Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


The "geographic error" urban legend.

The article has a reference that is being used to support the geographic error urban legend which makes NO MENTION of this concept and doesn't even mention Columbus. It apparently has nothing to do with the statement it is being used to back up. It either needs to be deleted, or someone needs to find a reference that supports the urban legend as fact. The latter may be difficult to do, however, given the known facts.Jkhamlin (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Which urban legend and which known facts? Are you referring to the modern internet meme discussed in the thread immediately above this concerning the origin of term "Indian"?
If this is what you are referring to, read a few of these citations. Heiro 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


The very last sentence of the article, "This suggests that the earliest migrants into the northern extremes of North America and Greenland derived from later migrant populations.", under the section Genetics, literally does not make sense. How can the earliest migrants derive from a later population? — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 09:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

earliest migrants into the northern extremes of North America and Greenland derived from later migrant populations.Moxy (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so basically, they havent really been there all that long. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, only a few thousand years less than the earlier ones, but still many thousands of years longer than Europeans. See here [1]. The third and last wave of immigrants from Asia/Beringia was about 4800-5400 BCE, so if you think 7000 yrs or so ago is "they havent really been there all that long", then meh. Heiro 05:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant that in relation to the scale of human migration. Guess I should have clarified. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying Inuit and Métis not being in the First Nations of Canada

Just clarifying: Métis and Inuit are not in the "First Nations."

Out of pure curiosity, is there a reason the Inuit are not considered First Nations?

Mr Languages (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Page needs organization, page needs neutrality and verification.

indigenous people's of the Americas is a huge topic. I am Native American, but that does not make me an expert. This page needs help from indigenous people's from each part of the Americas.

1. I am so appalled that someone would put the term "red Indian" at the top of the article, in the introduction. Is the n-word in the introduction of the African-American page? Any ethnic slurs or outdated terminology should be included in one section, with the so-called "native American" controversy, or not at all.

2. This page is so full of cultural and political bias. It's an encyclopedia, not your personal platform for world domination. Words like "leftist" and "right-wing" don't really have a place on this page.

3. Needs citation. If you are going to say it, cite it, or shut up.

4. The Native American controversy was largely one held by the white community who were offended at being excluded as "natives." The only controversy in the Native community was that we don't like being called Indians when we aren't Indian. I think this section of the article should be completely cut, but for now I titled it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedarrow (talkcontribs) 23:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Twistedarrow and welcome to this article. I personally wasn't aware of the controversy of the term "Red Indian", but that's mainly because I'm from Mexico and I'm not sensible to some American words charged with political or racial content. If that term is objectionable or plainly insulting, you're more than welcome to delete it citing this argument in your edit summary. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I see some anonymous IP deleted these issues you were concerned about, hopefully it was you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: 1 and 4. See Native American naming controversy. Red Indian has more currency in the UK and this is an international encyclopedia. Your claim in point 4 is wildly incorrect. For point 2, the use of the terms is indicated wherever they are needed. Why would you prohibit them? It is an encyclopedia after all. Rmhermen (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The Native American name controversy "is" largely one held by the xenophobic invading populations. Like other populations around the world, the Indigenous people of the Americas have always identified themselves by their individual ethnic identities.
Definitely,I agree, terms such as Merkin, Wop, Nip, Kraut, Frog should be used in the ethnic descriptions of the related populations. Why would you prohibit them? It is an encyclopedia after all. Niineta (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Scientific American resource regarding Pre-Clovis#Evidence of human habitation before Clovis ... 15,000 years ago The First Americans: Mounting Evidence Prompts Researchers to Reconsider the Peopling of the New World] ... "Humans colonized the New World earlier than previously thought—a revelation that is forcing scientists to rethink long-standing ideas about these trailblazers" by Heather Pringle SciAm October 18, 2011 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See Settlement of the Americas. (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure that Christopher Columbus was referring to India when he called the indigenous people's he met "Indians"

I was intrigued when I read that , in his writings, George Carlin insisted that the name "Indian" (in reference to the peoples Columbus first met in the Americas) was, actually, supposed to be linked to the Spanish phrase " children of God " or, in other words, " ... Indios " . This term is commonly used in South America and seems logical. I do not understand why this has not become more mainstream. So, likely, Columbus wasn't lost. Historians just came up with the wrong explanation ( Indian ) in response to the sound of the Spanish word " Indios ".

The term " Red Indian " seems to me to be more antiquated and/or inaccurate than offensive. My son is an enrolled tribal member. All of the Native Americans I know prefer to be identified by their tribal affiliation since tribes are separate nations. Unpredctd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

George Carlin was a comedian by profession(although a damn fine and thought provoking one) and the historians by profession are historians, you know people who study history, old manuscripts, get degrees from universities, etc. Read the sources that the section(or this article Native American name controversy#"Indian" and "American Indian") is referenced to. It hasn't become mainstream because it is wishful thinking and urban myth, and in Carlins case part of his standup schtick.Heiro 22:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to add Neo-Mongoloid on top page

As you can clearly see from the pictures, most of these Ameridians have an proto-mongoloid which looks non-asiatic. While eskimo ameridians clearly have an neo-mongoloids like Asia. --WarriorsPride6565Talk) 10:31, 29 2012 March 2012(UTC)

So? Not all Native Americans look like that, as can be seen from those picture. You need to push your WP:UNDUE and WP:POV elsewhere please. Heiro 02:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Indigenous Americans look like everything under the rainbow. More photographs of living Natives would be an improvement to the article. Enough with this non-scientific, antiquated terminology. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Funny how an wiki user is talking about non-scientific. I suggest you look up Learn more about anthropology before you accuse me of being non-scientic. My information does not come from me but from many Europeans, Americans, Japanese anthropologists. Go read that wikipedia and learn the difference between Proto-Mongoloids and Neo-Mongoloids than you'll understand why I've editted that information, because it's an fact and it's anthropology. And please don't accuse of not giving reference. WarriorsPride6565Talk) 10:57, 29 2012 March 2012(UTC)
There's also an article on phrenology; that doesn't make it scientific. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must reflect current scientific views. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
The Mongoloid article nicely makes the point I'm trying to convey: "It was introduced by early Racial science to primarily described various central and east Asian populations, one of the proposed three major races of human kind. Since the concept of race has been largely abandoned as a useful way to describe human biological variation the terms have become mostly obsolete. ... outside of physical anthropology the term mongoloid is now often considered derogatory." -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I don't think having the 'mongoloid' stuff in helps in any way. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Please enough, you said the term mongoloid is considered derogatory? but let me tell you the term is already in tons of many Wikipedia pages already and scientific papers, so it's too late to change it and Asians have long accepted this terms so there is nothing racist about it anymore. Besides, just look at the picture of the Native Americans, how you going to explain the non-Asiatic appearance? -WarriorsPride6565Talk) 7:30, 30 2012 March 2012(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
You need to stop this; you are already over 3RR and you are IP-socking to boot. Given your recent behavior elsewhere, you can be blocked at any moment now without further warnings. I just need to get some coffee before I get the machinery rolling. If you just go elsewhere for a few days, I might forget about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Reported for 3RR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Title, photographs, etc

(1) This article needs to be split into (a)History of the indigenous peoples and (b)Indigenous peoples of Americas. (2)The photographs generally look like those of "specimens" and not people. In 2012 that is an awful way to present humans. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

First point, no. "History of the indigenous peoples" would be a huge undertaking that would quickly grow bigger than max-KB size. Point two > WP:SOFIXIT, or make suggestions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Point one I think is kind of handed by havoing many individual articles, such as the ones located in the see also section and a template for related articles at bottom of page. Heiro 06:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite get Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, this article is about their history and about contemporary indigenous peoples, I suggest this one be separated into the two. How would that in itself make the new article bigger? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
You suggested "History of the indigenous peoples" — you know how many different indigenous peoples there are on this planet? It would simply be beyond the scope of a single article... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
You get me wrong, I say please split this article into two, one for history another for contemporary issues. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh; well that would imply that there is such a thing as "history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
There isn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't this article deal with it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It tries, but naturally fails, since there is no such thing. Just as a "history of Eurasians" would fail. I mean, you can try, but I personally don't think it's a good idea to dignify the colonizers' point of view with an entire article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────But does it not "the colonizers' POV" as you put it permeate half an article? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

what do you mean? In my view, this article shouldn't exist at all; splitting it into two will make it worse. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh that is interesting. We could perhaps have other opinions. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you could turn the article into a disambiguation page, guiding the reader towards separate articles such as a History of the Navajo, History of the Cherokee, History of the Sioux, etc. —Stephen (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This article doesn't have to be split between historical and contemporary information. It's a broad overview of indigenous peoples of the Americas, which directs readers to more precise articles. Many of these articles still need to be written, such as Indigenous peoples in Bolivia or Indigenous peoples in Suriname, if anyone is in need a new project. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

WarriorsPride's edits

I've reverted WarriorsPride for several reasons mentioned in my edit summary. Using a 1922 source is ridiculous and suggests simple copy and paste with a lack of understanding of the subject. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

WarriorsPride, did you read your 1922 source? Can you give us a quote of the entire paragraph? This is one reason why copy and paste from elsewhere is a bad idea. At the moment, without even a page number, that source is not verifiable and in any case is obsolete and shouldn't be used - I don't know why you think it is appropriate to use a 1922 source. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it, why it isn't appropriate to use 1922 sources? besides my reference doesn't mention 1922 anywhere. Most of the referece in this wikipedia page don't have page number either, but anyway if you want I provide page numbers and dates aswell. With such massive evidence proven by so many anthropologist and geneticist, yet this wiki page for some reason is preventing these info which I find really suspicious.

1)" Lahr, M. M. , Patterns of modern human diversification: Implications for Amerindian origins. American Journal of ::Physical Anthropology, " " Volume 38, Issue Supplement S2, pages 163–198, 1995
2)"BOOK American Indian life Elsie Worthington Clews Parsons - 1991 - 419 pages - PARAGRAPH " In race he was Mongoloid — not Chinese, Japanese, or Mongol proper, but proto-Mongoloid ; a straight-haired type, medium in ::complexion, jaw protrusion, nose-breadth, and inclining probably to round-headedness; an early type, in short..."
3) "Archaeology: The Widening Debate By Colin Renfrew " first colonized by proto- or pre-Mongoloid people, different from North Asian Mongoloids (Lahr 1997; Neves ct al.) Page 199"
4)" Genetic link between Asians and native Americans: evidence from HLA genes and haplotypes. Hum Immunol. 2001 Sep;6 "
5) " Method and Theory in American Archaeology" (Digitised online by Questia Media). Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips. University of Chicago. 1958. "
"Howells, William W. (1997). Getting here: the story of human evolution. ISBN 0-929590-16-3"
This is a recreation of the craniometric dendogram entitled "Cranial Cluster 28 Groups" in a book by anthropologist William White Howells, professor of anthropology at Harvard University who said "Indians" or "American populations" are closest in "studies of cranial distance" to "Europeans" as seen above and that among "Indians" or "American populations", only "Eskimos" are "strongly Mongoloid in form." WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 4:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
You clearly haven't checked your sources. Elsie Clews Parsons died in 1941. Writers writing in 1922, 1906, 1958, etc. can't be used for statements about anthropology, only if you are writing something on historical views, which isn't appropriate here. You're adding this stuff in other articles as well despite being reverted. You are going to end up blocked again. I still have reason to think you haven't read these sources yourself, and you clearly see this as fact rather than part of an ongoing debate. You need to stop adding this and get agreement as to what should be in the article, and reading the material yourself would be a good start. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. WP, please stop this now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I know Elsie Clew died in 1941 BUT his statements is clearly still used by modern authors in their books including many other writers which supports theirs statements. YOU SAY writers writing in 1922, 1906, 1958 can't be used for statement about anthropology? why than are anthropology statements made in this wiki page ( ) in the "classification section" which dates 1870, 1920, 1939, why are they being used
Also even if I agree with your reason of not using of writers before 1960, what's the reason or excuse for not mentioning the connection of Native Americans and Ainu based on modern genetic studies????????
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009 Mar;138(3):255-65. Adachi N, Shinoda K, Umetsu K, Matsumura H.
" Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Jomon skeletons from the Funadomari site, Hokkaido, and its implication for the origins of Native American. " the fact that Hokkaido Jomons shared haplogroup D1 with Native Americans validates the hypothesized genetic affinity of the Jomon people to Native Americans, providing direct evidence for the genetic relationships between these populations."
This Wikipedia mentioned Native Americans are related with Asian which is based on Haplogroup genetic studies, I have now given information based on genetic studies of Haplogroup and Abstracts which clearly proves their connection. And how strange that this wiki page now even allows "Lucia" but for some weird reason you won't allow mentioning the genetic relationships with Native American, Ainu, Jomon why is that? ---WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 1:36 PM, 16 April 2012 (UTC)‘‘‘‘’’’’
Ok let me try to explain -Its that they share a common ancestor over 20,000 years ago - not that Native Americas are direct descendents of the Jomon peoples. Geneticists have variously estimated that peoples of Asia and the Americas were part of the same population from about 21,000 to 42,000 years ago. Its only 5% of Native Americans DNA so it may be a new addition, however... most believe it comes for the Altai Mountains region from a common ancestor they both share. Both at this time moved into there areas because of low sea levels due to the Last glacial period. Both came to there locations (in theory) because of land bridges. (Pls see Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas for more info). All that said what does that have to do with the addition of Luzia Woman a Paleo-Indian of the period or the addition of antiquated pseudoscience race terminology?Moxy (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead Image

I see that the lead image is again the old antiquated images from 1914 - At WP:Indigenous peoples of the Americas we had long ago chose not use the pseudoscience "The New Student's Reference Work" images, but I guess they were all uploded again and uses again. I wish to remove them and replace them with a better image any suggestions?Moxy (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Support! WP Ethnic groups has been having an ongoing discussion - should "typical" or "notable" members of a group be featured in infoboxes? Personally, I'm not crazy about montages, but Indigenous peoples in Brazil has a nice one. A map might be the best, neutral choice. User:Mannypr created several but I believe the population information s/he had was questionable. Even just a simple map might be best, since not every one realizes Greenland is part of the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Map is a great idea - we need something like File:Langs N.Amer.png but for all the Americas.Moxy (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hm... yeah, it would be nice if there were no white people in Texas and Iowa. Back to reality — you something like this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I put up a placeholder image for now - contemporary people from Peru, since it has the largest indigenous population, and Quechua people, since they are the largest indigenous ethnic/language group in the Americas. I didn't link their organization since that might be undue promotion. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Wiki users controlling information

Deliberately and purposely controlling scientific information they don't want others to see, and threatening people with warnings. this is no different to media where is so much censoring information they don't want you to see. Wikipedia is an place anyone can edit as long they have related information backed with references or sources, but just like in the media where information is controlled so is wikipedia . This wiki page has no information based on the anthropology of Native American. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to remove information that is already proven from genetics to anthropology by many scientists. Information that has been backed edited for months all of sudden get's removes. The genetic section mentions Native american link with Asians yet it doesn't mention the fact there are even closer to Ainu yet for whatever reason somebody refuses to edit this. --> - If this is not controlling information I don't know what it is. WarriorsPride6565Talk) 11:33, 30 2012 March 2012(UTC)

Nice to see you aren't using a sock puppet here. Your source does not say Native Americans are closer to the Ainu (a modern ethnic group) than Asians, the abstract says "These findings further support the genetic link between East Asians and Native Americans. We have proposed that various ancestral populations in East Asia, marked by different HLA haplotypes, had migrated and dispersed through multiple routes. Moreover, relatively small genetic distances and the sharing of several HLA haplotypes between Ainu and Native Americans suggest that these populations are descendants of some Upper Paleolithic populations of East Asia.". Not that we can use abstracts as reliable sources, but I'm guessing that it's pretty close to what the article says. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure you understand what this study meant? let me bold the important parts for you. " relatively small genetic distances and the sharing of several HLA haplotypes between Ainu and Native Americans". It means that the genetic distance between Ainu and Native Americans are even closer than they are too Asians, the smaller the closer. If abstracts are unreliable than neither are haplogroup DNA. This wikipedia lacks so much information, it's like saying that Native Americans are Asians. That's like saying Pakistani and Agfhans are also White people just because there Caucasoid. Also I don't understand why this wikipage won't allow mentioning Native Americans are proto-mongoloid people when so many anthropologist say they are. Even pictures show it, yet why can't this proven information be edited?
This is a Maidu, American Indian man from a publication by anthropologist Franz Boas in 1905
This is a Yurok, American Indian, woman from a publication by anthropologist Aleš Hrdlička in 1906.
Lahr said the "morphology" of the "Paleoindian" is consistent with the "proto-Mongoloid definition". Anthropologist Elsie Clews Parsons physical features of the "Proto-Mongoloid" were characterized as, "a straight-haired type, medium in complexion, jaw protrusion, nose-breadth, and inclining probably to round-headedness" -WarriorsPride6565Talk) 9:36, 9 2012 April 2012(UTC)
Obviously there is a major difference in what is considered offensive in Hong Kong versus what is considered offensive among Native Americans. Race science is regarded here as a vile pseudo-science. To demonstrate, check out the reconstruction of Luzia Woman, the oldest known human remains in the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I have reason to suspect that there's an important reason why wiki doesn't want to mentiom the fact that Native Americans are closer to Ainu than they are to Asian, it seems to they don't want this mentioned. It's very misleading to claim that Native Americans are simply the descendants of Asians which lacks accuracy -WarriorsPride6565Talk) 5:34, 11 May April 2012(UTC)
Wait a sec?? Are you suggesting that the Ainu are not Asian in origin? Where are they from Europe? Pls see a map of Asia. The vast majority (87.5%) of the Ainu exhibited the Asian-specific YAP+ lineages (Y-haplogroups D-M55* and D-M125). A better understanding is needed before additional edits are made.Moxy (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Ainus are an historical Asian ethnic group - not even 2000 years old. The claim makes no sense. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
And could you please avoid editing logged out? I know that when you posted to my talk page from (talk · contribs) you signed with your account name, but editing logged out is a bad idea, especially when others disagree with your edits, as not everyone will know the IP is you. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Amerindian or Amerind?

Confusion that need sorting out. The word "Amerindian" forwards to the article for the talk page you are reading: Indigenous peoples of the Americas, where it is difficult to find on the page, while the word Amerind (disambiguation page) forwards to its own article Amerind peoples and apparently means the same thing. As a scientific term in genetics, I am increasingly encountering "Amerindian" or "Amerind" because they are shorter and more practical. Perhaps someone should merge the "Amerind" article into its own section into this article and mention they both mean the same. 5Q5 (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: And then there's Amerindian Mexican which forwards to Indigenous peoples of Mexico. But wait, we mustn't forget Native American name controversy which only mentions Amerind and not Amerindian. What a mess. I think I'll pass on this. 5Q5 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Genetic testing shows Native American link with Ainu/Jomon (Please add this onto wikipedia)

I really don't understand the reason for evading such important information. There is no problem mentioning Native Americans are related with Asians but why prevent the fact that they are also related with the Ainu as shown from their abstract and haplogroup DNA.

"study of ancient populations in northern part of Japan brings important information to the understanding of human migration in northeast Asia and America"

" Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Jomon skeletons from the Funadomari site, Hokkaido, and its implication for the origins of Native American" shows the fact that Hokkaido Jomons shared haplogroup D1 with Native Americans validates the hypothesized genetic affinity of the Jomon people to Native Americans, providing direct evidence for the genetic relationships between these populations."

"Genetic finding also shows the indigenous population in North Japan, Ainu, was placed relatively close to Native Americans who are both descended from a Upper Paleolithic populations. Blood tests made upon today's Ainu reveal Mongoloid ties with Ameridians. Relatively small genetic distances and the sharing of several HLA haplotypes between Ainu and Native Americans suggest that these populations are descendants of some Upper Paleolithic populations of East Asia."

(BTW I'm WarriorsPride6565, I longer have access to this account)

- ( (talk) 9:09, Thursday 14th June, 2012 (UTC)

We can't do it on the basis of abstracts - there seems to be a common misconception, which I once shared, that abstracts are always considered reliable sources. See [2] I'd like to see the articles and I'll try to get them. But blogs certainly aren't, and that one you added was clearly religiously motivated - "It is exciting when the truth of Scripture is confirmed by genetics and linguistics, as has happened with reference to the first people called the Ainu." Using that as a source taints the rest of your edit.(I get tired of telling people the Ainu are a modern cultural group) Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Forget abstract than, mtDNA in ancient Jomons and Native Americans revealed connection with haplogroup D1. One way or the other it clearly shows Native Americans have connections with them aswell. All I'm hoping for is to edit this fact on the wikipedia . ( (talk) 11:08, Thursday 14th June, 2012 (UTC)
They share a common ancestor (Asian) over 20,000 years ago - not that Native Americas are direct descendents of the Ainu or Jomon peoples. Geneticists have variously estimated that peoples of Asia and the Americas were part of the same population from about 21,000 to 42,000 years ago as with the Ainu and Jomon peoples.Moxy (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
That maybe so but it still doesn't change the fact that mtDNA results have shown a link ancient Jomon D1 with Native American which makes up 18% of mtDNA on average Native Americans. In some parts mtDNA D1 it reaches 35-55% in some part of the Americas. So with your request and others aswell, I like to edit this fact on to this wikipedia so that the truth can be more accurate.-( (talk) 11:08, Thursday 15th June, 2012 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:TRUTH and WP:UNDUE, you also might want to take a look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Heiro 14:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, my information are based on the scientific truth - ( (talk) 11:08, Thursday 16th June, 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you didn't actually read those above links, please take this time to go read them and understand them, also check out WP:EDITWAR. Heiro 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I've read them already. This sentence explains the exact situation I'm in right now. " However, despite its inarguable power, acceptance of The Truth is not yet universal. Indeed, foolish or corrupt editors may try to remove The Truth from Wikipedia. " So basically somebody is trying to prevent the truth, it certainly isn't me because I'm not editing to remove any information that's already in Wikipedia, I'm only editing wikipedia to add more truth to help people get an better understanding. What does it take edit new and simple informations based on the truth (provided with enormous scientific evidence)? how can wikipedia progressed if it doesn't accepts new and modern information. -( (talk) 12.22:08, Thursday 16th June, 2012 (UTC)
So a group known to be from Asia is related to a group known to live in Asia. So...what? This seems rather unsurprising news. Now if they were found to be unrelated that might be important information for the Jomon page, but not here. Am I missing something? Rmhermen (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You missed the point that not many people know that part of the Native Americans population were also descended from the Jomon people aswell. The point of the wikipedia is to let as many people to know the truth. People should learn to accept new and modern scientific evidence or else they would never progress.
NATIVE AMERICANS WITH JOMON APPEARANCE. The amazonians are an tribes who had no contact with Europeans but just look at how many of them look? they look so much like the Ainu and absolutely nothing the southern aboriginal Indians mongoloid with dark brown skin.
So why prevent this fact? clearly there's so much evidence to prove this. How can anyone explain the appearance of these Ameridians types if it weren't because of Jomon ancestry?

-( (talk) 12.22:08, Thursday 16th June, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your source says what you think it says.For instance, it does not appear to say that Native Americans are descended from Jomon, nor to say anything about Amazonian Indians at all. Rmhermen (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

migration route problem

why doesn't wikipedia have a migration route for Europeans or Asians or Middle Eastern people? well it does if you look around a bit (albeit on a different page). So it seems prejudice that you people are trying to make us look as if we are not a race and just an asian sub group, while asians came from the middle east, so why is there no migration model for them? this is so prejudice it's borderline racism towards native americans by making us out to be not a race of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based the theories white people came up with (see WP:RS); if you have a problem with those theories, you need to go to the people who came up with them. Wikipedia is merely reporting what others have written. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If there are any that don't have that information, it should be added. I know that Roma and Celt, for example, all have it already. Rmhermen (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Once you take into account modern theories of genetics and our evolution as a species in Africa, there is no "race" or there is only one race, the human race. Heiro 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, this wiki page seems double standard, basically it only includes the theory they are Asian without including other data. ( (talk) 1:03, Thursday 19th August, 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

well Europeans came from asia....look up europeans and it says nothing of that? why is that, that's certainly a theory, why isn't it there? is it because YOU people have a problem knowing yur ancestors are asian too? yeah i thought so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well no, not all of them. It is a much more complicated history as discussed in Ethnic groups in Europe. It is certainly not a matter of POV. Rmhermen (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Are N American Natives still genetically the same as their native ancestors?

Unreachable vandalism

I can read the text "OUNCE APON A TIME THERE WAS A COUNTRY NAMED AWESOME IT WAS RULED BY A AWESOME HANDSOME YOUNG MAN NAMED DENTON (ME) AND HE FELL IN LOVE WITH HIS CRUSH WHITCH HE HAD A CRUSH ON SINCE 5TH GRADE HER NAME WAS KAELI AND THEY KISSED AND HAD *** AND HAD *** AGAIN ≐LOVE HE HAD LOVED HER" but can't located it when editing to remove it. Very bizarre. Can anyone remove this from the article?? -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The problem appears to have been fixed. It's a shame whoever fixed it didn't notice your question here and reply. It was probably some vandalism to a template used in this article, rather than vandalism to the article itself. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool, glad it's gone, I couldn't figure it out at all. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Yeah, and in case you think you imagined it, I saw it too. It disappeared while I was trying to figure it out! HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Even the possibility of Wikillucinations is terrifying. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Kublai Kahn's fleet?

When Kublai Kahn's fleet was hit by a typhoon off the Japanese coast in 1281, could they have been blown to the Americas like debris from the Fukushima tsunami? What about the Chinese legend about the 7 cities or islands? Supposedly there are Chinese ruins on Cape Breton Island. I'm sick of the Columbus myth, and folks claiming ocean travel was too dangerous for anyone to go anywhere. Almost all ancient peoples were experienced/knowledgable in sailing. Aside from Chinese/Mongoloids, my Viking ancestors were here way before Christopher Columbus as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we already have an article for that, please see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts#Fringe theories. See also WP:FRINGE for why it is not included in this article. Cheers! Heiro 19:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Children's learning

I've removed this entire section. It obviously can't cover all groups from Alaska to the tip of South America, but the major problem is poor sourcing. It's hard to figure out what the sources are. Centerx is Center X, some sort of UCLA partnership with teachers.[3] MA Bigknife is Molly Bigknife Antonio and the source is a thesis towards an MA in Adventure Education.[4]and [5]. I looked for one other and gave up. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


In Costa Rica only 16% of people has indigenous blood??? What kind of crap is that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is referenced, do you have a better reference besides 'it is crap'? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

immigration policies & rights of Indigenous people of the Americas

See "Rise of Indigenous Movements" in Wikipedia. How can outrageous groups like the KKK claim the U.S. needs to prevent Native Americans from entering "our country"? The American Indians lived in the Americas before our ancestors. Did you know that several tribes of Native Americans have the right to freely cross the U.S.-Canadian border? Should they not have the right to cross the U.S.- Mexican border also? e-mail — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"European origin"?

Recent genetic studies have shown that Paleolithic Europeans and Native Americans share a genetic founder population and that there is strong evidence that the "population that crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia into the Americas more than 15,000 years ago was likely related to the ancient population of Europe."[46]

This surprising fact is plonked in with not enough explanation or background, in my opinion. It seems "obvious" from the appearance of native Americans that they are much more closely related to Asians than to Europeans. Just look at the picture of the Mayan women at the top of the article. Does "ancient" mean so far back that we were all related or what? (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This a hard one to explain... to put it simply Europeans and Asia's share a common ancestor in the paleolithic period. -- Moxy (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, if this common ancestor of Europeans and Native Americans is also a common ancestor of Asians then that definitely needs clarifying because it is not the impression currently given. (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you could kindly not revise the European origin part as that is a very interesting and verifiable bit of information. It makes sense to considering groups like Sami are very similar physically and culturally to Native Americans. Remember disbelief and ignorance isn't a substitute for facts. To the user that said not enough explanation or background was given in his "opinion" and it doesn't seem "obvious" from native Americans appearance that they are "asian". Bit of asian-centric racism me thinks. Finally "Does "ancient" mean so far back that we were all related or what?" No. No clearly the sources you have not read explain it's from the time of farming populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I await Dougweller to discuss this subject to reach a consensus rather than constantly undoing the article which has been vandalised with the Chinese mummy line. It was unedited for many months before this. Please refrain from trying to ban me without discussing it with me. I'll just get around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't tried to nor threatened you with a ban. However, considering your statement you will evade a block (we don't ban IPs), then it may be necessary to protect the article in the future if you actually do that. But you really should not have removed that material, let alone call the editor who added it pro-Chinese racist or that adding the material is WP:VANDALISM, which it isn't by our definition. You haven't justified the removal of that material. That section still needs a bit more work and I have it open to look at in a little while. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You are now dodging the argument and arguing semantics block, ban. I will get around it. "Then why are you compulsively undoing to the Chinese section which in itself is a recent vandalism because someone could not believe the European cited information? For many months it's remained the same and apparently one person as far as I can tell took offence to this for some strongly biased reason and added the irreverent chinese line. Why are you supporting this mindlessly? Please read the sources that were originally provided and consider that there is no reason to remove this fascinating bit of accurate information for some Sinophillic asian imperialist view. What is next you will be supporting Turianists fanatically?"

To further the discussion may I ask why the European verified and relevant information needs to be removed to make way for the Chinese mummy snippet? I'm not exactly surprised this is the behaviour on wikipedia. Biased editing, agenda pushing and threats. (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Please do not add or change content, as you did to Indigenous people of the Americas, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add "

Also have to wonder about this as I gave two very reliable sources for each bit of information. Really pathetic121.218.61.142 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to edit again to make sure the other source is shown correctly, but not while you are edit warring while at the same time talking about consensus. Don't bother to cite guidelines, etc to me while you are accusing people of racism and edit warring. You removed material from the Chinese Academy of Sciences Max Planck Society Joint Laboratory for Human Evolution, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100044 Beijing, China; Department of Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany; and Department of Molecular Biology, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany because you think it racist, which is just nonsense. The new source says "the fact that the allele was absent in other Asian populations most likely meant that America’s ancestral founders had been isolated from the rest of Asia for thousands of years before they moved into the New World: that is, for a period of time that was long enough to allow the allele to originate in, and spread throughout, the isolated population" and says "This relationship between humans separated by the Atlantic Ocean reveals surprising features of the migration patterns of our ancestors, and reinforces the truth that all humans are closely related." The 2009 source says "he fact that the allele was absent in other Asian populations most likely meant that America’s ancestral founders had been isolated from the rest of Asia for thousands of years before they moved into the New World: that is, for a period of time that was long enough to allow the allele to originate in, and spread throughout, the isolated population." But you wouldn't guess that from the current version. And the PBS source is obsolete, dated to 2004 and should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Dougweller. GregJackP Boomer! 12:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
As do I. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Dougweller. CJLippert (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Me too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree a paper on the subject and the news that all should understand New World Settlers Took 20,000-Year Pit Stop

Canada "Peaceful"

Although not without conflict, European/Canadian early interactions with First Nations and Inuit populations were relatively peaceful, compared to the experience of native peoples in the United States. Combined with relatively late economic development in many regions, this peaceful history has allowed Canadian Indigenous peoples to have a relatively strong influence on the national culture while preserving their own identity.

This is quoting Department of Foreign Affairs--comes off as an advertisement form the Canadian Government. Truth is, the treatment of the Native population in Canada was despicable and their living conditions on reserve is sub standard. Not saying that Canadians don't find the Native culture important, but this stub uses ridiculous terms like "peaceful". How peaceful were the residential schools? (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC) -Dave

You may have a point, but notice the two qualifiers: an adverbial phrase, "Although not without conflict" and the adverb "relatively" before "peaceful". The sentence makes it clear that it was relatively peaceful compared to the experience of native peoples in the United States. I will make a small edit that may improve the sentence to your satisfaction. If you have found a reliable source of information, you can add a fact-based statement regarding the residential schools in an appropriate place in the article and cite the reference.CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I made a few small changes in the sentence to improve clarity, but I still don't understand "a late economic development" – late compared to what? – nor the connection between that and the influence native Canadians have had on the national culture. Perhaps someone who understands what is meant could work to improve the sentence even further.CorinneSD (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Late compared to the rest of the continent - population grew very slowly ...meaning that colonization and economic development was way behind the rest of the continent. The french also went out of there way to stay clear of aboriginals when making a settlement. see David L. Preston (2009). The Texture of Contact: European and Indian Settler Communities on the Frontiers of Iroquoia, 1667-1783. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 43–. ISBN 978-0-8032-2549-7.  and see Roger E. Riendeau (2007). A Brief History of Canada. Infobase Publishing. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-4381-0822-3. . Got to remember what happened under British rule was much later then the colonization period ..things like residential schools are from more modern times. SO I added "From the late 18th century, European Canadians encouraged Aboriginals to assimilate into their own culture, referred to as "Canadian culture".[154] These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with forced integration." See sources in article. -- Moxy (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Good addition.CorinneSD (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

European colonization

In the first paragraph in the section "European colonization" we find the following sentence:

"The leading cause was disease, as the continent was ravaged by epidemics such as smallpox, measles, and cholera, which often arrived before any European colonists and had high mortality rates due to the Natives lack of prior exposure to these diseases."

I have a question about the clause "which often arrived before any European colonists". To the average reader, this sounds like the diseases were present in the Americas before any European arrived. Weren't these diseases brought by the early European explorers beginning with Christopher Columbus? Apparently, the person who wrote this sentence was making a distinction between "European colonists" and "European explorers" and assumes the reader will understand this. However, I think it should be made clear that the diseases were brought by the European explorers (or conquerors) beginning with Christopher Columbus, and that a lot of the ravages of the diseases took place before European colonists arrived in the decades following the arrival of the explorers. If there is agreement, perhaps someone could revise this sentence. If I don't hear from anyone, I will revise the sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and revise it - perhaps it should say that the diseases ran ahead of the explorers, so many indigenous peoples were decimated long before Europeans appeared in their region. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you for your reply. But even the phrase you suggest, "the diseases ran ahead of the explorers", might suggest to some that the diseases were not brought by the explorers themselves but were endemic to the Americas. I will work on it in a moment to make it clear.CorinneSD (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
You might want to look at Spanish conquest of Guatemala#Impact of Old World diseases, which deals with this. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


The last sentence in the "Agriculture" section is the following:

"Studies of contemporary indigenous environmental management, including agro-forestry practices among Itza Maya in Guatemala and hunting and fishing among the Menominee of Wisconsin, suggest that longstanding "sacred values" may represent a summary of sustainable millennial traditions."

I think for the average reader, the last part of the sentence,

"longstanding "sacred values" may represent a summary of sustainable millennial traditions."

ought to be explained or worded in a more easily understood manner. Perhaps the phrase longstanding "sacred values" could be amended to something like, longstanding "sacred values" regarding the importance of caring for the Earth, or regarding humans' relationship to the Earth. But "a summary of sustainable millennial traditions" needs a bit of clarifying. Does anyone have any suggestions? – CorinneSD (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

History and status by country - Chile

Can anyone make any sense of the sentence that comprises the last paragraph in the section on "Chile"? It does not make any sense as it is now, and I don't know how to fix it.CorinneSD (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A vast improvement. I made a few further small edits to make the sentence more concise.CorinneSD (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A Question about Terminology

I noticed that on October 17, 2013, editor JustaMuggle deleted "American Indian" from the sentence

"Indigenous peoples of the United States are commonly known as Native Americans or American Indians and Alaskan Natives."

in Line 78. I suppose that is because he or she feels that no one should ever call North American Native Americans "American Indians". Also, a day or so later, he or she changed "Mexican Indians" to "native Mexicans", probably for the same reason. I know this is a sensitive topic. As a person who grew up hearing "American Indian" until the 1960s, I have no problem using the newer term (Native American), but the fact is, many people still occasionally use the term "American Indian" when referring to Native Americans within the continental United States. Thus, wouldn't it be accurate to leave "American Indians" as it was in the sentence in Line 78 that I quoted above?

If not, O.K. But then, would you leave "American Indian" used as an adjective in the following sentence, which is found in the second-to-last paragraph in the sub-section "Pre-Columbian era" in the "History" section:

"Inuit, Alaskan Native, and American Indian creation myths tell of a variety of originations of their respective peoples." ?CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to comment on Native American vs American Indian but native Mexican is not a term that would be used in Mexico - commonly the term indígena is used to refer to a Mexican Indian, so in English that would be indigenous Mexicans, but indio (Indian) is also common. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The edit changing "Mexican Indian" (used as an adjective) to "native Mexican" by JustaMuggle was made on October 17, 2013, and is in the middle of the paragraph on El Salvador in "History and status by country". Do you suggest simply changing it back to "Mexican Indian", or changing it to something else?CorinneSD (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I also see "native Indians" in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph in the sub-section "European colonization" in the section "History":
"The Laws of Burgos, 1512-1513 were the first codified set of laws governing the behavior of Spanish settlers in America, particularly with regard to native Indians."
Should that be left as is?CorinneSD (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the problem is with "Indians" - I've used the term in articles that have passed GA and FA - but as far as Mexico goes, "indigenous Mexicans" or "Mexican Indians" should both be fine. Native Mexicans just sounds like anyone born in Mexico. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Indians and native Americans seem to be favored in different parts of the US, although I know a lot of tribes call themselves Indians. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
In Mexico and the Spanish colonies Indians is the correct usage when referring to the colonial period. When referring to contemporary contexts "indigenous Mexicans" or "Mexican indigenous peoples" are preferrable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Im 62.5% Native American and I prefer Indigenous, or Aboriginal although i use Native American for shorter. I dislike the term Indian because Indians are from India and Columbus of which was a murderer branded us that name. NativePride98 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You need to take it up with the Indian tribes that call themselves Indian. When you can convince them not to use the name, then we probably won't use it. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Terminology preferences are regional and generational, so in using terms on WP, I think we need to stick to the sources and use whatever the organizations and communities call themselves. When at all possible, it's best to default to the actual Nation or Tribe an individual belongs to. When it comes to generalities, older Natives tend to say "Indian." "Indian" is also common among middle-aged and some younger Natives who grew up in traditional communities, and/or who were raised by elders. Younger people tend to prefer "Indigenous." "Native American" was fairly popular in the '80s and '90s, especially among younger activists on the East Coast, though many now reject the idea of being "American" and simply say "Native." "Native" is often the default on the West Coast and "Indian" more common in the Plains and Midwest. "American Indian" or "Amerind" was used mostly in the '70s, and you rarely hear it now (except in the names of organizations that were formed during that time, such as the American Indian Movement (AIM)). "Aboriginal" as a self-identifier is much more common in Canada than the US, but not as commonly used as "First Nations." - CorbieV 18:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

An additional section of Child Development

Since this page does not already have a section on Indigenous American styles of child development and child rearing, we may begin to include a general introduction to patterns found in Indigenous communities regarding child learning within the next week or two. Laurenwurst (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Child development

I have moved the new section "Child development" to its own article Child development of the indigenous peoples of the its very detailed for this overview article. and the fact it merits its own space..well source etc... -- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Red indian

The term Red indian redirects here, but is not mentioned in the article. Discuss. Guinness2702 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Discuss what?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that the term must be mentioned. I am aware that it is highly problematic; therefore, all we have to do is treat it as such. "Indigenous people were once pejoratively referred to..." or something like that. The term was used historically, and wikipedia is not censored; so shouldn't there be some treatment of it? If most RS call it a racist term or a tool of oppression or whatever (which is more or less accurate) then we can refer to it as such; but why wipe it out of the article altogether? Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
JusT one of many terms that redirect here -- this is not Wiktionary. WP:POFRED-- Moxy (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I am well aware that this is not a dictionary, and I am not suggesting that every possible variation on this word get a treatment in here. I have not searched the sources systematically, but I was under the impression that the word had a significant history. I am hardly wedded to putting it in; but don't trivialize the question, please. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what more can be said on the topic... We mention the origins of the term Indian. Red Indians is a term not used from a historical academic prospective.... just a slang term used by southerners in the late 19th and 20th century for south American indigenous peoples. Not a term that needs mention here. -- Moxy (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't "just a slang term". Fifty years ago, in kids' TV shows and movies, it was a very common term. I don't recall it as being pejorative. I think it could definitely do with some context and explanation. For starters - Moxy - what do you mean by "south American". HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Certainly in the UK it was common to use Red Indian as a term in the 1970s, and not just slang. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
From what I know, the term has received scholarly treatment, and it is typically seen as pejorative. See 1, 2, [ 3] (I'm not suggesting these articles need be covered; just to illustrate my point.) Also, it's received coverage not just as a questionable term, but the Shoemaker source seems to discuss the term as relevant to Native American history; which makes it relevant to this page, right? We are not obligated to explain it, but where it is historically relevant to the people, it seems to me we should cover it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Certainly didn't originate as a slang term, and at least early 19th century, not late.[6][7][8][9]. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


This passage: " The loss of lives was exacerbated by violence on the part of colonists who frequently perpetrated massacres on the indigenous groups and enslaved them." Is problematic. First it uses three references, none of which can be checked, though I've no doubt they may support it. Two of them are works by scholars on the extreme side of the issue. This is obviously a one sided portrayal of the matter, massacres were perpetrated by both colonists and indians, and they were often done in retaliation for massacres done by the other side first. The very statement violence on the part of the colonists is so biased it approaches fiction- as if indians wouldn't fight back and were completely submissive. Can we rework this to present a more balanced view?Batvette (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The passage is largely accurate, and considered to be so by most contemporary scholars. It takes very little acquaintance with the history of Indigenous populations in the Americas to verify it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously denying that there was violence perpetrated by indians against European settlers? And you imply I am the one not acquainted with history?Batvette (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
No I am not, and neither is the passage that you refer to. The phrase is discussing the cause of the Indigenous population decline. Obviously indigenous population decline was not exacerbated by violence done by indigenous peoples against colonists. Scholars also agree very widely that the relative death toll in massacres by the two sides is not even close to comparable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Obviously indigenous population decline was not exacerbated by violence done by indigenous peoples against colonists.
Perhaps a visit to wiktionary's entry for the word retaliation is in order- or if you're familiar maybe you should employ better debate tactics than feigned ignorance. The passage implies violence was always initiated by the colonists and not that a massacre may have been the result of retaliation after previous violence initiated by the natives. Is this now clear to you or do you need anything else slowly spelled out or explained for you?
Are there references provided to support colonist initiated massacres of indians without undue provocation, and that this is significant statistically compared to disease and other causes?Batvette (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

I just reverted the addition of a fairly large and somewhat incoherent section, which appeared to be saying that Native Americans are descended from Europeans on the paternal side, which makes little sense; also, the source does not use the term "paternal" at all, and so this really needs some discussion before we can be sure it is not OR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The source does not appear to mention the terms maternal or paternal. Not true you must not understand genetics well and I quote the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages

which means that

and the Y chromosome of MA-1 (R*) is basal to modern-day western (R)Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages (Q) (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC) and Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania.

The y-chromosme is Paternal, it said nothing about Materal.

K2b is not associated with East asia, it is associated with Melanesia do you want to add that also? (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Genome Wide History of Eurasia and the Americas.

Native Americans do not descend from Europe however they are partially western Eurasian, unless nearly all Western Eurasians are partly native American. Native Americans are descendent of an ancestral North Eurasian population, which is not Eastern Eurasian, and Ancestral to some of the blood in Europe and Americas and probably has roots in South Asia. And I quote Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians This is really difficult to explain because most people have a simplified view on genetics. Nearly all Native America males lineages are much closer to about half of Europe than they are to any of East Asia. (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What I know about genetics can be put in a thimble -- but what you're saying might be consistent with what is said in the Solutrean hypothesis article -- to which I made some minor contributions. See the following quote:
"A 2014 genetic analysis published in the journal Nature reported that the DNA from a 24,000 year-old skeleton excavated in Central Siberia provided mitochondrial, Y chromosomal, and autosomal genetic evidence that suggests 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry originates from an ancient Western Eurasian population. The Mal'ta era skeleton's mitochondrial genome belonged to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequencies among Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers. The authors state that their findings have four implications, the third being that "such an easterly presence in Asia of a population related to contemporary western Eurasians provides a possibility that non-east Asian cranial characteristics of the First Americans derived from the Old World via migration through Beringia, rather than by a trans-Atlantic voyage from Iberia as proposed by the Solutrean hypothesis." [6]
"In 2014, the autosomal DNA of a 12,500+-year-old infant from Montana was sequenced.[5] The DNA was taken from a skeleton referred to as Anzick-1, found in close association with several Clovis artifacts. Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity with European sources. The DNA also showed strong affinities with all existing Native American populations, which indicated that all of them derive from an ancient population that lived in or near Siberia, the Upper Palaeolithic Mal'ta population.[13]" Smallchief (talk 01:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Small chief you are confused ruled out any close affinity with European sources yes I am not arguing for European sources. I am arguing that the Siberians who gave rise to Native Americans were admixed between western and Eastern Eurasians genetically. Or as Raghavan says Siberians that were basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans. They were part western Eurasian/but did not COME from europe (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Western Eurasian is a genetic Term, not really geographic, you will see that Europeans/South Asians are closer to Native Americans than they are to East Asians, although Native Americans are closer to East Asians then they are to Europeans/South Asians. (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC) By the way modern Western Eurasians are admixed between a Native American but not a Eastern Eurasian like ANE component and a semi-middle eastern like European hunter gather population, as well as a population with recent origins in the middle east but that is a different story (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Old data

Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.[1]

New Data

The bolded text below is an exact quote from Raghavan et al .On a wide scale 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from a population basal to modern day western Eurasians. And the western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans. A 24,000 year old sample showed a line (haplogroup R* y-dna desendend of QR y-dna ) that is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages[2] Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA. [1] (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I would mention specifically that the 14-38 percent of Western Eurasian genetic link with American Indians comes from the Mal'ta Buret people who lived near Lake Baikal. It is my understanding that the remainder of the genetic heritage of Indians is East Asian.
I don't agree with the definitive statement that the American Indians are linked by linguistic factors to people in North Asia. That's unproven -- although there are plenty of theories.Smallchief (talk 02:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I've copied material from Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas to this article covering the latest research. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Linguistic links

@Smallchief:I really think that as we have Dené–Yeniseian languages as an article we need to mention possible linguistic links. We can just copy and paste relevant bits from that article per WP:SUMMARY. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Yeah, it's far from proven that Dene-Yeniseian are linked -- and maybe never will be, but I don't mind mentioning it -- but not as a fact. It's an intriguing theory so feel free to include it in the article.
It makes sense there might be a linguistic link as the Mal'ta Buret culture was located in the same area in which the Yeniseian languages are spoken today. One can hypothesize that the Mal'ta Buret, were the partial ancestors of both the Yenisians and the Dene.
You probably know this but, just as an observation, many archaeologists believe that the Dene are relatively recent arrivals in the New World, getting here perhaps 10,000 years ago. Thus a link between Dene and Yenisian explains only the origin of a small percentage -- probably something like 2 percent -- of the indigenous peoples living in the Americans. The other 98 percent may have a different origin or origins. Smallchief (talk 21:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It is reasonably well established that the Dene represent a different migration from all other linguistic groups, and due to their geographic distribution it makes sense to see them as coming later than the "Amerinds" (not considered a valid genetic/linguistic unit) and before the Inuit/Eskaleut. This I would consider pretty well established. Dene-Yeniseian is still open but it looks to me as if it is slowly gaining traction, and some important linguists seem to have accepted it. I have been told that even the critical Eric Hamp has accepted it, although the even more critical Lyle Campbell has not yet.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, but it is worth a mention. However, you obviously know more about this than I do and hopefully have sources for the Dene's possible late arrival - any chance you could fix the main article and then add something here? Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Chilean indigenous people

In the case of Chile, the number given in the article DOES include mestizos who claim indigenous heritage — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You can't use the category "mestizo" like that in a meaningful way. There are no countries where being indigenous is limited to people with "fullblood" indigenous ancestry, and in most countries genetic ancestry is not even relevant for determining who is indigenous. In Mexico and several other Latin American countries saying that a mestizo claims heritage is an oxymoron, because being a Mestizo is defined by not claiming indigenous heritage (regardless of the degree of indigenous ancestry). So you can't use the categpry of "mestizo" in the way that you propose, and particularly you can't use it to second guess reliable sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"being a Mestizo is defined by not claiming indigenous heritage" No, not at all. I'm guessing you're american since you're trying to use Mexico as the general rule for all latinamerican countries. It is not. Here in Chile, and the rest of the world (maybe excepting mexico), a mestizo is someone who has a degree of both european and amerindian heritage, that said, you can't say "not including mestizos" while you're refering to Chile, since almost all the "indigenous" population here are mestizos, even I claim indigenous heritage but everyone knows, by all means, that i'm a mestizo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not an American, but I do work primarily in Mexico. In any case you cant use the particular Chilean case to second guess reliable sources and change the definition. Further more if it is really the case that in Chile everyone who has "a degree of both european and amerindian heritage" then there are no indigenous peoples in Chile (since even the most conservative and isolated Mapuche have lived in some degree of contact with Europeans for the past 400 years and absorbed both cultural and biological heritage from their neighbors). So that is a fairly useless definition, and frankly I doubt very much that any scholars working seriously with indigeneity in Chile would use it. So please present some sources in support of those claims.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Both articles cover the same subject. Amerind peoples could be incorporated into this larger article. —capmo (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Definition: originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native

The people defined as indeginous in this article are, by definition, not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not what "indigenous" means when describing ethnic groups. By that definition no ethnic group outside of Africa could be indigenous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Mexican statistics

MartinGarcia is changing the numbers for Mexico by introducing numbers from the The CIA factbook a Houstonbased website. These sources are however not reliable sources for this informaiton and we should rely on the official mexican data. In Mexico blood has not been what is used to define indigenity since 1821 - and current official statistics while based on language, do not only count speakers - but also their non-speaking families. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected for 3 days

Please settle this here. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that we should use the Mexican government estimates rather than the vague figures based on quantum of Indian "blood" that appear in the CIA report. Classification of a person as "indigenous" depends upon the language he speaks and the culture he is identified with in addition to considering the percentage of indigenous "blood" he may have. The lower figures for indigenous population used by the Mexican government appear far more realistic to me. Smallchief (talk 21:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a WP standard to use "America to mean the USA"?

User Billcat reverted my edit, with a lot of content, saying "use standard English usage of America to mean the USA"[10]. Of course I reverted, as there is no such a standard in Wikipedia. But just now he made an edit named "corrections" [11] (he changed the line so the changes made are not transparent, just to make his point. So, America should mean always the USA and not it's original meaning, used in the entire World? I think that user edits are quite questionable, similiar to the user Dash9Z. MPA Neto (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Rather than revert your "edit, with a lot of content", I chose to leave it, and just changed America to Americas, (note the article's title, by the way). In English, America and American generally refer to the US and its people, unless otherwise clarified, such as South America, North America, and Latin America. This is standard usage in for native English speakers in all national varieties of English, not just in the US. This is often difficult for some readers, especially Latin American Spanish speakers, to understand, but nonetheless true. The article American (word) goes into this is detail. This is why Americas is about the continents of North and South America, and why t should be used in this article. - BilCat (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical or not?

The article starts off by describing the immigration of indigenous people. Establishing their bona fides, as it were. Then it totally "forgets" about their ancient roots within the article and talks only about surviving tribes. Is this about ancient natives or not? Why are bona fides required only in the lead (which is supposed to be a summary of the article)? Student7 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In the articles body its mentions how they " move across the Bering land bridge that joined Siberia. That said the lead is full of fluff that can be in the main article. -- Moxy (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Make the text match the stats

The fifth paragraph starts with the sentence: "Many parts of the Americas are still populated by indigenous Americans; some countries have sizable populations, especially Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Greenland, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru."

According to the Regions with Significant Populations chart right next to that sentence, the countries with the highest populations are: Peru, Mexico, Bolivia, Guatemala, Ecuador, and United States. Much further down on the list is Columbia, and listing Belize and Greenland must be a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Belize, but Greenland is majority Indigenous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Belize probably doesn't belong in the list of countries with the highest indigenous populations -- but neither does the U.S. It is a pretty big stretch to characterize Americans who have a modicum of Indian heritage as "indigenous." I'm part Indian and a member of an Indian tribe -- but I don't speak any Indian language nor have more than superficial contact with Indian culture and customs. Should I be counted as an indigenous person? No, I don't think so. (To those who may believe that I'm ashamed of my Indian heritage, I would point to my screen name and my interest and knowledge of a broad spectrum of Indian history and pre-history.)
If we applied the standards by which citizens of the U.S. are considered indigenous, 80 percent of the population of Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia would be considered "indigenous." Smallchief (talk 11:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
From the chart Belize 17% indigenous, Mexico 13%. Why would Belize not count but Mexico would? Rmhermen (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Because 17% of Belizes population is very few people and 13% of Mexicos is a lot of people. "Sizeable populations" is to be understood as an absolute number, not relative to the rest of the population of the given country.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If it were only "sizable populations" maybe but the phrase is "some countries have sizable populations" which relates to each country, not absolute size. Rmhermen (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is the necessary reading of the wording, but I acknowledge it is ambiguous and that the ambiguity is probably the source of the confusion leading to this discussion. Greenland and Belize have "sizeable populations" relative to their own tiny populations, but small populations relative to the much larger populations of the US and Mexico, who nonetheless have smaller relative populations.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Returning to Smallchiefs remarks, above. The Eastern US "natives" were nearly 80% European ancestry by 1800. The problem is that you can't have a huge migration without intermarriage. And by then, there was nearly 300 years of intermingling. The US listing (as Smallchief suggests) is registration by tribe and has nothing particularly to do with primary ancestry.Student7 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
That rests on the highly problematic assumption that being indigenous is primarily a question about ancestry. That is the way the term is used colloquially in the US, but it is not what the team means in international law or in scholarship. Here it means being part of a minority community that has roots in a precolonial community.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)