Jump to content

Talk:Native Americans in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robfergusonjr (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 27 October 2008 (response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateNative Americans in the United States is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 23, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted

Template:FAOL

Page moved
This article (Native Americans in the United States) was formerly located at Native Americans, which has now been turned into a disambiguation page. The corresponding Talk page was not moved; see Talk:Native Americans for the archived talk and the discussions which resolved to make this change.
These discussions should be referenced before contemplating any further move of this page.

Intro paragraph problems

Does this seem slightly skewed to anyone else:

than the rigid, institutionalized, market-based, materialistic, and tyrannical societies of Western Europe.

The way that comma delineated list is constructed, it makes it sound like all societies of Western Europe were tyrannical and materialistic.

198.109.221.118 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Dave W.[reply]


There are huge problems with the following paragraph:

--As the colonies evolved into the United States of America, Americans conceived of the idea of civilizing Native Americans, and the ideology of Manifest destiny was ingrained into the American psyche. Assimilation, whether it was voluntary or forced, became a consistent policy through various American administrations. Major resistance, or “Indian Wars,” to American ideology was nearly a constant issue up until the 1890s.--

It needs a rewrite or needs to be removed entirely from the opening. Firstly, ¨evolved¨ is not the correct word to use in the first sentence. It is extremely ambiguous and dysphemism. The colonies expanded and violently separated against England. Taking this as an evolution is an incorrect product of his insight and an American POV.

Second, the Americans did not conceive the notion of Westernization and Civilization. When they were apart of the British Empire, this was being already done.

Third, to think that any significant portion of the Native American population voluntarily assimilated into Western ways and Christianity as volunteers without financial manipulations, coercion or threat... is a complete and utter farce and should be made in to a Disney Pocahontas Movie.

Lastly…I’m not sure how many Native American scholars were opposed to American ¨Ideology¨. The issue was not American Ideology; the issue was expansionism (geographic expansionism, slavery, radical Christianity, western superiority, growing capitalist economy and disease).

This is what I have changed the paragraph to.

--As the colonies revolted against England and established the United States of America, the ideology of Manifest destiny was ingrained into the American psyche. The notion of civilizing Native Americans and forced assimilation were a consistent policy through American administrations. Major resistance, or “Indian Wars,” to American expansion were nearly a constant issue up until the 1890s when the better part of the American continent was conquered and settled.--

-- JusticeBlack (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism

This article is about the people fuck uindigenous to the United States. For broader uses of...

Someone (I don't know who) has vandalized this article and changed the "this article is about" sentence at the top. I am not a user, and the article is protected. Can someone change it back to the way it was? Thanks.

The unsigned comment in the preceding pink box, added by 68.81.16.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 21:48 & :49, 11 September 2007, was moved (about 5 hours later) from the top of this talk page to its appropriate place here (at what was the bottom of the page at the time that IP 68... added it). --Jerzy•t 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The protection has expired, so you CAN change it back if it happens again. The current spate of vandalism has been fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted a presumably well-intentioned and perhaps NPoV edit that affected material within the preceding bluish box, some of it also within the enclosed pink box. That edit accomplished nothing (or at best far too little to justify the layer of confusion it added to the substance and history of this talk-page section) -- especially since the edit i reverted was made 9 months after both the contribution and its relocation.
    IP 68... obviously wanted to remove from the accompanying article the clearly vandalistic insertion "fuck u", which had apparently been added to the disambiguating HatNote preceding the article content. (I say "obviously" bcz of the repetition, in the second 'graph, of the phrase "[T]his article is about", but still stronger evidence is below.) The duplication of the vandalized material here on the talk page should not have been treated as (talk-page) vandalism (and i have remedied the removal based on that misunderstanding, along with the confusingly placed and now irrelevant description of the removal) -- even tho more experienced editors could have described the article-page vandalism with less opportunity for the confusion that ensued, and a few might have chosen to describe it with delicate indirection, rather than copying it.
    Editors should of course never confuse their colleagues by modifying others' good-faith discussion of matters appropriate to this talk page. (BTW, Rick Block is not the editor who did so in this case.) It would not have been too hard for a hasty reader to be confused by the former lack of sig on the contrib that is now in the pink box, and by the fact that that contribution started with an indented quote rather than a statement by the contributor, but IMO
-- the signed contribs (and the unsigned good-faith ones) that build consensus by processes of dialectic tension are almost diametrically different from the polished, unsigned, consensus-based content of articles, and
-- therefore the diligence with which we revert changes to articles (often giving the benefit of any substantial doubt to retention of the existing text), must be complemented by diligence to retain the record of interaction on the talk page (and giving the benefit of any substantial doubt to retention of each new addition).
In this case, the editor i reverted had removed a non-dispensable portion of a contribution, apparently with only slight reason to suspect the two adjacent 'graphs were added by different editors, and significant reason to suppose what is the case, that they were part of the same edit. (They also accompanied the removal by a note whose position suggested uncertainty about where the signed contrib above the note began.) IMO, the removing editor should not have done the removal without finding, in the talk-page history, the edit(s) that added what they intended to remove. (I have added a lk to those edits' diff in the foregoing.)
--Jerzy•t 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? Do you see what it says now? Can someone please please please please fix this?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.144.47 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native economy

  • This needs some serious input on how tribes survive today. Why does poverty exists? What are the barriers? What are tribes doing to spur economic development. I may start adding some information on that. 02:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There was nothing before I added some information. Please add some information as you please, but do not delete what is there. The information I added is some of the very basis, as I am an editor for a Native American business publication.

--66.82.9.56 (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The white bison calf and cow flanked the herd on the northern migration route. A small herd of elk followed also. This was my first and only ride on a yearling long horned bison. These larger bison grazed on the taller grasses of the north american plains. The year was 1964 as I recall.
Tribes no longer use bison robes as currency. Minted coins are today used as currency as well as poker chips. The sale of tax free tobacco products smuggled and sold off the reservations is profitable.
Lets not forget current energy price increace resulting in more drilling rigs on their reservations. The tourist industry is growing on the Najavo Nation Reservation. I camped at a campground there in May of 2008. --My alphabet (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I move to change the name of the article

First of all, it's important to know that the word Indian does not derive form Columbus mistakenly believing he had reached "India." India was not even called that name in 1492; it was known as Hindustan. More likely, the word Indian comes from Columbus's description of the people he found here. He was Italian, and did not speak or write very good Spanish, so in his written accounts he called the Indians, "Una gente in Dios." A people in God. In God. In Dios. Indians. It's a perfectly noble and respectable word. So let's look at this pussified, trendy bullshit phrase, Native Americans. First of all, they're not natives. They came over the Bering land bridge from Asia, so they're not natives. There are no natives anywhere in the world. Everyone is from somewhere else. All people are refugees, immigrants, or aliens. If there were natives anywhere, they would be people who still live in the Great Rift valley in Africa where the human species arose. Everyone else is just visiting. So much for the "native" part of Native American. As far as calling them "Americans" is concerned, do I even have to point out what an insult this is? Jesus Holy Shit Christ!! We steal their hemisphere, kill twenty or so million of them, destroy five hundred separate cultures, herd the survivors onto the worst land we can find, and now we want to name them after ourselves? It's appalling. Haven't we done enough damage? Do we have to further degrade them by tagging them with the repulsive name of their conquerors? And as far as these classroom liberals who insist on saying "Native American" are concerned, here's something they should be told: It's not up to you to name the people and tell them what they ought to be called. If you'd leave the classroom once in a while, you'd find that most Indians are insulted by the term Native American. The American Indian Movement will tell you that if you ask them. The phrase "Native American" was invented by the U.S. government Department of the Interior in 1970. It is an inventory term used to keep track of people. It includes Hawaiians, Eskimos, Samoans, Micronesians, Polynesians, and Aleuts. Anyone who uses the phrase Native American is assisting the U.S. government in its effort to obliterate people's true identities. Do you want to know what the Indians would like to be called? Their real names: Adirondack, Delaware, Massachuset, Narranganset, Potomac, Illinois, Miami, Alabama, Ottawa, Waco, Wichita, Mohave, Shasta, Yuma, Erie, Huron, Susquehanna, Natchez, Mobile, Yakima, Wallawalla, Muskogee, Spokan, Iowa, Missouri, Omaha, Kansa, Biloxi, Dakota, Hatteras, Klamath, Caddo, Tillamook, Washoe, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, Laguna, Santa Ana, Winnebago, Pecos, Cheyenne, Menominee, Yankton, Apalachee, Chinook, Catawba, Santa Clara, Taos, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Mohawk, Tuscarora, Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Comanche, Shoshone, Two Kettle, Sans Arc, Chiricahua, Kiowa, Mescalero, Navajo, Nez Perce, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickahominy, Flathead, Santee, Assiniboin, Oglala, Miniconjou, Osage, Crow, Brule, Hunkpapa, Pima, Zuni, Hopi, Paiute, Creek, Kickapoo, Ojibwa, Shinnicock. (Lenerd (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I move to keep it as is. All of us are not offended by the term Native American. As it refers to those of us here before America was named such. As a part of the Powhatan tribe or (Virginia Algonquian tribe) we are not offended. Sure we prefer Powhatans. Also you need to do research, as Native Americans from the east coast all the way to as far as Arizona are not from those to cross over the Bering Strait. But infact are decendents of tribes from the France area, that when the earth was different and consisted of more Ice, crossed up through the Iceland, Greenland area into Canada, then down the east coast and then across America. This has been established by recent research tracking the way arrowheads were made. But please do not speak for us. As with what has been shown by history, you will end up doing far worse than good.Swampfire (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swampfire is far closer to the truth than Lenard, tho the crucial point is that the "in Dios" theory, the various theories of where the three waves of New World pre-Columbian immigration came from and when, and all of Lenard's angry rhetoric, are not only irrelevant but also would not be rendered relevant even by their ultimate victory in the fields of Renaissance textual criticism, archaeo-anthropology, or identity politics respectively. The en:Wikipedia is written in modern English bcz that is what our readers understand, and modern English accepts both. I'm not sure whether we've reached a real consensus against Indian and for Native American, or whether it's just that we moderates (yes, my own opinionated term, and i respect the fact that YMMV) who are comfortable with both have resigned ourselves to the "Indian" fanatics being fewer and/or less tenacious than the "Native American" fanatics to an extent that means the use of "Native American" makes our editors and admins more efficient by reducing conflict-resolution effort. The fact is, in any case, that the status quo is a well-established de facto consensus, and those of us with more commitment to WP than to either term will protect the project from disruption far more tenaciously than change enthusiasts will try to sacrifice the project to their ideals. Fuggedubowdit.
    All of that being said, the precision of identifying specific persons using their tribal identity (and linking to the article on the tribe) -- rather than blindly assuming "Native American" says it all -- is obviously appropriate, and i recall noticing, when we had a List of people by name that entries tended to need that attention -- tho usually the information was there in the article, even if not in the lead, where IMO it belongs.
    Finally, i commend to colleagues' attention the redlinks, and the lks that terminate in Dabs, in this reformatting of the valuable list in the following #Tribes section.
    --Jerzy•t 08:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 1995 survey with the Census found that 49.76% of those who identified on the census as American Indian preferred the term American Indian, and 37.35% preferred Native American.[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762158.html I haven't found anything more recent on survey of preferences. --Parkwells (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, We prefer neither of them. But we have no problem with Native American, or American Indian. Also that suvey was 13 years ago. It's not relevant to the 2008 mindset. But we really don't care how the outsiders refer to us. We know who we are. I grew up being called an Indian. I got used to it, Then the people of the U.S. deicded all of us were offended by it. So they started calling us Native Americans.Swampfire (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the survey is dated, too, but wanted to add some record of opinion from the community to the discussion.--Parkwells (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently doing more research into the matter. But while doing so, here is more info on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy Swampfire (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would point anyone commenting to this article from the Native American Journalist Association.

From the Native American Journalist Association (http://www.naja.com) The Reading Red Report: Native Americans in the News (http://www.naja.com/docs/red.doc)

"The terms 'Native American' and 'American Indian' should be used in U.S. mainstream newspaper stories. Use of 'Indian' alone generally is discouraged. However, it may be used in quotes, and also in terms such as 'urban Indian.' 'Native' alone has come into common usage. It is unacceptable to use 'native American' with a lower case 'n' in native. Native peoples must be allowed to define their own names in the same way other racial or ethnic groups have defined their names. But the only truly accurate terms are specific names of tribal nations, whether they are names of the 560 federally recognized ones, the many other tribes seeking recognition from the U.S. government or the multitude of tribes throughout the other countries in the Americas." Swampfire (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes

The list of tribes offered in the preceding section may be useful for other purposes than proving the point it was offered in support of. I don't know what else we have, but my attention was caught by holes in it (and, BTW, European names: Laguna, Santa Ana, probably Pecos, Santa Clara, Blackfoot, Blackfeet, Two Kettle, Sans Arc, perhaps Mescalero, Nez Perce, Flathead, perhaps Santee, perhaps Crow, Brulé, and perhaps Creek (American Indians)).
I converted the names to links, and where the i noticed the link is to a Dab, i either converted it to an explicit (tho unpiped) Dab lk, or left

(disambiguation)]]

after it as an alert.
I struck thru the lks that aren't either Dabs, tribe articles, or Rdrs to tribe articles, and added lks to articles that appear to be about the corresponding tribe. The ones i added are from memory or light research, and are mostly Indian peoples of New England. That includes a bunch of native placenames, most of them struck thru to show they've been investigated as possible tribal names and avoid need for someone sharing my misconceptions to also check them.
A colleague has suggested that the following list be used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which AFAIK is likely to be the best use for it. IMO it should be deprecated, by removal, or wholesale strikethru, to avoid others updating it here while wider work on it has proceeded elsewhere.
--Jerzy•t 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Dabs byp'd:) Adirondack (disambiguation)]] ???? History of Warren County, edited by H. P. Smith - Chapter XXXIV ... says "... and occupied by a powerful tribe of the great Odjibway family, known to the French as the Algonquin nation, and to the Iroquois as the Adirondack tribe. ..." , Delaware (disambiguation) Lenape, Massachuset, Narranganset Narragansett (tribe), Potomac Patawomeck, Illinois (disambiguation) Illiniwek, Miami tribe,

(to do:) Alabama, Ottawa, Waco, Wichita, Mohave, Shasta, Yuma, Erie, Huron, Susquehanna, Natchez, Mobile, Yakima, Walla Walla (tribe), Muskogee, Spokan, Iowa, Missouri, Omaha, Kansa Kaw (tribe), Biloxi, Dakota, Hatteras, Klamath, Caddo, Tillamook, Washoe, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, Laguna, Santa Ana, Winnebago, Pecos (disambiguation)]], Cheyenne, Menominee, Yankton, Apalachee, Chinook, Catawba, Santa Clara, Taos, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Mohawk (disambiguation) Mohawk nation & Mohawk people (Oregon),, Tuscarora, Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Comanche, Shoshone, Two Kettle, Sans Arc, Chiricahua, Kiowa, Mescalero, Navajo, Nez Perce, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickahominy Chickahominy (tribe), Flathead, Santee, Assiniboin, Oglala, Miniconjou, Osage, Crow, Brule Brulé, Hunkpapa, Pima, Zuni, Hopi, Paiute, Creek (disambiguation) Creek (American Indians), Kickapoo, Ojibwa, Shinnecock

(to do, added by Jerzy•t:) Algonquin, Siwanoy, Paugussett, Schaghticoke (tribe), Pequot, Mohegan, Mohican, Mochican Moche, Quinnipiac, Tunxis, Mattebesic or Mattabesic or Mattabesett , Nipmuk, Pocumtuc, Nauset, Wampanoag, , Lillinonah, Cockaponset, Housatonic, Mattatuck, Natchaug, Naugatuck, Niantic, Nehantic, Nayantaquit or Nianticut, Pachaug, Podunk Podunk (people), Pomperaug, Shenipsit, Potatuck, Weantinock, Abenaki, Yaqui

(to do, added by --Parkwells (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC) : [[Michigan] tribes - Nocquet, Mishinimaki, Kewadin (Upper Peninsula)[reply]

See Also

This list is too long. Surely all of these articles don't have to be listed.--Parkwells (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Evidently our colleague speaks of the list named in the heading of this section (Native Americans in the United States#See also), not the list on the mind of sequential readers, in the sub-section immediately preceding the heading of this section (Talk:Native Americans in the United States#Tribes).
    The list of See-also articles should, as always, exclude articles already referenced in the prose. That list should be moved to a multi-section list like List of topics relating to Native Americans in the United States, which should be lk'd from the see-also section; lks to many articles probably already referenced in the prose should be added to that list page. Many articles on the list article should also be linked from one or more of a collection of "Main articles", some of which should be created by moving an existing section onto new articles and reducing that existing section to a short summary paragraph. (The accompanying article is at present about 8 times as long as a well maintained article should be.) Some of the lks currently in the See-also will appear in the Main articles created out of this page, or out of yet another level of Main-articles lk'd from them.
    The accompanying article was a former featured article candidate abt 2.5 years ago, and it may be doomed to remain a Failed Featured Article Candidate. (Yes, the caps are intentional sarcasm; their intent is to goad a handful of editors, with a natural interest in doing so, into giving the accompanying article's expansion second priority, and turning it into a Future Featured Article Candidate.) I am not critical of our colleagues who have provided this wealth of material, nor of those who continue to focus on expansion, correction, and/or effective expression, any more than i think i deserve criticism for my own contribution of pretty much carping from the sidelines. I just hope to do a little, even by sarcastic goading, to encourage those who may be next week's or next year's architects (as opposed to carpenters) of the accompanying important topic and the subsidiary articles it needs to do its job well.
    --Jerzy•t 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well

I doubt that there's only about 4.1 million Native Americans alive, like this thing says. In the Maya people page, it says there are 6 million Mayans alone still alive. Someone please tell me what's going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.182.30 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is that in the United States alone. The government makes it very hard to gain recognition especially if you are not full blooded native. Native Americans are the only race in which the government wants to know your blood quantium so decide if you can claim native heritage. The vast majority of African Americans have a various admixture of Native American descent and should be able to claim tribal rights especially those that know what tribe or tribes they are descended of. There are even some people that claim or are classified as Caucasian that can do the same. Unfortunately, money is in the mix of things and when money is involved people get greedy and don't want any more members to be admittedMcelite (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful to note that the tribes control who belongs in most cases, and as you note, many do not want to admit people with little ancestry. Money does add to people wanting to restrict who counts. There is mounting DNA evidence, however, that the story/myth about "the vast majority of African Americans have ... a mixture of Native American descent" is not true. Some do, yes, but many don't. --Parkwells (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most don't have Native American descent. To be a member of my tribe one must have at least 1/2 Native American decent. Many, and not just African-Americans, just want to be part of a tribe to receive financial benefits. Rob (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the tribes do control who gets enrolled but all of that was created by the government without chiefs even asking for anything like that. The main purpose was for classification. Here's to research articles which clearly state that the majority of African American should also be able to claim their native rights. Of coarse admixture varies greatly among different families. Estimating African American Admixture Proportions by Use of Population-Specific AllelesPopulation structure of Y chromosome SNP haplogroups in the United States and forensic implications for constructing Y chromosome STR databases Unfortunately, some of these geneticists doing tests don't think and take samples only from Mississppi or from Alabama which have the lowest admixture rates.Mcelite (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your links don't support your claims (again). The first one doesn't work and the second shows Asian ancestry more common among African Americans than Native but both vanishingly small compared top African and European ancestry (a percent or maybe less). Rmhermen (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG...I hate those sites. It was working last month... Well any way it's true though some of these researches don't do full surveys. In my opinion I think some of these geneticists honestly don't care or they test people only in the two states that show the least amount of admixture that has occured. It's difficult when there is alot of people that write about the subject but little actual research by geneticists.Mcelite (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a good number of African Americans also have Native American descent. In 1830s there were over 20,000 people of African and Native descent and most went along with the other tribes during the Trail of Tears. In 1835 10% of the Cherokee tribe alone had admixture with African Americans. Most recently research has solidly proven that the genetic tests being done have major flaws. Most notably the AIM of Caucasian and Native Americans are extremely similar so while some of these genetists have been telling people of African American descent that it's acutally European descent it was actually Native American or unclear because they have such a high admixture. I'm quite suprised that you seem so against people who are of African-Native American descent. It's hard enough. I have a friend who took a DNA tests and they said she has not Native American blood but European when her grandmother which is still alive today is full blooded Chippawau (forgive me if I spelled that wrong) to whom she is very close too. She herself confronted the genetists and they explained that the tests are not accurate and they apologized to her. Now if she was like most African Americans that don't have the privelage of having a grandparent who is full-blooded or half Native American they would have been lost and would have believed a lie. Furthermore, maybe the tribes should make a different membership so that finacial benefits don't come with the membership. Me personally I don't give a damn about money I should have the right to be able to claim my rightful Native heritage along with the rest of my family. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.Mcelite (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DNA tests do NOT test all your bloodlines, There are 2 options if you are male. Testing your fathers fathers fathers and so on. Or your mothers mothers mothers mothers and so on. DNA testing is vey limited. For instance If you chose to test you fathers side, It does not test your fathers-mothers side. I can explain in further detail. But lets just say in the simplest form as a male no matter how many generations back you go, only 2 of them are apart of the test. So lets just say. On you fathers side his mother(your grandmother) was full blooded cherokee(making you 1/4 cherokee). If you have a DNA test it will not show up at all. Swampfire (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA testing. While these are the most common, others, notably for this article, use STR genetic markers and claim to produce a overall percentage descent. Rmhermen (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false claim. If you actually check all the facts, you will see that it isnt possible. In fact it was 60 minutes or dateline that did a whole episode on this about a month ago. Where they had the people at all the top site admit. That the only true thing tested was fathers fathers fathers, and mothers mothers mothers and so on. And that everything in between was not detected.Swampfire (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are making claims without supplying sources. The talk page is for building a better article, not for general discussion. To include any of your material we would need good sources. Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to keep notable Native Americans

Notable Native Americans have contributed to American society before its founding and after. Here are excellent reasons to keep notable Native American images,

  • Follows the pattern as other American articles (European-American,African-American, etc...)
  • Photographs need names to enhance articles usefulness.
  • Give excellent role models to younger Native Americans
  • Excellent role models include an NASA astronaut (Herrington), an Olympian (Thorpe), Military officers and foot soldiers, government officials, revolutionaries, authors and scholars.
  • Include role models that stood for the U.S. and against (i.e. Pushmataha and Tecumseh).
  • Even though the longer list of images are good, I suggest giving names to them which would makes it quite difficult to read. A shorter list of images would suffice.

I created the original list of images, and thus I can recommend to change them in order to enhance the articles value. Thanks for your time. Rob (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, you don't just change it because you feel like it. Also you only chose the ones you deemed notable, which is a personalPOV. I will be reverting. Swampfire (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to support the notable Indian images, Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.115.24 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. You do not erase images to leave the images that is only deemed notable by one person. They are all notableSwampfire (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not all notable. How notable is the Comanche child? Did she go into space, write a book, or led a revolution? I think not. Some are notable like Ira Hayes, but like I said you cannot include every notable Native American in such a small area. Rob (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying makes no sense. This page is NOT about Notable Native Americans of the US. It is about Native Americans of the US. Which is something I point out in the caption. With that being said yes a picture of a commanche child is notable, in reference to this page. Swampfire (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously missing the point (refer back to the six points above). Of course this page is not about Notable Native Americans. All other articles about Americans include notables about their respective ethnic groups, as it should be. The best of the best should be displayed in this area. The Commanche child could be displayed somewhere in the article, but not in this area. Respectively, Rob (talk)
You are the one missing the point. This article is NOT about Notable native americans, nor is it about the fact of you imposing ones that only you deem notable. Swampfire (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't choose these exceptional Native Americans as notables. That would be a bias. Please refer to the citations included by the names that indicate what other deemed as notable. Thank you, Rob (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is NOT about trying to establish who are notable native americans Swampfire (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusing me of a bias that I'm imposing the notables: ("you don't just change it because you feel like it" -Swampfire) Those references deemed them as notable, not me. How can it be, as you put it "a personalPOV", when I research and find citations to back up the notability of successful Native Americans? Respectively, Rob (talk)

Request for Comment (how to solve this problem)

To find a unbiased solution on which Native American images are notable, to include names with images, and the number of images needed for such a diversified ethnic group.13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that the large versuion has too many images. Too many to focus on and too small to appreciate. A moderate number of images showing a wide range of modern/traditional, male/female, old/new, various differing tribal background. Other articles have (with admittedly long debates) constructed such montages. a few specifics I would like to mention: Since the preview hover tool only uses the first image in the box, it should I believe be a image of a traditionally dressed image, probably a famous one. I would say that the Ira Hayes image should not be used as it gives the appearance of a police mug shot (which it isn't) and in the very small size and limited space for explanation may be misinterpreted. Rmhermen (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well are we only talking about full-blooded Native Americans or both full-blooded and partial descendents? Because they are plenty of people who could be used as notable i.e. Rosa Parks or Jessica Biel.Mcelite (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its about the "amount of blood" but more who is a member of a federally recoginized tribe which is more likely, and rightly so, that they are full-blooded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.197.54 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definately too many images in the infobox. 4 maximum imo - this is not a "List of notable Native Americans" article. Which four is an editorial decision - i would suggest 2 women / 2 men, and 2 old pics (in tribal dress) and 2 new, so show diversity. Sure 4 pics cannot show the full range of variety, but then nor can 100. The limit should be set for the readability of the article, not to make a point about the falsity of stereoypes, which is what it looks like now. also would stick to photographs - there are plenty of painting in the article alreadyYobmod (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The older Native American article had thirty images with no names. Four images are too minimal. European Americans have eight images, African American has six, and Jewish Americans have twelve all of which is about notable people for their respective ethnic group. Eight to twelve image would work. It is clear that this article is not a list of notable Native Americans.Rob (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And none of them are even good articles, let alone FA. Their poorly formated and excessive pictures doesn't mean this article should be that poor. Asian has no pictures, compared to Asian american: why is only American ethnicities that need validation through wikipedia? It is not a race to see which ethnic group can have most pictures, it's about illustrating the article usefully. What use does more than 4 pictures have in the lead image? Until that can be answered, there is no point changing anything. 4 is too minimal for what? As i said above, there is no number we can choose that can represent all the diversity of an ethnic group.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
btw, i agree that the reverted to 30+ images is much worse, although i also don't understand why they should be replaced notable examples, instead of the best pictures.Yobmod (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I navigated here solely because of the RFC. I don't know very much about Native Americans. In my opinion, all of the images in the infobox should be removed and reinserted in the body of the article. It looks terrible. There is plenty of text in the article to support 11 small jpgs. These would make very interesting and appropriate little sidebar boxes if each had a short caption (5-10 words) and linked to the main article on each person. Well, you asked for third party opinions. :) Apollo (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw this in my recent edits box (and I'm full-blooded Native American), I have to agree with Apollo's solution of possibly including the images further in the body of the article. I felt it was a little tacky or gaudy to pick out just a few notable Natives because people will probably always argue with who to include. Cheers, oncamera(t) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, since the two respondents to the RFC are in agreement about this, I'll get the work started. I managed to incorporate five or six photos into the body, with a short caption. I also moved the ref's into the captions. I also added a couple of sentences about Tecumseh's War. Apollo (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image must logically correspond with the section if you want the article to be coherent. A notional example: a photo of Jim Thorpe in the music section would seem out of place. Deletion of an image is acceptable if there is no coherent fit. Maybe there should be a mini-gallery of notables in the article. Rob (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks nice, Rob. My definition of "relevant" or correspondence is a bit on the loose side. I would like to put Jim Thorpe's picture somewhere reasonably prominent, since IMHO he was, arguably, the most talented athlete in world history. He's a bit forgotten in this day and age. Let's find a place for him.
    • As for the gallery idea, it had also occurred to me. It would look a lot better as a horizontal section than in the infobox. I just don't want people fighting about who gets included or not.Apollo (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page is NOT about talented or notable native americans. It is about ALL native americans, and in that context all are notable. If you would like to include just photos of notable native americans then do it here. [[1] or here [2]] Swampfire (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swampfire: I disagree; all Native Americans are not notable. Nevertheless, I insist on having names with images in the info box. Apollo: The article lacks a sport section. I'll come up with some material to create it. It should be an interesting section since early American sports was inspired by Native ball play. Arguably, teams sports were a Native American invention as opposed to European sports which were "individual against individual" competition. We'll see where this will led. 15:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas. Badagnani (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Americans

Hi, native Americans are now known as "first Americans".<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm>. There will be a need to move this article to change its name.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a different topic, evidence of people who migrated to the South American continent from Australia or Melanesia. There is no consensus on calling Native Americans (later migrants and descendants from Asia) "first Americans". In the US, many Native Americans prefer American Indian as a term to describe themselves, so there is no consensus on that either. Keep the article where it is.--Parkwells (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Rezbizfirst.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking it off the article until this issues gets resolved. Rob (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin C. Poster

This is a joke, right?--Radh (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photography

Is there any article on historical photography of Native Americans (canada, US)?--Radh (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certain term usage

I believe that it is in a way biased to say that someone claims heritage when there is no proof that the person maybe lying or is guessing they have Native American descent. To say that Jessica Biel CLAIMS Choctaw heritage is to say that there is doubt. That makes it seem like she is a liar or her heritage is questioned. There seems to be a standard that people that are of partial heritage are questioned. That's why I say it should be changed from claims to is of. It's more clear and claim means that there is doubt that a situation is not true.Mcelite (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_Americans_in_the_United_States&oldid=248033844"