|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yurok people article.|
|WikiProject California||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Ethnic groups||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Current Status 
Does anyone, object to this mentioning the current state of the tribe; ie. the largest in California as well as the poorest?
The tribe is so poor that 70 percent of its members have no access to telephones or electric service.
--Liaison1 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, there is no reason to exclude that.--MONGO 04:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
feedback on Yurok tribe page 
I'm new to wikipedia "editing" so just want to offer these observations.
1. I am relatively certain that 10,000+ years is commonly accepted time frame among anthropologists for most NW California tribes around lower Klamath and Trinity rivers, and has been established from carbon dating of firepits. I was looking for source material on the Yurok online, found only this on the Hupa (neigboring tribe):http://www.cniga.com/media/pressrelease_detail.php?id=39 "Radio carbon dating on fire pits in ancient villages later determined the Hupa people have lived in that valley for more than 10,000 years." I would venture that the 10,000+ years is pretty commonly accepted and conservative, I've seen/heard it everywhere.
2. From the wikipedia entry for a neighboring tribe, the Karuk:
'Since time immemorial, the Karuk, whose name means "upriver people," have resided in small villages along the Klamath River, where they continue such cultural traditions as hunting, gathering, fishing, basket making and ceremonial dances.'
The exact same thing could (and maybe should) be said of the Yurok, replacing the word "upriver" with "downriver" and maybe adding the Yurok names for themselves (Pu-lik-lah - "downriver" and Ner-er- ner "coast yurok")
2. Yurok aboriginal land does not cross into the current state of Oregon as can be seen from this map: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22491/images/cal_indians_languages_map.jpg and this map: http://www.mapcruzin.com/north-coast-gis/yurok-map.htm.
3. I was surprised to read that it is the "poorest" tribe in California, and I'm not sure I believe it based on what is presented here. For example, the reservation may have an 80% poverty rate, but most California Indians don't live on reservations. Much of the Yurok reservation is rugged and isolated, so the lack of phone/electricity isn't too surprising. On the other hand, unlike most other California Indians, Yuroks still live in and around their traditional village sites, and have access to their aborginal fishing, hunting, gathering grounds. They also posses regalia and continue to do important ceremonial dances. For a tribe that is so culturally rich, and able to still survive so well off the land, It seems like the focus on "poverty" (without including the other stuff) might be somewhat misleading. Napooi 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- With regard to the first point, it is reasonable (and conservative) to say that the region historically occupied by the Yurok has been inhabited for at least 10,000 years. However, the overwhelming majority of archaeologists and historical linguists recognize that the early inhabitants were not the linguistic ancestors of the Yurok, who only entered the region within the last 2,000 years or so. The same can be said of the Hupa, who are also relatively recent arrivals. The Karuk are a different case; their linguistic ancestors have probably been in the region much longer, perhaps as much as 10,000 years. See any of the standard references on California archaeology, such as Moratto 1984, Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984, or Jones and Klar 2007.RhymeNotStutter 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Largest tribe? 
How is the Yurok tribe the largest in California? 2000 Census indicates that 15 tribes in California have a population higher than the Yurok. Do they own more land? grow taller? put on more weight? In what sense are the Yurok the largest in California?