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
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Guerrilla warfare#Guerrillas in the American Civil War|irregular]] The anchor (#Guerrillas in the American Civil War) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Requested move 8 December 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of Indian massacres → List of Native American massacres – The term Indian is an outdated misnomer when referring to Native Americans. Its appropriate designation is for people of Indian nationality and descent. The name should be changed for clarity as it easily confused with Indian peoples in search engines. The U.S. government uses Native American/Indigenous Americans as a racial and ethnic designation. Similar pages such as Category:Massacres of Native Americans already exits using this.
Vajra Raja (
talk)
05:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Disagree The use of Indian is perfectly fine and has been for over 500 years in the Americas, per
COMMON NAME. (Also per
Perrenial.) Your reasoning above is illogical as no one is confusing two vastly different diasporas from separate hemispheres of the earth.
GenQuest"scribble"07:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support the term Indian to mean Native Americans is an obsolete misnomer that carries racist connotations. This international English version of Wikipedia is not bound to stereotypical usage within a single country (the USA) where
COMMON NAME might apply.
♆ CUSH ♆09:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose per GenQuest and the common use of the word still by indigenous Americans. @
Cush:, I'm shocked at what seems to be an attack on those Native American tribes and individuals who self-identify as Indian. Are they racist? How about the
International Indian Treaty Council or the San Francisco American Indian Cultural District?
[1] There are many such examples.
Doug Wellertalk11:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Vehemently oppose this proposal. I am assuming the good faith of the originator of the proposal but moving this would disenfranchise a large number of citizens of native nations within the US who consider themselves to be Indians or American Indians. To say that I identify as Cherokee is true but I also identify as American Indian. I am forced to identify as Native American on government documents as that is the only applicable term accepted. In regards to Cush, I will also choose to assume good faith and ignorance on your part. Otherwise your words are a direct attack upon every native citizen who identifies as Indian in the United States. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
14:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I would agree except that you won't find many if any tribes with Native American in their official name. I don't think there is a wrong answer here unless you choose to eliminate or remove any word entirely. Native American, American Indian (Indian) and Indigenous People of the Americas are all accepted terms and shouldn't be changed if it is worded as such in any article. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
17:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose the name should be changed, but the terms 'native american' is an US term and we shoudl avoid
wp:bias. I would support either: changing the list so that it only includes massacres in the US and renaming it appropriately; or renaming this list to something like "massacres of indigenous north americans"
blindlynx (
talk)
17:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. While "Indian" as a term for people whose ancestors were living in the Americas before the European invasion is problematic, it is deeply imbedded in usage. "Native American" is an invention of the US government for census purposes, and since I edit mainly historical articles, I find it anachronistic in referring to people who lived before the 20th century. I try to avoid using "Indian" in editing Wikipedia, but I also oppose trying to whitewash it out of Wikipedia. -
Donald Albury18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose as proposed, and also the nominator is wrong. "Indian" is still used by New World aborigines. Not all of them, and some of them find it offensive. IT is also used in non-English languages in the Americas for the same, with the same issues. Suggest instead
List of Amerindian massacres, which avoids the "American Indian" ambiguosity and regionality, "Native American" ambiguosity and regionality. --
67.70.26.89 (
talk)
21:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose, and comment Acknowledging the possibility that I am wrong, it does appear to me that the reason for the requested move was not so much out of concern over how American Indians are referred to as it was that they want to make sure that the word 'Indian' be only applied to in reference to the Republic of India. Which they apparently believe is the correct and proper thing to do, and hopefully this discussion will clear up this confusion. I also noticed from what they said in an edit comment that they seem to be confused over the meaning of American Indian: i.e., confusing it with Indian American (Americans whose ancestry is from India).
Firejuggler86 (
talk)
20:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment We should be wary of american
wp:BIAS. This discussion is focused on usage of terms in the US, while this list includes events that happened in Canada. Both 'indian' and 'Native American' are not commonly used in Canada.
blindlynx (
talk)
22:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I would say that "Indian" and "indien" is still in not uncommon usage in Canada, even among some First Nations persons. Even watching APTN programming, you find both words in use. --
67.70.26.89 (
talk)
09:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support some kind of move "List of Indian massacres" is a highly ambiguous title – it could refer to massacres that happened in India or massacres of Indian populations in places like Guyana (the Wismar Massacre), Trinidad (the
Hosay massacre) or South Africa (the
Durban riots). The proposal by BegbertBiggs is probably the best one suggested.
Number5722:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does the Jim Jumper massacre belong on this list?
The
Jim Jumper massacre occurred when Jim Jumper, who was part Seminole, killed 6 or more Seminoles in their camp. While the incident has been called a "massacre" in sources, I'm not sure if it qualifies as an "Indian massacre" as the term is used in this list. -
Donald Albury17:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The lead states:
In the history of the
European colonization of the Americas, an Indian massacre is any incident between European settlers and
indigenous peoples wherein one group killed a significant number of the other group outside the confines of
mutual combat in
war.
Yet there are entries pre-European colonization, entries that are clearly indian on indian (no Europeans involved), and entries that are clearly associated with Wars (ie. Battle of the Big Hole for example). My suggestion is that the lead be clarified and simplified to one simple inclusion criteria: RS refers to the incident as a Massacre. If we eliminate the European bias, mutual combat and war caveats, then inclusion become simple. My suggested lead would be:
Massacres involving
indigenous peoples have been documented throughout the history of North America. This list includes incidents involving indigenous peoples, settlers, militias and government forces commonly referred to as massacres.
While your proposal is simple, there may be problems. Some incidents traditionaly called "massacres" may no longer be regarded as such. As an example, the WP article "Dade massacre" was moved to
Dade battle less than two years ago (see the discussion at
Talk:Dade battle). -
Donald Albury16:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Great example. 1st, the
Dade battle was once commonly called a massacre thus I believe it would survive my suggested inclusion criteria. However, it does not survive the current inclusion criteria: … outside the confines of mutual combat in war. Since the Dade battle occurred during the
Seminole wars, it would not meet current inclusion criteria as written.
Mike Cline (
talk)
19:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Why the Distinction Before and After 1830?
The list is currently divided between massacres before 1830 and those after 1830, but I don't see a justification for the distinction. I'm not particularly contesting this distinction, just asking for the reason for it.
Tedcampbell (
talk)
11:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
American Indians are not Indians! Your caveat shows someone saw it and turned a blind eye.
There is a legal term in USA …. American Indian. Outside of that context, the usage of Native American or tribal precolumbianAmerican. As listed this is racism101…. Which additionally requires a caveat that this is not referring to Indians on another hemisphere (missed clue of racism) . Please adjust the title to say either American Indian or Native American. This passive racism and shadow erasure must stop.
8.8.228.254 (
talk)
21:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
A search in Google Scholar turned up a source that includes an account of the raid on Morgan Station.[1] It does mention the 19 women and children captured there, but is less clear on whether anyone was killed there, rather than in the the fighting that went on in the area on following days. Moreover, two dead does not feel like a massacre to me, and would be a smaller number of deaths than for any event currently on the list. Does the book call it a "massacre"? That ultimately is the criteria for inclusion in this list: does a reliable source call it a "massacre".
Missing is 400 native Americans killed at dawn at hands of captain turner and the resulting counter attack where another 100 militia died. Great falls, Montague Massachusetts at communal fishing village on Connecticut River
2601:186:837F:E9C0:130:BB44:F0C7:F6A1 (
talk)
20:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply