Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject United States

2721:

think they're probably just individuals living around Seatac and other metro areas, which brings me to my next issue. I worry there is an fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. Census data going on here. The numbers on the U.S. Census are self-reported, it says that right at the top of the Excel sheets. Many tribes rigorously police membership/citizenship, but you're not using those numbers. Typically on the U.S. state articles we're using census data for percents to describe large overall situations, but when we're dealing with very small numbers the self-reported nature becomes an issue for accuracy.

1946: 1488: 252: 2605:

demographics sections in these articles do not list out the individual ethnic groups beyond the nation of origin (if that); for the sake of neutrality and balance, the lists have to be trimmed and retooled. The sources used are generally not acceptable for making these kinds of claims and should be tailored to each state (which generally does have a government website or interest group publication that will have far more accurate surveys of which tribes live where). There has also been far too much

82: 64: 2962:

published - because as far as I know, they haven't been published yet). There is no better book in existence which lists the tribes living in each state. The website I'm using was published by a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving and promoting the indigenous languages of the Western Hemisphere, so I think it is RS. The pattern with the Cherokee is only present in some states, not in all of them (usually not in states in which federally recognized tribes exist).

2192: 2009: 527: 2516:

typically going for on these sort of summary articles, would be to read that book, and perhaps other relevant articles, and present a summary of the situation in a concise paragraph. I don't doubt the accuracy of the numbers, I do take issue with their presentation. Better might be a series of sentences like this: "The major tribes in Utah are the Navajo, with 17,703 members, the Ute with 3,206, and the Cherokee with 3,351, as of 2010. Many Navajo live near

2785:"real" (if we assume that everyone who is not enrolled really doesn't have any Cherokee ancestry). But apart from the Cherokee Nation there are also two other federally recognized Cherokee tribes (the Eastern Band with over 15,000 members and the United Keetoowah Band with over 14,000 members) as well as several state-recognized Cherokee tribes. So in fact the number of enrolled members of various Cherokee bands and tribes is well over 500,000. 92: 3013:, the reason the U.S. Census Bureau isn't releasing broken down 2020 data for smaller tribes is because their small size means any accurate released data is prone to cause privacy violations, and the intentional noise added to reduce that problem then makes the data meaningless. And I really cannot believe no other book, article, research paper in the last 74 year has covered Native American tribes. Start with the references that exist on 276: 511: 443: 3889: 3952: 1598: 33: 3917:! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 408: 474: 4056: 3991: 1976: 1915: 1819: 1789: 1759: 1729: 1637: 2262:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2079:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1565:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1530:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2768:, 90% of cases that is going to boil down to "My grandma said that I have a Cherokee princess on her grandma's side, so I'll write that down on the census!" C'mon, federal registration is limited and there's lots of tribes that should be federally recognized that aren't, but those numbers are going to have no bearing on demographic reality. 2705:. Back to the states you asked us to look at, I see a row for the 20,257 Cherokee in Washington state, which, out of a total 2010 population of 6,724,540, is just 0.3 percent. I still don't think that's a statistically significant number and I don't think it says anything informative about Washington state. You justify this by using 3409:'s proposed edits definitely have value, but they seem to be intent on implementing their idea on all fifty state articles despite the issues and objections that have been raised here, as well as the clear lack of consensus. (If there was consensus for inclusion, this discussion wouldn't be 3,500+ words long.) 3434:

It is logical that coastal states like Maine have a Shipbuilding section while landlocked states do not have such a section. Or that cold climate states like Alaska have a Snow transportation section while Florida does not have such a section. However, in case of Native Americans all states have them

2725:

from the Washington Post about the issue with AIAN data in the 2020 Census, which includes this line: data about Native Americans is unusually hard to parse... on each person's own assessment of tribal affiliation, rather than tribal enrollment, and counts many more tribes than have official federal

2515:

I see that book was published in 1952, so I'm not sure that its the best option for describing the situation in 2024. But sure, that would be something. When I described these tables as being copy/pasted, I was referring to them being copy/pasted from census.gov. What would be better, and what we are

3528:

where you reverted my edits because you said that similar information was already included in existing sections. In case of South Dakota article Muboshgu reverted some of my edits but actually he left some of my edits untouched and the "Native American tribes" subsection (added by me) is still there.

2935:

First, I'd suggest integrating text into existing sections wherever possible, rather than creating yourself your own subsection. And I see you are still citing self-published websites, a 74-year-old book, and including the 2010 data in your paragraphs. As I explained at length above, the 2010 Census

2604:

It's clear that these additions are not up to the standards needed for high-traffic entries like U.S. state articles. The state articles absolutely should list out the recognized and unrecognized tribes that live there, but should not necessarily try and list out the affiliations of individuals. The

4029:

say "Asian and Pacific Islander". The census hasn't used the term "Asian and Pacific Islander" in over two decades. As a person of Vietnamese descent I feel uncomfortable with the term because it groups together many different people that are culturally and phenotypically distinct. I don't feel any

3587:

I don't understand why do you remove my subsections considering that you yourself was in favour of adding subsections in the form of a series of sentences (instead of tables). You wrote: "Better might be a series of sentences like this: 'The major tribes in Utah are the Navajo, with 17,703 members,

3527:

Maybe you didn't notice but I already added "Native American tribes" subsections to over a dozen of state articles and it seems that nobody has issues with these subsections because my edits have not been reverted. The only exception in which case my edits have been reverted is the Virginia article

2866:

Native Americans are the First Peoples in America which is why I think they deserve a short entry in every state article, especially considering that other ethnic data (about ethnicities and ancestries of Non-Native inhabitants) is also given. My additions are not long entries, I literally just add

2720:

If those Cherokee in Washington state in 2010 are important though, then we need to be told why. Did the U.S. government move them there? Do they have a community center built? Or elected politicians? I personally don't think those 20,257 are a "tribe" who collectively "immigrated" to Washington, I

2631:

Why shouldn't the state articles mention the affiliations of individuals? All other types of ancestries are listed based on the affiliations of individuals. For example how many German-Americans live in each state, how many Irish-Americans, etc. Look up the article on Illinois, it has very expanded

3149:

warned about. We have History sections where the historic information is appropriate to place and we have Ethnicity sections where the ethnic information is appropriate to place. And I will repeat that I don't think there is an appropriate place for the old 2010 data. One takeaway you may get from

2784:

Saying that 90% of people who self-report Cherokee ancestry do not have such ancestry is a gross exaggeration. The Cherokee Nation has over 450,000 enrolled members and the number of people who self-reported Cherokee ancestry in 2010 census was 819,000 so at the very least 55% of all Cherokees are

2700:

Technical implementation and sources could be improved, but the content is still an issue. On your talk page yesterday, I called out the listing of the Sioux in Rhode Island and Blackfeet in Maine not just because they were, yes, small, but because they were not tribes with a traditional territory

2676:

Let's discuss those two state articles then, because I see several obvious issues. First with the technical implementation, then with the sources being used, and then, yes, with the content itself. Highlighting "local" tribes with bold text is not something that follows the use cases described at

4020:

Most pages about cities, counties, and other communities in the U.S. has a table showing the demographics of the city, listing the percentage of people that identify as "Non-Hispanic White", "Black", "Hispanic or Latino", etc. Most tables use the term "Asian", while the tables on some pages like

3203:

These additions are clearly undue..... whole section on just one ethnicity.... and one that sometimes constitute only 4%. ...a sentence or two might be acceptable.... that most articles already have. My recommendation would be to remove. I see a source that's over 50 years old still being used.

2961:

There is no data from 2020 census about the size of tribes, that's why I'm using the 2010 census for this. I don't think that it is problematic because it gives a rough idea on which tribes are the largest in each state, even if 2020 figures would be slightly different (if they were actually

488: 3792: 3435:

in common, because all states prior to 1492 were inhabited exclusively by Native Americans and also today all states have some Native Americans, even if in a particular state they are a small percentage of the population (but as original inhabitants they still deserve a subsection).

3499:, a national monument and sacred site for tribal traditions.' Does that make sense?" - I agree with you that this is how "Native American tribes" subsections should look like. As you probably noticed I have already added such series of sentences to over a dozen of state articles. 2255: 3683:

is reporting these events, with conflicting accounts and some downplaying the severity. Below are the sources I’ve found that discuss the situation. Any assistance with expanding or clarifying this topic would be appreciated. I think this needs its own article. References:

3828:, where an IP user has recently made an eyepopping number of contributions, including seemingly several copyvios and a general reshaping what is already a very long and mature article to their particular paradigm. I've undone them for now, but I wanted to make others aware. 3069:

Cite modern, peer-reviewed academic sources about indigenous history and demography in each state, not random websites or antique books. These exist on this topic, and will give people a lot more info than dated estimates on how many members of (X) tribe lived in (Y) state!

3567:

that the consensus here is generally against including this subsection. As such, I have gone through "over a dozen state articles" and integrated the sentences and pieces that had landing spots within the various articles, while removing those that don't. Thanks--

1855: 2991:

Integrating text into existing sections is not possible because there are no appropriate sections for this kind of data. It is better to create a new small subsection. Later other users can edit this subsection if, for example, 2020 data on tribes becomes

1881: 2143: 2455:

Thank you for your commitment to finding RS. Re: Blogspot, they may be using others' intellectual property for their map, but in general, with perhaps some exceptions of highly regarded industry/government blogs, we avoid using blogs for citations.

2557:

I prefer to present the information in the form of tables instead of prose. Stefen 𝕋ower said that he has no issue with that. My entries had information about historical tribes in the form of prose, and 21st century tribes in the form of tables.

1302: 3494:

Let me cite one of your posts above, you wrote: "Better might be a series of sentences like this: 'The major tribes in Utah are the Navajo, with 17,703 members, the Ute with 3,206, and the Cherokee with 3,351, as of 2010. Many Navajo live near

3772:

Due to the heavy political bias, I would advise waiting for facts to sort their way through our overly biased news organizations. But if you feel you need to wrie it, I would advise you mark it with controversial tags that are available at

3169:

I already said that when there is a separate subsection people have much easier access to this information than in the event if the same information was very dispersed across various sections. And you haven't addressed this point at all.

2936:

data is problematic and I don't think its very small numbers merit inclusion on these summary level articles. If you noticed a pattern on each of those articles when you wrote "the largest was Cherokee...", there is a reason for that. The

1672: 1307: 3122:

Also when I include all of the relevant information condensed into one subsection then people have much easier access to this information than in the event if the same information was dispersed across various sections of the article.

2701:

that extended into those states. The main Blackfeet reservation is in Montana, while the Sioux covered Minnesota and into the Dakotas. I saw you describe these individuals as "immigrant tribes", which is a term I'll kindly label

1425: 3921:(or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts. 1115: 3678:

Alright, so it’s still a little blurry about what’s going on but there are RS(?) reporting that gangs have taken over 1-3 apartments in Colorado. I think this deserves an article but I think there is a problem with how the

3216:

That's not one ethnicity but one race, consisting of numerous ethnicities. They are also the original race, the First Peoples who lived in each state before anyone else, that's why they deserve to have their own subsection.

3086:

The book you mentioned is from 1776, that's a big difference compared to a book from the 2nd half of the 20th century. As for tables - haven't you noticed that I have already given up on tables and instead I'm adding prose?

1162: 479: 3756:

to prevent it become a space for editing wars and political arguments. Though I think national new agencies can be good sources, these two have major political bias. I also think you have to look at local sources for RS.

2849:

these additions are not up to the standards needed for high-traffic entries like U.S. state articles. I've suggested focusing on the Demographics subarticles, and Magnolia677 mentioned including this data in one single

2479:- I used it as my primary source when describing which tribes historically lived in which state. Blogspot map was only used as a secondary source. I also used few other sources such as this site for Carolina's tribes - 1312: 1149: 2543:- the book by Swanton can be used to describe historical situation. You didn't notice that my entries were divided into section about original tribes living in the area and tribes living there in the 21st century. 363: 359: 2114: 3105:

Look - when I provide exact numbers from 2010, I'm providing a rough idea on what the situation is currently. Because 2010 was not so long ago and things could not change that much (not drastically) since then.

666: 3330:

Article about Montana has a section on Native Americans, so I don't see a reason why other state articles shouldn't have a similar section (Montana is not even the state with the highest % of Natives among

3008:

But you're not using it to provide the reader a "rough idea." You're stating the exact numbers. Saying there were 109 Wampanoag in New Hampshire in 2010. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, but as

1523: 1448: 764: 2811:, I would strongly advise that you stop adding this information to state articles until a consensus is reached regarding the content and style. I don't see anything even approaching a consensus here yet. 1317: 1413: 452: 1558: 1322: 831: 4096: 1885: 1327: 1269: 1144: 2292: 1355: 1178: 3141:

mentality. Saying things like my edits "deserve" their own section, or that "no better" sources exist anywhere, or that "they shouldn't bother anyone" feels like we're getting back to this

1703: 1154: 747: 193: 3066:

for instance. I am an enthusiastic about including indigenous history topics as anyone in these articles, but a bunch of tables will not inform readers, they will just leave them confused.

738: 729: 689: 571: 283: 223: 200: 122: 4033:

Can the term "Asian" or "Asian American" be used in the demographics section for all pages about places in the U.S instead of "Asian and Pacific Islander"? This is all I want to change.

1874: 2852:

While I definitely see value in the content you are adding, I generally agree with Patrickneil and SounderBruce that this content is probably not up-to-snuff for state-level articles.

1888:

that may be of interest to this WikiProject. This rewrite is still a work in progress, so please feel free to share any suggestions, critiques, etc. at the aforementioned talk page or

1287: 1244: 2737:

above when they say these additions are not up to the standards needed for high-traffic entries like U.S. state articles. I've suggested focusing on the Demographics subarticles, and

2163:

Talk:White House#Adding the Executive Residence as White House on U.S. president and First Lady navboxes and placing the following navbox containers on the 'Executive Residence' page:

3865: 2362:

The discussion should probably be here, at a community level, as it's more about the shaping and placement of RS-based, related content in state articles (and/or their subarticles).

648: 3463:

Having the last comment on a Knowledge (XXG) discussion doesn't mean you "win" the discussion, I think it more has to do with there being nothing more to add after a certain point.

3308:

already had a "Native Americans" section before I launched my project. So based on this case we should assume that every U.S. state article deserves a Native Americans subsection.

2689:, which means any page on it has been deemed "Generally unreliable" by the Knowledge (XXG) community. On top of that, the sentences listing tribes on both Oregon and Washington is 2213: 2030: 1406: 720: 559: 355: 346: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 3620:

You also wrote: "I've suggested focusing on the Demographics subarticles" - does it mean that I can add "Native American" subsections to Demographics subarticles for each state?

639: 318: 314: 310: 306: 302: 298: 294: 290: 286: 139: 2441:- as you can see this is the same map which is already utilized by Knowledge (XXG), which is why I thought that it was OK to use it. But I can find RS for this data elsewhere. 2072: 1889: 1229: 684: 566: 1139: 3150:

the article about 2020 data is that the Census adds intentional noise to data, and very small numbers, i.e. numbers in the hundreds, tend to become meaningless. Thanks--

2251: 1851: 1845: 1254: 2685:. Indeed it has long been suggested that if content is hidden in a collapsed state, then it likely does not belong on that article. Blogspot is a red-status website at 1399: 1264: 1224: 657: 587: 554: 3416:

and aspersion-casting by Domen von Wielkopolska, along with more edit warring passing through articles on my watchlist. This behavior is definitely disruptive and, as

3906: 1249: 251: 3705: 3694: 596: 2220:

in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!

2037:

in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!

3962:

has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the

1608:

has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the

1297: 1259: 675: 209: 129: 4111: 4091: 4086: 3563:

from both adding or removing disputed content while it is under active discussion. As you note, this discussion has now become less active, and I do agree with

1123: 884: 3998: 3984: 2742: 1983: 1969: 1292: 617: 232: 4101: 2139: 2133: 3273:. I really think you should take a break from this project until there's clear consensus here or on specific article talk pages to include your edits, as 578: 239: 4106: 3760: 2325:

I want to add the data about the most numerous Native American tribes in each U.S. state to articles about each state. What do you guys think about it?

1365: 3029:. I know doing research is more "laborious than simply looking at a map" or clicking paste, but that's what's this Knowledge (XXG) project is about.-- 2259: 2076: 1950: 1938: 1562: 1527: 1345: 994: 2234: 1350: 1234: 3010: 2730: 713: 701: 3899: 2051: 1962: 1034: 999: 3513:

I already addressed most of your (and others') points and you didn't address my last points from the message posted at 21:10, 5 September 2024.

3864:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

3184:

But that's asinine, you could make the same point and say that readers who want historic information want to access it in History sections.--

2291:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

2142:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

2113:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

1854:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

1702:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

1671:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

1668: 1662: 1239: 1206: 1074: 979: 939: 813: 542: 517: 263: 179: 105: 69: 1954: 1504: 3277:

suggested two days ago. I don't think anyone here is trying to erase Native Americans from Knowledge (XXG), that sort of stance is called a

2208: 2025: 1826: 1812: 1039: 1029: 1024: 1004: 790: 780: 3735: 2263: 2080: 1566: 1531: 1110: 954: 869: 2829:

Patrick Neil has suggested that this information should be added in the form of prose instead of tables, and that's what I'm doing now.

1922: 1908: 426: 417: 3774: 1132: 1069: 989: 984: 859: 795: 785: 3799: 3791:

I found another article that a simpler thing is happening in Texas. Tren de Aragua has spread from their Colorado takeover to El Paso

708: 696: 117: 3913:

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme

3753: 1171: 1103: 1079: 1044: 949: 924: 459: 3765: 1064: 1014: 969: 959: 944: 934: 919: 899: 874: 864: 854: 3706:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-city-council-member-fires-back-after-governor-office-dismisses-armed-gang-takeover-imagination

3695:

https://nypost.com/2024/08/29/us-news/colorado-gov-jared-polis-dismisses-migrant-gang-takeover-of-aurora-apartments-as-imagination

3022: 3018: 3625: 3611: 3597: 3536: 3518: 3504: 3454: 3440: 3341: 3313: 3248: 3222: 3175: 3128: 3111: 3092: 3053: 2999: 2926: 2834: 2790: 2667: 2640: 2577: 2563: 2548: 2506: 2492: 2446: 2405: 2345: 2330: 113:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

3138: 1360: 1084: 1059: 964: 904: 879: 849: 839: 3606:

And SounderBruce wrote: "The state articles absolutely should list out the recognized and unrecognized tribes that live there"

3014: 2729:

The reason this data is available in 2010 but not 2020 is because in 2020, the Census Bureau described this level of detail as

1736: 1722: 3934: 1201: 1196: 1019: 974: 914: 889: 844: 44: 3062:

A book being a classic doesn't mean its the most reliable source on a topic; I'd definitely raise eyebrows at someone citing

1049: 929: 894: 3796: 2649:

Check my last versions of articles Oregon and Washington, I highlighted all tribes local to the West Coast with bold font:

2572:

Actually I decided to ditch the tables and follow Patrick Neil's advice (to add a series of sentences instead of tables).

2310: 4016:

Can Knowledge (XXG) stop using the term "Asian and Pacific Islander" for the demographics sections of places in the U.S.?

2217: 2034: 1054: 1009: 909: 2019: 3731: 2162: 483: 3761:

https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/tenants-at-troubled-aurora-apartments-speak-out-against-venezuelan-gang-rumors

3621: 3607: 3593: 3532: 3514: 3500: 3450: 3436: 3406: 3337: 3309: 3244: 3218: 3171: 3124: 3107: 3088: 3049: 2995: 2922: 2830: 2808: 2786: 2663: 2636: 2573: 2559: 2544: 2502: 2501:

There is also book "The Indian Tribes of North America" by John R. Swanton which has a list of tribes for each state.

2488: 2442: 2401: 2326: 2110: 2104: 1897: 393: 3964: 4038: 3868:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 2942:

I linked to earlier goes into the messy reasons why Americans seem to like to claim Cherokee heritage on forms.--

2938: 2722: 2540: 2398: 2295:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 2146:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 2117:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 1858:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 1706:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 1675:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 3378:, but as it says there, editors should come to local consensuses as to what is appropriate on a given article.-- 2726:

recognition, resulting in a sometimes haphazard system that, as Maxim says, "leads to all sorts of wacky results."

3806: 3717: 2093: 1958: 1467: 610: 3560: 3402: 3351: 3142: 2610: 1383: 372: 3825: 3818: 2714: 50: 2484: 3550: 3076: 2774: 1987: 1648: 1492: 1480: 17: 4034: 3464: 3405:. More generally, I tried to AGF when I saw the edit warring about this subject pass through my watchlist. 3375: 2686: 2717:

subarticle, but you're still arguing for including numbers smaller than the smallest number on that table.

2620: 1893: 1711: 2706: 2690: 2395:

I will remove blogspot from my edits. But it was the same map which is also used by Knowledge (XXG) here:

3795:. I know NY Post is not the most reliable but it’s better than Fox. Here are better local news sources: 3573: 3480: 3383: 3290: 3189: 3155: 3034: 2947: 2750: 2525: 2353: 1796: 1782: 3048:

Sorry but John Reed Swanton's book is a classic and it is still regarded as highly reliable. It is RS.

2613:

behavior that absolutely meets the definition of edit warring, regardless of the claims of good faith.

3467:. There's still a host of issues that got mentioned above regarding the edits you were making, and as 2918:

As you can see these are very short entries in which the information is condensed as much as possible.

473: 4006: 3802: 3713: 2653:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Washington_(state)&oldid=1243690535#Native_American_tribes

2173: 2084: 1834: 1452: 605: 376: 216: 97: 3449:

Since nobody is replying I take it that you agree with my argument and I can proceed with my edits.

2694: 4072: 4042: 4030:

connection to Pacific Islanders.When I edit the term to just say Asian my edits get reverted back.

4010: 3977: 3973: 3877: 3848: 3810: 3786: 3747: 3721: 3629: 3615: 3601: 3582: 3554: 3540: 3522: 3508: 3489: 3458: 3444: 3429: 3392: 3345: 3317: 3299: 3252: 3238: 3226: 3211: 3198: 3179: 3164: 3132: 3115: 3096: 3081: 3057: 3043: 3003: 2956: 2930: 2861: 2838: 2820: 2794: 2779: 2759: 2671: 2644: 2626: 2581: 2567: 2552: 2534: 2510: 2496: 2470: 2450: 2432: 2409: 2390: 2376: 2357: 2334: 2315: 2288: 2282: 2275: 2177: 2155: 2126: 2097: 1994: 1931: 1901: 1867: 1838: 1805: 1775: 1745: 1715: 1686: 1655: 1623: 1619: 1610: 1580: 1543: 1519: 1508: 1473: 3727: 4026: 3930: 3840: 3782: 3743: 3564: 3546: 3072: 2770: 2386: 2341: 1681: 1575: 1500: 378: 3766:

https://kdvr.com/news/local/aurora-pd-gang-members-have-not-taken-over-aurora-apartment-complex/

3752:

I think the only way to ensure this subject is worth an article in Knowledge (XXG) is to ensure

3282: 2191: 2008: 526: 81: 63: 2480: 2399:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Indigenous_American_Nations,_16th_century_-_2022_edition.jpg

416:

Looking for Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject United States in the Spanish Knowledge (XXG)? See

4068: 3146: 2734: 2615: 2344:

was not an improvement, which is why three editors reverted you. Relevant discussions are at

2306: 1927: 1801: 1771: 1766: 1752: 1741: 1707: 1699: 1693: 1554: 424:¿Buscando la discusión del Wikiproyecto Estados Unidos en la Knowledge (XXG) en español? Véase 3472: 3413: 3026: 3958: 3940: 3680: 3569: 3531:

In general I take it that I can proceed with my edits also in case of other state articles.

3476: 3398: 3379: 3286: 3185: 3151: 3030: 2943: 2844: 2746: 2738: 2521: 2457: 2419: 2363: 2349: 1385: 374: 275: 3944: 3258: 3231:

At this point thinking a short block is in order..... edit warning over multiple articles.

2606: 2415: 1886:

Talk:List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States#Proposal for a rework of page

1590: 510: 4002: 3873: 2713:

article's itemizing of ancestries. I've said that data should clearly be split off into a

2271: 2169: 2151: 2122: 1863: 1830: 1539: 1444: 2702: 2658:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Oregon&oldid=1243691239#Native_American_tribes

1890:

User talk:TinglesFrickinMap/sandbox/United States foodborne illness outbreak list rewrite

2867:

less than 10 lines of text to every article. So far I have done these, so you can judge:

2520:, a national monument and sacred site for tribal traditions." Does that make sense? -- 1388: 3969: 3861: 3855: 2764:

Oh good lord, this is cited to self-reported census data, not tribal registration? For

2202: 1615: 1604: 1586: 2741:

mentioned including this data in one single article. I'll note we do have the article

2662:

Isn't this a good way of presenting such data? What do you suggest to change and why?

442: 4080: 3926: 3830: 3778: 3739: 3592:, a national monument and sacred site for tribal traditions.' Does that make sense?" 3425: 3374:. States, like other Geography articles, start with the general layout guidelines at 2900: 2876: 2857: 2816: 2382: 2227: 2044: 1676: 1570: 1496: 110: 2697:, which is a big no-no. It doesn't matter that the page is then cited as the source. 3888: 3588:

the Ute with 3,206, and the Cherokee with 3,351, as of 2010. Many Navajo live near

3243:

You just seem to be hell-bent on erasure of Native Americans from Knowledge (XXG).

2894: 2682: 2296: 1387: 1644: 1630: 2541:

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/cph-series/cph-t/cph-t-6.html

2418:. Also, it stands to reason there would be RS for this kind of data somewhere. 3869: 3589: 3496: 2681:, and collapsible tables are never supposed to be used within the article per 2517: 2476: 2414:

Not the two states I reverted back, and the editor has committed to using RS.

2267: 2147: 2118: 1859: 1535: 87: 3999:

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Requested move 15 September 2024

3985:

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Requested move 15 September 2024

3420:

noted above, if it continues, some kind of sanction would not be unexpected.

3412:

In fact, reading through this discussion, all I really see is a whole lot of

4063: 4049: 4022: 3417: 3278: 3233: 3206: 2882: 3545:

There does not seem to be consensus above that these edits should proceed.

480:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject United States/US related unreferenced BLPs

109:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 2485:

https://www.rrcs.org/Downloads/Ohios%20historic%20Indians%2038%20pages.pdf

1984:

Talk:Reeves AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central#Requested move 16 August 2024

1970:

Talk:Reeves AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central#Requested move 16 August 2024

3468: 3421: 3363: 3355: 3274: 2968: 2912: 2888: 2870: 2853: 2826: 2812: 2710: 2678: 2633: 4055: 3990: 2206:, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the 2023:, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the 1975: 1951:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard § POVPUSH removal of "Black"

1939:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard § POVPUSH removal of "Black"

1914: 1818: 1788: 1758: 1728: 1636: 3334: 3305: 2984: 2973: 3371: 2438: 2068: 3367: 3359: 2978: 1451:. Reviews or any other feedback/comments are greatly appreciated! 2183:

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

2000:

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

1936: 2987:- here the Abenaki are the most numerous tribe, not the Cherokee 2981:- as you can see in Maine the Cherokee are not the largest tribe 2906: 1923:

Talk:2023 USL Championship Playoffs#Requested move 9 August 2024

1909:

Talk:2023 USL Championship Playoffs#Requested move 9 August 2024

3471:

suggested, it really does seem like there's an issue here with

2258:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 2075:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 1561:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 1526:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 2693:

from the website www.native-languages.org, making it a likely

1389: 468: 437: 402: 379: 269: 26: 3362:

have "Energy" subsections under Economy, while Virginia has "

2182: 1737:

Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis#Requested move 11 August 2024

1723:

Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis#Requested move 11 August 2024

4054: 3989: 3887: 2481:

https://www.carolana.com/Carolina/Native_Americans/home.html

2190: 2007: 1974: 1913: 1827:

Talk:William L. ("T") Thompson#Requested move 19 August 2024

1817: 1813:

Talk:William L. ("T") Thompson#Requested move 19 August 2024

1787: 1757: 1727: 1635: 1999: 2246:

FAR for Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

2745:, which could be a starting point to look at. Thanks -- 4066: