This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Native Americans in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Daily page views Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

	Native Americans in the United States is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 31, 2005, and January 31, 2006.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups High‑importance 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the ((Ethnic groups)) template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Indigenous peoples of the Americas High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas 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.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of North America Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Oklahoma High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Old West High‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources: Surhone, L. M.; et al. (2010), Nauvoo Legion: Militia, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young, Native Americans in the United States, Nauvoo, Illinois, Mormon, Betascript Publishing Surhone, L. M.; et al. (2010), Simon J. Ortiz: Acoma Pueblo, Native American renaissance, Native Americans in the United States , Institute of American Indian Arts, Albuquerque, Betascript Publishing/VDM Publishing House Additional comments OCLC 591328904, ISBN 9786130358006 (title 1); OCLC 699521216, ISBN 9786132423351 (title 2).

It's easy enough to block the new disruptive accounts. But if this is a continuing problem, should we semi the article? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is still an open question, yes, please semi-protect this article. Yuchitown (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

You can request for it here, though the edit warring that was appearing in early April when this comment was made has died down now seemingly. Tweedle (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stating that "Native Americans" are only found in mainland United States is denying the fact that there are Native Americans all over the other 34 countries of America, from Canada to Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:40:28:1155:106B:D393:D310:A085 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Yuchitown (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

@Yuchitown Yes, and they are also Native Americans. Unfortunately, "Americans" have grown accustomed to identifying ourselves in a way that precludes the rest of the Americas. Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@2800:40:28:1155:106B:D393:D310:A085

Yes, I agree that is a misleading statement and untrue. It should be corrected. Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Native American name controversy has the most thorough discussion about nomenclature. Indigenous is preferred in Canada and Indígena is overwhelming the preferred term throughout Latin America, for example, see indígenas de México or Fundação Nacional dos Povos Indígenas. But article talk pages aren't places to have general conversations about the topic. Do you have a specific edit to Native Americans in the United States that you would like to suggest? For instance, do you wish to propose a name change? If so, you can read and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. Yuchitown (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

Often referred to a "Native Americans", the correct terminology is "Indigenous Americans". This is because the noun "Native" is defined as; a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not. This would include any person that is born in America. Where as "Indigenous" refers to an group of people, plants, or animals that were either the first to inhabit the area or to have naturally evolved into the area. MasterEditor001 (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, sorry I requested you start a discussion in my edit summary; I had not yet seen that you'd done so. Native has a synonymous meaning with Indigenous in this sense. I think it's fine to use both terms (as we already do), and that it would be inappropriate in many cases to change from Native to Indigenous (including in the first sentence, source titles and quotes, and templates). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Native Americans is fine, but I feel "Native Americans in the United States" is a bit superfluous, since the term "Native Americans" refers to people in the U.S. most of the time. Elsewhere they're called Amerindians, First Nations, etc. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree "Native Americans" would be fine as only Americans use the term "Native" for peoples. Moxy- 20:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, nobody says "Native Americans of Canada/Mexico/Brazil", etc. There's different terms in those cases. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can attempt another requested move but it was no consensus per Talk:Native Americans a few years ago. People claimed it can mean any Indigenous person of the Americas even though it's by far most common in the US. If Americans (and the many ethnic groups such as European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans) are the article names for citizens and ethnic groups of the US, not sure why "Native Americans" isn't the name of this article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion is also included in two articles: Native American identity in the United States#Factors and terminology and Native American name controversy. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 07:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oncamera: it's the lede, which is a summary of the body of the article. The article mentions that "epidemic disease (e.g. smallpox) was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the Native Americans", which is appropriately sourced, so this is an entirely valid addition. Please revert your edit. Willbb234 23:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. It should be written without editorializing or synthesizing sources per WP:NPOV.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How was that done? You're making things up at this point. Willbb234 01:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've been reverted twice, consensus isn't with you on your edits.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed with Oncamera. I would like to add that, of the five references given (80-84) for this in the "Impact" section, none actually say that there is consensus that infectious diseases were the primary cause of the decline of Indigenous populations. Most of these references refer to random case examples like epidemics among Blackfoot or Taino populations. This is therefore WP:SYNTH. Aufderheide 1998 p.205 is the most comprehensive citation, but even they say that estimates of mortality and population size widely vary. The PBS citation merely credits smallpox with the speed of the Mesoamerican conquest.

In light of more recent work demonstrating that so-called "virgin soil epidemics" were anything but it may be time to adjust this part of the article. It is now clear that the role of virgin-soil smallpox outbreaks to Indigenous mortality was over-estimated, and that where great outbreaks occured, they were often not inseparable from the other contributing causes, particularly warfare. The idea that virgin-soil outbreaks were the central contributing cause to Indigenous mortality is by no means consensus. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay seeing as we really want to go down this route, which is a complete waste of our time, here are some of the sources which state that the disease played a significant role, and most likely was the main factor, in the decline of Native populations:

• [1], Broad agreement exists on two issues: contact has generally been followed by a long and pronounced demographic recession and high mortality – determined by exposure to new diseases – has been a prominent cause of the recession. But agreement ends here: the debate is still unresolved on the level of pre-contact population, the speed of the decline, and the weight of factors other than epidemic mortality which led to demographic collapse. Disease is defined as the cause of the high mortality here.
• [2] When the Europeans arrived, carrying germs which thrived in dense, semi-urban populations, the indigenous people of the Americas were effectively doomed. They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans.
• [3]*The first was the period of introduced acute contagious diseases that swept through otherwise healthy populations, bringing unprecedented mortality to the communities affected by them., The Cree people of the Saskatchewan parklands did not experience their virgin soil outbreak of smallpox until the 1780s. So many died that the existing band structure of the region buckled.
• [4] Dobyns's response, in part, has been to argue that the disease epidemics that followed in the wake of European contact with American Indians - including smallpox, influenza, measles, bubonic plague, diphtheria, typhus, and (later) cholera - were so devastating that " the aborigines collectively could not have survived" unless the population at contact were as large as he suggest. His calculations show that "a serious contagious disease causing significant mortality invaded North American peoples at intervals of four years and two and a half months, on the average, from 1520 to 1900." Some of these epidemics, which Dobyns calls "the true shock troops with which the Old World battered the New," spread across the entire continent. "Yet," he adds, "the relatively long intervals between invasions by the same disease prevented Native Americans from acquiring much immunity for well over three centuries. " Thus, the same disease returned again and again, driving the native population down at a nearly extermination-level rate, as a consequence, again like most such contagions among the American Indians, the Hawaiians had no immunity to these and other epidemic infectious diseases when they were introduced. Thus, as with other so-called "virgin soil" populations, the new diseases wreaked havoc almost immediately upon first contact, While epidemic and endemic diseases certainly caused high levels of death during the era of the great population collapse, the unwavering downward trajectory of the population was in fact principally a secondary consequence of the newly-introduced diseases : low birth rates and high infant mortality rates were the primary cause
• [5] The repeated outbreak of influenza, measles and smallpox had a devastating effect on Canada's indigenous population. Indeed, seventeenth century observations suggest that deaths from these diseases resulted in a decline of between one-half and two-thirds of the Aboriginal population of eastern North America during the first one hundred years of European contact. Just noticed that this talks about Canada, but is still relevant.
• [6] Following the earliest explorers, however, a decimating illness that may have been smallpox reportedly killed 90 percent of the Indians along the Massachusetts coast from 1617 to 1619. Another smallpox epidemic arose in the populations near Plymouth Colony in 1633, killing twenty immigrants from the Mayflower and whole tribes of Indians. Enormous epidemics soon swept westward, inflicting terror and mass death among tribes along the Great Lakes: the Hurons and the Iroquois were especially hard hit
• And some articles such as 1837 Great Plains smallpox epidemic, 1775–1782 North American smallpox epidemic (I know they're not RS, but still have sources and figues for your consideration).
• Meanwhile, warfare, which you have mentioned cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians. The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the number given ... Fifty percent additional would be a safe estimate. This is from 1789 to 1891. It appears, from what I have read, that disease accounted for a significantly larger numbers of deaths than that of warfare, such that warfare would certainly be considered a "contributing factor" to the decline.

Ok so there's plenty of evidence. I have a feeling that both of you are trying to push some kind of POV here, ignoring evidence and instead trying to put the blame on to European colonisers. Sure, they did have a significant direct impact, but it's clear that disease was the leading cause of the population decline. Oh and as you'll note, I've backed up my argument with evidence and sources, unlike someone else who thinks they can make general, ungrounded statements and then fuck off without a care in the world. Willbb234 12:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your method of communication is very hostile and coming out of no where since no one is responding to you in such a heated manner. Also the sources you shared say it's because of European contact that these diseases were spread. The way you are rephrasing it makes it seem as if the diseases were active without European contact. You accuse us of pushing some agenda when your own sources say it's due to European contact and colonizers.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 13:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never suggested that the diseases came about without European contact. Where on earth did you get that impression? Stop ignoring my comments and the real discussion here. Willbb234 13:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit in question also has nothing to do with how the diseases arrived or the manner in which it spread. It regards the effect which the diseases had on the native populations relative to other factors. Willbb234 13:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Willbb234, Oncamera and Hunan201p are correct and I agree with their thoughts expressed above. Please stop edit warring and changing the article to your preferred version. WP is a collaborative project and decisions are made through the process of consensus. At this time, consensus is not with you. Netherzone (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was the one to initiate discussion on the talk page and I only made a single revert. Hardly an edit war if you ask me. Your comments make no sense. Willbb234 13:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:ONUS.; While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Netherzone (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion isn't regarding the inclusion of new material, just the clarification of existing material. And you'll also notice that I am finding consensus. I don't need you to tell me what to do, that's just rude. Willbb234 14:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not being rude. However many of the comments you have made towards those who disagree are rude. For example: You're making things up at this point.; a complete waste of our time; both of you are trying to push some kind of POV here; ignoring evidence; unlike someone else who thinks they can make general, ungrounded statements and then fuck off without a care in the world.; Stop ignoring my comments; Your comments make no sense.

This type of communication is not the best way to collegially establish consensus with your fellow editors on a collaborative project. Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holy moley. @Willbb234 kindly chill out. Consensus is not with you. Please be respectful. I agree with Oncamera, Hunan201p and Netherzone in keeping the intro as it is. I'm not sure where the consensus is that you mention upthread in regard to your changes. I do not see anyone in agreement with the changes you made. Perhaps if you tone it down a little people would be inclined to have a discussion with you. I for one am not willing to talk with a person who is hostile and throwing f-bombs. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little late but I agree with the majority here. There is no reason to change what the lead says. Often whether someone is willing to have a discussion or continue a discussion is based on the perception of how the other side in the discussion is approaching it. Willbb234's approach almost from the start is one of combative resistance to what is being explained to them and a less than collegial response to not getting their way in the discussion. I encourage them to take a step back. It is so easy to become offended and to lash out, after all, we're all human. Take some breath's. Walk away for a while.

In regards to consensus, I believe, but could be wrong, they believe they are finding consensus among sources but that's not how consensus on WP works. It is consensus among contributors, editors, and the community. --ARoseWolf 20:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the firt section after the introduction it says that Europeans engaged in “biological warfare”, which is a mis characterization. It’s referring to a singular incident at Fort Pitt where blankets from a smallpox hospital were given to 2 messengers. The cited material incorrectly states that a later smallpox outbreak was related to the incident. Smallpox was usually spread through prolonged face to face contact.

the article is written like biological warfare was an ongoing and concerted effort. It most definitely wasn’t, only a singular incident that was carried out by a single person. The event is mischaracterized so often that it has created urban legends and has caused rampant misinformation on this topic. Here is a related article that expounds on the subject https://www.history.com/news/colonists-native-americans-smallpox-blankets# 98.159.131.209 (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we add info about this to the article to raise awareness about it? Excerpt: "In the 1950s, the United States came up with a plan to solve what it called the "Indian Problem." It would assimilate Native Americans by moving them to cities and eliminating reservations." -Artanisen (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artanisen:, There is a paragraph in 20th Century History of this article that mentions this period. It has links to articles where that citation could be used. "Mid-century, the Indian termination policy and the Indian Relocation Act of 1956 marked a new direction for assimilating Native Americans into urban life". Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 07:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truong Gia Bao112 has been insistent on the inclusion of "Indians" in the lede of this article, replacing "First Americans", despite six different editors disagreeing and reverting them multiple times. They have refused to acknowledge the warnings on their talk page or enter into discussion with other editors about their edits. They also refuse to leave any kind of edit summary. This section was added pursuant to normal Dispute Resolution policy in an attempt to resolve this dispute and allow them the opportunity to explain their edits so the community to evaluate the merit of the edits within this article. --ARoseWolf 16:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) --edited 16:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The distinguish tag appears in the wrong place on the mobile app, for whatever reason. Please double check for errors, including on my part. KnowTheManyHistories (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For readers accustomed to the term American Indian, what's the opinion on using "not to be confused with: Indian Americans" (distinguish: Indian Americans)? My thought was that while the article is easy to find, it may be of interest for some readers. Thoughts? KnowTheManyHistories (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that is only appropriate on the Indian Americans page itself. No one is confusing the title "Native Americans" with "Indian Americans." If the title were American Indians, that would be wise. American Indian already serves as a disambiguation page for that purpose. PersusjCP (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HApharris (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Leonguyen4002 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]