?

Stopping back here after a long time away. Geez, is anybody ever going to seriously work on this article? The article provides links to Oprah, Chris Rock, Johnny Cash, and Toris Amos but not Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, or Tecumseh. And "Native American Princesses"? WTF? There's probably at least one sentence in each section which is misleading at best, POV to be sure, and fiction at worst. Why is this article so bad? Too much vandalism? Too many ill-informed editors? Lack of interest? —Kevin Myers 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity in the infobox (population figures)

I appreciate the attempt to clarify the population figures in the infobox at the head of the article but for the life of me I can't figure out exactly what that second number is supposed to be. Is it the number of people who are Native Americans but didn't mark that box on the census report because they had some other classification which was more specific? Or is it the number of so-called mixed blood peoples? I wonder if it wouldn't be better off in the article itself where greater clarity could be ensured. JodyB talk 11:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The second number is people who marked the census as being partly of American Indian or Alaska Native ancestry, partly of another "race" -- i.e., mixed blood.
A quick rundown of recent edit history of this part of the infobox: the second figure given was a total (and an old one at that) including both "one race" and mixed race (see this diff). The current figure of 1.6 million for "In combination with one or more other races" and actual citation of census figures came about after User:84.26.7.86 made edits claiming a total population for "Combination with one or more other races" of 72 million, breaking that down into "Hispanic Mestizo," "Black Indians," and "White Indians", based on questionable sources (other Wikipedia articles) that didn't really prove the figures (see this diff). I reverted those edits under the impression they were vandalism (later learned they were good faith edits by someone who doesn't seem to understand WP:ATT), & then went to dig up actual census figures so there would be good sourcing. That's where the current figure comes from.
Meantime I've been having a conversation with 84.26.7.86 on my talk page -- see User talk:Yksin#Native Americans in the USA, & it's become clear that while I think the figures are useful in the infobox, it would indeed be helpful to have a discussion of populations in the body of the article. Undoubtedly there are a lot more people who have at least some American Indian/Alaska Native blood who don't identify themselves thusly in the census -- depending perhaps on blood quantum, on family history having been forgotten or lost or intentionally suppressed (e.g., a friend of mine whose grandmother refused to admit she was Indian because of prejudice), etc. --Yksin 17:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess section

Can we pair down the Native American princess section? I wonder if it really contributes enough to the article to warrant its own section. I'll wait for some input before forging ahead but in a couple of days I'd like to do a rewrite. JodyB talk 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I rewrote this section. I think it flows better and remains NPOV. I did remove the Oprah and Cris Tucker material as that seemed to be getting a little far afield. If someone feels strongly about maybe just footnote it as a citation of you can get the citation information which I could not. JodyB talk 18:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Custerwest" disrupting Washita article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Washita_River

See talk page and history. He dissmisses the official American Military History[2] as "a simple website, it's not serious", removes all the findings of CMH (because "The army center of military history isn't filled of military historians about the Washita."). He also calls me "the idiot"[3], and "jerk", "Damn...jackass", "ignorant monkey", "damn idiot", "stupid bastard", and threatens to "kick" my "damn ass". [4]. If someone cares enough to get him blocked, thanks. Also, one would check his other edits, if any. --HanzoHattori 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place to bring up a complaint about another user in an edit war on a completely different article. Try WP:ANI. As it is, looks like there are a few issues on your end as well. --Yksin 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not? If there was some "Budyonnywest" promoting the saintified version of Budyonny in relation to the Polish campaign while demonising the Polish side (including calling this an "anti-terror campaign"), I guess the Poles would be interested. According to the US Army now, it was more of a terror campaign in order to "completely destroy Indian culture" (see cultural genocide). --HanzoHattori 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
"Why not" is because this is the talk page for a particular article, & discussion on this page is supposed to be geared towards improvement of this article, not that article over there. If you need to bring attention of other editors who might be able to help with ensuring that Battle of Washita River is being edited accurately, you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which does have more of an "oversight" role over articles about Native Americans & other indigenous people on this continent in general. --Yksin 00:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Americans

Original Americans? Isn't that an oxymoron? Or at least slightly insulting to native Americans? The original Americans would be the inhabitants that named the place America. I'm sure the native American's had a name for America before it was named America by it's settlers? Either way, it sounds a little daft and limits the scope of their existance under such term to two hundred years odd, rather than the implication the term probably means to convey by it's users yet fails under logical interpretation. I'd recommend a change to Original <Whatever they called America>, or <Whatever they called America>ians. Or something a little less daft.  :P Jachin 09:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the same applies to the term "native Americans." In both cases we call them Americans. I would be open to a better title but at present I can't think of one. Do you have a specific suggestion? JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
With the idea of I'd recommend a change to Original <Whatever they called America>, or <Whatever they called America>ians. I think that would be very lengthy since there were hundreds of languages of the people who lived in North America before Europeans came and so, perhaps there are hundreds of terms for the landmass of 'America.' And, I suppose, there are even tribes who didn't name their 'country' anything since they really didn't consider themselves owner of the land (or however the noble savage pathos goes). oncamera(t) 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Were any natives aware of being on a continent, and name it? I don't think words for "home" or "world" would be relevant. (SEWilco 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
From experience, I know that several Algonquian tribes call all of North America "Turtle Island," due to the fact that it is shaped like a turtle, according to transcontinental topographical reports from "runners." This relating also to myths related to earth being created on the back of a Turtle. Many in the Indian Movement today have unofficially adopted the term "Turtle Island" as a way of not only avoiding the word "America," but to unambiguously include tribes in Canada, or those who straddle the political border. However, this is unofficial and most probably is not a term recognizable to all Indian tribes or even all Algonquins. Relocation of the article to "Turtle Islanders" is thus not advisable. [D. Pritchard, Chicago] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.196.54 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See how we white men are so biased!! The "original Americans" is a term for the true population of this continent that lived there for thousands of years. You call it America or what ever you like. The fact remains the same.- thanks-Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.122.30.254 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Native American' vs. 'American Indian' vs. 'Indian'

This article does a great job in explaining the appropriate use of the terms ‘Native American,’ ‘American Indian,’ and ‘Indian’ from the point of view of an American Indian. However, the article fails to address how Indians (i.e. Asian Indians, or people from India) view the terms Indian and American Indian. It seems that both groups would have to find the term in question appropriate and inoffensive before concluding that the term was acceptable. Please clarify.Thewookie55 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We use existing studies as sources. Find someone's analysis? (SEWilco 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Is it possible for a non-Indian to join an Indian tribe in the U.S.?

In cases such as Ward Churchill, the Cherokee Freedmen, and the issuance of tribal membership to illegal immigrants by non federally recognized tribes, it seems like the U.S. allows no possibility that someone with no racial connection can join a tribe. This seems very different from what you read in histories from a few centuries ago, or see in shows like "Going Tribal" about other countries. Does the U.S. tradition of blood quantum laws completely prohibit a racially unrelated person from joining any federally recognized Indian tribe? Is the U.S. the only country with such a law?

I'm also curious whether there are tribes with traditional knowledge and culture (I suppose they have to be non federally recognized) which do accept outsiders through traditional methods of education, socialization, and initiation. 204.186.19.73 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill was an honorary member, the Cherokee Freedman is more complex because they do have links to the tribe. Blood quantum for membership are not set by the federal government but by each tribe (and some don't use it but have other criteria for membership.) Blood quanta for federal program eligibility is another matter. It is unlikely that many if any tribes allow non-Indians to join. (In some tribes with large casino profits, even Indians sometimes have trouble keeping their membership.) Rmhermen 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
In the past, it was certainly possible. Sam Houston became a Cherokee and Cynthia Ann Parker became a Comanche (she was forced to, he joined willingly). Both married into the tribe and lived with them. Parker's son,Quanah Parker, became an important Comanche chief. Pelegius (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The tribes had their own rules and sometimes accepted people by marriage or adoption. Tribal membership also related to whether the tribe had matrilineal or patrilineal descent rules and politics, so it mattered whether the "outsider" was male or female. Too many differences to make generalities about, but any discussion about inclusion and exclusion about any group makes you realize how confused we all have become. --Parkwells (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why

somebody should tell us why the native americans traveled all the way to North America if they already had a lot of room in asia and euorope and africa. È —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eylamster (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? What makes you think they had a lot of room somewhere?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they were nomadic, and followed herds. The herds decided to cross the land bridge, so the indians followed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.197.71 (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does a river decide to flow all the way out to the ocean? People, like water, often make decisions one step at a time. It is appealing to imagine some group of people actually planning a great voyage of exploration and travelling all that way at once, but genetic evidence shows that the Chukchi of Siberia are very close to the Na-Dene and Eskimo of America, and all Native Americans related to them.[5] This means that people did not "skip over" Siberia and Alaska in a single epic voyage through uninhabitable terrain, but spent generations putting down roots and surviving these climates before continuing in a progression that they could never have guessed would lead to the rainforests of Ecuador. 70.15.116.59 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The process of Native American migration was a slow process ongoing for 10,000-20,000 years as peoples from Siberia, east Asia moved gradually into Alaska first then Northern, later Central and finally South America and the Caribbean isles. Some anthropologists continued to bring up a notion of East Asians might populated the western half of North America and traveled downward to the west coast of South America between 1,000-5,000 years ago. There are numerous theories of Northern European (i.e. Iberian, Grecian, Phoenician, Celtic and Viking landings) migrations to eastern half of North America, and the preColumbian African-Amerindian connection after decades of intense scrutiny. I read a few stories in the Encyclopedia Britannica 1978 edition on British Columbia mentioned on the Haida of Princess Charlotte Island off the Pacific coast were somehow genetically connected to the Polynesians of Hawaii and the south Pacific. Early 20th century race scientists used to put many tribes under the "Malayan" and "Mongolian" category, while those in the Amazons and Caribbean isles are wrongly placed in the "Negroid" category. It took a long time for anthropologists to contend American Indians are a different race, but evidently linked to native peoples of Siberia. But thousands of tribes in the Americas (North and South) evolved into subraces and microraces not alike "East Asians" and they questioned who else each tribe mixed with over the course of time. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

< Someone (I don't know who) has vandalized this article and changed the "this article is about" sentence at the top. I am not a user, and the article is protected. Can someone change it back to the way it was? Thanks.

The protection has expired, so you CAN change it back if it happens again. The current spate of vandalism has been fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete vandalism.--Parkwells (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are Native Americans mostly enthier White-Collar, Blue-Collar, or Gold-Collar?

I would like to know as I was inspired by at a earlier date not so very long ago I looked up this article to try to see what kind of jobs they usually have or Economic status, since I had seen that in the Asian-American articles as well.And as it turns out I didn't see what I had expected and such. So please answer me as I think asking this seem as I feel is more worth then other questions I had ask on Wikipedia and so.-Jana

Native Americans are, unfortunately, one of the poorest demographics in the United States, so I would imagine that most are Blue-Collar. I know that the Navajo are often ranchers and craftsmen, if that helps. Also, please sign your posts by signing four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the page when you edit it. Asarelah 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
On reservation Indians have very high levels of unemployment (although that may be moderated by casinos in some places). Off-reservation, they hold a wide range of jobs - including astronaut, senator, Vice-president of the United States, etc. Rmhermen 18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The increasingly perception of Native Americans are "getting rich" off Indian gaming casinos is a new version of ethnic stereotypes like how many people assumed "all Whites" are rich, "all Jews" are lawyers, "All Blacks" are on welfare, "all Latinos" are fieldworkers, and one mentioned the "model minority" myth of Asian-Americans. The high rate of rural and urban poverty or "lower-middle class" identity of the majority of Native Americans is a problem not yet extinguished, but for one to assume "because tribal members get money from a tribal monetary check" produces a new version of the "poor cheap Indian". In some cases, hate crimes against individuals who are American Indians was caused by non-Indians who assumed they are making "huge sums of money" for being a poor people at the first place is a new phenomena for Indians, but this was going on against African-Americans and other minorities for a long time. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Native American slavery

"Jacob White Eagle was freed from slavery in 1894, the last Native American slave. Jacob and his family had been held as slaves by a Buffalo soldier for 24 years to run his farm after the Civil War."

These lines were reently added to the article. I removed them here. I am uncertain of the truth of these lines and the only Jacob White Eagle that is found by Google is a modern one. Some Natives were not U.S. citizens in 1894 but they were recognized as "persons" under the law. The 13th amendment would seem to have made even slavery of Native Americans illegal. Rmhermen 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Overkill

I counted over 80 repetitions of the word "Native American/s" and "native Americans" in the article. An NPOV tag must object to the appearance of that overkill. The page is contaminated.

BtoAundulling 11:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And exactly why is that a POV issue especially given that the name of the article contains "Native Americans?" JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag. What is NPOV about using the article title in the article? Vsmith 12:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

While cleaning up after some current vandalism, I noticed that the external links section was clobbered last May and not restored. I've restored the old version and added newly added links in. It could use some trimming, but many of the links from the old version seem to be quite useful. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resurgence in the 1960s/1970s

I find that very little of this article deals with the modern cultural aspects of Native Americans. One case in point was what seems like a resurgence in the 1960s/1970s in mass media; for example "Indians" were a popular theme in TV shows of the period (i.e. Brady Bunch, Grizzly Adams, etc), kids were often encouraged to dress like "Indians" at school activities, and "Indian" stores were all over the place along Interstates in the West. It seems this consciousness very rapidly died out around 1980. Was this a holdover from the popularity of Western movies of the 1940s-1950s? Was this tied in with the 1970s environmental movement? -Rolypolyman (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Lakotah

This is a current event, but it should have a snippet of mention in this article somewhere. The declaration itself is historically significant. Republic of Lakotah

Jesse Crouch (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

actually, it is not. The people who made the declaration (as well as similar declarations in the past) have no legal right to speak for their people, and are not recognized as leaders by their own tribes. The claims they make are not any different from the random guy that declares himself "Emperor of the World" or other such nonsense.IanCheesman (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Native American history by state

I cannot find any precedent for categorizing Native American history by state. For anyone who is interested I am going to start Category:Native American history of Nebraska. • Freechild'sup? 18:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic mass genocide by buffalo slaughter

Why isn't this mentioned in the article (or did I miss it)? The opening paragraph(s) to "European colonization" makes it sound like the Native Americans were wiped out by epidemics, not by the violent encroachment of the white man. I don't see any mention of the fact that nearly the entire population of buffalo was systematically killed by settlers, so that the plains Indians would starve. This is what caused their demise, not epidemics. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source that states that? if so, you're welcome to add it to the article. however, it's worth noting that disease spreads far faster than the buffalo could be killed, and the buffalo weren't killed "so that the plains indians would starve", they were killed for meat and hide, with the plains indian starvation an unfortunate side effect. Anastrophe (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the bison weren't killed for meat and hide, they were systematically killed en masse (what American history/school books call "sport hunting" as a way of hiding the truth) and left on the field to rot so that the plains Indians would starve. This is why the American buffalo was all but extinct by 1890. The Native Americans killed for meat and hide; and would never have exterminated the breed, which had numbered in the tens of millions. There are many sources on this, but I don't have any on hand; I figure a NA expert here would, though. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I found some good sources via a Google search. I'll add the info into the article later. Softlavender (talk)
Although you are correct about the bison being wiped out so the Plains Indians would starve, it is true that the vast majority of Native Americans really were wiped out by epidemics brought over by the white man rather than mere violent enroachment. I can probably find a source in Guns, Germs and Steel that gives a rough estimation of the numbers prior to European contact, I'll have to look into it. Asarelah (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The current article looks white washed. I miss a boarder description of the Indian politics of the United States (e.g. first American settlers, Indian Removal Act, Reservation, Discriminiation) and those consequences in greater detail. Currently, there is talk about "European colonization", looks like this article could needs some vergangenheitsbewältigung. - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] faux source

I can find no evidence whatsoever that this book ever existed:

"20. U.S. History, Steven Kelman; Copyright 1999 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston"

... although Steven Kelman did publish a book called American Government in 1999 with Holt Rhinehart.

So I'm going to re-write that section later on and delete the claim purported by this reference, which doesn't even give a page number. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Squanto using dead fish as fertilizer

Many sources have conflicting facts about whether or not Squanto helped settlers by using dead fish for fertilizer in fields to help grow crops. Is there any sources that can confirm if this is a fact or just another story that has been distorted through the years? Troyisucone (talk)01:39, 5 March 2008

While I don't know about any particular individual, many tribes, especially in the eastern US and Canada, used fish or fish parts to add essential minerals and nutrients to the ground, in much the same way that modern farmers use natural and artifical fertilizors. I believe the main purpose of fish was Potasium, although I will need to check on that. I will also look for some specific references on this issue.IanCheesman (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
According to this, he got the idea from another group of Europeans. http://books.google.com/books?id=ARbVmr941TsC&pg=PA84&dq=squanto+fish&sig=xfqdLw-xTN2HIiyb8wqIEKc0RYI Hope that helps. Asarelah (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Name America

Hi, I once heard that the name America referring to the Americas was actually from the very first discoverer, Amerigo Vespucci. Should an article talking about the native inhabitants of that land refer to that land with it's native name instead? - Xushi, 20080328:0845 gmt

Oh, the native inhabitants had hundreds of different languages, and it would be impossible to list such. Best to stick with English, or whatever. Haha, oncamera(t) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be impossible to list, it'll just take some time to research ... maybe there should be a Wikipedia list of Native American name for the Americas. Rob (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've heard it called Turtle Island, if that helps, but I don't think that such a politically charged term should be in the article, especially since most readers wouldn't know what it meant. Besides, like Oncamera said, the natives had countless different languages. Asarelah (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main Image

I suggest rotating the main image from different American Indians nations and tribes. This could be a monthly or weekly matter. Rob (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amerikanska folk, Nordisk familjebok.jpg depicts individuals from many different nations and tribes (although some are not from the area that is now the United States). An image of any single individual won't be representative. I don't think rotating images exactly fixes the issue. Is there some problem with the group image? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The image is fine, but seems to exclude authenticity. I like the idea of rotating as it gives a broad perspective of how Native American really dressed-- most of the paintings I posted is from the source -- a painter looking at the subject. As opposed to a painting that comes from the imagination-- someone's idea of how a Indian should look like. Many tribes are ignore in the mainstream, especially the tribes who traditionally used turbans like the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Muscogee. Although the images has some tribes dressed in modern clothing, I would rather have "from the source" painting or photographs of various groups. The article Irish people does a good job at collating various images. Maybe we can do something like that. Rob (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a tribe/nation location map (circa 1400 - pre-European invasion), which would look sort of like Image:Langs N.Amer.png (this one is language distribution) and then an image gallery? There clearly shouldn't be two galleries, but the existing gallery of flags and seals should probably be moved off to its own article anyway. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as there are "source" images, I'm fine with it. I agree about the list of flags ... needs its own article. Rob (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Created the Gallery of Native American flags and seals Rob (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First sent of secn Initial impacts of Europeans

The sentence

The first Native American group encountered by Christopher Columbus were the Island Arawaks (more properly called[citation needed] the Taíno) of Boriquen (Puerto Rico), the (Quisqueya) of the Dominican Republic, and the Cubanacan (of Cuba).

(despite my fixing recent damage, and cleaning up a couple lks) is ambiguous due to ungrammatical syntax, and wrong in suggesting that Columbus encountered natives of the Dominican end of Quisqueya (Hispaniola) before those of the Haitian end. I may be worth seeing what an editor had in mind before small edits presumably chopped it up into partial nonsense.
--Jerzy•t 06:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GENOCIDE

Among national cleansing operations that have been proposed as genocide I think that the mass decline of the native Americans' population caused by the Europeans is the less debatable as a genocide due to the degree of the population decline, the extinction of ethnic groups from their former lands, cultural identities being lost to oblivion, the propaganda against them, the organized military operations against them (sometimes resulting to mass slaughtering of unarmed population) and the the present population being second-class citizens. I think this specific matter has not been mentioned to the extent that it should be and certainly not with the heavy yet accurate term of genocide. And that is NOT a POV nore MY opinion. It is how many native Americans and most people outside the American continent receive it.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to us to determine, but to provide scholarly sources who state one opinion or another in peer-reviewed works. Nonetheless, there are some issues to consider. It's my understanding that part of the definition of genocide depends upon the government's being found at fault for deliberately causing deaths or policies that result in deaths. Given that the overwhelming number of deaths of Native Americans were related to lack of immunity to infectious diseases, and in some areas the great majority of deaths preceded European settlement (as on the NW Coast), that would seem to exclude genocide. On the other hand, the federal policies of Indian removal and warfare against them would seem to satisfy current ideas about "ethnic cleansing". No doubt there are numerous historians who have written about this.--Parkwells (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Census of Native American mixture with other races

The number of admixture with other races seems extremely low. I really concerned if the census was only taken on people that live on the reservations or something. Because more recent studies are showing that the African American population is actually between 62-75% of Native American ancestry. Due to continuous intermarriage of African Americans and Native Americans and people who were bi-racial of African-Native American descent marrying people of the same descent or just African American. It doesn't seem accurate at all. Interracial relationships have occurred since slaves were brought to the United States.Mcelite (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No there is only one nationwide census and recent genetic studies have shown the supposed admixture of African Americans (with Native Americans) to be a myth.[6] Using the U.S.-exclusive definitions of Native American and African American. Considering Latin American populations, a much greater mixture rate was found. Rmhermen (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense for it to be a myth. There's numerous documentations especially with the Eastern and Southeastern tribes taking in escaped slaves, and even freeing slaves. How's that a myth?? I believe a lot of this is due to the one-drop rule which contributed heavily to people of African-American descent being denied their tribal rights by the government (not the tribe they are descended of). I've read a lot about the old censuses that were taken and they were very biased and racist because if you had features they (believed) were not Native American hence looked more African than Native you could not be included with the population. It just seems incredibly low with the apparent admixture. Also one study was criticized heavily because they did all their genetic testing in Mississippi which is the state with the least admixture of African Americans and Native Americans (hence it wouldn't be a surprise finding people with only 10% Native heritage or none at all).Mcelite (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the study summaries at the link, they were looking at specific populations; they did not make generalities about African-American ancestry of Native Americans in general. I think studies are only beginning to accumulate evidence of admixture. In some of the eastern states surviving Native Americans moved away from Europeans, so not many intermarried with African Americans. (See Paul Heinegg, www.freeafricanamericans.com) --Parkwells (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Contemporary census reports depend now on how people identify themselves, so it is up to them to claim more than one ancestry. It's a very complex topic. There is some work being done on Melungeon DNA ancestry (See Melungeon DNA Project). This is a tri-racial isolate group of which some members claimed Indian or Native American ancestry in the 19th century, in part to get free of the racial bifurcation. Testing so far affirms work by historians and genealogists that found the great majority of free people of color in NC 1790-1810 were descended from African Americans free in VA before the Revolution. DNA tests of individuals from this specific group have found mostly European and African ancestry, with very small percentage of Native American. Any ideas about "what seems right" need contemporary sources from reliable third-party, peer-reviewed journals or books.--Parkwells (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I was reading an article on how people who would be considered African Americans would openly talk of having other heritage as well. However, when given a piece of paper to select their ethnicity put African American even if they only had 1 ancestor they selected alot of them selected African American givin a false representation as too who they really are. It's hard finding documentation on people's full heritage. For instance, most African Americans considered Senator Obama black despite the fact that his mother is white. The one-drop rule is still a heavy influence on the American society. It seems to be the main cause for people of African-Native American descent to have a lack of pride in their native heritage over their African heritage. I agree alot of better citations need to be found.Mcelite (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the pressure for identification with one rather than mixed ancestry has gone both ways. During and since the Civil Rights Movement, Black Power and Black Is Beautiful, there has been pressure from within the African-American community for all people who are any part African to identify as black. An interesting contemporary memoir about this and his own struggles is David Matthews' "Ace of Spades", out in paperback. Some of those strictures seem to be relaxing for younger people in some areas, but it is really confusing.--Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. It is very confusing with all the issues that pressure people of African American descent to only say they are black. It's sad but in a way movements like Black Power and Black Is Beautiful were actually harmful to those who had more than African heritage. In away made it seem shameful to be of more than one descent.Mcelite (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations need improvement

While substantial works are noted in the References, many citations are from journalism, tribal websites, dated scholarship, and other less reliable sources, according to Wikipedia standards. Editors making additions should find sources that satisfy Wikipedia standards. --Parkwells (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related ethnic groups

The edit warring over what is listed in the infobox as related ethnic groups needs to stop. I'll note that Central American Indians is a redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Indigenous peoples in South America is basically a disambig page (which refers to indigenous peoples also covered in Indigenous peoples of the Americas). Alaskan Natives are covered in this article. There's almost certainly some relationship to Indigenous peoples of Siberia, but this seems a little iffy to me. I suspect the main point of contention is whether Black Indians should be included. I'm no expert in this area, but it looks to me like there's some question about whether Black Indians should be considered a separate ethnic group. I'll ask the folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups to comment. In the meantime, I strongly suggest discussing this here rather than edit warring. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. Black Indians, African-Native Americans, or Afro-Native Americans and what other names people may come up with are the direct descents of Native Americans. How are they not a related ethnic group? They wouldn't be here if most, some, or a few of their ancestors weren't Native Americans. It known by most people that read more than the little history books that don't tell u everything that the mixture between Native Americans and African Americans was common between the two groups more commonly than any other ethnic group. That's my arguement. It seems biasedd to exclude them when that is a part of who they are.Mcelite (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite

  • First off, Black Indians are descendants of Native Americans there was never a tribe of them, they are not Native Americans. Secondly the category os Related Ethnic GROUPS. Which I take to mean GROUPS that were related to native americans at that time. So it should be as it was with the different types.Swampfire (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The question is: what is this field for? From discussion at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group it appears the original intent was to list linguistically related ethnic groups. It also appears conflicts like the one occurring here spring up repeatedly. Rather than keep going back and forth, how about if Mcelite finds a reference for the claim that "Black Indians" are both an ethnicity and ethnically related to Native Americans, and Swampfire finds similar sources for Central American and South American Indians? Until then, can we keep it at Indigenous peoples of the Americas? There's no hurry. It's certainly not the case that "he who edits last wins". Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I'll try to find something that mentions the ethnicity. It's going to be hard due to lack of research and so much self-published work on it. Furthermore, the list was meant to mention people who are of full and partial heritage. I never tried to imply that Black indians were a tribe these are the people that are the descendents of Native Americans that do or do not have relations with the tribe they are descended of. There are alot of reasons why so many of them are not affiliated with the tribe they are descended from. Some even being more Native than African see one-drop rule. I apologize if seemed that I was trying to make it look like they were a tribe of their own.Mcelite (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite

    • I think the current link to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas is a useful solution - any related group will be covered in that article and it gives more depth than a string of links. I have concerns about some of the articles that were being linked to before, certainly Black Indians in the first instance. I have raised my concerns at that article's talk page. However, improving those articles is not entirely related to the issue of what goes in the info box - the present solution takes the reader to where they need to be. The other groups, eg descendant groups can be referred to in the See also sub-section if necessary. --Matilda talk 01:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)