![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Caroline and others at UNC, nice work on this page. I would think somebody would have a list all the "special relationships" with specific tribes. BIA? A clever search of the Library of Congress database? Wish I could be of more help -- Rcollman ( talk) 14:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I am looking for a list. The 109 number includes tribes and bands. Not sure of the source but..'Between 1954 and 1964, Congress passed 14 acts that ended federal acknowledgment for 109 Indian tribes and bands.' Here are some pieces until I find "a list".
I'm rethinking this. WE don't have any way of knowing what made up the 109. I just wrote a piece on the Oklahoma terminations. There was a law passed terminating the Wyandotte and they were restored though the government claimed they were never "officially" terminated. In addition, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah included 4 bands (Shivwits, Kanosh, Koosharem, and Indian Peaks Bands). So...it seems more logical to try to find 14 pieces of legislation than trying to figure out what tribes/bands were included in that 109 number. SusunW ( talk) 06:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"The Tribes of Oregon were hardest hit by the Termination Acts. Of the 109 Tribes terminated in the United States, 62 were from Oregon. Additionally, 98% of all individual Indians losing their federal status were from Oregon. All Tribes terminated in Oregon were situated on the West side of the Coast Range; those tribes with the large timber holdings." U of Oregon Page 1 The Isaac I. Stevens and Joel Palmer Treaties, 1855–2005 | Oregon Historical Quarterly, 106.3..
California to southern Washington
41 tribes or bands were terminated California Rancheria Act. Please note that locations are not always tribal/band names. [ http://digital.library.okstate.edu/KAPPLER/vol6/html_files/v6p0831.html#mn1 Public Law 85-671 August 18, 1958] H. R. 2824 72 Stat. 619 "To provide for the distribution of the land and assets of certain Indian rancherias and reservations in California, and for other purposes."
I created a table to handle the data in a more logical fashion. Not all dates are available with what I have found so far, but I was able to complete a lot of the data. I am fairly new to Wiki editing and am not sure how to deal with the sources which are repeats. Anyone who wants to edit or assist, please jump in. SusunW ( talk) 06:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I put all 41 tribes that were on the initial California list in the chart, then discovered the supplemental list and added them to a separate chart, as they cannot be part of the 109 tribes referred to as terminated per the 1958 Act. However, I also found 3 tribes on the list below of terminated CA tribes that were dropped from Indian Health Care. How should they figure in or be presented?
Coyote Valley Rancheria terminated 10 July, 1957; Laguna Rancheria terminated 4 February, 1958; and Lower Lake Rancheria 29 March, 1956 SusunW ( talk) 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone working on this page know the name of the female history professor of Native descent who describes how peoples will still not accept $20 but ask for 2 $10's and she also goes on to describe Andrew Jackson as America's Hitler? Her comments were late in the episode of the November 2007 original airing of the Presidents:Andrew Jackson on the History Channel. Alatari ( talk) 13:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is interesting but needs to provide some additional context for understanding unique aspects of Alaskan Native Americans' issues. As a lay reader without much background, I don't understand the references to state land and aboriginals' land selection.-- Parkwells ( talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says that the policy "was developed by Republican administrations during the 1950s and 1960s"
How is this accurate considering that from early 1961 to early 1969 the White House was occupied by two Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson) and this time period (1950 to 1969) only saw two Republican presidents, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, and Nixon was the president responsible for ending Termination? If it was policy formulated under Eisenhower then the article should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.160.66 ( talk) 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Am trying to rework this section Politics and keep it politically neutral. I cannot really find any politicians that did not support termination. It seems to me that all supported it, the only question was whether it should be immediate or delayed and if the Indians should consent or not. But, I am troubled by the inclusion of E. Morgan Pryse. He appears to be of somewhat questionable loyalty to either side. See https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=OZwAnfQj62cC&lpg=PA254&ots=zCtSdvQEMQ&dq=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination&f=false There isn't a source cited for the claim "An unusual aspect of the Klamath tribe termination hearing was that E. Morgan Pryse, the BIA area director from Portland, Oregon, testified against termination. He testified that the process would put Klamath land ownership at risk, because he knew individuals would be pressured to sell their lands. Most people affiliated with the BIA were understood to favor termination.[citation needed]" but I don't really think the few things I can find support that. https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=zf6ZU2M8NMQC&lpg=PA50&ots=c5otDwbd2W&dq=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination%20klamath&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination%20klamath&f=false seems to indicate he was more concerned with the government than the Indians and this passage, which shows the questioning of Pryse http://history.rutgers.edu/honors-papers-2009/148-federal-termination-and-its-effects/file clearly shows what he thought was going to happen but does not indicate that he was arguing against termination, but rather giving his personal opinion of what he thought might happen. SusunW ( talk) 02:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
No mention here of the Indian Relocation Act of 1956. Probably should be. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have cited Getches, Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, for a period between 1945 and 1961. The timeframe is debatable. Anyone believe it should be otherwise? Afwm1985 ( talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Decided to use a less definite time-frame, from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. Afwm1985 ( talk) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As currently written, the article is quite contradictory with regard to the Indian Health Service. At the start of the paragraph about health care, it states that one of the negative aspects of Termination was that once tribes were terminated, their members were no longer eligible for care by the Indian Health Service. At the end of the paragraph, the creation of the Indian Health Service was one of the few positive developments coming out of Termination. Well, which is it? It obviously can't be both. 75.216.136.125 ( talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Instead of the 190 tribes, I have been researching whether it is simpler to identify the 14 laws of termination. I sent to the US code and via various searches, found this (my numbering):
key words: tribe termination
key words: indian termination
I was surprised that none of this search turned up the Choctaw or the California Rancherias. So, I input Choctaw and came up with this:
and with key words: rancheria
No mention of the termination of the Rancherias but it clearly happened as PUBLIC LAW 85-671 72 STAT. 619 AUG. 18, 1958
I find no other laws about termination other than the 1964 amendment to the California statute, which would then be the 14th statute:
Public Law 88-419 78 Stat. 390 August 11, 1964
Does this seem feasible as the list we are seeking? SusunW ( talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The other possibility I see is that the 14th statute (since PL 88-419 was an amendment) would be the initial Resolution 108, which terminated The Flathead Tribe of Montana, the Klamath Tribe of Oregon, the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin, the Potowatamie Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, and those members of the Chippewa Tribe who are on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, North Dakota. Interestingly, it mentions that all offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the States of California, Florida, New York, and Texas should be abolished. But I see no tribes in Florida or New York on the list of terminated tribes? http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol6/html_files/v6p0614.html SusunW ( talk) 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that if a number is used, it should reflect the total number of completed termination acts, which is 12. Wyandotte was never completed, nor was Seneca, nor was Choctaw and while the Brothertown ended up terminated (see Emigrant Indians of New York it wasn't due to a termination bill, but a technicality. SusunW ( talk) 05:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I realize that the way the page is currently constructed is to keep it in chronological order, but that causes the reader to look in two different different places ("terminations" and "restorations") to follow the chronology for a specific state or tribe. I think it would be easier for the reader to understand the specifics for each entity if they were in a single unit.
I propose that all of the discussion for policy occur first in a chronological manner and specific state/tribe discussions follow, also arranged chronologically. In this manner it will be much easier to follow when termination was implemented and revoked both from a policy standpoint and within a given entity. SusunW ( talk) 05:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is the count I come up with:
In any case it is not 109, cited in the article. Which should be used? SusunW ( talk) 05:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where to go with him. On the one hand, I am tempted to give a brief overview of the various "terminationist" congressmen here and then flesh out their personal pages with a section on termination. But, is that appropriate for Watkins, as he was the main proponent?
In any case, how does one avoid that his motivation for much of what drove his policy was his faith? https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=8lvBQBOP3icC&lpg=PA7&ots=JnYVULxNvP&dq=racism%20and%20indian%20termination&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=racism%20and%20indian%20termination&f=false p 30 - 37 and http://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/getfile/collection/USHSArchPub/id/6870/filename/6905.pdf are just two of multiple examples.
Finally, the unattributed quote, I can find no where. I think it needs to be eliminated, if we cannot document its source. SusunW ( talk) 05:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi SusunW. I'd say that until someone comes along to help, I'd start making careful edits along the lines you suggest, sourcing as you go. You could also sandbox sections and lay with them until they are ready for prime time. Montanabw (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is extremely impressive in its thoroughness and scope. But it has one problem which is that it is very unwieldy in size and layout. I think ideally this should be broken into a series of articles and this article should simply be a summary of those. So I think the best thing to do would be to spin off some of the heaviest sections to form daughter articles, and then find a way to keep this article as a general overview of the topic of Indian termination, relegating the detailed information to the daughter articles. I think the most important part of this article is to give a coherent overview of the history of the topic, from the beginning to the end, written in a way that lets the reader understand why the policy was adopted, what its consequences was and why it was abandoned. This is all in the article already, but it is located in different parts, separated by long lists of tribes and legislation that is probably not useful or interesting to most readers. This detailed information, including the veeeery long tables, is what I would spin off into daughter articles. This is my suggestion, for how o structure the information which you can take or leave as you like - though it would seem to be in keeping with our MOS and general guidelines (see e.g. Summary style and Article size. As I say the amount of information and detail is truly impressive and your work is top notch, but at this point I think the presentation of the information in a way that makes it accessible should be the focus. All the best. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, last one for tonight, I am exhausted and going to bed. @ Maunus and Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·: @ Montanabw: California Rancheria Termination Acts. I'll divert some more sections tomorrow. Thank you both tremendously for your help. SusunW ( talk) 06:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ledger-dispatch.com/news/a-look-at-buena-vista-an-th83-8212-guest-commentary-by-butch-cranfordpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pbpindiantribe.com/tribal-history.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Caroline and others at UNC, nice work on this page. I would think somebody would have a list all the "special relationships" with specific tribes. BIA? A clever search of the Library of Congress database? Wish I could be of more help -- Rcollman ( talk) 14:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I am looking for a list. The 109 number includes tribes and bands. Not sure of the source but..'Between 1954 and 1964, Congress passed 14 acts that ended federal acknowledgment for 109 Indian tribes and bands.' Here are some pieces until I find "a list".
I'm rethinking this. WE don't have any way of knowing what made up the 109. I just wrote a piece on the Oklahoma terminations. There was a law passed terminating the Wyandotte and they were restored though the government claimed they were never "officially" terminated. In addition, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah included 4 bands (Shivwits, Kanosh, Koosharem, and Indian Peaks Bands). So...it seems more logical to try to find 14 pieces of legislation than trying to figure out what tribes/bands were included in that 109 number. SusunW ( talk) 06:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"The Tribes of Oregon were hardest hit by the Termination Acts. Of the 109 Tribes terminated in the United States, 62 were from Oregon. Additionally, 98% of all individual Indians losing their federal status were from Oregon. All Tribes terminated in Oregon were situated on the West side of the Coast Range; those tribes with the large timber holdings." U of Oregon Page 1 The Isaac I. Stevens and Joel Palmer Treaties, 1855–2005 | Oregon Historical Quarterly, 106.3..
California to southern Washington
41 tribes or bands were terminated California Rancheria Act. Please note that locations are not always tribal/band names. [ http://digital.library.okstate.edu/KAPPLER/vol6/html_files/v6p0831.html#mn1 Public Law 85-671 August 18, 1958] H. R. 2824 72 Stat. 619 "To provide for the distribution of the land and assets of certain Indian rancherias and reservations in California, and for other purposes."
I created a table to handle the data in a more logical fashion. Not all dates are available with what I have found so far, but I was able to complete a lot of the data. I am fairly new to Wiki editing and am not sure how to deal with the sources which are repeats. Anyone who wants to edit or assist, please jump in. SusunW ( talk) 06:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I put all 41 tribes that were on the initial California list in the chart, then discovered the supplemental list and added them to a separate chart, as they cannot be part of the 109 tribes referred to as terminated per the 1958 Act. However, I also found 3 tribes on the list below of terminated CA tribes that were dropped from Indian Health Care. How should they figure in or be presented?
Coyote Valley Rancheria terminated 10 July, 1957; Laguna Rancheria terminated 4 February, 1958; and Lower Lake Rancheria 29 March, 1956 SusunW ( talk) 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone working on this page know the name of the female history professor of Native descent who describes how peoples will still not accept $20 but ask for 2 $10's and she also goes on to describe Andrew Jackson as America's Hitler? Her comments were late in the episode of the November 2007 original airing of the Presidents:Andrew Jackson on the History Channel. Alatari ( talk) 13:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is interesting but needs to provide some additional context for understanding unique aspects of Alaskan Native Americans' issues. As a lay reader without much background, I don't understand the references to state land and aboriginals' land selection.-- Parkwells ( talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says that the policy "was developed by Republican administrations during the 1950s and 1960s"
How is this accurate considering that from early 1961 to early 1969 the White House was occupied by two Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson) and this time period (1950 to 1969) only saw two Republican presidents, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, and Nixon was the president responsible for ending Termination? If it was policy formulated under Eisenhower then the article should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.160.66 ( talk) 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Am trying to rework this section Politics and keep it politically neutral. I cannot really find any politicians that did not support termination. It seems to me that all supported it, the only question was whether it should be immediate or delayed and if the Indians should consent or not. But, I am troubled by the inclusion of E. Morgan Pryse. He appears to be of somewhat questionable loyalty to either side. See https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=OZwAnfQj62cC&lpg=PA254&ots=zCtSdvQEMQ&dq=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination&f=false There isn't a source cited for the claim "An unusual aspect of the Klamath tribe termination hearing was that E. Morgan Pryse, the BIA area director from Portland, Oregon, testified against termination. He testified that the process would put Klamath land ownership at risk, because he knew individuals would be pressured to sell their lands. Most people affiliated with the BIA were understood to favor termination.[citation needed]" but I don't really think the few things I can find support that. https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=zf6ZU2M8NMQC&lpg=PA50&ots=c5otDwbd2W&dq=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination%20klamath&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q=E.%20Morgan%20Pryse%20against%20termination%20klamath&f=false seems to indicate he was more concerned with the government than the Indians and this passage, which shows the questioning of Pryse http://history.rutgers.edu/honors-papers-2009/148-federal-termination-and-its-effects/file clearly shows what he thought was going to happen but does not indicate that he was arguing against termination, but rather giving his personal opinion of what he thought might happen. SusunW ( talk) 02:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
No mention here of the Indian Relocation Act of 1956. Probably should be. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have cited Getches, Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, for a period between 1945 and 1961. The timeframe is debatable. Anyone believe it should be otherwise? Afwm1985 ( talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Decided to use a less definite time-frame, from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. Afwm1985 ( talk) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As currently written, the article is quite contradictory with regard to the Indian Health Service. At the start of the paragraph about health care, it states that one of the negative aspects of Termination was that once tribes were terminated, their members were no longer eligible for care by the Indian Health Service. At the end of the paragraph, the creation of the Indian Health Service was one of the few positive developments coming out of Termination. Well, which is it? It obviously can't be both. 75.216.136.125 ( talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Instead of the 190 tribes, I have been researching whether it is simpler to identify the 14 laws of termination. I sent to the US code and via various searches, found this (my numbering):
key words: tribe termination
key words: indian termination
I was surprised that none of this search turned up the Choctaw or the California Rancherias. So, I input Choctaw and came up with this:
and with key words: rancheria
No mention of the termination of the Rancherias but it clearly happened as PUBLIC LAW 85-671 72 STAT. 619 AUG. 18, 1958
I find no other laws about termination other than the 1964 amendment to the California statute, which would then be the 14th statute:
Public Law 88-419 78 Stat. 390 August 11, 1964
Does this seem feasible as the list we are seeking? SusunW ( talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The other possibility I see is that the 14th statute (since PL 88-419 was an amendment) would be the initial Resolution 108, which terminated The Flathead Tribe of Montana, the Klamath Tribe of Oregon, the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin, the Potowatamie Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, and those members of the Chippewa Tribe who are on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, North Dakota. Interestingly, it mentions that all offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the States of California, Florida, New York, and Texas should be abolished. But I see no tribes in Florida or New York on the list of terminated tribes? http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol6/html_files/v6p0614.html SusunW ( talk) 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that if a number is used, it should reflect the total number of completed termination acts, which is 12. Wyandotte was never completed, nor was Seneca, nor was Choctaw and while the Brothertown ended up terminated (see Emigrant Indians of New York it wasn't due to a termination bill, but a technicality. SusunW ( talk) 05:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I realize that the way the page is currently constructed is to keep it in chronological order, but that causes the reader to look in two different different places ("terminations" and "restorations") to follow the chronology for a specific state or tribe. I think it would be easier for the reader to understand the specifics for each entity if they were in a single unit.
I propose that all of the discussion for policy occur first in a chronological manner and specific state/tribe discussions follow, also arranged chronologically. In this manner it will be much easier to follow when termination was implemented and revoked both from a policy standpoint and within a given entity. SusunW ( talk) 05:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is the count I come up with:
In any case it is not 109, cited in the article. Which should be used? SusunW ( talk) 05:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where to go with him. On the one hand, I am tempted to give a brief overview of the various "terminationist" congressmen here and then flesh out their personal pages with a section on termination. But, is that appropriate for Watkins, as he was the main proponent?
In any case, how does one avoid that his motivation for much of what drove his policy was his faith? https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=8lvBQBOP3icC&lpg=PA7&ots=JnYVULxNvP&dq=racism%20and%20indian%20termination&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=racism%20and%20indian%20termination&f=false p 30 - 37 and http://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/getfile/collection/USHSArchPub/id/6870/filename/6905.pdf are just two of multiple examples.
Finally, the unattributed quote, I can find no where. I think it needs to be eliminated, if we cannot document its source. SusunW ( talk) 05:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi SusunW. I'd say that until someone comes along to help, I'd start making careful edits along the lines you suggest, sourcing as you go. You could also sandbox sections and lay with them until they are ready for prime time. Montanabw (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is extremely impressive in its thoroughness and scope. But it has one problem which is that it is very unwieldy in size and layout. I think ideally this should be broken into a series of articles and this article should simply be a summary of those. So I think the best thing to do would be to spin off some of the heaviest sections to form daughter articles, and then find a way to keep this article as a general overview of the topic of Indian termination, relegating the detailed information to the daughter articles. I think the most important part of this article is to give a coherent overview of the history of the topic, from the beginning to the end, written in a way that lets the reader understand why the policy was adopted, what its consequences was and why it was abandoned. This is all in the article already, but it is located in different parts, separated by long lists of tribes and legislation that is probably not useful or interesting to most readers. This detailed information, including the veeeery long tables, is what I would spin off into daughter articles. This is my suggestion, for how o structure the information which you can take or leave as you like - though it would seem to be in keeping with our MOS and general guidelines (see e.g. Summary style and Article size. As I say the amount of information and detail is truly impressive and your work is top notch, but at this point I think the presentation of the information in a way that makes it accessible should be the focus. All the best. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, last one for tonight, I am exhausted and going to bed. @ Maunus and Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·: @ Montanabw: California Rancheria Termination Acts. I'll divert some more sections tomorrow. Thank you both tremendously for your help. SusunW ( talk) 06:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ledger-dispatch.com/news/a-look-at-buena-vista-an-th83-8212-guest-commentary-by-butch-cranfordpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Indian termination policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pbpindiantribe.com/tribal-history.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)