Talk:Native Americans in the United States

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelJayHawk (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgao29 (article contribs).

Hitler

I have removed a section claiming that Hitler et al were influenced by the history of Native Americans and their treatment by the US. It seems like this places undue weight on the rationalizations of one of the worse human beings who ever lived. While the material may be relevant SOMEWHERE in wikipedia, it certainly does not belong in a survey article on this general subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It is especially not relevant in that what the Nazis are most notoriously known for - the Holocaust - had nothing to do with American Indians and the English/Americans. It was Hitler's plan for Germans to expand eastward and annihilate/replace all of the Russians and other Slavs that he drew the comparison with...but yes, definitely not due here. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Description of map in infobox

The map currently used in the infobox claims to show the percentage of peoples throughout the US and Canada with Native American ancestry. That description is somewhat misleading because there are no Native Americans in Canada, and because there is a disconnect between what the map states it shows and the subject of the article itself. I suggest that the description is changed to read "Percent of population with indigenous ancestry by U.S. state and Canadian province/territory." --PlasmaTwa2 06:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the Pop-up for this page Fixing style/layout errors

I am hoping that I can give you this issue in the correct order: I first noticed this issue on the page Chagrin_Falls_(waterfall). I hovered over the link for the phrase "other terms" and got the following popup - Native Americans in the United States ⋅

actions

popups 277.4kB, 1310 wikiLinks, 50 images, 7 categories, 5 hours 42 minutes old

Native Americans, also known as American Indians, Indigenous Americans and other terms, are the indigenous peoples of the United States, except Hawaii and territories of the United States. More than 570 federally recognized tribes live within the US, about half of which are associated with Indian reservations.

If I Click on the article name, I go to the article in question, if I click on the words "other terms" I am taken to the Main Page of the Encyclopedia. I spot-checked some of the other places that call up this page using the same popup and the same thing happened. Looking down in the code, the obedient thing does exactly what it is told to do and goes exactly where it is supposed to be. I do not want to want to send it to another awkward place so I will let smarter heads prevail.

Please let me know if I can be of any further service. bobdog54 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Reposted on WP:Help desk. Rmhermen (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"population declined precipitously overwhelmingly due to introduced diseases as well as warfare, including biological warfare, territorial confiscation and slavery"

This sentence in the lede seems to mix things that happened in general with things that caused the precipitous decline of the population, and honestly reads as intentionally misleading to me. I understand the desire to push for awareness of Native American genocide, but Wikipedia isn't the platform for ideological battles. I have removed (and will continue to remove) the bit about biological warfare because it's utter nonsense to interpret any of the listed sources as saying biological warfare contributed to the deaths of a significant portion of the population at the time, and in fact no sources corroborate that claim. But I would like to discuss if "slavery" belongs in this list, as it seems that the number of enslaved Native Americans was in the tens of thousands, and attributing a precipitous decline in population to several tens of thousands of people seems to be pushing a narrative as well. Biological warfare and slavery are both talked about elsewhere in the article, and it seems best to me to remove biological warfare from the lede as it did not have a significant impact on the history of Native Americans in the United States, and to move "slavery" into the next sentence, so that it can remain in the lede but be separated from the precipitous decline thought. User:Oncamera your input would be most welcome, but let's please dispense with the biological warfare bit, as it's more than a little ridiculous. Tkondrashov (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There are four valid sources for the biological warfare inclusion. Please provide sources that back up your reasoning for removing that information and we can discuss that then. Otherwise, learn how Wikipedia operates with the use of reliable sources instead of threatening to edit war which will only get you blocked. oncamera 16:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase as well. About the sources, the first failed verification as it went to a general webpage for the park and even a search for "biological" on their website returned no matches. One source was a passing mention of the same Fort Pitt information already considered inconclusive in the body of the article. The other two were not readable online. Can you post us an short exact quote that supports the claim that biological warfare was a major cause?

Secondly the lead as you would have it does not summarize our article but far exceeds the conclusion drawn in the article about the subject. We would need reliable sources that claim scholarly consensus is that intentional biological warfare was a major cause of population decline. Rmhermen (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be antagonistic, User:Oncamera, but I don't see room for dissent on that phrase. I think maybe the source of our disagreement is that I'm not saying the phrase "biological warfare" doesn't belong on the page, but as phrased, it makes it sound like it was an "overwhelming" reason for "precipitous" decline, and that statement is so blatantly false that I don't think it should be left up for any amount of time while it is discussed. I think that biological warfare should absolutely be mentioned, especially as it is an important part of "American folklore" as one person on this page put it, and the symbolism of it regardless of practical consequences is undoubtedly an important part of the history of Native Americans, and I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be in the lede or not. But it should certainly not be in the lede as part of a false, and seemingly very ideological, narrative. That's all I'm putting my foot down on because it's disgraceful to have content like that on Wikipedia. I'm sorry for threatening an edit war, but I hope you understand my position clearly now. Tkondrashov (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to know your position, and other editors' positions, on that whole sentence and the next sentence, because I think they can both be worked together in a much clearer way and include all that bears mentioning: "Native Americans were greatly affected by the European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, and their population declined precipitously overwhelmingly due to introduced diseases as well as warfare, territorial confiscation and slavery. After its creation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, waged war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies into the 20th century.". I'd propose "The Native American population declined precipitously since the European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, overwhelmingly as a result of disease. Warfare and enslavement of Native Americans was prevalant as well. After its creation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, continued to wage war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies into the 20th century." Tkondrashov (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits since they make it seem like disease was the main the populations declined. Warfare and territorial confiscation resulted in many deaths as well and that should be included. Your edits are downplaying the direct actions taken by Europeans used against Native Americans. That is creating a bias. oncamera 19:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I was trying to capture what I think the original author intended by putting "overwhelmingly" there. I think omitting "overwhelmingly" and agreeing with "The extent and causes of the decline have long been a subject of academic debate" from the population decline page is a better route, so as not to have to make a subjective judgment on whether any cause was overwhelming. Tkondrashov (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

One minor note also, I think the technical term is "conquest" for land added to a country through warfare. Confiscation of land took place in the US after it was formed, but I can only find references of that term in regards to confiscation of Confederate land during the Civil War, whereas that sentence is talking about before the US existed. Tkondrashov (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you think the sentence is talking about the time before the US existed, slavery was a cause of death and extinction for tribes fighting against the New England colonies such as the Pequot War. I still think the way you have written it downplays the direct actions of Europeans as the cause of death to the Indigenous people. oncamera 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write that last bit, that's from Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, I think agreeing with it since it's linked in the same sentence is the best way to go. "The Native American population declined precipitously since the European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, as a result of disease, warfare, territorial conquest, and enslavement. After its creation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, continued to wage war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies into the 20th century." Do you have issues with this formulation? I assume your position is that Europeans played a larger role than is widely acknowledged, but I don't think the consensus exists to make a claim beyond listing contributing factors in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkondrashov (talk • contribs) 20:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

My position is that the factors should remain listed together, as you did in your last edit. Also, I think "overwhelmingly" (or something that captures that degree of genocide) should remain since the population was greatly diminished and that shouldn't be downplayed either. "Precipitously" doesn't seem strong enough of a word to sum up of the loss of millions of lives and hundreds of cultures in a single word. oncamera 21:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should choose words based on their accuracy, not their strength, though I agree with you on an emotional level. I think that eliminating passive voice is a good way to convey gravity while avoiding emphasis for emotions' sake. Unless you have strong objections, I would like to settle on the following at least as far as this discussion is concerned: "The European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, resulted in a precipitous decline in the Native American population through disease, warfare, territorial conquest, and enslavement. After its creation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, continued to wage war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies into the 20th century." Tkondrashov (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Territorial conquest" doesn't result in population declines. "Slavery" is much clearer than "enslavement." How about: "European colonization of the Americas, which began in 1492, resulted in a precipitous decline in Native American population through disease, warfare, ethnic cleansing, and slavery. After its formation, the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, continued to wage war and perpetrated massacres against many Native American peoples, removed them from their ancestral lands, and subjected them to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies, later focused on forced assimilation, into the 20th century." Ahalenia (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia

Sounds good to me! Tkondrashov (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I like this version as well. oncamera 05:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat minor..I am curious what your reason is for saying that 'slavery' is clearer than 'enslavement'? It is true that 'slavery' is used much more frequently, but the two words are not identical in meaning. 'Slavery' is an abstract concept; 'enslavement' is the tangible act of causing humans to become slaves. Slavery does fit in the context here; I think enslavement fits better, though. Thoughts? Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Students on site is not a reliable source

It's described as a collaboration between students and teachers at Ann Arbor's elementary, middle and high schools and the University of Michigan. It is designed to use local history and geography as a site of innovative teaching and learning for students and teachers at all three education levels."[1] Doug Weller talk 17:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

European men and Native American women, sources

[2] [3] Doug Weller talk 17:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Delaware-2010 census, is this a legitimate correction? or more BS?

Can someone look at this edit and check it for accuracy? I can't seem to find either figure as a definitive answer. I do not know enough to revert, but given the prevalence and history of anon IPs changing census figures arbitrarily in recent years, and that this is an anon IP from the UK with no other edits, I'd like an opinion from someone who knows how to locate this info. Thanks in advance Heiro 01:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Updated 2010 statistics

I'm updating the population by tribal group statistics to the 2010 census results & All I need is for someone to change out the link. I changed the categories to actually represent the census charts tribes. I cant fix the bold writing above the graph to make it centered and flat if someone could fix that it'd be great. The category Spanish American Indian is unknown to me but its reported on the census so I put it in. The source I used is census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.98.179 (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I updated the reference and corrected the table sorting code.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 09:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

How appropriate is the strong dismissal of the term "Indian"/"American Indian" in this article

"Many people falsely refer to such populations as American Indians or Indians."

Are the Native Americans referring to themselves as Indians doing so falsely?

The article should acknowledge the disputed terms and link to the Native American name controversy as it does. Despite being an exonym the fact Indian is still the preferred term to many is reason enough to not baselessly dismiss it completely. Quinndolin (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That is totally inappropriate. Someone added that uncited POV to the lede relatively recently. I also removed commentary that the US Census doesn't include Native Hawaiians, Chamarro, or Samoans in the term "Native American." In reality, the US Census doesn't use the term "Native American"; they use the terms American Indian and Alaska Native, so I removed that inaccurate comment. Some people define Native American as being an "Indigenous person of what is now the United States", so sometimes these Pacific peoples are included in the definition, and sometimes they are not. Yuchitown (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown

It's an insult to the tribes/nations call themselves Indian, and indeed to any Native American who calls themself an Indian. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the current federal register's list of federally recognized tribes illustrates how many of our tribes use the term Indian today. Quite a few. Yuchitown (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown

If Native American is used it shouldn't be changed without consensus. If Indian, American Indian or Indigenous is used it shouldn't be changed without consensus. If groups that do not associate with the before mentioned names or used within the article and referred to as any of these names then they should be removed and not used in the article. I have worked closely with the Crow of Montana in the past. Many there refer to themselves as Native Americans and the article does include American Indian as a possible alternative as well as other referred to names that some call themselves. Indigenous people of Alaska do not refer to themselves as Native Americans or American Indians or any of the others prescribed in the lede sentence. They prefer Native Alaskan when not using the local or proper names of their tribes. Including them in the article with that title is misleading and misrepresentative of their existence. I know we say that Wikipedia doesn't include or dismiss something based on the wishes of individuals, groups or organizations but in this case, Native American is not expressly used by the governments of the states or federal to refer to indigenous populations in the US in an official capacity. Canada still refers to its indigenous population as "Indians". Whether we agree or don't agree, that's the facts. So, the ones referring to indigenous populations as these terms are people themselves. As such it is best to a) gain a complete and thorough consensus on what to refer to indigenous people in the 50 US states and all other territories and protectorates as or b) we have separate articles on each or c) include every name associated with the respective peoples every time we mention them. Options b and c are ridiculous, I know, but that's the options as I see it in order to not potentially, albeit unintentionally, offend or disrespect those populations. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden's Presidential Order of January 26 2021 'Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships' uses the terms 'American Indian', 'Federal Indian policy' and 'Native Americans'.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-tribal-consultation-and-strengthening-nation-to-nation-relationships/

So presumably all three terms are accepted and acceptable American English usage.

Controversial statement

I do believe this is a controversial statement. "Russell Means, a Native American activist, opposed the term Native American because he believed it was imposed by the government without the consent of natives." No reason to be this disrespectful to the man. Least we can do is call him by what he referred to himself as. To call him a Native American activist when he opposed the term is quite offensive. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)