Talk:Navajo

message: User:Hottentot wrote "(this article should be merged into the main one: Navajo Nation)."
I disagree with this.
Please see what I, Robotbeat, said in the Talk:Navajo Nation section.
Robotbeat 19:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do Not Merge

message: Now we need a strong expansion into the post contact conflicts between Mexico, the US, and the Navajo people, as well as the problems with their Pueblo neighbors.  I would like both an Early history and a European contact section.  I've started the second section with several paragraphs. WBardwin 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History Sections

message: Re-reading David Brugge's research paper "Navajos in the Catholic Church Records of New Mexico 1694 - 1875" (1968) is a real academic eye opener.  His preface starts off with a decree of Governor and Captain-General of Kingdom and Province of New Mexico, J.I. F. Mogollon in 1714.  The decree points out that as soon a slave ship full of Negroes arrives in the Indies ports of the Kingdom, they are first baptised and then pass to their owners. The decree commands that all Apaches as they are found should be taken for baptism just like the Negroes. Not  doing so will result in losing the Apache and of not permitting their owner to trade in Apaches in the future.  4,300 baptism records of Indians are examined, sorted by date, type, recorded tribe, and commented upon. Then the 160 paper quotes Spanish reports in chronological order and ties Spanish conflicts to the church baptismial records. 
What is really interesting to me is the period between 1800 and 1868, especially what happened after US took control of the area.  Brugge indicates that the Spanish/Mexican and "New Mexico Volunteers" practice was that anyone capturing an Indian got to keep them as their property.  The vast majority of baptisms of Navajos took place in the 1860s.  In short, Navajos were still being captured by non-Navajos (Utes and Commanche as well as Mexican-Americans) and sold/traded according to US New Mexico District, US Military and church records, through the Long Walk period.  In June 1865 President Johnson ordered the slave trade in Indian captives suppressed.  Ironically, records indicate all Navajos were ordered Ft. Sumner and this extended to at least 95 Navajo being held by New Mexican citizens.
This is not to say that the Navajo and Apache were the total victims of what we would call slave trade today,  but it does shed some light on the times from contemporary written records that span 175 years.  --Rcollman 14:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish Church Records

message: There should be some reference to the use of Code Talkers in World War II and Korea. I disagree with Talkin'Hawk in the second to last article. His defenition of " my belief is my shield " is conpletly inappropiate for this topic!!!
 
Mullhawk (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Code Talkers"

message: Why is part of this section in present tense when speaking of the 1800s?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.22.35 (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict on the Reservation Section

message: I started a series of edits in the History section. Reguarding the Southwest, the Spanish in the 1500s only provided a written  record of what either they saw or what they wanted Spain to know.  For example, it is not clear if the Spanish ever had reason to enter the heart of Dineta before 1740, so they would not know Navajo settlement patterns there.   On the other hand, the Spainish did record lots of commercial activity by those who could have been Navajo with the Hopi, Acoma and Tewa pubelos. So in my first series of edits, I kept most of the information and dates but changed the words so the reader can draw their own conclusion. --Rcollman 14:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent discussions. Sometimes modern historians have to go with the close orginal.  Most histories are initiated as oral and then they are translated to the written page :)   Praise be to Navajo Community College that has published oral histories. Time gaps do not bother me, after all I can not prove where my ancestors lived in 1890 because of a fire that destroyed the 1890 US Census, as a genealogist am guilty of filling in the gaps with some oral history. On a slightly different subject, I think what some call "The Navajo Way" had a lot to do with their post long walk expansion. The oral history and facts say 8,000 Navajo speakers came together in close proximity to each other for 3 or 4 years for the first time. My crude characterization is that the cultural effect was like a big long Sing. I went through the material photocopied by the National Archives for the Navajo Land claims case that was stored in Window Rock page by page (that was 1973 or so).  I was interested in Army and Indian Scout references, so I read just about every US Army report there after 1868. I would go so far to say that the Military at Ft. Wingate when compared (completely subjective opinion) to other forts tended to be pro Navajo, especially when it came to encroachment by non-Navajos.  I think they even smoothed things over when some Navajo groups would sort of forget that their traditional raids when supplies were low was no longer permitted!  From the US Gov perspective the reservation went from 3.5 to 16 million acres.  Interesting --Rcollman 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Speculation about migration

message: While reading this article I noticed some vandalism which had somehow survived recent reversions, so I've reverted all the way back to User:71.116.151.109's edit of March 23rd. Chris Chittleborough 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert done 26-Mar-2006

message: From a class I had with Witherspoon at U of Washington, Seattle and a book on the archeology of the Navajo (I'll have to find the reference)  I think the 1540 date is very late.  I know this is in dispute, but I believe the earliest remains of a male hogan are tree ring dated to around 900- 1100.  That would make them entering the area, asimilating some of the pueblo /anaasazi culture and growing corn much earlier.  The area was ESE of four corners.  This is not coinsidently far from the traditional emergence site north orf the confluence of the San Juan and the Animas ( now under navajo lake).  It also is similar to the traditional generations from emergence if you count by navajo ideas of a generation.  This would also explain the myths that include people that sound like the anasazi at Chaco canyon.  In any case the changes from Apache culture and language to one that was more settled with corn fields and weaving and pottery and cosmology that borrows more from the nieghboring Pueblos must have taken a little longer.ErikP 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also heard of earlier evidence but have been unable to come up with a reference earlier than the one cited.  I have no doubt that the Apache/Navajo people came in and out of the area for several hundred years before settling into lands that had become largely vacant.  So, if you can find your source, let's put the information in.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 04:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor point, not sure Navajo recognize a "male" hogan. In 1973, an upset Navajo really bent my ear about "some anthropologist" who wrote there were such things male hogans. 'Sometimes people just make up things because that is what they do with strangers,' or words to that effect. These statements were really about anthropologists. I was ignroant then and never looked for the reference.  Was that Witherspoon? --Rcollman 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical section/ time of entry to SW 

message: How do you add to the main heading at the top?  The one that is under the photo with the pop. figures etc.  The listing under religon should definetly mention Native American Church (NAC).  I have heard that about one third of the Dine on the rez practice it to some degree. ( personal experience and lecture by Witherspoon).  At least half of all practitioners of NAC are said to be Navajo.  As with most things adopted by the Dine it is being heavly "navajoized".  There is much overlap and some compitition and sometimes hosiltiy towards it from both Navajo Way and Christianity.  Historicaly the BIA police persecuted it.  It came in to the area probably from the Utes in the Tees Nos Pos area and then spread.  Later a new group of practictioners came accociated with the AIM people and Lakota activists.  Northern plains sweat lodges came the same way at the same time and happen, though much more rarely.  Anyway, I think it should be added. ErikP 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Native American Church (NAC) to the religion list.  What heading are your concerned about?  The article title?  The template box title?  The photo title?  WBardwin 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI, the talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article, not general chat or requests for help with your homework. :) -KGasso (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religon of Navajo People 

message: Perhaps something to consider for inclusion in some fashion, if only as a spur to expand the vanishingly small reference to the practice of hand trembling: . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navajo Marine article and hand trembling 

message: Were the navajos involved in the trail of tears? G man yo 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I believe this is a translation of the Cherokee name for their forceable removal in 1838.  The Navajo refer to their removal as "The Long Walk".  --Rcollman 12:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trail of tears 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: This article has sources listed at the bottom, but it doesn't actually cite references.  The one instance in this article where a reference is cited, it is used like a footnote, which is absolutely NOT how references are meant to be used.  Please fix this!  --Luai lashire 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and references 

message: They're matrilocal, but are/were they matriarchal or patriarchal? Badagnani (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are traditionally matrilocal, but to my knowledge also patriarchal, as with most other Native American tribes. LotR (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  -archy? 

message: In the 1846-1863 section it states: "Officially, the Navajos first came in contact with European Americans in 1846" In the preceding section, "1550 to 1845 AD", it states that the Navajo had contact with the Spanish in the 1600's. Is not Spain a part of Europe? It's certainly not in Africa or Asia. Would someone please fix this? 24.160.241.39 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: It don't make me no nevermind.  But any superlative claim must be backed by an authoritative citation.  If you find a better reference than the 2000 US Census, this article and the Cherokee article must agree.  --Kbh3rdtalk 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest or second largest? 

message: How does the Navajo nation have a "independant government body" as the article claims, when still having to operate under the BIA of the Ministry of the Interior? And having practically no say about companies that mine for uranium on their land?
Real independence and sovereignty I think can only be achieved by what the Lakota Nation has been doing recently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence and sovereignty 

message: There's a message on  about the appropriateness of this photo. Any comments from the regular editors of this article? Thanks. howcheng  {chat} 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Zahadolzhá--Navaho.jpg 

message: I refer of course to the origin of the word 'Navajo.'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.45.20 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what about the etymology? We'd like to know. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article/Early History:  The Spanish first use the word Navajo ("Apachu de Nabajo") specifically in the 1620s, referring to the people in the Chama valley region east of the San Juan River and northwest of Santa Fe. By the 1640s, the term Navajo was applied to these same people. WBardwin (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? - no etymology? 

message: (says Cramyourspam (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Remove? 

message: Instead of removal - please copy edit or add references wherever possible first. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, these sections are unreferenced, and need to be removed.  It's the responsibility of those inserting material in Wikipedia to source them. Unsourced material may be removed.  This article needs to be stubbed, and redone with sources. Atneyak (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I  totally disagree with that. You can add sources and references without deleting whole sections of valid material...Modernist (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The way Wikipedia knows material is "valid" is by sourcing.  It is up to the person who adds the material to validate it by sourcing it.  I can quote you Wikipedia policy on that if you wish. Atneyak (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: In addition, some of the material was invalid, so we really need to start over and source. Atneyak (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And common sense says add references to obviously valid material...Modernist (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but that's not the way it's done at Wikipedia.  I really don't want to come in and just go to administration immediately.  I would rather collaborate on improving the article.  Perhaps we would stub the article, but copy the unsourced material to a sub page, so that it can be improved easily and be re-inserted when sourced.  But as I said, some of the material did not seem to be valid, and it has already been tagged in June as unsourced.  It needs to be removed if it's not sourced. Atneyak (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So in other words - you have a total of 11 edits here and you know chapter and verse everything that needs to be known concerning policy - hmmm sounds like WP:SOCK to me. Lets go to WP:ANI to see about your plan to blank this article and start over again...Modernist (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Small quote from WP:UNSOURCED: "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." Jarkeld (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: You're right to some extent.  However, this article has had more than enough time to get sourced.  As you see here, it's not just "controversial" material that gets removed.  Sure, writing that the world is round doesn't need a source, but other content which isn't self evident (common knowledge) does.  And when an article has been tagged for as long as this one, content may be removed. It doesn't get to sit there forever. A week or two for a major article like this is more than sufficient in my opinion. Atneyak (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there are references in the sections you are deleting. Tag unreferenced sentences you believe to hold questionable statements and move on. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll remove only that which has been tagged for a long time.  Please also refer to this section.  I'm just doing what it says. I can't fix it, some of the stuff has been tagged for over a year. Some of the stuff is incorrect, such as that hogans are built from brush and my fix was also reverted. Atneyak (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found references for the statements made in the housing and subsistence. There are references in the sections you've been deleting. Why not work to correct any factual errors and find references?? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, and I'm quite happy to work with you (:  I'll work on it more later.  What do you think on the issue of a bunch of those people in the lists not being notable for WP? Atneyak (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion re lists - the usual rule of lists of individuals is that they should all be bluelinks, but it may be that there are not enough people interested/knowledgeable in this subject to have created articles for them all.  Let's do a check for notability/sources for each one that's currently unlinked.  If there are sources for a stub at least, redlink the name and post the source on the talkpage here.  If no-one can find any sources that even suggest notability, take the person out.  A redlink suggests that a topic is notable enough for an article, but no-one has written it yet, and redlinking it may encourage someone to create at least a stub article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, material which is uncontentious but unreferenced can basically remain forever.  It only needs to go if someone has challenged it and a source cannot be found.  If it's been tagged for this long and no-one has challenged the content, the chances are it falls in the uncontentious category.  This was why I was asking whether you knew if anything was wrong.  You should not be removing material just because it is unsourced unless it is referring to a living person, when it can be removed even if it is uncontroversial.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes but the fact that it's tagged means it was controversial to someone.  Also, part of its usefulness is that it includes the reference.  The Conflict with Europeans section for example is obviously taken from a source, but the source isn't stated.  Noted, lets get rid of the redlinks first.  Some of the bluelinks seem ripe for deletion review, as they seem to obviously not be notable. Atneyak (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. It merely means it attracted the attention of those who tag such things.  If it was disputed, someone would have taken it further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From June 2010 to November 2010 is not that long a time for tagged material awaiting referencing; and it is not an automatic reason for removal. Rather it's a good reason to copyedit and improve the issues tagged...Modernist (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced sections

message: I hope we can just agree on some of these things, it would save time.  I'll add suggestions as I come across things. Atneyak (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked a question here, and hopefully people will give us some good consensus advice on it. I hope it isn't all about people's opinions.  Atneyak (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm becoming suspicious of your agenda. You've repeated back to me NOTHING LIKE what I said, and you are suggesting that a notable article be redirected.  From the notes above, it seems you have also been deleting sourced material.  I think you had better trim your sails, and focus on adding to the article. With the list, focus on the ones that DO NOT have an article or a redlink. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you should be suspicious of my agenda... if I'm wrong about what I'm saying and not open to suggestions or ignoring Wikipedia policy so as to skew the encyclopedia to a non-NPOV state.  However, I urge you to read WP:NOTABILITY.  Yes, we need to get rid of some of the non-linked people, but also many of those with articles just don't seem meet the standard for inclusion unless much better sourcing can be found.  I'm not focused on the article but really on the whole complex of articles.  Again... if I'm wrong of course you need to be suspicious.  But if I'm right, I would suggest you focus on the content of my edits rather than on what "agenda" I might have. Atneyak (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh, and if you think it violates BLP, let's discuss that, and maybe you can help get rid of any violations.  I don't know of any, I just notice they sometimes aren't well sourced. ......Uh, which is a violation right there, I forgot.  So then what's the problem with focusing on them? Atneyak (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: :I'm becoming suspicious of your agenda. You've repeated back to me NOTHING LIKE what I said, and you are suggesting that a notable article be redirected.  From the notes above, it seems you have also been deleting sourced material.  I think you had better trim your sails, and focus on adding to the article. With the list, focus on the ones that DO NOT have an article or a redlink. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you should be suspicious of my agenda... if I'm wrong about what I'm saying and not open to suggestions or ignoring Wikipedia policy so as to skew the encyclopedia to a non-NPOV state.  However, I urge you to read WP:NOTABILITY.  Yes, we need to get rid of some of the non-linked people, but also many of those with articles just don't seem meet the standard for inclusion unless much better sourcing can be found.  I'm not focused on the article but really on the whole complex of articles.  Again... if I'm wrong of course you need to be suspicious.  But if I'm right, I would suggest you focus on the content of my edits rather than on what "agenda" I might have. Atneyak (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and if you think it violates BLP, let's discuss that, and maybe you can help get rid of any violations.  I don't know of any, I just notice they sometimes aren't well sourced. ......Uh, which is a violation right there, I forgot.  So then what's the problem with focusing on them? Atneyak (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections

message: This article is very poorly written. It needs many fixes and it should be expanded as explained below.  
The sentence "In the last 1,000 years, Navajos have had a history of expanding their range and refining their self-identity and their significance to other groups" is vague and needs to be reworded.
The sentence "The Spaniards—and later, Mexicans—recorded what are called punitive expeditions[by whom?] among the Navajo that also took livestock and human captives." is very vague, particularly in the middle section.
The sentence "This was the largest reservation (called Bosque Redondo)[citation needed] attempted by the U.S. government." is unclear (I don't understand what the word 'this' points to -- probably to a reservation which is not introduced anywhere).
I am not going to venture in fixing the "Conflict on the reservation" section. I do not have the time nor the patience to fix the lousy work of the original contributor. All I have to point out is that many parts (1887, 1890, 1913) are written in the present tense instead of the past tense. In addition, the clumsy "for having plural marriage" could well be replaced by "for poligamy" which is more elegant. Other parts (1930) are written in a horrible way and there is lots of nonsense. "There were people who were" could be replaced by "some people where" which is a much better way to start a sentence.
The sentence "Mary Cabot Wheelright and Hastiin Klah, an esteemed and influential Navajo singer, or medicine man" needs to be fixed. Who is the singer and who is the medicine man?
The sentence "relief in the post war period to relieve" is an example of redundancy that should be avoided.
The sentence that starts with "The Navajo people traditionally" is completely out of context and should probably in the "Culture" section above the "Traditional dwellings" section.
"strengthen weakness" is awkward and not very explanatory.
I am surprised the article does not mention at all the contribution of the Navajo people in WWII with the Navajo Code Talkers. A section of this article on WWII should be added.
I met Navajo people once. I remember that some of them told me hematite is a sacred and healing stone to them. I would like to know if this is true and if someone can verify this claim.
ICE77 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very poorly written 

message: this isn't an essential part of Navajo history or anthropology. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherokee in lede 

message: I've already put in a lot of information on various species of plants under the ethnobotany section, and I think its getting too large to keep in prose. Would anyone object if I moved the various info into a separate article as a list and linked it back to that section? I've got a lot of information from the University of Michigan website and its only going to get bigger. Asarelah (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there have been no objections, I moved the information to Navajo ethnobotany. Asarelah (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnobotany 

message: the name was changed by us children of God because that is what their name translates out to. with our self centered out look there can only be one children of God so they had to change their name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.169.217 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? The Navajo have never called themselves the children of God. The Navajos call themselves diné (the people). They did not change their name. —Stephen (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the name ment then   

message: I've added back properly sourced material on denial of welfare to the Navajo in the 1940s; seems to be well sourced.Parkwells (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Material on welfare denial in 1940s

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Navajo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090208005920/http://www.navajoboy.com:80/press.htm to http://www.navajoboy.com/press.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Minor point to me as a non-Navajo. However in 1973 a Navajo who I worked with on a daily basis for over a year, was very upset about me writing anything about the Navajo.  The person made a big deal that the siblings learned in school that there were female and male hogans. The siblings asked their elders and were told that there were "just hogans".  Thus on behalf of my former colleague, I asked for a citation. I do not know if Navajo have different words for what obviously to a Non_Navajo as to what looks like similar but different structures.  If they do not, then the female and male Hogan is an outsider concept.Rcollman (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Female and Male Hogans

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Navajo. 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/20120101153827/http://edrp.arid.arizona.edu/tribes.html to http://edrp.arid.arizona.edu/tribes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122153616/http://www.unco.edu/library/gov/middle_ground/navajos.htm to http://www.unco.edu/library/gov/middle_ground/navajos.htm
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) 17:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The sentence about Mary Cabot and Hostiin Klah read as though Mary Cabot was the esteemed and influential Navajo singer. Mary Cabot Wheelwright was a white lady from Boston. Hosteen (Hostiin) Klah was the Navajo singer, artist and weaver. I updated the sentence to describe Wheelwright as she is in her own Wikipedia article - a Boston heiress. Curdigirl (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Cabot Wheelright 

message: Was the ethnic or tribal population of Navajo at 356-365,000 instead of 300,000? They are considered the largest Native American tribal nation in the USA. The Navajo Nation of 3 of 4 corners states (AZ, NM and UT without CO) and an exclave the Hopi Nation might be the area population I was talking about was 356-365,000 then. 2605:E000:100D:C571:6DCE:ABEA:BC50:DF93 (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navajo population 

message: The number of members of the Navajo tribe in 1800 should be given. As a result of the introduction of modern medicine, the current number, about 400,000, is about 10 times the number earlier. This is true of much of Africa, Asia and Australia and New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  2a00:23c4:4e9f:d101:8a4:95c0:87ba:6ae  (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers in 1800 

message: Hello, I'm 2600:8800:2C09:2F00:F9DB:17F8:8B22:8486. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,  but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at  referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  2600:8800:2C09:2F00:F9DB:17F8:8B22:8486 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In lieu of warning to [[User:Modernist]] (talk protected) 

message: There is about to be a 5th ship of the US Navy/ Military Sealift command named Navajo. the are
* USS Navajo (AT-52), a tug in commission from 1908 to 1937 and in non-commissioned service from 1942 to 1946
* USS Navajo (AT-64), a tug commissioned in 1940 and sunk in 1943
* USS Navajo (ATA-211), an auxiliary ocean tug in commission from 1945 to 1962
* USNS Navajo (T-ATF-169), a fleet ocean tug in service with Military Sealift Command from 1980 to 2016
* USNS Navajo (T-ATS-6), the lead ship of the Navajo class of rescue and salvage ships, currently under construction as of 2019
Is there any value to mention that in this article? Wfoj3 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference / Honor by US Navy 

message: Currently the article lists the Navajo Nation reservation size to "straddle[s] the Four Corners region and cover[s] more than 27,325 square miles (70,000 square km) of land in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico." This is uncited.
Most estimates put it at 27,413 square miles. I believe this may be because the article did not take into account the lands disconnected from the rest that are primarily used for agricultural purposes. 
Would using the Navajo Nation's resources for this revision be considered appropriate or should another source be used? AevumNova (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reservation Size Discrepancy? 

message: Nádleehi has no mention here despite its role in Diné culture and its relative significance considering the shooting of Fred Martinez and the impacts of that on tribal jurisdiction. 
Perhaps one should be considered? AevumNova (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nádleehi section or link? 

message: 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: What about burial practices?

message: 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: What about ceremonial clothing? history of clothing fashions?

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.navajopeople.org/navajo-history.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Queen of Hearts talkshe/theystalk 19:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I am watching the (excellent) film Frybread Face and Me, which is set in the Navajo Nation. It is noticeable that the majority of the cast, most of whom have substantial acting credits to their name, do not have their own WP article. It's not a criticism, nor do I have any plans to create or seed any articles on these people. I'm simply curious to know if there are any particular reasons for this, other than nobody having yet created such articles. I wondered, for example, if there happen to be cultural reasons (whereby Navajo people, or people of any particular community/religion/culture/heritage/nationality) prefer not to be included in WP or request removal of WP articles about them that are created.
On a related note: if a person (for the purposes of this question let's assume the person is a film actor) requested removal of a non-controversial WP article for idiosyncratic reasons (e.g. pertaining to their culture/nationality/heritage/beliefs), would WP comply with their wishes? To keep answers tight, please respond only under the headings of 'always, yes', 'no, never' or 'maybe, it depends'.  I presuppose the answer is 'maybe, it depends', but I am curious to know if it is one of the other two options. Thank you in advance. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles here are created by volunteers, but you can request Native articles for creation here or you can create these articles. I put a welcome template on your talk page with lots of helpful links. I recommend experimenting with editing pre-existing articles before creating your first article. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. It helps if you suggest a particular person. No, there's no cultural reason why a bio wouldn't be here. Regarding removing info, "maybe, it depends." Yuchitown (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks Yuchitown - I'm grateful for the answer. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm curious about why some Navajo actors are absent from WP