Talk:Apache

disambiguation

Why isn't the disambiguation the main page for Apache? There are plenty of other meanings (web server, etc.)

I think the current state is more appropriate since all other uses of the word apache are derived from the native American tribe name. -RobKohr

Shouldn't the other usages of the Apache be mentioned in this article as a sidenote? For example, the web server.

pronunciation?

How is it pronounced?

you mean the name Apache? – ishwar  (speak) 16:31, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Yes

Well, our available symbols are not oriented toward pronunciation, but I'll try ..................

a -'pach -ē : a (short "a" as in banana) - 'pach (the ch is usually hard as in "chip" but occasionally heard as in "ship") - ē (long e), accent on the second syllable. Hope that helps. WBardwin 29 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Origin of the name Apache

Until we see some citations or a Zuni, Navajo or one of the many Apachean groups express an opinion based on oral tradition, the origins of the Spanish and English use of "apache" are not known. The Spanish wrote down the term to label a group of people but they did not bother to record the first time they heard it, nor who came up with that name for that group. 20 years later another Spainish speaker wrote "the Apaches of the cultivated valleys" for the people most english and spainish speakers today call them Navajo. It is a mystery and life is like that :). --Rcollman 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

from the article List of ethnic slurs:

Apache: Name given to the Native Americans who call themselves the Diné. The word “Apache” means “enemies”, and was given to them by the Zunni Native Americans. It was adopted by

if this in fact is true, i belive this statement best belongs as part of the opening paragraph of this article. not being knowlegeable in this subject matter, i submit this here for consideration before making the change.uri budnik 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute... how does calling a group of people "enemy" qualify as a slur? If a tribe (or group of tribes) was indeed inimical to the Zuni, how on earth would the descriptive term (enemy) be a slur? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A little bit of research indicates that the "enemy" origin of the name "Apache" isn't even universally supported, I'm making relevant changes. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

no you pronounce it like this {ban aahhhn naaaa0 learn it!!!! ha lol

Actually the Diné are the Navajo, who don't regard the Apache as Diné. The Apache name for themselves is Ndee/Nnee, related to the word Diné. And the Zuni gave the Apache the name "enemy" because about 40% of the Apache economy was raiding other groups. Is it racist to call Vikings Vikings?71.223.169.27 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Synonymy

This section will attempt to create a list of synonyms or names that have been applied to Apacheans speakers in the Southwest by multiple cultures over a long period of time.

added to remove it from the article to prevent breakup of information flow. The Dark 20:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article and Featured Article comments

GA Passed

I have passed this article's GA. After much thought, I decided that it was not necessary to require the inline cites for this article, although I would recommend them before moving on to FAC. It's a wonderfully informational article and I do hope to see it as an FA one day. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 16:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review started for potential delisting

This article does NOT appear to meet the requirements of the good article criteria, especially criteria 2, on referencing. The criteria page specifically states: "(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles". This article contains a LONG list of references, but it is unclear how these references back up much of the information in the article. There are about a dozen or so "Harvard" style references, which is a good start, but there are large chunks of the article that lack ANY sort of direct citations, making the facts the article reports unverifiable. Therefore, I have begun a request for a review at Good Article Review to potentially delist the article, as it does not appear to meet the standards of a Good Article. If fixes are made to correct these problems, the article will in all likelyhood remain on the list. If no one cares to improve this article, it may be delisted pending a discussion at WP:GA/R. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the lack of inline citations is that honest errors and vandalism happen through large amounts of time, and the original authors are not always there to verify the claims. If an article is properly sourced, it's easy to detect an unsourced fact and check it. It then can be deleted or sourced itself. I agree it's a pain, but in the long term I feel it's a good system. There might come a day when the inline cites are hidden for FAs and GAs, and the articles will be so pretty; but for now we cannot hope to have all the facts readily checkable without it.--SidiLemine 13:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very hard to tell which information is supported by which source, or even if a particular piece of information is sourced at all, that is why inline citations are particularly useful. I don't see how this could be a GA as is. Until(1 == 2) 13:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't need that much work thought. It seems like whole paragraphs are inspired from the same source, so if the main contributors (see above) coul concentrate on it for a little time, this could easily reach FA. If someone does aim for that, however, let him not forget the sacred page numbers.--SidiLemine 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to come in here just to say I regret passing the article now, and that I won't pass such an article again in the future. The section above "GA on Hold" convinced me that the sources were good enough for GA, but in retrospect, I wish I'd stuck to my original opinion that the sources should be in-line. I'd support the article de-listing at this point. Wow, I sound very indecisive... oh well. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see why your first reaction was to pass it, it is a very good article, just that one issue which is a bit of a sticking point with me. Once addressed, the article is easily GA, and well on its was to FA. Until(1 == 2) 01:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, my first reaction was to fail it, it was only after thinking about it for a while that I decided to pass it in the end. Of course, I regret that now... Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 01:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And all you "experts" wonder why many moderate editors think your rating system is such a joke!! Shame on you all. WBardwin 05:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez, take it easy, no need to make it personal. Until(1 == 2) 05:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal! You "raters" have created a subjective system which insults regular editors and discourages new ones. You disagree among yourselves about what makes a good article, but "impose" your viewpoints on the encyclopedia as a whole. I don't take attempts at rating this or any other article personally, but I object to the system. It is a waste of everyone's time. Why not devote your time to writing good articles? WBardwin 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet you "waste" your time by berating people for wasting their time doing this. That is "irony writ large" in my book. If you find time-wasting so abhorant, why waste the time to leave this comment. Why note ignore the enterprise entirely, and instead devote your time to writing good articles? If you don't like activities that take time away from writing good articles, then don't engage in such activities yourself... As an aside, it should be noted that many people contribute to Wikipedia in positive ways that do not involve writing; and that these activities are necessary. Some people are more competant as reviewers than writers; while they lack the skill-set to create an fantastic article, they can spot problems in existing ones, or are able to find well-written articles in other cases. To imply that the only useful activity for an editor is simply to write ignores all of the other important skills that help to improve articles. If writing was all that was required, then publishing houses would never need to employ editors and copyeditors and proofreaders and all the rest to publish books. The fact that review of material happens at Wikipedia is not a bad thing...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

...review of material happens at Wikipedia is not a bad thing. That is clearly a point of view. Many editors do not like the emerging rating system and see no advantages to it. I personally feel that FA status is the only worthwhile effort, and that has recently become a little dicey as well. If you think rating has advantages and if you want to devote your time to this, do so. But don't impose your requirements on other editors who don't agree. However, suggestions are more than welcome. And having discussions between yourselves (see above) on talk pages? Don't. It simply muddies up pages for those of us running our watch lists. WBardwin 05:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said "ratings" I said "review", so please do not put words into my mouth. The fact that one can read an article and comment on it on a talk page requesting fixes should not be stifled simply because you don't want to read about it. This article has concrete fixes that can make it a better article, and to note those fixes is hardly a waste of time... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

By unanimous consensus, this article has been delisted from WP:GA. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once the article is brought up to standards it may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara♥Love 02:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)i love u to.

GA On Hold

I have placed this GA on hold because the article, while listing many references, needs to have these references incorporated into the article as inline citations. I realize this is a big task, but I feel if you really want this to be a GA, it can be done in a week, saving you from having to re-nominate it later. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 20:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap. Looks like I'm taking a trip to the library tonight. Trusilver 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I resent the ...needs to have these references incorporated into the article as inline citations. This increasing trend of frantic footnoting has all the elements of OCD, and really accomplishes very little. WBardwin 00:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for phrasing your thoughts so politely. (I truly mean that, seriously.) However, I must disagree. If you were ever ever to take this article to FA, this would certainly come up. Also, this corresponds to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Another thing to think about is that one of the great things about Wikipedia is that if ever students need to do research on a certain topic, they can trace the source of a particular fact directly back to the source. Without the inline cites, this becomes much more difficult. This is not obsessive-compulsive, it is simply a mindset that is dedicated to making Wikipedia as helpful and accurate as possible.Cheers, Corvus coronoides 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So, all our time here is spent doing some kid's homework, and is valuable because it saves him/her time? Interesting perspective. It would be a real shame if some kid, somewhere, had to read a book. IMO, the manual of style - footnotes/reference, changed significantly during my tenure here, seems to currently reflect a frantic need to defend Wikipedia against our media critics rather than striving to be helpful and accurate. How can we accomplish anything if we are always on the defensive against the next attack? Honest errors creep in, vandalism occurs, but a fixation on footnotes and arguments on reference styles and ratings do not ensure accuracy or "truth". WBardwin 06:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WBardwin, this has been your project to this point, I only nominated it for GA after coming across it accidentally. I have a good bite of the reference material and would happily help you to get all the inline citations in place, but i'm hesistant only for the reason that I would be familiarizing myself with the article from a blank slate, whereas you are already there. However, if you need help anywhere, let me know. Always happy to. Trusilver 04:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I have contributed over time, this is not truly "my" article. I appreciate the work that has gone into it in the last few months, as my time for true editing has been very limited. Although I have personal reservations on all of the current rating projects (and the psychology behind them), as well as my annoyance with fixating on footnotes, I have no objections to moving toward a GA or FA status. Keep in mind that, from my observations, the behavior by some editors evaluating FA's is highly uncivil at the moment. But, please, jump in. As I have the time, I will try to contribute. Best........WBardwin 06:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:WBardwin, I feel that it is the consensus of the community that GA and FA articles should have in-line cites. When reviewing this article for GA, I felt it was necessary to become a GA. Your tone, while not uncivil, is certainly not civil. Please try to keep it more civil. Wikipedia should aim at being as accurate as possible, and part of the way we do this is by citing sources for particular facts, making it much easier to trace the credibility of information in articles. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

W incivil? Now I've heard it all. I bet that's a first for him, after two and a half years here. You should put it on your userpage, W, the way Bishonen proudly displays her requests for comments on hers. "First accusation of incivility--link--date". It's a real blight on Wikipedia, this growing incapacity for discussing matters of editing and matters of fact in a frank and straightforward way without retreating in dudgeon into some imaginary grievance about "civility". It's a form of Ad hominem, really: "I don't know what to say about your argument, but here's what I think about the way you talk." Corvus coronoides, did you play it back to yourself before posting, that "Your tone, while not uncivil, is certainly not civil. Please try to keep it more civil"? Is that really what you joined this encyclopedia project for, to mouth such pedantry? Your tone, while not flagrant, is certainly prissy. Please try to keep from sounding like the deportment master at a mid-Victorian educational establishment for young ladies. Frutti di Mare 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

Now, now. It's important to always think of the other guy. One should never say anything which could possibly be taken, by anyone, as the slightest bit offensive, uncivil, condescending, sarcastic, hurtful, demeaning and, shall we include honest? Methinks yes, lets do. Honesty is out. Far too many people are deeply wounded by honesty, it must go.

MEH. Heaven forbid we'd have an environment where we were actually permitted to speak our minds and communicate our thoughts and feelings, without the incivility oversight police evaluating the tone of our keystrokes. By the way, do keystrokes actually have tones?

If someone says "I did not have sex with your wife." Which is the one they really meant?

I did not have sex with your wife.

I did not have sex with your wife.

I did not have sex with your wife.

I did not have sex with your wife.

I did not have sex with your wife.

I did not have sex with your wife.

I did not have sex with your wife.

I did not have sex with your wife.

Are you sure? I turned my key-click off, so you really don't know, do you? Peace.Lsi john 23:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason that this has turned into what it has. I did not take WBardwin's comments as lacking civility any more than I took Corvus' comments as lacking civility. Lets remember that our goal is to improve the article and not focus on some kind of imagined slight that was never intended in the first place. Trusilver 02:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you've grasped the point quite well. Saying someone hasn't been 'uncivil', and, at the same time, suggesting they should be 'more civil' sets new lows for conversation stifling. AGF means, if it's marginal, then we mis-read it. Thanks for your patience with my example. Peace.Lsi john 13:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

:I was only trying to remain diplomatic, but since WBardwin and I have taken this to our talk pages, why not return to the GA? I believe I've gotten all the points people have made here. Frutti di Mare, if you would like clarification on what I meant by my pedantry, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Old comments

Dismal River aspect explanation

Ish Ishwar -- nice series of edits. But I would suggest an additional explanation relating to this sentence: "This Plains migration theory associates Apachean peoples with the Dismal River aspect." Particularly as that article does not (yet) exist. Best wishes. WBardwin 18:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

hi.

ok, a brief note for now. American archeology is not a strong point of Wikipedia, so there are many articles missing here. I am not good at this sort of thing and so will probably leave expansion to a more qualified person. If you are interested, the Plains migration & Dismal River connection is written about by Dolores and James Gunnerson as well as other Plains archeologists while the intermontane migration is tends to be supported more by Southwestern specialists like Morris Opler. peace – ishwar  (speak) 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

haven't much background in plains archaeology myself, so have only a vague memory of Dismal River. I will try to add Gunnerson to my library "to read" list, but it is fairly long at the moment. Thanks for the reference. WBardwin 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

lack of culture

This article contains no information about the Apache culture or lifestyle. Shame. Orangetuesday 05:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You ought to add something on it. --Aaron Walden 12:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • There seems to be no distinct facts that make apaches any different from other native tribes other than the fact that they were fighters,that would be of great help...

Conflict with Mexico and the United States

I deleted the passage below because it is not even close to being factual or balanced. In my opinion it sort of puts history upside down. For example, I could argue that the Spainish were fearful of alliances between Pubelos and the Apacheans, who acted together more than once, to drive them out of settlements on the Rio Grande. By the 18th century the Spainish realized they had to create a series of forts to be able to divide these mutually hostile groups towards the Spainish. Nobody in the Southwest was passive, and certainly this was true of the Apacheans.

The Apache as a group were a powerful people, and were less developed in their creation of permanent villages and agriculture than other tribal groups of the region. As a result, the Apache were raiders and instigators of warfare among the other more peaceful and agrarian tribes throughout the Southwest (United States) and Sonora (Mexico). The Apache were agressors and created fear and eniminity amongst the Papagos, Navajo and most all other native tribes they encountered raiding food stores they themselves were incapable (or unwilling) to produce. This state of fear of the Apache was rampant when the Spanish military and missionary establishments started to take hold during the 18th century. Tribes fearful of the Apache actively sought alliance with the technologically superior Spaniards to create improved security and stability in their own villages.

That is what and why I deleted. --Rcollman 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For those interested in a longer discussion please see my notes in the Navajo People discussion page. The short of it is that IF we state the Apache were aggressors (and I assume they were at times), then it is only fair add that the Spanish had 175 year (documentated by literally 1,000s of their own records and reports) of slaving and plundering activities which involved all tribes in this region. It was just the way it was back then. --Rcollman 14:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I felt a section on the history/conflict with the "whites" would be appropriate. I added material I had drafted for the Mangas Coloradas article, and copied a few images. The Mexican period really needs more information. This is only a start, so feel free to reduce the Mangas material and add Cochise, Geronimo, and others as well. WBardwin 06:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Apache were warlike?" Is that like "the Jews were covetous?" Man, if this isn't a racist remark (by current standards, anyway) I don't know what is. I doubt it was intended to be racist, but it is most certainly a cliche and who is to say how accurate it is? Every U.S. President since Truman has ordered troops into the field or an airstrike somewhere, does that make us "warlike?" Well, maybe. But the point is, this far after the fact, it is pretty difficult to characterize a people whose history is mainly a matter of what the U.S. government officials of the time said it was. It just might be that the Apache had a pretty good reason for their supposed "warlike" behavior. -cneron

Wow, you really put your foot in your mouth, didn't you? It's well known that the Apache tribe was extremely warlike. They were masters of the raid, and tremendously skillful warriors. Why do you think Geronimo was able to avoid capture for literally decades? Of course the Mexicans and the Americans raided the Apache in turn - but it was a sideline. Raiding was all a strong Apache man was supposed to care about. Their entire economy was based on raiding, pillaging and kidnapping their neighbors. Next time, do a bit of research before launching into a laudable but misguided political correct rant. -jackredelfs

Both of the above comments contain sweeping generalization. "No generalization is true, including this one." The US government did (does not today) not speak with one voice. The economy involved more than raiding (all apache groups grew food, hunted game, made things, and traded). We always raid, they always pillage and kidnap?

I am pretty sure can agree that both "american" and "apache" cultures were pretty tough and either could be very nasty in the SouthWest in that time period. I have often wondered if Geronimo was that good, or if the military was that bad (with all due respect to both). All I am saying is calm down with the generalizations. Which is easy for me to say because neither an apache nor an american has scalped my wife. When they do I might have a different opinion. :)--Rcollman 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apache culture was, however, heavily geared toward "Taking enemies' property." The Navajo and the Pueblo regarded the Apaches somewhat as the 8th Century English regarded the Vikings. While Scandinavian society obviously was more than merely raiding, it was that that most impressed itself on Scandinavia's neighbors. The Apache also had a clan-based idea of responsibility, which, along with many other behavioral influences, positive and negative, meant that anytime a White or Mexican (or Navajo or Pueblo) killed a member of a clan, his kin simply went out on "Taking enemies' lives," and killed any member of the responsible person's group they found, regardless of whether the individuals even knew the responsible party. While it was taboo to kill children in one of these revenge-raids, adult captives were also taken and tortured to death. (the above is based on Grenville Goodwin's collections of eyewitness accounts of the raiding years, done in the 1930s, when many raiders were still alive)71.223.169.27 08:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely written summary. I still believe that literally every other cultural group in this area had similar raiding and warfare practices at some point in 1500 to 1890 period. Frankly, I am not quite sure which was the last conquered "Viking" group in the Southwest. Argueably, "Taking enemies property" is still being practiced today by some groups. As you point out concerning the Viking neighbors, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How would Greenville, Basso and Opler describe that neighboring tribe from Tuscon? (big grin) .--Rcollman 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was saying that, while one shouldn't oversimplify, the Apaches were, in fact, raiders. And you're flat-out wrong, there were huge differences between them and their neighbors. The Apaches almost regarded their neighbors as a crop for them to harvest--that's why they didn't, for instance, want to drive the whites away, the way that the Sioux or the Comanche did (or, closer to home, the Hopi). The whites were people they could raid (or rather, subhuman enemies they could raid--to the Apache, all nonApaches, with the possible and debatable exception of the Navajo, were not people). You're assuming that, had the other peoples left them alone, they wouldn't have been raiders. The Navajo were not raiders by profession, nor were the Pueblos or Mexicans--they were settled people. They occasionally attacked their neighbors, yes, mostly for revenge or slaves, but it was not the foundation of their economy. The Apache, on the other hand, made a huge proportion of their living by raiding. What you believe is entirely irrelevant, because it isn't true.71.223.169.27 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

is there any reason this page has been blanked? Srkingdavy 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am ignorant, what is meant by "blanked"? thanks --Rcollman 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Made to appear blank, with all discussion removed or obliterated. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Traditional Apache scout to Apache

Traditional Apache scout should be a part of Apache. It's too short to be out on it's own, and I can't imagine anyone entering the title as it sits. Propose merge to Apache. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now support merge ----Rcollman 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

PS See why you made the suggestion, I jumped to Army Scouts in my mind and did not click on the link. Oooops. Still this is a specialized topic and in my way of thinking has enough to justify a page by itself. Need to make sure it is linked --Rcollman 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

support merge. Chris 08:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Because its about Apache

Support - Culnacréann 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I support a merge given someone can verify the arcticle. ~We are all our own~DragonOfEden 05:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As it has been three months and no steps have been taken to affect this change, I'm going to remove the tag until such time as the debate is addressed again. Trusilver 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub tags

I'm gonna remove most of them, as the sections either have been filled in, or are big enough for their subject. Murderbike 00:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Enabled

I've enabled semi-protection due to repeated vandalism by various anonymous users. This should reduce the time administrators have to waste on reverting vandalism. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell is the disambiguation page?

Lots of stuff called Apache. There's a web server - you heard of it?