Talk:Paiute

message: The article conforms to a time when anthropologists still believed their own ethnocentric descriptions of the Northern Paiute (Numu). The name for the people is Numu. The Northern Paiute extend into Northern Utah. Also, the Numu are part of an interrelated people called the Punown. The Punown include:  Northern and Southern Paiute, Northern and Southern Ute, Commanche, Gosiute, Southern Paiute, Northern, Western, and Eastern Shoshone amongst other peoples such as Hopi.  The Numu langauge is part of the Great Northern-Uto-Aztecan langauges termed Numic. Although there were perfectly timed movements (would not call this migratory because it was within their own CONSCRIPTED territory) upon the landscape, these movements (seasonal rounds) were not done as simple wanderings but as eclectic foragers whom were biologists. The sociological organization of the Numu was (is) broad. The Numu lived in small villages in general of upward of 20-200 people. Although in some instances the village was composed of small family groups, larger villages did develop along the Sierra Nevada range. In areas such as Pyramid Lake, Walker Lake, the Humboldt Sink, Smith Valley and Owens Valley, California, and locations in Northern and Southern Oregon the Numu were known to live in semi-sedentary villages. Indigenous farming was also present at Walker, Smith, and Owens Valleys.  Terming this pattern a "migaratory" lifestyle appears to be an artifact of early ethnocentric anthropology. It appears to relate to original Western encroachment on the lands of the Numu who wanted to justify their own intrusion into another peoples conscipted territory.
:Please, feel free to edit the article to get rid of inaccuracies. --- hike395 00:19, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comments 

message: Anybody else for spliting this page into a Northern Paiute and Southern Paiute page, while leaving Paiute as a disambig page?  These two peoples spoke different languages, their territories did not border each other and they had fairly different lifeways.  Seems like the fact that they're both known as Paiute is an accident of history.  Toiyabe 23:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Split Northern Paiute and Southern Paiute?

message: Merged about one sentance from Pah Ute War. Could be a pretty interesting section with some more work.--Banana04131 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pah Ute War

message: I am working on the Mountain Meadows massacre article and have run across a reference to a tribal (or band) name of Pah-vant in the southern Utah area. It appears several times in Senate Executive Document 42 of the 36th United States Congress in response to Senate requests for all the official documents relating to the Mountain Meadows massacre. Specifically on page 76 where Jacob Forney (Superintendent for Indian Affairs in Utah Territory in 1859) says:
And after strict inquiry I cannot learn that even one Pah-vant Indian was present at the massacre.
Is anyone familiar with this name and what it corresponds to as far as tribal affiliations? Is it a band of Paiute? Thanks for any help. --Robbie Giles 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with Pah-vant

message: Southeast of the Benton reservation, in Fish Lake Valley there is a significant Paiute population not yet mentioned in this article.  Is this only a satellite of the Benton reservation, or a different group? LADave (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauites in Fish Lake Valley, Nevada-California 

message: This article about Paiute stories about red-haired giants is a mess, see Talk:Si-Te-Cah where I've provided a number of sources to help fix it. Help wanted! Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Si-Te-Cah]] & red-haired giants 

message: Just spotted "D-1 Haplogroup has also been found among people of Hokkaido, Japan, a northern region inhabited by ancient indigenous people known as the Ainu." The Ainu are a pretty modern ethnic group, first mentioned in the 13th century CE. The abstract (not a reliable source at times) itself says "However, probably due to the small sample size or close consanguinity among the members of the site, the frequencies of the haplogroups in Funadomari skeletons were quite different from any modern populations, including Hokkaido Ainu, who have been regarded as the direct descendant of the Hokkaido Jomon people." In any case, the second and third paragraph sources do not seem to mention the Paiute so should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, actually at this point, perhaps the whole section should be chucked from this article. The criticism is more relevant to Paiutes (since it was issued by a Paiute person belonging to a group located on a Paiute rez) than the genetic project which only remotely mentions Paiutes. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A Native Hawaiian joined the Paiute person in criticizing the Natl Geogr. Genographic Project, according to the source here (now moved to that other page). I think this criticism belongs in the article on the Project, not here, even though one spokesperson is Paiute. Have just finished reading Kemp, which was mostly about Aztec ancestry and relations, and issues related to theses about migration and the development of maize. Did not see anything about D1, nor much mention of Paiutes and others, except to say D haplotype was more common among them and some Nahua, but not the peoples in between in the SW. Am not sure where the other content came from. Will read the other sources and try to understand their points.Parkwells (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, let's pull for now and if anything pertinent to Paiute people comes up, folks can add that. Here's the section, just in case you want to use it elsewhere or build upon it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic history 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I can't figure out the citation to ""The Piutes and the Legacy of Richard Henry Pratt," where it is supposed to go and where it is linked (if at all), so I marked it "Clarification needed." Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Henry Pratt reference 

message: Substituted at 02:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paiute. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520001435/http://library.dixie.edu/special_collections/Juanita%20Brooks%20lectures/lecture_images/2007%20-%20map.png to http://library.dixie.edu/special_collections/Juanita%20Brooks%20lectures/lecture_images/2007%20-%20map.png
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paiute. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301140827/http://www.summitlaketribe.org/About_Us.html to http://www.summitlaketribe.org/About_Us.html
*Added  tag to http://www.ailla.utexas.org/search/collection.html?c_id=28
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article should not exist.  "Paiute" is a generic term that refers to a variety of different tribes that have different languages, different and non-contiguous geographic ranges, and different lifestyles in many respects.  It should be nothing more than a signpost to direct readers to Northern Paiute people and Southern Paiute people, nothing more.  --Taivo (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article has no point to exist 

message: I think it's not reasonable to remove all the well-sourced content from this article.  The editor who did it hasn't given any support for their claims other than their putative status as an academic expert who's inordinately subject to the RfB effect.  It looks like original research to me. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See .  All content was moved to Northern Paiute, Southern Paiute, and Mono people because there is no such thing as "Paiute" without referencing one of these groups.  --Taivo (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say, but if it's true there should be a source besides you that says so. Please don't edit war over the templates, and please look at the template documentation for when it's appropriate to remove them. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, you know nothing whatsoever about the topic, but just to satisfy you, I've added appropriate references (of the hundreds that might be adduced since this information is completely uncontroversial within the field).  --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think of it as satisfying me, think of it as complying with WP policies rather than making unverifiable claims about your superior god-like knowledge and whining about the RfB effect.  Not only will you be a better editor if you learn to cite your claims to reliable sources, but WP will be better off as well.  I assume that that's why you're here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a disambiguation page.  --Taivo (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it your contention that WP policies don't apply on DAB pages?  Anyway, if it's a disambiguation page, you ought to delete all the rest of your content per WP:DABNOT.  I just don't understand what you're trying to do here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly didn't read a word of , which this is a direct response to.  The result was "turn this into a disambiguation page with a bit of explanation included".  That was editor input.  Perhaps you get so busy with your wikilawyering that you become inflexible in your editing.  --Taivo (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly didn't read a word of it.  The result was Keep and it was a non-admin closure.  It means nothing other than that the article doesn't get deleted.  It doesn't reflect any kind of consensus for anything else, let alone nuking the article down to a DAB page.  Here's the short version: DAB pages don't have discussion on them.  Pages with discussion on them need sources.  You can't avoid sourcing claims by stating it's a DAB page. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the whole thing and followed the only bit of actual advice on the page.  But one "Keep" and one "Keep but turn it into a DAB page" isn't a consensus.  It was a close because I requested a close after reviewing the two or three comments there.  The page hasn't been deleted, it was turned into a DAB page.  And the content of the article was moved, not "nuked".  But I added two pointless references for you anyway.  --Taivo (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of all content 

message: This topic is poorly suited to a disambiguation page because, per WP:DABCONCEPT, it is possible to broadly use the term to refer to all meanings on the page (unlike truly ambiguous terms like "Mercury", which can refer to a planet, an element, a Roman mythological figure, an automobile, etc.). The page would therefore be more useful to the reader if converted to a set index article. bd2412 T 11:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   "The truly problematic cases, where a footnote is appropriate, are very limited." Your move, I think. Narky Blert (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct all those links in, and then we can talk about whether this page should be a DAB or an SIA, Narky Blert (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on them as I get a chance.  It's the end of the semester, so my time right now is limited.  And I think the DAB/SIA discussion has been decided.  --Taivo (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: convert to an SIA 

message: I think it would be helpful, if possible, to have a map showing the regions in which each group is found. bd2412 T 14:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is now a set index article, adding a map sounds a lot like creeping toward article status.  Any map would have to be an ad hoc creation since "Paiute" isn't a topic in anthropology or linguistics.  I have never seen such a map in any text that isn't also a map of the Numic languages as a whole.  --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it doesn't go onto the page, a map just for use in disambiguation would be useful.  The best I can find on Wikipedia is :File:Northern-UA-languages.png, which isn't exactly specific.  There are more detailed maps on pp. 61–62 of  but sadly they don't show Southern Pauite.  (I hoped that the broken line separating Nixon from Fallon might divide Northern from Southern, but the area south of there is marked Northern on p. 62.)  These are maps of languages rather than peoples.  Is the correspondence close enough for our purposes? Certes (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Another map which actually shows the Southern Paiute: .  It seems that they're too far east to appear on the Numic map above.  Of course, this map is unsuitable for inclusion for copyright reasons, but it can still inform our disambiguation efforts if it's accurate. Certes (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't seen that Northern Uto-Aztecan map, but it totally mislocates Southern Paiute (which should be exactly between Chemehuevi and Ute).  (I have deleted it from the Uto-Aztecan languages article.)  The second map is accurate (Colorado River Numic includes the Southern Paiute area).  It's a good map because it clearly shows that NP and SP are not contiguous in any way.  There is no place where Southern Paiute shares a boundary with Northern Paiute.  There is about 100 miles of separation between them at their closest point.  The third map is problematic in that it only shows areas where the contemporary languages are spoken and not the historical ranges.  It's accurate in the fact that it shows the separation between NP and SP.  In the case of these groups, linguistic boundaries are also broad ethnographic boundaries.  --Taivo (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, the best map is from a copyright-covered source. It would be better, of course, to have no map at all than to have an inaccurate map. At some point we will probably make our own. I would add that it would also be useful to have maps for this purpose in the individual articles, Northern Paiute, Southern Paiute, and Mono people. We don't even have a map of the Mono Basin. bd2412 T 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a map?