Talk:List of Indian massacres in North America

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.

The result of the move request was: There is consensus that the previous title was ambiguous and should be moved. There is rough consensus for List of Indian massacres in North America, which is where I have moved it. I might also have suggested more simply List of American Indian massacres but this idea didn't appear in the discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

---

List of Indian massacres → List of Native American massacres – The term Indian is an outdated misnomer when referring to Native Americans.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)

Not to be confused with List of massacres in India.

Vajra Raja (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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 Weller talk 11:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• Neutral, but something to consider; many Native American tribes retain the word Indian in their official name, for example: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. It isn't up to Wikipedia to set the standard usage of any word or term. Reliable sources should dictate usage. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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 Albury 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

True, but they are both seen as colloquial by pretty much everyone in canada. Either way 'Native American' is never used in canada. blindlynx (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment if disambiguation from List of massacres in India is desired without changing the "Indian massacre" nomenclature, this could be moved to List of Indian massacres in North America. BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I like this idea. Carptrash (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• 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. Number 57 22:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I think BegbertBiggs's proposal is worthy of further discussion. - Donald Albury 00:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Refers to a specific thing. But I agree with renaming to List of Indian massacres in North America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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 Albury 17:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

i don't see why not, similar pages tend to have smaller instances listed. blindlynx (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It has been a week, so I'll add it. - Donald Albury 22:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Questioning inclusion criteria

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.

Mike Cline (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

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 Albury 16:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This title is an accepted use of the word "Indian." Carptrash (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Does Morgan Station Belong on this list?

https://heritagebooks.com/products/101-e0604 72.35.179.34 (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A search in Google Scholar turned up a source that includes an account of the raid on Morgan Station. 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".

References

Donald Albury 17:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)