From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Navajo people)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Arizona / New Mexico (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Do Not Merge[edit]

User:Hottentot wrote "(this article should be merged into the main one: Navajo Nation)."
I disagree with this. Please see what I, Robotbeat, said in the Talk:Navajo Nation section. Robotbeat 19:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

History Sections[edit]

Now we need a strong expansion into the post contact conflicts between Mexico, the US, and the Navajo people, as well as the problems with their Pueblo neighbors. I would like both an Early history and a European contact section. I've started the second section with several paragraphs. WBardwin 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Spanish Church Records[edit]

Re-reading David Brugge's research paper "Navajos in the Catholic Church Records of New Mexico 1694 - 1875" (1968) is a real academic eye opener. His preface starts off with a decree of Governor and Captain-General of Kingdom and Province of New Mexico, J.I. F. Mogollon in 1714. The decree points out that as soon a slave ship full of Negroes arrives in the Indies ports of the Kingdom, they are first baptised and then pass to their owners. The decree commands that all Apaches as they are found should be taken for baptism just like the Negroes. Not doing so will result in losing the Apache and of not permitting their owner to trade in Apaches in the future. 4,300 baptism records of Indians are examined, sorted by date, type, recorded tribe, and commented upon. Then the 160 paper quotes Spanish reports in chronological order and ties Spanish conflicts to the church baptismial records.

What is really interesting to me is the period between 1800 and 1868, especially what happened after US took control of the area. Brugge indicates that the Spanish/Mexican and "New Mexico Volunteers" practice was that anyone capturing an Indian got to keep them as their property. The vast majority of baptisms of Navajos took place in the 1860s. In short, Navajos were still being captured by non-Navajos (Utes and Commanche as well as Mexican-Americans) and sold/traded according to US New Mexico District, US Military and church records, through the Long Walk period. In June 1865 President Johnson ordered the slave trade in Indian captives suppressed. Ironically, records indicate all Navajos were ordered Ft. Sumner and this extended to at least 95 Navajo being held by New Mexican citizens.

This is not to say that the Navajo and Apache were the total victims of what we would call slave trade today, but it does shed some light on the times from contemporary written records that span 175 years. --Rcollman 14:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Code Talkers"[edit]

There should be some reference to the use of Code Talkers in World War II and Korea. I disagree with Talkin'Hawk in the second to last article. His defenition of " my belief is my shield " is conpletly inappropiate for this topic!!!

Mullhawk (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict on the Reservation Section[edit]

Why is part of this section in present tense when speaking of the 1800s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical Speculation about migration[edit]

I started a series of edits in the History section. Reguarding the Southwest, the Spanish in the 1500s only provided a written record of what either they saw or what they wanted Spain to know. For example, it is not clear if the Spanish ever had reason to enter the heart of Dineta before 1740, so they would not know Navajo settlement patterns there. On the other hand, the Spainish did record lots of commercial activity by those who could have been Navajo with the Hopi, Acoma and Tewa pubelos. So in my first series of edits, I kept most of the information and dates but changed the words so the reader can draw their own conclusion. --Rcollman 14:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Coranado reference to Plains Apache groups and references to dogs. The 1540 quote says this group was to the East of the Pubelos (not West), living in tents, eating bison (not using corn). Sorry, inclusion here implies that these people were Navajo. It maybe that Apachean groups used dogs to assist in their semi nomadic movements, prior to sheep, goats and horses. My opinion willing to listen and accept changes --Rcollman 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that the 1541 reference to Navajo is more than speculation. I am willing to be enlightened. Another reference on this page's links say they came down the Rocky Mountains, just a little different than the plains. The statement is not unreasonable speculation but why so much space? More interesting speculation would be 1) Why the Navajo were returned to their lands and 2)why their reservation size increased after the the Long Walk. Are these unique happenings in North American history? Chris Collman 3 March 2006

I too have been interested in the answers to those two questions. The only answers I have found seem like speculation. As far as I know the Navajo Nation is the only reservation that has repeatedly expanded from an early time period. Others gained lands in the late 20th century after changes in politics, attitudes and many law suits. An example is Blue Lake gained by th Taos tribe under Nixon and the Havasupai gained back some of thier upper rim traditional lands. The Navajo however expanded again and again. Many other tribes lost lands starting in the 1890s (?) after the Dawes act started aportioning the land to individuals and taking the rest. Why didn't this happen much to the Navajo? They did lose one big gain when the checkerboard lands were created in NM. Those lands were given by a president but the NM senator was powereful and congress passed an act to prevent the pressident from doing that in the future. I think the reason is that Navajo culture was uniquely attractive to powerful adminstrators who lived near or with them. Also there was little interest in settling those areas and the coal gas and oil weren't useable yet. Perhaps because they were not aculturated by the spanish they were in a more powerful mental state, also they were a large group and a large area so people in the BIA and it's predisessors might have tended to be more powerful within the goverment. They did cause a fairly big scandle when the conditions at Bosque Redondo came to light. They did refuse to go anywhere else and said they would rather die but so did many others. I have always thought it was a very interesting problem about why they have been so succesful and most other groups have not. In fact many peoples like the Lakota seemed to have been hated by they indian agents at the sme time that the Navajo were being helped.ErikP 23:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My interest in and research on the Navajo Indians began with my interest in Kit Carson who "rounded them up" in the 1863-64 war. That led me to 3 books: Navajo Wars by Frank McNitt, 1972, Univ. of New Mexico; Navajo Roundup by Lawrence Kelly, Pruett Pub. Co. 1970 and Indian Depredations in New Mexico by John Watts, 1858. My research ends in about 1868. If you want more info post 1868, go eleswhere for other books; and be sure to see: The Second Long Walk : The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute by Jerry Kammer, which I have not read. Many Navajo today have a false and mistaken view of Kit Carson. See my extensive discussions on Kit in his talk page. Cazedessus 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent discussions. Sometimes modern historians have to go with the close orginal. Most histories are initiated as oral and then they are translated to the written page :) Praise be to Navajo Community College that has published oral histories. Time gaps do not bother me, after all I can not prove where my ancestors lived in 1890 because of a fire that destroyed the 1890 US Census, as a genealogist am guilty of filling in the gaps with some oral history. On a slightly different subject, I think what some call "The Navajo Way" had a lot to do with their post long walk expansion. The oral history and facts say 8,000 Navajo speakers came together in close proximity to each other for 3 or 4 years for the first time. My crude characterization is that the cultural effect was like a big long Sing. I went through the material photocopied by the National Archives for the Navajo Land claims case that was stored in Window Rock page by page (that was 1973 or so). I was interested in Army and Indian Scout references, so I read just about every US Army report there after 1868. I would go so far to say that the Military at Ft. Wingate when compared (completely subjective opinion) to other forts tended to be pro Navajo, especially when it came to encroachment by non-Navajos. I think they even smoothed things over when some Navajo groups would sort of forget that their traditional raids when supplies were low was no longer permitted! From the US Gov perspective the reservation went from 3.5 to 16 million acres. Interesting --Rcollman 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert done 26-Mar-2006[edit]

While reading this article I noticed some vandalism which had somehow survived recent reversions, so I've reverted all the way back to User:'s edit of March 23rd. Chris Chittleborough 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical section/ time of entry to SW[edit]

From a class I had with Witherspoon at U of Washington, Seattle and a book on the archeology of the Navajo (I'll have to find the reference) I think the 1540 date is very late. I know this is in dispute, but I believe the earliest remains of a male hogan are tree ring dated to around 900- 1100. That would make them entering the area, asimilating some of the pueblo /anaasazi culture and growing corn much earlier. The area was ESE of four corners. This is not coinsidently far from the traditional emergence site north orf the confluence of the San Juan and the Animas ( now under navajo lake). It also is similar to the traditional generations from emergence if you count by navajo ideas of a generation. This would also explain the myths that include people that sound like the anasazi at Chaco canyon. In any case the changes from Apache culture and language to one that was more settled with corn fields and weaving and pottery and cosmology that borrows more from the nieghboring Pueblos must have taken a little longer.ErikP 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Erik

I have also heard of earlier evidence but have been unable to come up with a reference earlier than the one cited. I have no doubt that the Apache/Navajo people came in and out of the area for several hundred years before settling into lands that had become largely vacant. So, if you can find your source, let's put the information in. Best wishes. WBardwin 04:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Minor point, not sure Navajo recognize a "male" hogan. In 1973, an upset Navajo really bent my ear about "some anthropologist" who wrote there were such things male hogans. 'Sometimes people just make up things because that is what they do with strangers,' or words to that effect. These statements were really about anthropologists. I was ignroant then and never looked for the reference. Was that Witherspoon? --Rcollman 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Male and female hoghans are how Navajo people refer to them. It is in the language and standard. I am cerain and everyone on the Navajo Nation uses these terms. I don't have a reference because it is just how everyone talks in English and Navajo. Almost everything in Navajo ideas about the world comes in gendered pairs. Male and female rain, mountains,directions, colors, even the Hero twins who are both boys, Born-for-the_water is the "feminine" of the pair. Male hogans today are mainly used for sweat lodges. They are also called forked stick hoghans. They have a pointed top. Female ones are the more standard ones today. They are modeled after the one for Changing Woman (called Hooghan Hotłʼeztsoos) made by First Man and First Woman (Altsé hastiin and Altsé asdzáá). BTW Witherspoon, although he is a anthropologist is married to a Navajo has Navajo kids, one of whom is in the Tribal council, and speaks fluent Navajo and knows some chantways. ErikP

Religon of Navajo People[edit]

How do you add to the main heading at the top? The one that is under the photo with the pop. figures etc. The listing under religon should definetly mention Native American Church (NAC). I have heard that about one third of the Dine on the rez practice it to some degree. ( personal experience and lecture by Witherspoon). At least half of all practitioners of NAC are said to be Navajo. As with most things adopted by the Dine it is being heavly "navajoized". There is much overlap and some compitition and sometimes hosiltiy towards it from both Navajo Way and Christianity. Historicaly the BIA police persecuted it. It came in to the area probably from the Utes in the Tees Nos Pos area and then spread. Later a new group of practictioners came accociated with the AIM people and Lakota activists. Northern plains sweat lodges came the same way at the same time and happen, though much more rarely. Anyway, I think it should be added. ErikP 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I added Native American Church (NAC) to the religion list. What heading are your concerned about? The article title? The template box title? The photo title? WBardwin 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Sorry I didn't know terminology. Thanks, ErikP 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I need to know more information for my state report. I`m just not geting all the info.. If you have some share it fast. I need it by tomarrow. 10 year old star student. (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

T.M.I. To Much Information. What the hell are you talking about? Who are you?Jessico Melser —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article, not general chat or requests for help with your homework. :) -KGasso (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Navajo Marine article and hand trembling[edit]

Perhaps something to consider for inclusion in some fashion, if only as a spur to expand the vanishingly small reference to the practice of hand trembling: Fonseca, Felicia (27 January 2007). "Navajo Marine who says he discovered gift as healer granted conscientious objector status". Earthlink News (reprinted from the Associated Press). Retrieved 2007-01-27. . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Trail of tears[edit]

Were the navajos involved in the trail of tears? G man yo 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I believe this is a translation of the Cherokee name for their forceable removal in 1838. The Navajo refer to their removal as "The Long Walk". --Rcollman 12:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for recent edit on Navajo name[edit]

Do you have a source for this change? Most of my books, admittedly somewhat dated, go with the previous version. I will not revert/change the edit for now, but would like to see the source of your info. Thank you. WBardwin 01:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The name "Navajo" comes from the late 18th century via the Spanish (Apaches de) Navajó "(Apaches of) Navajó", which was derived from the Tewa navahū "fields adjoining a ravine". The Navajo call themselves Diné, which is often translated to mean "the people" (most Native American groups call themselves by names that mean "the people"). Nonetheless, most Navajo now acquiesce to being called "Navajo."

Citations and references[edit]

This article has sources listed at the bottom, but it doesn't actually cite references. The one instance in this article where a reference is cited, it is used like a footnote, which is absolutely NOT how references are meant to be used. Please fix this! --Luai lashire 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


They're matrilocal, but are/were they matriarchal or patriarchal? Badagnani (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are traditionally matrilocal, but to my knowledge also patriarchal, as with most other Native American tribes. LotR (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


In the 1846-1863 section it states: "Officially, the Navajos first came in contact with European Americans in 1846" In the preceding section, "1550 to 1845 AD", it states that the Navajo had contact with the Spanish in the 1600's. Is not Spain a part of Europe? It's certainly not in Africa or Asia. Would someone please fix this? (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


wetbherh w yuw uy85 ru85e yue hreu5j iyjgd etrsng ghre jytd hje u yeu ue u euetuy yue uu uye u t ltkto tyiy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Largest or second largest?[edit]

It don't make me no nevermind. But any superlative claim must be backed by an authoritative citation. If you find a better reference than the 2000 US Census, this article and the Cherokee article must agree. --Kbh3rdtalk 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    • According to the US Census for 2000 located here ( page 10 of 12; the Navajo is the SECOND largest tribe after the Cherokee: (Total / Tribe Alone) Cherokee 729,533 / 281,069 || Navajo 298,197 / 269,202 ... Accordingly either set of numbers show the Cherokee has a larger population than the Navajo and the article is changed to reflect this. -- Charon9 (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Independence and sovereignty[edit]

How does the Navajo nation have a "independant government body" as the article claims, when still having to operate under the BIA of the Ministry of the Interior? And having practically no say about companies that mine for uranium on their land? Real independence and sovereignty I think can only be achieved by what the Lakota Nation has been doing recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think so.....[edit]

The following material removed from the article for discussion and clarification. WBardwin (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

They also practiced the strict rituals empowering the rodents and dogs to run wild and free into their homes. They did this with the hope that the great white-man-god(as he was referred to by the people)would not come down and smack them across the hotyoius(a bone only possessed by the Navajo people.


There's a message on Image talk:Zahadolzhá--Navaho.jpg about the appropriateness of this photo. Any comments from the regular editors of this article? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What? - no etymology?[edit]

I refer of course to the origin of the word 'Navajo.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what about the etymology? We'd like to know. (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
From the article/Early History: The Spanish first use the word Navajo ("Apachu de Nabajo") specifically in the 1620s, referring to the people in the Chama valley region east of the San Juan River and northwest of Santa Fe. By the 1640s, the term Navajo was applied to these same people. WBardwin (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo Remove?[edit]

(says Cramyourspam (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)CramYourSpam ): A user removed the vintage photo of Gen MacArthur with Navajo and other soldiers, replacing this with a snapshot of a living painter. I'm surprised that the usual notability and biography-living-person police didn't pounce. If anyone wants to put the WWII photo back, here's the info

enclose this in [] brackets: [Image:General douglas macarthur meets american indian troops wwii military pacific navajo pima island hopping.JPG|right|thumb|General Douglas MacArthur meeting Navajo, Pima, Pawnee and other Native American troops.]

General Douglas MacArthur meeting Navajo, Pima, Pawnee and other Native American troops.

Unreferenced sections[edit]

Instead of removal - please copy edit or add references wherever possible first. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, these sections are unreferenced, and need to be removed. It's the responsibility of those inserting material in Wikipedia to source them. Unsourced material may be removed. This article needs to be stubbed, and redone with sources. Atneyak (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I totally disagree with that. You can add sources and references without deleting whole sections of valid material...Modernist (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The way Wikipedia knows material is "valid" is by sourcing. It is up to the person who adds the material to validate it by sourcing it. I can quote you Wikipedia policy on that if you wish. Atneyak (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
In addition, some of the material was invalid, so we really need to start over and source. Atneyak (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
And common sense says add references to obviously valid material...Modernist (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not the way it's done at Wikipedia. I really don't want to come in and just go to administration immediately. I would rather collaborate on improving the article. Perhaps we would stub the article, but copy the unsourced material to a sub page, so that it can be improved easily and be re-inserted when sourced. But as I said, some of the material did not seem to be valid, and it has already been tagged in June as unsourced. It needs to be removed if it's not sourced. Atneyak (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
So in other words - you have a total of 11 edits here and you know chapter and verse everything that needs to be known concerning policy - hmmm sounds like WP:SOCK to me. Lets go to WP:ANI to see about your plan to blank this article and start over again...Modernist (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Small quote from WP:UNSOURCED: "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." Jarkeld (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Atenyak, you are misunderstanding. It is only contentious unsourced material about living persons that needs to be removed immediately. For everything else, time is on our side. Tag the material as unreferenced, and attempt to find references. Don't wipe out relatively uncontroversial but unsourced material. On the other hand, if you think any of the info is wrong, point us to sources with the correct information. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right to some extent. However, this article has had more than enough time to get sourced. As you see here, it's not just "controversial" material that gets removed. Sure, writing that the world is round doesn't need a source, but other content which isn't self evident (common knowledge) does. And when an article has been tagged for as long as this one, content may be removed. It doesn't get to sit there forever. A week or two for a major article like this is more than sufficient in my opinion. Atneyak (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually there are references in the sections you are deleting. Tag unreferenced sentences you believe to hold questionable statements and move on. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Okay, I'll remove only that which has been tagged for a long time. Please also refer to this section. I'm just doing what it says. I can't fix it, some of the stuff has been tagged for over a year. Some of the stuff is incorrect, such as that hogans are built from brush and my fix was also reverted. Atneyak (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I found references for the statements made in the housing and subsistence. There are references in the sections you've been deleting. Why not work to correct any factual errors and find references?? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Cool, and I'm quite happy to work with you (: I'll work on it more later. What do you think on the issue of a bunch of those people in the lists not being notable for WP? Atneyak (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion re lists - the usual rule of lists of individuals is that they should all be bluelinks, but it may be that there are not enough people interested/knowledgeable in this subject to have created articles for them all. Let's do a check for notability/sources for each one that's currently unlinked. If there are sources for a stub at least, redlink the name and post the source on the talkpage here. If no-one can find any sources that even suggest notability, take the person out. A redlink suggests that a topic is notable enough for an article, but no-one has written it yet, and redlinking it may encourage someone to create at least a stub article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, material which is uncontentious but unreferenced can basically remain forever. It only needs to go if someone has challenged it and a source cannot be found. If it's been tagged for this long and no-one has challenged the content, the chances are it falls in the uncontentious category. This was why I was asking whether you knew if anything was wrong. You should not be removing material just because it is unsourced unless it is referring to a living person, when it can be removed even if it is uncontroversial.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Well yes but the fact that it's tagged means it was controversial to someone. Also, part of its usefulness is that it includes the reference. The Conflict with Europeans section for example is obviously taken from a source, but the source isn't stated. Noted, lets get rid of the redlinks first. Some of the bluelinks seem ripe for deletion review, as they seem to obviously not be notable. Atneyak (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. It merely means it attracted the attention of those who tag such things. If it was disputed, someone would have taken it further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
From June 2010 to November 2010 is not that long a time for tagged material awaiting referencing; and it is not an automatic reason for removal. Rather it's a good reason to copyedit and improve the issues tagged...Modernist (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


I hope we can just agree on some of these things, it would save time. I'll add suggestions as I come across things. Atneyak (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked a question here, and hopefully people will give us some good consensus advice on it. I hope it isn't all about people's opinions. Atneyak (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


I'm becoming suspicious of your agenda. You've repeated back to me NOTHING LIKE what I said, and you are suggesting that a notable article be redirected. From the notes above, it seems you have also been deleting sourced material. I think you had better trim your sails, and focus on adding to the article. With the list, focus on the ones that DO NOT have an article or a redlink. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course you should be suspicious of my agenda... if I'm wrong about what I'm saying and not open to suggestions or ignoring Wikipedia policy so as to skew the encyclopedia to a non-NPOV state. However, I urge you to read WP:NOTABILITY. Yes, we need to get rid of some of the non-linked people, but also many of those with articles just don't seem meet the standard for inclusion unless much better sourcing can be found. I'm not focused on the article but really on the whole complex of articles. Again... if I'm wrong of course you need to be suspicious. But if I'm right, I would suggest you focus on the content of my edits rather than on what "agenda" I might have. Atneyak (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and if you think it violates BLP, let's discuss that, and maybe you can help get rid of any violations. I don't know of any, I just notice they sometimes aren't well sourced. ......Uh, which is a violation right there, I forgot. So then what's the problem with focusing on them? Atneyak (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is very poorly written[edit]

This article is very poorly written. It needs many fixes and it should be expanded as explained below.

The sentence "In the last 1,000 years, Navajos have had a history of expanding their range and refining their self-identity and their significance to other groups" is vague and needs to be reworded.

The sentence "The Spaniards—and later, Mexicans—recorded what are called punitive expeditions[by whom?] among the Navajo that also took livestock and human captives." is very vague, particularly in the middle section.

The sentence "This was the largest reservation (called Bosque Redondo)[citation needed] attempted by the U.S. government." is unclear (I don't understand what the word 'this' points to -- probably to a reservation which is not introduced anywhere).

I am not going to venture in fixing the "Conflict on the reservation" section. I do not have the time nor the patience to fix the lousy work of the original contributor. All I have to point out is that many parts (1887, 1890, 1913) are written in the present tense instead of the past tense. In addition, the clumsy "for having plural marriage" could well be replaced by "for poligamy" which is more elegant. Other parts (1930) are written in a horrible way and there is lots of nonsense. "There were people who were" could be replaced by "some people where" which is a much better way to start a sentence.

The sentence "Mary Cabot Wheelright and Hastiin Klah, an esteemed and influential Navajo singer, or medicine man" needs to be fixed. Who is the singer and who is the medicine man?

The sentence "relief in the post war period to relieve" is an example of redundancy that should be avoided.

The sentence that starts with "The Navajo people traditionally" is completely out of context and should probably in the "Culture" section above the "Traditional dwellings" section.

"strengthen weakness" is awkward and not very explanatory.

I am surprised the article does not mention at all the contribution of the Navajo people in WWII with the Navajo Code Talkers. A section of this article on WWII should be added.

I met Navajo people once. I remember that some of them told me hematite is a sacred and healing stone to them. I would like to know if this is true and if someone can verify this claim.

ICE77 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

cherokee in lede[edit]

this isn't an essential part of Navajo history or anthropology. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Largest tribe[edit]

Why do both this article and Cherokee people claim the title of largest tribe? They both can't be... Onopearls (t/c) 05:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to find a cite for Navajo Nation being the largest. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
It depends on how you count. See the 2010 census[1].
First figure is Tribal grouping American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Second figure is two or more tribal groupings reporte
Third figure is American Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races and one tribal grouping
Fourth figure the same but more than one tribal grouping
The fifth is a total
Cherokee 284,247 16,216 468,082 50,560 819,105
Navajo 286,731 8,285 32,918 4,195 332,129
Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of cited material[edit]

With this edit: Latest revision as of 02:32, 2 December 2012 a cited addition was reverted, with the explanation: "Wrong".

The cited information came from a reputable source: Patricia Anne Davis, MA Choctaw-Navajo/Chahta-Dineh in her article: Natural Order as an Open Social System : Native American Concepts

Btw: after a more careful evaluation of the treatice, I agree that the information reverted might not be appropriate for the article; however, I do not agree that verified information should be removed without prior discussion. It is my hope that this, and related articles, can become expanded rather than contracted - by collaboration rather than unilateral decisions made by elitist editor(s). ~Thanks, Ahééhee', ~E (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't)."[1]


I've already put in a lot of information on various species of plants under the ethnobotany section, and I think its getting too large to keep in prose. Would anyone object if I moved the various info into a separate article as a list and linked it back to that section? I've got a lot of information from the University of Michigan website and its only going to get bigger. Asarelah (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I moved the information to Navajo ethnobotany. Asarelah (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

what the name ment then[edit]

the name was changed by us children of God because that is what their name translates out to. with our self centered out look there can only be one children of God so they had to change their name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Navajo have never called themselves the children of God. The Navajos call themselves diné (the people). They did not change their name. —Stephen (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Material on welfare denial in 1940s[edit]

I've added back properly sourced material on denial of welfare to the Navajo in the 1940s; seems to be well sourced.Parkwells (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Navajo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)