Talk:Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas

• This talk page was refactored on 26 March 2005, to make the page more useful for editors working on the article. The previous version of the talk page is available above at "history".

"Nearly all"

"Nearly all scholars now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the overwhelming cause of the massive population decline of the American natives..." - wouldn't we need more than one source to really have a basis for this claim on "nearly all" sources?

On another matter, it is rather odd that the topic of exploitation has been unlinked from that of disease. Obviously, ill-nourishment and forced labour lower people's defenses. It is not that easy to die literally of starvation with plenty of new diseases around; one of them will catch you first. Feketekave (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can ANYONE provide evidence that the Western (History revised view) is the prevalent view? Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.146.164 (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous! How is the Native American Holocaust/Genocide even debatable!?!?

Are Ahmadinejad and USA Citizens that deny the Native American Holocaust feathers on the same bird?

While early relations with the pilgrims were peaceful for the first year or so, they began deteriorating as early as 1622. The Wampanog maintained an uneasy peace with the pilgrims, watching as they encroached and invaded neighboring tribes, with the first full scale war between settlers and indians occurring in 1637. While the first thanksgiving was a peaceful affair (largely because of Massasoit's deciding it would be wrong to let the failing pilgrims starve to death), the plymouth rock settlers celebrated over 20 of them with Metacomet's head proudly displayed rotting on a pike.

In the greater picture, while disease was indeed a huge cause of much of the death (and it's widely disputed how much was known biological warfare, we do know for a fact that some of it was), the official policy from the time of the pilgrims, and accelerated once the U.S. was a country under Washington, Jefferson, and especially Jackson was forced removal, systematic destruction, and cultural destruction/assimilation. The government participated in biological warfare, death marches, and concentration camps on a massive scale. Entire tribes were completely wiped out and have no living members while others were forced to live stagnant lifestyles on reservations and were prohibited from leaving. Children were forced into boarding schools where they experienced mental, sexual, and physical abuse on a scale that is only now being fully uncovered and understood. Everywhere you go in this country there are thousands of unmarked graves because of your government's actions. This, by the definition not only widely accepted by most of the world but the formal U.N. resolution, is genocide, and should be treated with the same distaste and condemnation as the holocaust.

Forced removal and cultural assimilation are well documented. But how was 'systematic destruction' perpetrated? What sources describe the 'concentration camps' and 'biological warfare', along with their 'massive scale'? If true, this material belongs in the article. But it must be carefully documented.

In Central and South America, at least, there was a systematic destruction of working state and commerce structures. Entire cities were razed and new cities built on their ruins; see, e.g., Cuzco and especially Mexico City. As for "concentration camps", this presumably refers to some reducciones under the encomienda system; labour was extracted from a captive, ill-nourished and diseased population, with the expected consequences. Feketekave (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The 19th century saw little sympathy for Native Americans, and even in the 20th century 100,000 Indigenous were killed.

Martin Van Buren continued Jackson's policies and escalated a war against the Seminoles. It was also during his presidency that Federal troops forced 15,000 Cherokees into detention camps.

William Henry Harrison died after 20 days, but spent much of his political and military career advocating indian removal, taking territory by killing them or swindling them.

Now how the hell are people still trying to make excuses for the murderous imperialists? World Views (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To think that Native Americans could have avoided it all --if they had invented visas prior to the arrival of the invaders (excuse me, the "pilgrims" --sounds a lot nicer). --SciCorrector (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur that it is ridiculous to claim that from point on onwards that the intent was not genocidal. Referring too: "Some historians argue that genocide, a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization while in America." Consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requerimiento This is an abhorrent document pretty much declaring genocidal intent from the get go, the eradication of their religious culture via the most extreme and violent means available to them. I believe it should at least be referrenced in argument against the quoted claim. Quite frankly, I find it hard and shocking to believe that this wasn't satire.. I've yet to here a speech Ahmadinejad has produced that is as openly nasty and vulgar as the requerimiento. While I understand that this is a difficult political subject, I find wiki's excessive neutrality that appears to extend at least some distance beyond fact to be disappointing. Debate about numbers and causes of numbers of deaths is fair enough but the overall the deliberate intent is very hard to deny and I am disappointed that some paragraphs make it sound as appart from a few one of atrocities of the era that it was mostly an accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.35.228 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

While difficult to verify, I must also point out that it's likely many atrocities were covered up in later times. This wouldn't surprise me as it seems to be common in Christian history. Typically it seems quite often a christian scholar, well trained in literacy will come across something disagreeable and destroy or alter it.. A personal example of this I have come across in lightly studying the ancient civilisations of the americas and the pacific islands. Many a time I reach a dead end in my reading with the terminal tale of chritian missionaries or crusaders arriving, translating the local texts and destroying it all when it did not agree with their book or thinking. This is not a one of event but somewhat common. If someone has more time than me please look these incidents up and include them. I believe one occured in easter island and various others can be found if you look into ancient writing of the americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.35.228 (talk)

Wikipidia Loves Lies

this wikipedia entry is embarrassing. it is biased. it is sick. but nevermind trying to correct anything lest the edit nazi's just undo it. wikipedia sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.221.207 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can correct anything you want so long as you follow the rules. Namely, anything you add has to have a verifiable reference/citation. And, you cannot delete anything that does have a verifiable reference/citation without explaining it either in the edit summary or on the article’s talk page. Finally, if your edits get reverted, first check the edit history to find out why. If that doesn’t answer your question, then contact the editor who reverted you, and civilly ask him/her why. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Spike, but this is a bit beyond civility. I doubt very much you'd insist on civility if the same kind of denials/obstructionism was perpetrated on the wiki article on the Jewish genocide. Like the vast majority of North American's you are likely a closet racist when it comes to the indigenous people of this continent, more than willing to deploy any kind of argument to support the view that there was no genocide of Native Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.255.108.246 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing Spike said was objectionable. Saying he's probably a "closet racist", however, probably breaches our no personal attacks policy. Please read it, if you haven't already, and consider revising your comment. -- Avenue (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the entire article and anyone who blanketly supports it is objectionable. You want to quote policy, but you ignore the fact that this is a sick/biased article. And I'm one of many who feel this way, who've tried to make edits - with references and have simply given up because our changes are quickly re-edited to represent a gross bias. I'll go on to argue that the administrators/editors who allow this article to continue to exist with its current anti-Indian bias intact are also racists. Take the time to compare it to the article on the Jewish genocide to get a measure of how fucked up this article is. To date I've seen two lectures using this article as an example of why wiki is unreliable and likley controlled, in part, by eurocentric racists.

Wikipedia does lie, i agree with the above

Dear readers,

one thing is quite noticable: Whenever it comes to issue of genocide, the genocide of the Jews seems the biggest issue in mankind's history.

However, everyone with a basic knowledge of history knows better. Knowing that the Americans and British, the self-proclaimed "forces of good", commited one of the worst Genocides in mankind's historyt, i tried to have a look what information Wikipedia provides.

And frankly, i am shocked. Who created this Article, please? IT IS BIASED it is unscientific, and it is belittling and even LYING. Because in this unscientific article, not even the TITLE is correct. It is a GENOCIDE, and one of the most notorious at that. Why is the Word "Genocide" not in the Title? The very first thing in decribing a genocide, has to name it like that - not trying to cover it up.

And secondly: The content is a disgrace. Whoever wrote or censored this pathetic and UNTRUE Article, they always follow the same political biased line: Everything that tells the truth about Genocide, namely, that the SHOA was not the only one (and certainly not the only cruel and horrendous one), is deleted by some "invisble" hand from the USA.

Could it be that a powerful Lobby in the White House does not like people to publish the truth in Encyclopedias? So it seems.

As for the content, the reader, after having started with a wrong title which embezzles the term GENOCIDE, reads an endless sermon of how the poor Indians all died by some kind of accidental events: diseases and other "natural" desasters. If we believe Wikipedia, it almost seems as if the "innocent" American and British leaders, worldwide known for their benevolence (ask Iraq, Vietnam or Dresden), seem to have nothing to do with this genocide.

I ask the responsible people for this article to alter. Also i ask the Wikipedia people in charge, to keep bias from this article. I am not going to delete anything, but i will check again in a few days.

I am sorry to tell you that i am more and more disappointed by Wikipedia, because this site is not a reliable and renowned Encylopedia but a construct of selective information of Hollywood-Historians who write a selective and fraudulent "Winner's history": lying by omission. This gives Wikipedia a bad name, and everybody knows that i am not the only one to say this.

I again repeat my suggestion:

The title has to run NATIVE AMERICAN GENOCIDE or NATIVE AMERICAN HOLOCAUST, a term used by the descendants of the survivors themselves.

The recent title is an insult to the survivors and a mockery to those who perished - it thus has to be changed speedily. When describing a Genocide, the word GENOCIDE has to appear in the title, especially if we deal with one of the world's biggest and most gruesome genocides. I accuse anyone who tries to prevent an appropriate title of this work to abuse Wikipedia for political and ideological objectives.

Also, the content has to be cleaned-up. There is too much talk about diseases, however the majority of Native Americans were not wiped out by "coincidende", but because the British Empire pursued a racist policy of Ethnic Cleansing,on their belives of "racial superiority", indicating the Natives were subhumans or less than animals. Sounds familiar? No, it was not Hitler who perpetrated the first Holocaust. It happened long time before that, on American soil.

--PeterBln (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can back your claims (citing verfiable references) that 1) the British Empire had a policy of ethnic cleansing and 2) that more Native Americans were murdered than died of disease, by all means add them.Cromulant (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Without proper sources, your claims are not acceptable for inclusion in the article. If you can find respectable, scholarly evidence to back up your (ridiculous, in my opinion) allegations, then feel free to add them to the article proper. But a word of caution-- if you use the language that you used for this talk post in your edit of the page, it will most probably constitute an NPOV violation. So keep it legitimate, keep it objective. ~~Lothar_von_Richthofen (talk) 3:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proper sources? The sources have been covered up for centuries. Thats the best thing about this thing, you get the whole Amademajad approach with this argument. "It didn't happen where's the proof?" The proof was covered up, the deaths of the Indians were and still are covered up. And ridiculous claim? Can you provide any evidence or reasons of why you think that is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.146.164 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you do not have any sources, please do not continue with any further arguments. An argument without facts/sources is by all means just your opinion. To be truthful for you to say "its been covered up for centuries" makes it sound more like a conspiracy. If you so happen to find proof or facts, please cite them. Another thing, if everything is covered up, how do you know of it? Does it not make sense that if you know of it, everyone else can too? Please cite sources or stop arguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjwho2 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your ignorance is shocking..

1. Russell Thornton. American Indian Holocaust and Survival : A Population History Since 1492. (Civilization of the American Indian, Vol 186). University of Oklahoma, 1990.
2. David Stannard. American Holocaust : The Conquest of the New World. Oxford University Press, 1993.
3. Hans Koning . The Conquest of America: How The Indian Nations Lost Their Continent. Monthly Review Press, New York, 1993.
4. Jan R. Carew. Rape of Paradise : Columbus and the Birth of Racism in the Americas. Brooklyn, N.Y. : A&B Books, 1994.
5. Ward Churchill. A Little Matter of Genocide. Holocaust and the Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present. San Francisco: City Lights, 1997.
6. Mike Davis. Late Victorian Holocausts : El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World. London: Verso, 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.152.162 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be rude, see WP:AGF. It looks to me as though certainly Thornton and Stannard meet all our criteria, as does Churchill and Davis (who writes specifically about Brazil). I'm not sure about Koning & Carew but it doesn't matter as we can use the other sources. And in fact we do have Stannard in the bibliography ELs but not used as a source, and Thornton is used as a source. So how should we be using Stannard and Thornton in ways we aren't, or didn't you see that we are using them? If you are just arguing with another editor on this talk page, that's not appopriate as the page is only meant to be used to discuss the article. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Title has to be changed into NATIVE AMERICAN GENOCIDE, anything else is lying by omission

PS: I just read some more entries. This confirms me in my view that some people apparantly try to deliberately hide and delete historic facts - IMPORTANT historic facts at that. This is not acceptable. It seems to me that i am not the only one wo sharply critizes certain circles in the Wikipedia-Administration for deliberate lies by ommission, deliberate lies by denial and deliberate lies by highly inappropriate Euphemism.

It is quite obvious for the public to see that this whole biased encyclopedia is controlled by a group of influential people who pursue no scientific work, but political ideas. Their main goal as for Genocides seems to be, trynig to prevent any competition for a certain other one that is hyped by media every day.

THE TITLE MUST BE CHANGED. THIS IS ONE OF THE WORST GENOCIDES IN HUMAN HISTORY.

Everybody who tries to hide the fact that we are dealing with one of the worst GENOCIDES in human history, by hiding it even in the title, should be barred from scientific work. Lying about history, lying by omission is not acceptable for an encyclopedia.

--PeterBln (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The debate exists. To justify a title change, you'd need to demonstrate that your view is the prevailing one.Cromulant (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you prove the American revisionist view is the "prevailing one." The world knows different... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.146.164 (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

History as written by a majority viewpoint? No matter how wrongheaded or biased. In Iran, and most of the Islamic world in fact, the Jewish Genocide is debated and the prevailing viewpoint among that population is there was no genocide, just a series of removals with unforseen circumstances. Should wiki hold with that view, or the minority western view that in Europe in the mid 20th century there was a genocidal campaign to eliminate the Jewish people? The double standard here is amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.16.11 ([[User talk:128.123.16.11|talk]]) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not calling this the Native American genocide it was is simply "history" written by the victor, and people of white European descendant in the US today simply don't want the pang on their conscience of what their invading ancestors did so they stop the use of the term Native American genocide in public and try to downplay: "oh it was from disease" or even "oh those were stone age people that got what they deserved", etc. This seems much like what some people say about Nazi Germany during WWII, that most people in the concentration camp died not of direct Nazi actions but rather from malnutrition, exhaustion from overwork, diseases like typhus and cholera, etc. It is just that the Nazis did not win WWII and thus they are not writing the history rather the victor, in this case the Allies (US, British, Russians, etc.) get to write the history. Many people have even noted that in earlier times the Soviet Russian's were able to downplay things they did and put them on the Nazis instead! But after the Cold War period American writers need ammo to attack the Soviets so they "rediscovered" different Soviet actions they then called atrocities! It is all history written by the victor to ease their minds, etc. Historylover4 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please go read WP:NOT#FORUM. Thank you. Heiro 06:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this the most politically correct article title on wikipedia's entire site?

"population history"? I propose there should be a separate article for the genocide. Wikipediarules2221 12:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Support ,,I do think its better to separate the 2 subjects in this one article into 2 articles ..just as Wikipediarules2221 is suggesting..To rename it would not help..but 2 articles that link to each other would be best..Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read down the article, one of the sections has a main/see template to another article on exactly that topic. But the notion from Wikipediarules2221 that "population history" and "genocide" are synonymous is not correct at all; population history would include the rebound in this century, for example, and also the genocides of various indigenous peoples by other indigenous peoples...as well as the various mgiration histories etc..Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That link is actually to the relevant section of our Genocides in history article, not to a separate article. Perhaps ironically, that section has a main template linking back to this article. I have no objection to a separate article on Genocides in the Americas. --Avenue (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I guess you could make an article named "Indigenous American Genocide Controversy". Inter-link with this article.plarq 17 May 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 06:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

Important source re Pacific Northwest

I may have mentioned this book before, but an online edition is available at googlebooks The Resettlement of British Columbia, Cole Harris, who is a UBC historical geography professor; contains detailed analyses of population history/data for Pacific Northwest/Northwest Plateau indigenous peoples, and is not limited only to British Columbia. Read away, there's lots in there could be added here....Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are massacres limited to United States territory?

The article can be surely improved by expanding on massacres happening outside of the US. Spaniards organised at least one significant massacre per each conquered area to intimidate the natives. Xaragua and Saona on Haiti, Caonao on Cuba, Cholula in Mexico, Cajamarca in Peru, and the list can surely be continued. Massacre on Saona island (700 dead) depopulated the island. At least for this part of the world massacres had significant impact indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.179.160 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is however a small difference between the massacres perpetrated by the Spaniards, and those performed by the european pilgrims. Check the percentage of Native american population present nowadays in the former spanish colonies, and that in the USA. Former spanish colonies have a variable but always significant proportion of descendants of the original population, pure native or mestizo (spanish/native blood), while in the USA the native population is insignificant. There were in 2008 308,745,538 inhabitants in the US, of which 3,100,100 were native (including Alaska). That equals 1%. Numbers don't lie. If virus and unknown diseases had killed most natives, how can we explain that the black plague in 14th century Europe did not reduce the european population to 1% in our days? There is one reason: there was not an invader with superior weapons pushing the border to the West. The massacre was not limited to the US territory. It had just giant proportions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.79.40 (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question. Try this for an answer.

Basically, the English settlers were the only serious colonists in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Spanish were "grandees" who wanted to establish large plantations. They were not small farmers. The French were essentially unenthusiastic about colonization and it eventually cost them Canada and their other possessions. Just not enough people at all.

The density of English put the native population "at risk" because they were contending for the same land and (can't separate here) because of the natives heavy exposure to the colonists diseases. As we know, these diseases didn't have to be "serious" like bubonic plague. They could "merely" be measles or mumps or even cold viruses. Granted that these diseases should have run rampant before the colonists landed in the early 17th century. The natives should have caught these diseases from the trappers of the 16th century. This kind of holds up. Only the French and English territories had heavy trapping. Spanish territories had freebooters but not that many of them.

I suspect the natives remaining had fully integrated except the Cherokees and Seminoles in the Eastern US by the 20th century. I realize there are folks who pretend to be natives in the East to be eligible for gambling revenues, but that is another story. I had native American ancestors as do many people from the Northeast and Quebec. I look European.

The Spanish particularly maintained a barrier, in their rather strict caste system. This may have helped isolate the natives from disease. Granted, natives were vital for doing the work. They were "in the way" in colonial New England.

The killing was not one way. One of my ancestral families was massacred during King Philip's War. As a result, that family name is fairly rare today. Only one male ancestor remained. 10% of the New England colonists were killed during the war. It was a touch and go thing and the colonists barely made it. Needless to say, they were "unenthusiastic" about the presence of natives for a long time thereafter. Student7 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not quite correct - particularly there were not really any strong barriers on interaction in the the caste system - it was designed in a way that actually promoted intermarriage. Spanish colonizers had a different approach to colonism which promoted intermarriage to a much higher degree, and which relied on the colonial exploitation of indigenous labor (a reason not to massacre them), whereas English colonialism didn't rely on indian but on African slave labor - probably because of the generally much lower populations in the areas colonized by the British. The Spaniards also did frequently commit massacres, mostly in order to crsh the frequent indigenous rebellions, and during the first 100 years of colonization to submit new territories to colonial rule. The most probable reason is that population density before contact was many times higher in most of Central and South America than in North America, and the fact that Spanish colonists never aimed directly at removal/extinction of indigenous populations but always at assimilation and accomodation. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Many years ago, in the '90s sometime, I was visiting Teotihuacan and there was a history of Mexico I wish now I'd bought, haven't seen it again; I browsed it for a while.....in the passage on Spanish-era depopulation it was explained that the primary cause of population collapse in the Valle de Mexico was the Spaniard's banning of human sacrifice, which caused a population boom leading to famine resulting from an inadequate food supply. North of the US, the slaughter of the Beothuk of Newfoundland was not just one event, it happened over time - and involved Mi'kmaq, whose descendants now live on the Island, brought in by the British colonists to aid in the manhunt/bounty-killings.....there were no particular massacres in British Columbia, I know for certain, other than intertribal slaughters such as that of the Qualicum by the Haida (see Adam Horne) or the massacre of the Owikeno (Wuikinuxv) or Rivers Inlet people by, I think, the Bella Bella Haisla, due to a mass poisoning of their leadership at at a "peace feast" hosted by the Owikeno a few years before....the list is long, actually, the Chilcotin massacres of the Lillooet and Carrier, the Shuswap-led and over-time massacre of the Stuwix (Nicola Athapaskans), the Ktunaxa massacres of the Sinixt and so on....and of course in Ontario the wiping out of the Huron population there by the Iroquois....it seems all too often forgotten that massacres were not something done only by white people....Skookum1 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer Maunus. Again, good points made.

The English came with families. They had no great need for wives, as did the trappers and French. And maybe Spanish. Women were unenthusiastic colonists except from England. I have no Indian ancestors in my English line which is extensive in the colonies. All French, which is fairly typical BTW. Can't speak for the Spanish, but the situation sounds similar.

I think we've got the picture, but it is not one smooth picture. Killed by disease or "in the way" of the heavily immigrating English. Tolerated, sometimes even appreciated, by the French and Spanish who were reluctant immigrants. But their land vanished there as well and the populations could not really avoid disease.

The English came to import their own way of life to America, and enthusiastically, in great number.

The French came to import their way of life, but with little enthusiasm. Impoverisheed Frenchwomen had to be given a substantial "bribe" to immigrate to be potential brides for men on whom they had never set eyes!

The Spanish, particularly, came to extract wealth to send back home.

All results proportionate to the "seriousness" of the colonization. Student7 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about attrition warfare and the Natives' utilization to the New World

This was no Genocide. In South America to the North the atrocities commited by both sides are equal. To the Mapuches raiding and killing countless Spanish civilians: to the Spanish exacting Guarionex and Enriquillo (the [1] Tainos) to expel and revolt themselves from the enconmienderos: to the Xiu, Champoton, and Campeche lords of the Yucatan eating the hearts of the Cocom and Chitchen Itza: to the Chichimeca and Zacoteca raiders destroying at will—the Tlaxcalla and Tarascans: to the Dakota uprising in 1862: to the Sand Creek Massacre: to the 30,000 Incan renegades under Pizarro's leadership burning Manco Inca's generals alive: to Cortes's Tlaxcallan auxiliaries purging their forces (both Indian and Spanish) to massacre the Aztecs at every turn: to the Seminoles holding out in the everglades eluding and defeating countles armies and army detachments: to the Cherokee, bravely holding out against superior numbers without and, later, with allies: to the failed confederacies; to the successful ones: to the Iroquois, taunting their Huron captors—as the red-hot coals and embers entered their bowels—and still, fighting the French to a standstill whilst keeping Britain as a captive ally—and low-yielding traders: to the Cree, fighting Otter's men from 50 men out—preventing a massacre: to the 30 Menominee and 25 Canadians who held off 1,000 Americans at Michilimackinac: to the Modocs fighting for more than a year with nothing but cattle and odds against them: to the War of 1812 when my ancestors fought the long-knives. No. My braves fought like dogs and lions for us. InternetHero (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

removed reference to "cellular differentiation"

I removed "cellular differentiation" from the section about Amerindian genetic similarity. I'm pretty sure their cells are differentiated the same as all other human cells... unless they're sponges instead of humans. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been noted that some Indians don't grow facial hair. Weather this is diet or genetics, I don't know. I've seen arguments on both but didn't pursue the debate. Eskimos as well.

Mofuggin bob (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Pure Native Americans are descended from Mongolian ancestors who are, famously, not particularly hairy. Student7 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is full of lies and why it's not accepted in University...

First of all, Human cells are Animal Cells. The cell of a Native American is the same as the cell of a Native African. The lack of hair growth is due to genetics, it is a gene just like the blonde hair trait found in many Native Swedes.--UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are generally not accepted as sources in Universities, not just Wikipedia. Universities do set projects for their students using Wikipedia, however. Dougweller (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Entry not recent

"The overall pattern that is emerging suggests that the Americas were recently colonized by a small number of individuals (effective size of about 70), and then grew by a factor of 10 rapidly.[17][18] The data also show that there have been genetic exchanges between Asia, the Arctic and Greenland since the initial peopling of the Americas.[18]" (bolding added) -> This is simply wrong. The reference cited actually talks about 14,000 BP. Yes, it uses the word recent, but the article is talking about genetic time. Clearly, in a general article like this, "recently" is not likely to bring to the mind of the postulated typical reader that kind of time frame. Maybe a date would help - our some=thing like " in the last twenty thousand years or so." 76.126.109.131 (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Inexplicable (and major) changes in article

This set of edits is confusing.

1. Population decline - there may be non-European factors, but the article should state them if it's going to say they existed.

2. If you click on 'warfare' you get an Easter egg, you go to our article on the Second Seminole War. As our guidelines say, " Per the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link", and I don't think they'd expect that.

3. 'Successful' has been changed with no explanation to 'unsuccessful' in the sentence " Europeans proved consistently unsuccessful in achieving domination in warfare" and if you click on the word 'unsuccessful' you go to Esopus Wars, 2 localised 17th century conflicts won by the Dutch.

4. The reason given for the unsuccessfulness of the Europeans is funnily enough a reason given for the success of the Europeans, 'staying power' (some text dealing with European success was deleted also).

5. The statement that one reason for the European success was that "The European approach to war, which was less ritualistic and more focused on achieving decisive victory," was changed to "The European approach to war, which was less ritualistic and more focused on achieving decisive victory, was made equally ineffective by the lack of knowledge of the surrounding terrain. Note that clicking on 'terrain' takes you to labyrinth.

The Easter eggs need an explanation, but so does the major change to the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I missed something, the link added to 'decisive victory' takes us to our article on the military marching step. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

At first glans all looks ok...but you look into in deeper and you see a change in the statements as pointed out above with 'unsuccessful'. Then we have links to unrelated articles. I would say the edits were done with a misunderstanding of wiki policies. Lack of sources etc...i belive the reversal was done in a proper manner .Moxy (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe we are dealing with a garden variety sub-bridge dweller, User:InternetHero. His edits should probably be reverted on sight and his acct given a couple of day vacation so he can ponder on whether he wants to be a productive editor or take a long term editing vacation from this site. Heiro 17:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking back over this editors contributions and on many occasions I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out exactly what it is they're even talking about. I'm also seeing lots of examples of them dropping their own unreferenced analysis here and there; sometimes only changing a word or two, but in some instances completely reversing the meaning of the original content thereby without benefit of explanation. These are activities that this editor has been taken to task for in the past and they simply appear to be ignoring advice. In my opinion; I believe that the project needs (even short term) protection from Internethero's present editing practices. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been checking some of their contribs as well, and concur. At present, they are a hazard to the integrity of the articles and need to immediately stop, failing that, they need a block. Heiro 17:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed in their most recent additions to the Indian auxiliaries article, that this editor is now posting purported statistical information alongside references they provide (including page numbers) which do not support the numbers they're claiming. Deliberately adding false information? Hmmmmm.... Deconstructhis (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article has some sections in it that do not adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality: Genocide debate, Deliberate infection?, the introduction - to name a few. The constant pointing to the Spanish whilst not discussing the events in the northern hemisphere raise questions on neutrality; the insistance that this is a manufactured "debate" by certain historians (Stannard is specifically targeted) is pushing a pov & not well backed up. Also the criticism of "revisionist historians' POV" using things like the 1637 Pequot Massacare to mislead the public (see Genocide debate) is pushing a certain pov; the Population overview mentions nothing on the estimated 10-13 million north of the Rio Grande in 1491 (again, the focus is only on the Spanish territories); the Massacares doesn't touch on the numerous ones in the northern hemisphere before or after 1776 in any serious way (CA only? What about the Jackson & Harrison actions?); the part on Formal apologising seems to be without purpose; the use of "domocide" as opposed to Genocide is highly questionable & steering. I ask editors to propose ways to address these problems. Let me add, I've read some of the earlier complaints above, and I do not agree with how people approached it with lots of rhetoric; please let's keep it civil & focus on scholarship. Ebanony (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Update on my earlier post. In Genocide Debate there is a notable attempt to frame a "debate" in ways not reflected by the sources or reality. Some scholars deny Genocide in the Americas, but not all, and the blatant attack on scholars like Stannard & others with similar POV's is evident. His data, claims & demographic information is misconstrued to present him & those like him as fringe writers working on conspiracy theories. I propose deleting the section; it never should have been added.Ebanony (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the paragraph as it was when first contributed, and how it has changed over time. This section was 1) never accurate or 2) neutral. To be clear, The "debate" on Genocide today, consists of the word "intent", and in a narrow sense because it's terminology important to lawyers. That there was a genocide is not something Stannard came up with; this dates back to Lempkin, who discussed this in his work (not published). The characterisation of scholars "copying" his claims "without demographic studies" is false; the reference to Poole is "undue weight", and the dismissal of scholars with such select quotes is outreagous. Rather than being neutral, it argued against Stannard & people like him, not the purpose of Wpedia. There was no way to fix the section. At any rate, the numbers of peole killed & the definition of genocide will be covered in the proposed section Tobby72 & I discussed below; other editors should refer to section #15 presenting minority pov's. Ebanony (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations Needed & Notice Added

The article has numerous statements & sections that lack citations and references. I'm asking editors to make an effort to properly source the claims in this article. Information, as per Wikipedia's policy, must be cited to outside sources. Ebanony (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

presenting minority pov's

Tobby72, I've reverted your edit on this page because you 1) have decided to erase previous & respected information by scholars & did so without so much as a discussion; 2) you insist on using & relying on the opinion (not of anthropologists who've conducted the demographic studies, but based on 1 historian's opinion the majority do not agree with); 3) these figures you put of 2 million inhabitants north of the Rio Grande & estimates of 2-7 millions is in direct conflict not only with the consensus, but the major demographic studies, and the historian you cited - what semographic studies did conduct?

You should make an effort to discuss other editors' concerns, and use sources that represent consensus & more accepted academic opinion. I'm warning you for the 2nd time on Wikipedia's policy of pushing of minority pov's, which it appears you may be doing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#POV_pushing & the policy on NPOV disputes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute I'm not accusing you of this, but you outright refuse to even work with other editors to reword sections in question & now have done it in 2 articles on the same topic.

You likewise deleted and used the same text on the article American Indian Wars & this one here. Both have disputes for neutrality. So far, you've not responded in any meanginful way to the numerous problems I asked you to. If you continue to make edits like this, I'm going to ask administration to look into the matter.

Clearly you have a problem with the estimates given by respected scholars like Kroeber (whose study specifically focusing on population is well regarded) and Dobyns, Henry, Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America (he's a respected anthropologist & his work is peer reviewed). You can't just take a statement like you from a historian & claim those studies don't count. They do count & in universities receive lots of attention (1939 & 1966 studies). And Thornton, Russell, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492, which I cited earlier, likewise evaluates these things and is a respected source. Ebanony (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"I've reverted your edit on this page because you 1) have decided to erase previous & respected information by scholars & did so without so much as a discussion".

I didn't erase anything on this page. On the contrary, you have repeatedly erased sourced information & reliable sources just because they are against your POV.

"2) you insist on using & relying on the opinion (not of anthropologists who've conducted the demographic studies, but based on 1 historian's opinion the majority do not agree with);.

"the majority do not agree with" ... It's just your POV. Your thoughts are completely irrelevant. I have added sourced content per WP:RS policy, while you have systematically vandalized my work.

"3) these figures you put of 2 million inhabitants north of the Rio Grande & estimates of 2-7 million , but the major demographic studies. The historian you cited -what demographic studies did she conduct? She expressed her opinon.

What demographic studies did you conduct? You expressed your opinion.

Shoemaker, Nancy (2000). American Indian Population Recovery in the Twentieth Century. University of New Mexico Press. p. 3. ISBN 0826322891. 

Whereas Mooney had estimated 1.15 million Indians north of the Rio Grande at the time of contact, Kroeber substituted lower figures for California and speculated that with further research Mooney's estimate would "ultimately shrink to around 900,000." Most estimators consider Kroeber's low estimate too low and Dobyns' high estimates, whether 12 million or 18 million, much too high. The majority of estimates fall in the range of 2 to 7 million. For the contiguous United States, the estimates fall more within the range of about one to 5.5 million.

Tobby72 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

1) Yes, you did delete information on the American Indian Wars page & the Population of the Indigenous People's page. Was it not Tobby72 who on Oct 26 made this edit & deleted & changed this text? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Indian_Wars&diff=392960741&oldid=392907781

And this edit on October 24th? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Indian_Wars&diff=392776603&oldid=392605547

And on October 23rd? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Indian_Wars&diff=392306392&oldid=391839779

Not only did you delete information (sourced correct), but you further did so on the Population of Indigenous People's page. On October 26 you deleted an entire paragraph that was sourced, and the record shows it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&diff=393083216&oldid=393080466

Is there any other Tobby72? How can you claim that you didn't erase things? "I didn't erase anything"?

On the same point 1) you then say in reference to me "On the contrary, you have repeatedly deleted sourced material & reliable sources just because they are against your POV." False. I have not "repeatedly deleted mmaterial" on the Indigenous People page. In fact, I made 3 edits, and only one was to delete information: your edit I cited above on Oct 26th & I explained why I reverted it in the talk page. Here's the evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&action=history

Again, your next claim is false, for as to accusing me of using opinions that don't go "against my pov", you've presented 0 evidence to substantiate this claim. The edits I made to the other article, American Indian Wars, I have clearly explained in the talk page: See Sections #25-27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Indian_Wars#NPOV_Apparent_lack_of_neutrality

2) You said: "I have added sourced content per WP:RS policy, while you have systematically vandalized my work." #1, this isn't my "opinion". I cited expert anthropologists, historians etc who clearly conducted respected studies that a great many academics respect. You cite Shoemaker who happens to agree with you. I did not ever "vandalise" your work "systematically" or in any other way. I changed the edits because you have & continue to push minority pov's & have the audacity to claim they represent the mainstream thought on the matter.

Rather it's your "sourced content" which is highly selective and does not represent the majority POV, contrary to your claim against me. You excluded 2 highly respected studies:

Dobyns, Henry Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1983) - this is a highly respected study

Thornton, Russell, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987) - yet another respected source & reviewed by Matthew Snipp in the "American Indian Quarterly" Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter, 1990), pp. 85-87 - among others like Cambridge Journals http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4160840; and is even recommended by CUNY (City University of NY) in its courses dealing with these topics. They likewise recommend both him and Henry Dobyns; they say "For a far more honest estimate, deriving from the evidence rather than ideological preoccupations, see Dobyns, Henry" & cite the study he did (above). http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/progler/readings/articles/whitestudies.html

That is a respected university. The point is these scholars do not approach the material like Jennings, but rely more on evidence, and Thornton reviews these and earlier studies. He is an expert in the field (like those above). All you do is find Shoemaker who wrote her opinion, upon which you base all these edits in the 2 articles. That's not responsible.

Dobyns is highly respected & his work on these topisc is reviewed: Daniel K. Richter, The William and Mary Quarterly

Douglas H. Ubelaker, Ethnohistory Vol. 31, No. 4 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 303-305 Third Series, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Oct., 1984), pp. 649-653 Ebanony (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

3) "What demographic studies did you conduct? You expressed your opinion." Excuse me? What studies did I conduct? Try to be more civil. 2nd, you don't know my qualifications, and the fact you placed an "attention experts" label in the introduction indicates you are not one. I remind you of the need to use a neutral POV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight No progress has been made in this because you continue to claim the majority POV is irrelevant, and then you calim it's my "opinion" & also "irrelevant". Now you've done this to 2 pages. You're giving "undue weight" to minority pov's. "undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Shoemaker cannot simply dismiss everything, and this is only a partial list (much more I haven't got the time to write right now).Ebanony (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tobby72 your edit of Oct 27 #1.1) (below) including the population estimates of Dobyns & Thornton is an improvement of your earlier edits because it's more inclusive of academics with majority POV.

1. 1)Your edit from Oct 26:

"There's no conclusive evidence to determine how many Native peoples lived in North America before Columbus. The majority of estimates fall in the range of 2 to 7 million."

1. 2)Your new edit as of Oct 27:

"There's no conclusive evidence to determine how many Native peoples lived in North America before Columbus.[4] For example, Cherokee historian Russell Thornton believes that there were 7 million people living in North America, whereas other estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).[5]"

You still give no explanation for removing the earlier text and for replacing it with your edit in the first place. What is wrong with it? You removed this:

a) the book A population history of North America discussing Canada’s population by Michael Haines (using Thornton’s work); b) the 500,000 figure currently accepted by Canada's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health in “Handbook of North American Indians: Indians in contemporary society'” by Garrick Alan Bailey; c) information on diseases by Donna Wilson & Herbert Northcott; d) the smallpox problem in 1630 in “Rotting face : smallpox and the American Indian” by Ronald Robertson. Your edit & the information you deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&diff=prev&oldid=393083216

You also claimed on October 26th that you “didn't erase anything on this page.” According to the log, you deleted all of points a)-d), as noted above. You replaced them with your edit on Oct 26 (#1.1 above). I removed your edit & explained why on Oct 26 above in this very section, warning you not go from page to page promoting minority POV's (on "American Indian Wars" you did the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Indian_Wars#Estimated_number_of_inhabitants_in_North_America ). On Oct 27 (#1.2 above) this is your new edit (above). See Section #27 for the discussion, your own talk page

The second problem is you say Thornton is Cherokee (see above, my emphasis), which is true, and he sometimes does this himself. But why do you highlight that Russell "Thornton believes that there were 7 million people" & at the same time include that he is Cherokee, the implication being he is not white? Why emphasise his race & ethnicity? You don't discuss Dobyns' race or ethnicity even though his claims received more criticism than Thornton. You don't discuss Douglas Ubelaker's background though his claims are far more controversial. If anything, Thornton is probably the least controversial of the three. Yet you focus on the indigenous person. Why? Are you trying to insinuate "cherokee" or other indigenous peoples are biased?

You don't discuss anywhere Nancy Shoemaker's, A. Kroeber's or James Mooney's background. Do you usually put a person's name and (black) or (white) next to said individual & insinuate there is a problem with his/her work? Your language towards Thornton is one of skepticism ("believes") & done in a way that points out his racial & ethnic background (Cherokee). Do you understand why this is not neutral & why there is a problem? Is there something wrong with Cherokee scholarship? Thornton happens to be Cherokee, but is a highly respected scholar. His background or beliefs have little bearing here. You’ve made them relevant. Why? The fact you insist on "2 million" or close to it being the valid pov, makes it worse because Thornton's estimate is above the ones you preferred.

Continuing: "For a far more honest estimate, deriving from the evidence rather than ideological preoccupations, see Dobyns...and Thornton" - That's CUNY & plenty more say it.

How can you claim he (Thornton) "believes" a population number of 7 million? This isn't some arbitrary number he made to malign Europeans/Americans. You didn't write "Ubelaker believes" or "Shoemaker believes". I've been telling you since your first edit that 7 million is a valid number. You continue to insist, with your language & now in racial terms, that the lowest estimates are the valid ones. Thornton, whether you like it or not, is an expert. One more thing, you have cited "Thornton, Russell (1990). American Indian holocaust and survival: a population history since 1492. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 26" That terminology doesn't reflect his writings: it's not a belief by some unqualified "Cherokee". It's a table enumerating the work of other scholars, including his own. You’ve not represented his work fairly, and you’ve focused on his race & ethnicity & only on his race & ethnicity. How is this even a topic of discussion?

In addition to that, most earlier work specifically excluded non-whites, like the controversial claims you were talking about earlier by promoting the idea that there were very few people in the North American continent in 1492, and excluding those with higher estimates. Your insistence on excluding Dobyns & particularly Thornton earlier raised questions about your neutrality. Now your unfounded terminology about Thornton in the context of race and ethnicity– and only his race & ethnicity – coupled with your insistence on using only the lowest population estimates raises serious questions (it's noted you recently put 18 million) as to the motivations of your edits. This page from CUNY (City University of NY) focuses on the problems involving race & how scholars have done these things. “The manipulation of data undertaken by succeeding generations of Euroamerican historians and anthropologists in arriving at the official 20th century falsehood that there were "not more than one million Indians living north of the Rio Grande in 1492, including Greenland" is laid out very clearly by Jennings, Francis, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism and the Cant of Conquest (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975).” http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/progler/readings/articles/whitestudies.html#[16] Note: my emphasis.

Now perhaps you can explain why you removed any reference to Francis Jennings (Note* meant & earlier wrote above David Stannard) as well on the page American Indian Wars. You demanded his any work be removed. Not once, but 3 times! His work is more controversial, but he can't be ignored (it's there now as of your last edit, but not on this page for some reason). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Indian_Wars&action=history What do you have against indigenous peoples, Francis Jennings or scholars who don't agree with the ethnocentric pov's peddled by earlier scholars like Mooney? Regardless, it violates Wikipedia NPOV & the racial/ethnic focus is taking things way too far. Remove the offending terminology; stop focusing on academics race/ethnicity & questioning their research and only their research with such insinuations not even based on the source (this is your added opinion); treat all the professors with some respect; include a wider variety of pov's; and work with & consult other editors, instead of continually ignoring them on the talk pages and making false accusations when you finally feel like responding. This isn't a joke, nor is it to be taken lightly. These are highly sensitive projects dealing with race & Genocide, and that some have an agenda is well documented. You know this.Ebanony (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You still give no explanation for removing the earlier text and for replacing it with your edit in the first place. What is wrong with it? You removed this: Your edit & the information you deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&diff=prev&oldid=393083216

I don't really know what you're talking about; you are very confused.

The second problem is you say Thornton is Cherokee

Done [1]

Now perhaps you can explain why you removed any reference to Francis Jennings as well on the page American Indian Wars.

I removed the thirdworldtraveler.com & enotes.com per WP:RS; feel free to include more appropriate citations from reliable sources. Tobby72 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You've removed what some would consider racially insensitive & offensive remarks. That's progress. Please don't single out indigenous poeple for their race & challenge their work with insinuations their work is unreliable.

I didn't ask for thirdworldtraveller or enotes to be included. I said David Stannard's book American Holocaust. American Indian Wars now has it, after you deleted it 3 times. But not here. (Note* I wrote Francis Jennings in my last edit, but meant & earlier wrote David Stannard). You knew the edit I referred to because you mentioned enotes - that was part of the same edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Indian_Wars&diff=392306392&oldid=391839779 We have an obligation to include "majority views", which includes Stannard.

You say "feel free to include more appropriate citations from reliable sources." Except you deleted my references to David Stannard's work 3 times. Since October 23rd you've not shown Stannard is unreliable. You also did it here with Douglas Thornton in racially charged terms. You base your claims/insinuations on?

On separate note when you say "I don't really know what you're talking about; you are very confused". This is your own edit on October 26: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&diff=prev&oldid=393083216 I'm aksing you again, why did you make this change? I see no reason for it. So please stop this "I don't understand" speech. Ebanony (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, Tobby72, since you've made claims that promote minority pov's, I've called you out on it & your selective use of writers like Shoemaker & your claim that "The majority of estimates fall in the range of 2 to 7 million. For the contiguous United States, the estimates fall more within the range of about one to 5.5 million."

Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of Paradise, p 350, 351 "[T]here is now a rough academic consensus, quite sharply at odds with figures conventionally accepted earlier in this century...from 7 to 18 million people north of Mexico". That's just 1 respected scholar. Dorris, Michael Contemporary Native Americans pg 47 cites 12 to 15 million. Another scholar. Zinn, Howard , A People's History pg 16 who cites a population of 10 million in 1492 - another scholar. Add in Dobyns at 18 million (which is considered high - I agree - but his 1st estimate was about 8 million); Thornton about 7 million. All respected scholars. Really, talk of 1 million or even 2 million is not consistent with current scholarship.　You really should consider a wider range of scholarship, not just those that butress earlier discounted work,.

You know, this doesn't even include people in the rest of the continents, which need to be discussed as well. Those numbers were significantly higher - in the tens of millions. Ebanony (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you are just cherry picking certain authors to support your POV.

Kroeber estimated the aboriginal population more or less north of the Rio Grande at only 900,000; Dobyns originally estimated it as high as 12.25 million, but recently has asserted it may have been 18 million. Estimates by other twentieth-century scholars fall at various points between those extremes, as indicated in table 2-5. However, most are around 1 million for the total aboriginal population of North America.[2]

In view of recently obtained data from archaeological and other sources, a conservative estimate is that at least 2 million natives inhabited the North American continent at the time of Columbus's arrival.[3][4]

Clearly you have a problem with the estimates given by respected scholars like Alfred L. Kroeber (whose study specifically focusing on population is well regarded), Douglas H. Ubelaker, or William Denevan. Tobby72 (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tobby72 #1 This is the 2nd time I've told you: Do not edit my comments on the talk page. You have no reason to add brackets, adjust text or change what I wrote in any way. Your behaviour is lees than polite, and no editor appreciates others inserting words or brackets in their text. You want to add "wikilinks", you do it to your own text, mate. Don't do it again to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&diff=393455475&oldid=393438054 The fact that you've edited my comments here twice and deny that you edited and deleted earlier comments on this main page raises questions about your honesty. I've been more than patient with you. Ebanony (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Best to read Wikipedia:TALK:Editing comments - If you have a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior, please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.Moxy (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Moxy for the advice on that page; it was helpful. To Tobby72 on editing my comments:

“Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.” (my emphasis) I first objected to this on Oct 27th when I wrote “Please follow talk page accepted practise of not placing your text in between mine. There is space below for you to respond. I'm moving your edit because according to the time log, it was made after all of my edits.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Indian_Wars#Estimated_number_of_inhabitants_in_North_America

Wikipedia also says “Do not misrepresent other people” which you did by inserting your text inside of mine. Not ok. “Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning.” This information is found on the link Moxy posted, and I object in the strongest terms to this practice or the adjustment of any of my text in any way for any reason by others. I've objected twice to your editing of my text.Ebanony (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the 2nd time I've told you: Do not edit my comments on the talk page. You have no reason to add brackets, adjust text or change what I wrote in any way.”

I only added helpful wikilinks, Kirkpatrick Sale, Michael Dorris, and Howard Zinn, with a brief explanation of an edit. [5] You have my apologies, but please keep a cool head and assume good faith in your dealings with other people.

I first objected to this on Oct 27th when I wrote “Please follow talk page accepted practise of not placing your text in between mine. There is space below for you to respond. I'm moving your edit because according to the time log, it was made after all of my edits.”

Best to read Help:Using talk pages#Sections - If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it. Tobby72 (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't add "helpful" links because they were unsolicited. Nor was that the first time you ignored Wikipedia policy to adjust my text in the talk pages. I did read Wikipedia's policy & reiterate to you what it says on editing other editors comments "you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.” (my emphasis) I asked you to stop; you ignored me. 2nd Wikipedia is clear "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning.” Seems to me that's what you did, and that's why I said stop placing your text between mine. It's rude, unnecessary & can cause people to mistake your writing for mine ie distort my meaning, which is why the link you just posted changes nothing. You do understand the words "stop if there is any objection", don't you? You can't claim lack of "good faith" because I asked you on Oct 27 in no uncertain terms to stop; I told you again sternly, but not rudely, to stop again today. No need to purposely go round irking other people like that. You talk about "cool head"? Follow the rules and stop provoking problems which distract from your questionable editing. Understand clearly: please do not edit my comments in any way; I object. Ebanony (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

First, Tobby72, I asked you at least twice to explain your edit after you 1) deleted good information & refused to explain why; 2) you claimed you didn't know what I was talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&diff=393197577&oldid=393094220 Your edit seems unjustified, and if you can't give good reasons for deleting the earlier information, it's my opinion it should be restored.

Second, you say “Clearly you have a problem with the estimates given by respected scholars like Alfred L. Kroeber (whose study specifically focusing on population is well regarded), Douglas H. Ubelaker, or William Denevan.” Yes, most scholars today have a serious problem with Kroeber’s estimates. Did you know that Douglas Ubelaker & Nancy Shoemaker likewise have problems with Kroeber’s estimates of “only 900,000”? You did. I'll get to that later.

Douglas Ubelaker:

“Low estimates of 900,000 to just over one million were reported by a number of scholars prior to 1962.” & ”The most comprehensive approach of the period was that of James Mooney…his data and total of 1,148,000…published…in 1928...formed the basis of A.L Kroeber’s work in 1939. Kroeber adopted all of Mooney’s estimates, except for those of California.”

Douglas Ubelaker again:

“In many instances, his notes [Kroeber] indicate that the 1492 number was greater than the figure presented…since the population may have already declined in size prior to the date of the population figures available”. Though Ubelaker doesn't agree with Dobyn's estimates, he says Kroeber left out many people & cited work in 1962 & Henry Dobyns’ 1966 study estimating a population of 9.8 million (later of 18 million), replacing Mooney’s and Kroeber’s earlier claims. Why? Mooney & particularly Kroeber “greatly underestimated population size” by not including “declines due to epidemic diseases.” A population history of North America by Michael Haines & Richard Steckel, in Douglas Ubelaker’s chapter pg 52-54. As you can see, Ubelaker doesn't agree with Kroeber's estimates either. They're too low. And Nancy Shoemaker says “Most estimators consider Kroeber's low estimate too low" (posted in your own edit of Oct 27th above) American Indian Population Recovery in the Twentieth Century pg 3. As I said, most scholars today have a problem with Kroeber's work. What's your point? Should I support Kroeber's estimates?

What's significant is Henry Dobyns’ conclusions reversed a whole generation of scholars' work, & Ubelaker says it. You, Tobby72, selectively focused on Dobyns’ & Stannard’s figure of 18 million to justify excluding their work (citing Shoemaker saying 18 million was too high, which very well may be true). However, Ubelaker also says Dobyns’ work has “greatly influenced many scholars who generally recognise greater population size than suggested by Mooney and Kroeber”, and his earlier estimates of around 8 million still receive a lot of respect. So Ubelaker doesn't just dismiss Dobyns. But you did. And whilst Ubelaker & Shoemaker have done good work, they know that "[T]here is now a rough academic consensus, quite sharply at odds with figures conventionally accepted earlier in this century...from 7 to 18 million people north of Mexico" Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of Paradise 1990, p 350, 351. This may be why you seek to exclude all but Kroeber, Ubelakey, Shoemaker etc: all have similar estimates of populations. Of course when your goal is talk about "2 million people", the scholars I mentioned don't really help you.

So yes, I agree Kroeber’s estimates were “well regarded” before 1962/1966. You, Tobby72 admitted knowing this when on Oct 27th you posted Nancy Shoemaker’s work above:

“Whereas Mooney had estimated 1.15 million Indians north of the Rio Grande at the time of contact, Kroeber substituted lower figures for California and speculated that with further research Mooney's estimate would "ultimately shrink to around 900,000." Most estimators consider Kroeber's low estimate too low” American Indian Population Recovery in the Twentieth Century pg 3. Again, yours is a one-sided argument in favour of the lowest numbers available. That’s not neutral.

So to summarise: Your argument rested on two quotations from Nancy Showmaker & Douglas Ubelaker (above), but neither agreed with the things you wrote on Kroeber or his estimate. Nancy Shoemaker says “Most estimators consider Kroeber's low estimate too low” & according to Douglas Ubelaker “[Kroeger] greatly underestimated population size” because he didn’t include “declines due to epidemic diseases.” Since that edit you've added new links which include: "for decades the Mooney-Kroeber figures stood unchallenged, but most contemporary studies reject them for being overly conservative." in American Indians: the first of this land by C. Matthew Snipp p 10, though his other claims are disputed by Kirkpatrick Sale (above).

Recent scholarship (since 1962/66) has the majority POV at odds with that POV. You cite only people like A Kroeber (discounted), Douglas H. Ubelaker, Nancy Shoemaker or William Denevan (low estimates). You have excluded Henry Dobyns landmark study (mid range range estimates); Dobyns later study (18 million & much higher); you also left out everyone else whose estimates are higher, but ranged roughly from 8-18 million: Kirkpatrick Sale; David Stannard; Francis Jennings; Michael Dorris; Howard Zinn; Russell Thornton (whom you treated in a racially disrespectful manner). In being neutral, I presented Stannard & Thornton, who both include estimates of around 7-8 million, and fall in consensus POV, and in the middle - not to one extreme or other, because I showed Stannard's 18 million was high. On the other habd, you excluded 6 important scholars who just happen to contradict your POV.

Third, separate but related. Let’s clarify the quote of mine you took on Kroeber & Dobyns from Oct 26th. I said he [Kroeber]“cannot be ignored”; I don’t mean Kroeber’s work or estimates form the majority POV today like Dobyns’ earlier work does – Kroeber's used to before 1962/1966, and I apologise if I’ve given that impression because it’s not my stance. Kroeber’s estimates have been severely criticised & is only respected by a very small group of people – scholars who’ve been accused of racism, "manipulation of data" (See Francis Jennings The Invasion of America) & worse as in downplaying Genocide; that's WHY that earlier 1939 study of Kroeber is not ignored in universities. Now some ‘‘parts’’ of his work are still respected, but not his estimates of 900,000. So yes, I should have written “was well regarded” as opposed to “is well regarded”. But this doesn’t change that fact that today in 2010 it’s not the majority POV, and to use his figures out of context is “undue weight”; so are the figures close to it like 2 million, as Kirkpatrick Sale the other scholars say. I continue to ask why you made racially insensitive comments against an indigenous scholar, Russell Thornton, and insinuate his work was unreliable; in this context, it's not a joke. His estimates of about 7 million are a problem for your pov, and at first you excluded his work too.

Further, you took my Oct 26th edit & did not attribute it to me by using quotation marks “”.:My edit “Clearly you have a problem with the estimates given by respected scholars like Kroeber (whose study specifically focusing on population is well regarded) and...”

Your edit of Oct 28 “Clearly you have a problem with the estimates given by respected scholars like Alfred L. Kroeber (whose study specifically focusing on population is well regarded)…”

Please don't copy my work like that; I object to it in the strongest terms. Other editors have had their accounts blocked for copying & pasting text like that. That's serious stuff. "Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to the original author." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia

Last, you Tobby72 “cherry picked” using the lowest estimates (from 900.000 to 5 million); you excluded those whose work form a major part of mainstream scholarship (roughly 7-10 million); you want to use earlier discounted work from before 1962/1966 out of context; you have given “undue weight” to minority POV’s on 3 pages dealing with the same topic. This isn't about my problems with certain scholars; it's about your editing in a non-neutral way & promoting fringe POV's. You propose 0 ways to help improve these articles. Ebanony (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't exclude anybody. In fact, I included both Thornton and Dobyns. I've added sourced content per WP:RS & WP:NPOV policies. American Indian Wars, 22 October 2010: [6], Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, 27 October 2010: [7], [8].

There's no conclusive evidence to determine how many Native peoples lived in North America before Columbus. Some scholars have estimated a population of as few as 2 million, while others put the pre-Columbian population in excess of 18 million.

There's no conclusive evidence to determine how many Native peoples lived in North America before Columbus. For example, Russell Thornton estimates that there were 7 million people living in North America, whereas other estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).

You have repeatedly deleted sourced information & reliable sources: American Indian Wars, 24 October 2010: [9], American Indian Wars, 26 October 2010: [10]. However, I believe you're just uninformed and confused. Once again, please keep a cool head and assume good faith in your dealings with other people. Tobby72 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You’ve said this twice, and it’s not quite correct:

"you have repeatedly erased sourced information & reliable sources just because they are against your POV." You then claimed "vandalism". You now repeat it: "You have repeatedly deleted sourced information & reliable sources: American Indian Wars"

What you left out was that I had already responded to this above on Oct 27, where I said "as to accusing me of using opinions that don't go 'against my pov', you've presented 0 evidence... The edits I made to the other article, American Indian Wars, I have clearly explained in the talk page: See Sections #25-27" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Indian_Wars#NPOV_Apparent_lack_of_neutrality The edits & their rationale can be seen there.

But of course I deleted some sources/non-sourced material. The problems were several:

1) irrelevant information/pictures that cluttered the article "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

2) NPOV statements & “undue weight” (yours)

3) Racially insensitive remarks on indigenous peoples

4) Controversial claims in the Introduction (yours)

Your selective examples: "American Indian Wars, 24 October 2010” & "26 October 2010". These were your edits & had problems of NPOV & "undue weight" & controversial claims in the Intro. But you're apparantly "just uninformed and confused" (your phrase) because you keep pointing to WP:RS; I never questioned the validity of the source; they're good sources. The problem is that these "sourced" materials represent "minority views" & you give them "as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views". You do so by presenting this figure of "2 million inhabitants as representative of majority opinion, and did so in the Introduction. Wikipedia says:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

This "2 million" figure is minority, and should not get the same treatment as the higher mid-range figures; this not "my opinion":

"[T]here is now a rough academic consensus, quite sharply at odds with figures conventionally accepted earlier in this century...from 7 to 18 million people north of Mexico" Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of Paradise 1990, p 350, 351.

7 million is low & 18 million is high. 2 million is off the spectrum. Sadly, you continue to reject this & others who say the same. It’s one thing to discuss the controversy in the main body, but you insisted on a minority POV in the Intro & still claim it is majority POV; the "2 million" figure should be "in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint", but it isn't, so it's a violation of NPOV rules. "Best to read" (your phrase) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

Your other claims:

"I didn't exclude anybody. In fact, I included both Thornton and Dobyns.!"

Now maybe you’re "just uninformed and confused" again (your phrase). In this article on population you did not add them until Oct 26th; instead you had used the same Science article which made those "2 million" claims, but not more respected writers like Thornton & Dobyns work - it's "sourced" but a minority POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&diff=393083216&oldid=393080466

So I undid it that edit for the same reason I undid your edits on American Indian War article: "undue weight" to minority POV (nearly identical edit); However, I didn't question the "source", just how it was used. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&diff=next&oldid=393094220

Only afterwards did you add them; you wrote "add Russell Thornton's & Henry Dobyns's estimates", which was on the 27th after I asked you to, saying your "'sourced content'...is highly selective and does not represent the majority POV... You excluded 2 highly respected studies:" Thornton & Dobyns. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&diff=next&oldid=393197577

These edits show you specifically excluded Thornton & Dobyns here in this article, and that I had to argue with you to get you to add them, which was after we had already had this row on the American Indian Wars page. Is this promoting minority POV's?

You went too far when you questioned the reliability of Russell Thornton’s work & singled him out for his race/ethnicity; I asked you to change it. Of course, you didn’t point to the race of those whose estimates were "2 million" people (those you agree with), just the Native American scholar with estimates of around 7 million you feel are too high. Is that neutral? This may not be a coincidence, but you refused several times to explain your edits. I don't want to speculate.

Your other claim of "cool head" compares well to your Oct 27th comment

"What demographic studies did you conduct? You expressed your opinion."

You called into question my credentials, which is unecessary; but you know Kirpatrick Sale is not "my opinion"; it's in line with Thornton, Dobyns, Stannard (whose work you likewise called into question using next to his book http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Indian_Wars&diff=next&oldid=392605547 There never was any dispute on enotes or 3rd World Traveller; the dispute is I have to go through all this just to get work on consensus range population estimates included - you didn't want them included. So really, it's you who questioned & excluded the "sources": Thornton & Stannard.

Some don't like high figures of above "2 million" as a population estimate. But "The manipulation of data undertaken by succeeding generations of Euroamerican historians and anthropologists in arriving at the official 20th century falsehood that there were 'not more than one million Indians living north of the Rio Grande in 1492, including Greenland' is laid out very clearly by Jennings, Francis, The Invasion of America:" http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/progler/readings/articles/whitestudies.html

You seem to promote "EuroAmerican historians" and made 1 racially insensitive remark on the main page here about Thornton, an indigenous scholar, and questioned his work. Earlier you excluded his estimates. I ask you again: Why? That's neutral?

And you on Oct 28th you wanted "Alfred L. Kroeber" Douglas H. Ubelaker, or William Denevan, all of whom have real low estimates; But Kroeber is the least reliable. He's part of what CUNY & Jennings mean by "manipulation of data". How you can consider his work as anything close to majority POV is beyond me. Ubelaker & Shoemaker say he's too low.

I don't seek to exclude the writers you mentioned. We can discuss these things in context & fairly including the "debate". But some (this is not implied against you for you didn't make all those edits) push the argument that there was no "Genocide" & this was some empty "wilderness" with "the merciless Indian Savages" devoted to removing whites & "destruction of all ages" as something "is not disputed" in a twisted argument in serious breach of neutrality. These things were the American Indain Wars article. Talking about "savagery" & picking on people's race is "vandalism"; removing it is our obligation as editors. When you pointed to the edits I made on American Indian Wars, you ignored the fact that article needed major cleanup. All was justified. Now why do you oppose mid to high range population estimates & promote the lowest range available, incluing pre-1962/66 work? You point to Shoemaker? Good grief.

To bicker or go forward? Can we work together to treat these sensitive matters in a neutral & respectful way? Can we agree on using only the majority POV in the Introduction and discussing the controversy on estimates in its own paragraph? We can cover the major studies/authors and what academics say & highlight differences of opinion. Ebanony (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"You seem to promote "EuroAmerican historians" ..." "EuroAmerican historians" are, for example, Kirkpatrick Sale, Howard Zinn, Michael Dorris, David Stannard, Henry Dobyns (high estimates), as well as Douglas H. Ubelaker, William Denevan, David Henige, Nancy Shoemaker, Michael H. Crawford (low estimates). [11], [12], [13].

"In the past forty years an entirely new paradigm has developed regarding the contact population of the New World. Proponents of this new theory argue that the American Indian population in 1492 was ten, even twenty, times greater than previous estimates. In Numbers from Nowhere David Henige argues that the data on which these high counts are based are meager and often demonstrably wrong." Henige, David (1998). Numbers from nowhere: the American Indian contact population debate. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 1. ISBN 080613044X. 

Since the size of the Native American population prior to European contact remains a source of scholarly debate and disagreement, and we are NOT experts on the subject, I am proposing to keep the following compromise paragraph per WP:NPOV & WP:RS:

"There's no conclusive evidence to determine how many Native peoples lived in North America before Columbus. For example, Russell Thornton estimates that there were 7 million people living in North America, whereas other estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983)."

Tobby72 (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When I said "You seem to promote "EuroAmerican historians" that was an observation, not meant as an insult, nor a definite statement. Maybe you misunderstood because you wrote "EuroAmerican historians are, for example, Kirkpatrick Sale, Howard Zinn, Michael Dorris, David Stannard, Henry Dobyns (high estimates)". This 1st means background as in not being minorities; non-white scholars were are underepresented & so are their POV's. Douglas Thornton is Cherokee (minority), & you singled out his background & his estimates earlier as questionable. Zinn was a Jewish scholar & a minority. So it's their backgrounds & more importantly ethnocentric POV's; it was no coincidence that people like Kroeber & Mooney played with their numbers; both Douglas Ubelaker & Nancy Shoemaker say their numbers were too low (cited above).

This "manipulation of data" of "not more than one million Indians" in 1492 was done by "succeeding generations of Euroamerican historians and anthropologists".http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/progler/readings/articles/whitestudies.html

This is why, as Jennings' book, The Invasion of America, is villified by some; other scholars like Zinn (whose estimate is about 10-13 million) have likewise been treated with disrespect, though both some merit. Since Dobyns 1st wotk, those involved in downplaying Genocide look really bad; Dobyns & others did do really good work; and Ubelaker feels 18 million is excesssive (David Henige book would be correct that 18 million is too high - it is, but others say it's a possible high & feel it's around 7-10 million), but Dobyns' studies have a lot of respect with the 9.8 and 18 million because it has "greatly influenced many scholars who generally recognise greater population size than suggested by Mooney and Kroeber". A population history of North America, Haines, Ubelaker, p 54.

So this "entirely new paradigm" 40 years ago is not the 18 million figure (that didn't happen in the 60's). Dobyns' 1st estimate was 9,8 million, and Ubelaker's comment is disputed by many scholars. Kirkpatrick Sale says ""[T]here is now a rough academic consensus, quite sharply at odds with figures conventionally accepted earlier in this century...from 7 to 18 million people north of Mexico". Yes, that is the whole point: there is a shapr difference in research and conclusion, and the over 6 academics I wrote have a range of about 7 million to 18, but most around 7 to 12 million. They did not just rely on Dobyns; nor is it "demonstrably wrong" (though the 18 million quite possibly is) the work they did.

Since Ubelaker disagrees with those figures, it's no wonder he'd argue against Dobyns' work & the "entirely new paradigm". Anyway, these things have a lot of controversy, and "birds like a feather flock together", so the low estimate scholars work in their group just as the mid and high range work in theirs. My understanding, based on evidence I've seen, is that the actual numbers were about 10-12 million. However, since your edit includes from the lowest to the highest, I'll agree with it if it includes putting a section discussing these things in detail. For example, looking at the Kroeber's work & the change in the 60's; how scholarship have reacted since; and the conflicting statements from Sale & Shoemaker & others that show their disagreement. I say this because 2 million should not be given equal footing as the 7 or 18 million (too low & too high). If we put together a section on it, then it will present the info & allow the reader to make a judgement, and all relevant pov's will be present. That ok? Ebanony (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections against new section, but perhaps we should wait a while (few days/weeks) to see what other readers and editors have to say about it. Tobby72 (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I also feel other editors should have opportunity to respond. Let's see what others have to say. This is reasonable. Any input from other editors is welcome.Ebanony (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hot Button

I have never read an article that seems to press so many buttons. Perhaps it is because it is so poorly written.

First off, the reader needs to remember that the article has to do with an issue that is pure speculation. The opening paragraph points this out by stating that the figures "have proven difficult to establish, relying on archaeological data and written records from European settlers". Obviously, the considerations of European settlers is questionable at best. That's fifty percent of their sources. I don't think that such an article deserves so much rhetoric. How about you?

The second issue is the part that claims "The Indian population ... suffered from a demographic weakness, particularly because of the absence of any substitute animal milk". What? I've rarely read such drivel. A person living on another continent, who wasn't around when the events in question occurred and who speculates on something in a way that has no connection with reality is cited as a resource? Is this the Wikipedia standard? Please. This is ridiculous.

Let's get real folks. This article has way too much verbage for so little evidence. And people are taking it way to seriously. It is of little value and of dubious accuracy at best. - KitchM (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree when you say it's poorly written. This article needs serious clean up, and so does its sister article American Indian Wars, which was in far worse condition (still needs work). Anyway, Tobby72 proposed some good ideas to improve it, and I hope you'll contribute as well. I'll check the part on the milk you mentioned. If you see a problem, you can also edit; we're happy to work with you to improve it.Ebanony (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Depopulation from disease

This section does not list hantavirus. Links:

• The "Cocolitzli" sickness ultimately caused the demise of the Aztec societyThe Effect of An Indigenous Disease
• What killed the Aztecs
• Talk:Aztec Epidemic and death
• Ancient hemorrhagic fever in Mexico?
• Alcamo's Fundamentals of Microbiology: Body Systems

--Pawyilee (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mississippian culture destroyed by disease

The Mississippian culture was destroyed by disease before the bulk of Europeans showed up. And the natives become migratory. So when the settlers pointed to mounds and asked where they came from, the natives (who had migrated) shrugged and said they had no idea. It was actually built by their collective ancestors. But their answers for years stymied historians into thinking that their were two different peoples that populated the area. This needs to be reflected here. Student7 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Genocide

The claim of genocide on the lede is unsubstantiated without sources, and should be removed until sources can be found. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical SOURCES ???

Is there any medical sources that indicate how fast diseases can spread and about resistance in diseases. I happen to study medical sciences, so if no one brings up medical sources, I am removing the whole lies about natives dying from diseases while Europeans were left alive in a time period where vaccines were not invented. --UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans died in far greater numbers than Europeans in these epidemics because they were isolated populations with no immunity to those diseases. As someone studying medical sciences you should understand this. Exactly which POV are you here to push? I do admit that this section should be better sourced than it is, but removing it would not be the answer. Heiro 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Basic knowledge.Moxy (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary school source Samuel, Charlie (2002). Medicine in Colonial America (Primary school 1st ed.). PowerKids Press. p. 9. ISBN 0823965988. http://books.google.ca/books?id=Lr3gJuSjNoMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Medicine+in+Colonial+America&hl=en&ei=8JGvTaP8AeTs0gH3m7SLCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. 

Encyclopedia Kessel, William B (2006). Encyclopedia of Native American wars and warfare. Facts on File. p. 301. ISBN 0816033374. http://books.google.ca/books?id=laxSyAp89G4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Native+American+wars+and+warfare&hl=en&ei=J5OvTdL5OaqZ0QHVhPzJCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. 

Encyclopedia Selin, Helaine (1997). Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology and medicine in non-western cultures. Kluwer, cop. p. 321. ISBN 0792340663. http://books.google.ca/books?id=raKRY3KQspsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Encyclopaedia+of+the+history+of+science,+technology,+and+medicine+in+non&hl=en&ei=9JOvTfC-GeqG0QHN4b3wBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. 

I've always heard of it in relationship to natural immunity, built up by exposure. I'm not clear why someone studying medical sciences wouldn't know this. Dougweller (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Really.

I think "we" have just figured this out about epidemics occurring in continental natives in the last several decades. The 16th century trappers apparently brought diseases with them but didn't necessarily record their observations in a credible form or didn't know/care what they sere seeing. But Westerners (including some missionaries) were actual witnesses to this happening in Hawaii. People died of measles fever and/or exposure while trying to cool off. It was horrifying to watch, not quite understanding why it had that effect on the local population and not being able to remedy it (or old remedies which worked on European descendants not working). I suppose projecting this back (along with stories of other encounters) against stories they had heard on the continent, allowed them to understand why the huge Mississippi culture just vanished. If the 17th century colonists had encountered natives in force, Europeans would have had a "difficult time" in settling. There would undoubtedly be a different history entirely. Student7 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are similar records of the massive Maori death toll during the 1800s from new diseases brought to New Zealand, and the unusual severity of symptoms. It's not that controversial. I don't think anyone is claiming something as bold as "natives [were] dying from diseases while Europeans were left alive", either. Look at mortality records among Europeans even as late as the 1800s, and you'll see that the toll from disease there was huge too, especially among children; just not as bad as for recently contacted native peoples. --Avenue (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Grant's memoirs note that Northwest natives died in horrific numbers from smallpox and (typhoid, I think). Grant attributed this to their treatment of all diseases in a sauna-like mud bath. He claimed that natives (and Europeans) treated by American doctors had a high survival rate. While this cannot be used because it is anecdotal (and probably naive in some aspects), it does document a credible witness to native die-off and it's probably cause in that area.

The body's reaction to virus is to raise the temperature to kill it, this was not understood clearly until the modern era. In Hawaii (and the Northwest), Europeans tried to dissuade the natives from cooling off too much fearing exposure. And in Hawaii, at least (and it seems from Grant's memoirs) that exposure (getting too cold) was a prime reason leading to death. Student7 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Violence and cultural differences in warfare

I am trying to add a short blurb about how William Tecumseh Sherman viewed warfare with Native Americans. It was erased, however, repeatedly. I'm not sure why. Whoever erased it, please explain why you felt it was not germane despite its obvious relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.69.46 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I just got an account to address this issue. I wrote the question above. Moreover, I would like to point out that the phrase "decisive victory," used in the section I am trying to edit, is as imprecise as it is biased. For one, the definition of victory is culturally delineated. For some cultures, victory is found through peaceful resolution without bloodshed. Victory must be defined here. For two, the diction used, "ritualistic" vs. "decisive victory," is obviously culturally patronizing as well as inaccurate. Whoever keeps editing to preserve these words needs to address these extreme flaws. --KhanlarKhan (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for creating an account and coming here to discuss the issue. It's more complicated than I realised. You're going to have to read some of our policies and guidelines to fully understand it. Start with WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, then WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. There was an existing problem before your edit in that "equally decisive was the European approach to war, which was less ritualistic and more focused on achieving decisive victory" although possibly true has no source. You changed that to "concerned with concepts of individual prestige and more focused on killing the enemy," which is equally unsourced and I'm not at all sure about 'more focused on killing the enemy'. You also added that this was exemplified by Sherman, and that is what we call original research unless you have a reliable (by our criteria, see the links) source that says this is exemplified by Sherman - as editors, we shouldn't be making such judgements as Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on what reliable sources say about the subject (and in general they do need to specifically mention the subject), not on how we interpret them. I hope this helps. There's a learning curve here because writing an article here is very different from writing an essay or an article for a journal. I'm going to 'fact tag' the bit about decisive victory. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, thank you for addressing my concerns. I understand now why my edit does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm grateful that the problematic nature of the biased and imprecise sentence are being addressed. Exploring the cultural differences in Native American and European warfare in this article would be extremely worthwhile to establishing why one group was depopulated and the other was not. I'll try to address this in a future pre-edit I will post to this section in the Talk page. If it meets Wiki standards, then perhaps it can be posted to the main article. Best wishes. --KhanlarKhan (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And best wishes and thanks to you. Please do try to improve this section, it's not one I know much about. I had the same problem. I stumbled upon Where Troy Once Stood when I was fairly new. Having discussed this book quite a bit in the past, I started to edit it using material I'd gathered to rebut Wilkens. A more experienced editor kindly explained to me that none of my material actually discussed Wilkens' book and could not be used. He was right of course and I'd been wrong, but it was a bit of a culture shock. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary demography

If this article want to be about "Population History of Indigenous America" then it needs to expand to include population trends in the post-colonial and contemporary period. As it is currently the article focuses entirely on the question of population decline in the early contact period. The article also needs to include information about the variation of histories betwen different countries in the Americas - why do Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia have high populations while Argentina and Uruguay have none? What historical trends caused the differences in population histories between Latin and Anglo America? The article really is woefully inadequate and continued bickering about the guesswork about the exact nature of the decline is not conducive to improving the article. It simply needs more research and more work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Indians Killed Themselves

According to this article, there was no genocide. There was even no invasion.

The genocide is called as "population decline" while invasion is called "pilgrim".

And some reports of christian/white/european/western people are used as "reliable sources". The article indicates that Indian people were not fighting invaders. Rather, They were massacring pilgrims!

According to this article Indians killed themselves! It's all their fault.

Once again I saw that Wikipedia is a collecetion of westernist, eurocentric, judeochristian, liberal lies. --76.31.238.174 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't read the article that way. The natives caught (what Europeans thought of as) "everyday" diseases from which they had no natural immunity. Their attrition was horrible, maybe 90% prior to colonists, keeping records, even showing up (i.e. before 1620). Worse, their "native cures" often involved overexposure to the elements (to reduce fever). This helped to kill rather than cure them.

Europeans watched and recorded this in "real time" in the far West and in Hawaii in the 1800s. They did not realize at the time that it had occurred before in the East.

But if you have WP:RS to show otherwise, they may be used. This is an encyclopedia, not a WP:RANT. Student7 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Systemic issues

It seems clear - not just to myself, but to many readers commenting above - that this article, as it currently stands, has a consistent tilt: it endorses a strongly revisionist stand. Incidentally, while any position, however immoderate, will be supported by *some* sources, it seems that the strongest statements in the page have inadequate support:

"Nearly all scholars now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the overwhelming cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans." ("Nearly all scholars", but only one source is given; this source (pp. 1-11 of "Born to die") is actually mostly about cruelties inflicted by man upon man - it is certainly not a description of the supposed consensus that it should support.)

"While epidemic disease was by far the leading cause of the population decline of the American indigenous peoples after 1492,..." (No sources given)

"Although mass killings and atrocities were not a significant factor in native depopulation, no mainstream scholar dismisses the sometimes humiliating circumstances now believed to be precipitated by civil disorder as well as Spanish cruelty.[41][42]" (Both sources seem to support only the second half of the sentence, if anything.)

These sentences have to go or be supported.

Quite besides that - there are deeper issues at stake.

• The article cites next to no Spanish-language sources. This is a major lack, especially given that this is supposed to be a page about "population decline" (death) in the Americas as a whole. Nearly all work done in Latin America on the subject is thus ignored.

• The article treats disease, on the other hand, and exploitation, on the other (not to mention the disruption and impoverishment caused by war) as if they were two independent matters. Obviously, hunger and societal breakdown (not to mention forced labor in Andean silver mines) makes people more prone to disease. It is stunning that this is being given less importance than, um, sweat baths.

One might as well blame Anne Frank's death on typhus, to which she had few defenses due to her having grown up in a protected middle-class environment. Feketekave (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You are perhaps correct about lacking good Latin American references. I'm not sure that "Spanish (non-English)" references are required just yet, if they can be avoided.

I am not as certain that South and Central America experienced the "die-off" that North America did. Maybe not as many trappers there? Not as many colonists, percentage-wise? Yes, the survivors were enslaved and, in some cases, worked/starved to death. The Spanish interacted differently with the natives, than did the English. Mortality may have been different. I get the impression, that despite the enslavement, a higher percentage survived, as opposed to North America.

But in the North, the vast and sophisticated Mississipian culture disappeared, so well, that survivors were not even aware of it, prior to the English/Spanish settling the area. This has only recently been discovered. I don't think there is any doubt in any serious researcher's mind that the native American population mostly died out through trapper contact in the 16th century.Student7talk) 17:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(a) Again, we need more sources, and fewer statements such as "there is [no] doubt in any serious researcher's mind". Note that history is often written polemically, with one generation of researchers trying to profile itself against the previous one. A brief discussion in the article on the historiography of the subject should eventually be in order.

(b) We do need Spanish-language sources; most of the scholarship on what happened in Central and South America is in Spanish, for obvious reasons.

(c) The population drop in South America was enormous. (This is undisputed; see "Demographic collapse: Indian Peru, 1520–1620" by Noble David Cook, one of the main proponents of the disease thesis that this article currently puts forward as the only one.) However - to be blunt - it is very hard to kill off peasants. A sedentary culture with high population density will survive to some extent no matter what. Feketekave (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant serious researchers concerning North American die-off of natives. I don't know about Spanish-settled areas. Very clear in what is now the US that the Mississippi culture just "vanished" so well in the 16th century that their descendants could not explain what the "mounds" were for. In fairness, these supposed descendant-natives had moved and their ancestors may not have been familiar with the Mississippi culture. There were millions, if not tens of millions of people who died long before the colonists arrived. This was only recently realized.

As we know, Spanish hegemony into southern areas was extensive and chronicled at this time. The North's chronology was essentially unknown except for a handful of explorers, both Spanish and English. But we know that there were "trappers" who made contact on a "regular" basis, most likely, and unwittingly, bringing disease. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)