Talk:Lenape

message: This article is informative but poorly written in parts. For example, there is a whole section that refers to a person named "Killbuck" and his actions without saying who he is.  The first introduction to this person is "there were divisions, including in Killbuck's family."  The article then describes actions taken by Killbuck.  While one can infer his historical importance from this, it's poor writing.  
There are many sections where information is presented in a disorganized fashion and redundant statements are made.
There is also a bit of a POV throughout the article in terms of the descriptions of interactions between Europeans and Lenape.  People who are writing/editing this article need to understand that while it is not a controversial position that Europeans treated native american peoples poorly, an encyclopedic article on people and history should not be worded in such a way where the wording of the article itself represents an ethical point of view.  It is fine to describe and attribute the views of others regarding the history, but an encyclopedic tone should be factual and neutral.
For example, the article describes a controversial land deal that was apparently fraudulent as the "so called" deal.  Describing the nature of what happened and the fraud that occurred is sufficient, describing the historical term with "so called" is editoralizing.  If there is controversy regarding the terminology of what happened, describe the terminology and cite sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.158.12 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: I just reverted a large amount of material that was unsupported by reliable sources. Material that is print-on-demand by a vanity press is considered to be a self-published source and unreliable. GregJackP Boomer!  22:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of improperly sourced information 

message: To try to get this 81,000k article down to a readable size, I would like to propose summarizing then creating a separate Lenape history article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing length

message: The caption for the map in the info box is as follows:
:Lenapehoking, the original Lenape territory. Munsee speakers in the north,
Unami-speakers in the center, and Unalichtigo-speakers in the south
(with citations).
However, the map itself, in the legend, says that the dark green area in the south are "Southern Unami Dialect", the green mid-tone in the center is "Northern Unami-Unalachtigo Dialect". It's possible that there's a perfectly good reason for this, perhaps differing taxonomic systems of Lenape dialects, but if so that should be made explicit somewhere within the article (if not within the caption). Otherwise one of them is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.19.128 (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map caption 

message: There is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. Could someone please take a look at it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Voltaire wrong about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians? 

message: According to Wikipedia's own article on the subject, "First Nations" is used to describe Canadian groups, not American. Is there a source to indicate that the Lenape use the Canadian term to describe themselves? 68.146.233.86 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "First Nations" in intro

message: I tagged the article today because too much of it is written from a Western perspective instead of telling the history of these people from their own historical perspective. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Western perspective over represented

message: The lede contains a great deal of information about the Beaver Wars that is not in the body. Indeed, the term "Beaver Wars" does not even appear in the body. On the other hand, the lede omits mention of various significant portions of the article. Moreover, the lede contains several long notes that should either be in directly in the body or should be notes for the body, not the lede.
In reading through the body of the article, it seems to me the same details appear in multiple places. The article could use a thorough editing. Indyguy (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede vs. article body 

message: Hi, these paragraphs have been uncited since December 2013. If anyone wants to verify them, then they cna be reinserted into the article. Yuchitown (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited clan info 

message: Under "Kansas reservation" in this Lenape article, the third paragraph says "As the Delaware were not considered United States citizens, they had no access to the courts and no way to enforce their property rights."  While I think the Delaware probably were not US citizens until the 20th century, that lack of citizenship wouldn't prevent access to courts.  Foreign nationals file lawsuits all the time and could do beginning in 1789; Section 2 of Article III of the US Constitution allows federal suits between "a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." 
When the Delaware could not file lawsuits in courts before in the 19th century, it was likely a lack of standing and not a lack of citizenship; US citizens also get thrown out of court sometimes for lack of standing even to this day. It's possible that the Indian tribe, rather than individual Indians, had standing.  For example, if someone wanted to enforce a treaty between a tribe and the US government, the tribe is probably the correct party to file a lawsuit. That's not to say that the tribe could sue the US government, because the US government has to consent to being sued by anybody, a principle that still lives today. In summary, the lack of citizenship was not the cause of lack of access to courts, if they lacked access to the courts, so the sentence I quoted from the Kansas reservation portion of the Lenape article is incorrect. 
As further evidence of aliens' ability to sue -- Section 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave US District Courts jurisdiction over some cases when non-citizens sue to enforce a treaty. Section 9 says, "[District courts] shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."  Section 9 gave Circuit Courts jurisdiction, "concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs, or petitioners; or an alien is a party. . . ."  The Judiciary Act was amended after 1789 but probably not in a way that changes the conclusion that aliens were allowed to file lawsuits in federal court. RW7890 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access to courts was allowed to non-citizens 

message: I just cut most of the language section because the translations listed were not in the sources. There are links to the sources in my edit summaries. I am now concerned about content in the article being accurately sourced. I will try and go through them as time permits but could use a hand. Indigenous girl (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Walam Olum" has been discredited as a hoax. It has no place in any legitimate discussion. Shoreranger (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's please keep this limited to legitimate sources. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerned about sources 

message: To add to this article: mention of Henry Hudson's meeting of the Lenape at Manhattan Island (later to become New York City) in September 1609. More information 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: "...they mainly hunted deer, but from the months of January to the spring planting in May, they hunted anything from bears and beavers to raccoons and foxes."
Since one of their three clans, as indicated within the article, was named for the turkey, wouldn't it seem likely that they also hunted the game bird?  Indeed, I'd think it would have been a major source of meat.  Is there any evidence for this; if so, can it be included in the paragraph I noted above?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  They hunted turkey as well?  

message: How many languages did they and their related tribes speak? 2601:280:5B80:A7C0:191A:74BE:F4FB:BE8F (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages? 

message: "The tribe's common name Delaware comes from the French language. English colonists named the Delaware River for the first governor of the Province of Virginia, Lord De La Warr. The British colonists began to call the Lenape the Delaware Indians because of where they lived."
Unless I am misunderstanding it, the first sentence of this paragraph seems to contradict the rest. MyIP19216811 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delaware origin editing problem?