Battle of Honey Springs

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Texas

The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas is a different organization than the Lipan Apache Band. The Tribe has been recognized by the State of Texas, whereas the Band has not. Should the Band even be listed in this State Recognized Tribes entry? Their citation indicates only that they are appealing for federal recognition not State. If they are to be listed, then they should be listed in a line separate from the Lipan Apache Tribe since these are two entirely different, unrelated organizations.Wcsu ryan (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be on the same line. However, I see where the confusion came from. The "Tribe" is State Recognized while the "Band" is Unrecognized. The "Tribe" needs a listing here while the "Band" needs a listing on the Unrecognized tribes page. The confusion is that until the end of 2007, both the "Tribe" and the "Band" were calling themselves "Band", and this clearly posed a confusing problem, especially when both at the time were Unrecognized. Consequently, the "Tribe" that wavered between calling themselves "Tribe" and "Band", for the purposes of State Recognition affirmed "Tribe" and not "Band" but the internet still reflects that "Tribe"/"Band" designation wavering period of the "Tribe". I will fix this on both pages. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee

It appears six groups have received State recognition in Tennessee. (State tribal recognition of these 6 groups was declared invalid by the state Attorney General on 27 August 2010 and his opinion upheld by the state Supreme Court. See *http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/cases/tcia/tcia.htm) Moving them from Unrecognized tribes to State recognized tribes is not a problem. But in process of consolidating federally recognized tribal, federal and state information, we have result in a long list of "formerly known as" and "also known as". If this is a problem, please discuss why. CJLippert (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the Correct Documentation http://www.state.tn.us/environment/boards/tcia/ You will find that Tennessee has recognized tribes and the correct information regarding the names of the tribes. Other names may be associated organizations such as non-profits the tribes run, but are not the tribal names (Meeksje talk 20100624 0:58 CDT)
The AKA & FNA names were perpetuated by persons in Tennessee who had interests in discrediting the Tennessee Tribes. Some of the tribes maintain non-profit corporations for Educational and Charitable purposes. These entities were and are not the Tribes themselves. The names as should be listed in the "encyclopedia" should be the proper names of the tribes, not what a person discontent with the process and who did not do his research insists them to be.
If you are intent on the correct information for each Tribe, go to the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs site or contact each entity.
If you are just another "anti-Tennessee Recognition" person, please desist. (Meeksje talk 20100624 1:11 CDT)--Meeksje (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at and compared these:
These are considered authoritative list, which is why their information are listed. News sources, for a quick reference, were also originally chosen, but as the list is improved, those news sources can easily replaced by more reliable sources. If your gripe is with the Cherokee Nation (Fraudulent Indian) Task Force: Fraudulent Group List, please address that to the two federally recognized Cherokee nations who are antagonistic towards all other groups who call themselves Cherokee, including the other federally recognized United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, please bring your concerns to them. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that particular list is considered a reliable list. CJLippert (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edits by Meeksje are obvious conflict of interest, as being both Chief for the Chikamaga and on the TCIA. For the other names, again, such as for the Chikamaga, sites such at this indicates the alternative name is not wrong. Documentation is what Wikipedia goes by, not a person's word. My suggestions, now that Chikamaga and other 5 are State recognized, begin a long paper-trail PR campaign to either leads to change all those "also know as" tags to "formerly known as" or "commonly, but erroneously known as", etc. In the world of Tribes, be prepared to have tonnes and tonnes of AKA and FNA notices (which even federally recognized tribes unfortunately also face). CJLippert (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All this just to attempt to censor some previously-used alternative names for the TN groups? If the names were used in the past, so be it, especially if they are documented in secondary sources and in legal petitions - that is public record. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Was not an attempt to censor previously-used alternative names, was an attempt to set the record straight as far as the Correct names for the tribes. Reviewed and determined that the Edit War is too great for me to win when there are those who will by sheer force of will and because they have esteem in the "WIKI" community can force their way. I have made edits in regard to the Chikamaka Band because and will make edits to those which are mis-characterized by the use of their 501(c)3 name or an association name instead of the names listed in Previous petitions legislative bills. If you wish to censure me, by all means do so if you wish, but you leave this as a biased effort instead of a legitimate encyclopedic effort.--Meeksje (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: On the Chikamaka website, possibly under the "History" page, include a discussion about the State recognition process and the names, both correct and incorrect (and maybe how they came about), that were floated. It may also be helpful to there to have a discussion of the relationship between the Awi Uniyvsdi and the Ani Atari, and more specifically the Chickamauga/Chikamaka spelling difference and origin (much like the Chippewa/Ojibway/Ojibwe discussion). Once that documentation has been created, and as Wiki only is concerned about documentation, at least for the Chikamaka, we can EASILY cite that page. Though your edits at Wiki on this topic might be of conflict of interest, you are in a position to do something about it away from Wiki that will force Wikipedia to conform by its citation constraints. Let us know when you've set something up there and we will have that reflected here. Good luck and congratulations! CJLippert (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know if Chikamaka Band is notable enough to have an article, but there most definitely is an information hole for the Chickamauga peoples as a whole (see the current Chickamauga). Maybe you want to create such an article that includes a list of the State recognized and unrecognized Chickamauga entities, with a brief description of each, including the Chikamaka Band? (as that would not be considered a conflict of interest... yes, there are ways to game the Wikipedia process within the bounds of its policies!) Also, try to cull culturally aware people within your community who would be willing to do Wiki edits, without being your spokes person (as that would be considered Sock puppetery). There are things you can do both on and off Wikipedia that would enhance this whole process. CJLippert (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not and never was any such thing as a "Chickamauga Indian". They were merely a group of Cherokee who lived near the mouth of Chickamauga Creek (currently in Chattanooga). At the time, the Cherokee were not even organized enough to have anything for the "Chickamauga" to secede from. "Chickamauga Towns" was a designation of geographical convenience like Overhill Towns or Valley Towns, that's all. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky

The referenced article clearly states that Kentucky has no state-recognized tribes. Ergo, the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky cannot be a state-recognized tribe. Kentucky has no state-recognized tribes because Kentucky currently has no process for recognizing tribes, thus Rep. Meeks third attempt at passing a bill to put one in place (currently in the senate, where it has never made it to the floor on the previous two attempts). In the discussion page for the whether or not to delete the article Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, one of the points its defenders have made is that the SCNK does not claim state-recognition (they actually do, but the links to that on their webpage are currently unavailable). I fail to see why SarekOfVulcan insists on repeatedly including a group which clearly does not belong here. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are also official state webpage references (which you keep deleting) that say they do have state recognition, if not legislative recognition.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tara Metts does not know what she's talking about and matters like that are not her specialty. Kentucky has no law establishing a process for state recognition and therefore no state recognized tribes. If that were not the case, Rep. Meeks would not be attempting for a third time to get such a law passed, so the cited references are clearly mistaken. The defenders of the SCNK on the discussion page for whether or not to keep it have denied that it is state-recognized and that SCNK has ever claimed that it is. Those "official" pages you mention are official in that they are official statements by the governor's office or that of his subordinates; it is a digest of comments by various officials obviously in response to questions from citizens or reporters. State recognition = legislative recognition where these things are concerned. In not state is any "tribe" considered a tribe by proclamation of a governor. Not even the President of the United States can do such a thing. It always had to be by following a process laid out by the legislature, or by having a law passed specifically giving that recognition. How long have you been dealing with these issues? I have for nearly 20 years. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere on the web or otherwise does the state of Kentucky list tribes that have state recognition. Although it does not meet the definition of verifiability, during an earlier discussion about the proposed deletion of SCNK's article, one of those involved called the office of the Kentucky state cabinet and was told in no uncertain terms that Kentucky has no state recognized tribes. To allow this entry to stand here is to knowingly perpetuate a lie. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Deleted entry due to irrelevance. I was being purely argumentative Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
A similar case exists with the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory. There, the group has received three proclamations by different state governors yet does not have state recognition according the the Missouri American Indian Council. Rather than being listed among State recognized tribes it is on the List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cases are not similiar at all, The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky have an 1893 Executive letter signed by Gov. John Y. Brown recognizing them as an Indian tribe. This letter predates any recent controversy about state recognized tribes, or the establishment of the Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. They do however have recent Proclamations from Gov. Ernie Fletcher, and the City of Henderson, Kentucky. Both proclamations acknowledge Gov. Brown's 1893 recogntion of them as an Indian tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.177.137 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"State Recognition" vs "state-recognized"

To hyphenate the latter seems more natural to me, and I note it's used in one of the sources, as is the unhyphenated noun-form of the former. Comments? What is the norm in sources, if there is one?Skookum1 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I see "Federal recognition", "Federally recognized", "Federally-recognized", "State recognition", "State recognized", "State-recognized", "Federally non-recognized", etc. so it seems to be all over the place when it comes to if hyphenating or not, etc. The issue with the First Nations, thank goodness, is a bit easier, as the terms are "Status" or "Non-status"... I think in the US, this is going to be an issue for a while. However, from Wikipedia's standpoint, this is an issue of style, so we should check out the MOS to see what it says on how to address this issue. CJLippert (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

globalize title or content?

I don't know the status of tribes in, say, Brazil or elsewhere in the Americas (outside Canada and the US), or in Africa and....Turkey even? Are they state/province-governed in other countries, or all "federally recognized" if "federally" is even an apt term in unitary states (vs federal one). It just seems to me that this and its sister articles are USian in the context of their title-usage, but is it only of USian relevance or should either the title be tweaked or dabbed to specify the US, or the content adjusted to a global context? NB all First Nations governments are "federally recognized tribes" in the Canadian context, though we don't often use the term "tribes", and there are historical peoples who aren't recognized, either because they're extinct or, as the Sinixt say about themselves, disenfranchised. Thoughts?Skookum1 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list is definitely a list of State-recognized tribes in the United States. A similar list could be generated for Non-status First Nations of Canada. Official status of recognition or non-recognition of various indigenous groups with the ability of autonomous or semi-autonomous rule and/or governance really depends from county to country. I would support renaming of this list to specifically include "United States" in the title for better reflect the nature of this listing. CJLippert (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed to State recognized tribes in the United States. CJLippert (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-INSERT:::In US English, 'state-recognized' tribe is the correct expression and state-recognized needs to be hyphenated, because the two words together form an adjective modifying tribe. If, on the other hand, someone is discussing a question of state recognition of tribes, there is no hyphen. Parkwells (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, the issue of Enfranchisement is in parallel to the US's Citizenship. However, I believe since the Canadian Constitutional reform of 1984, all First Nation citizens are Canadian citizens, so today "to enfranchise" really means "to give up Native citizenship". Before 1984, "to enfranchise" meant more of "to give up Native citizenship to gain Canadian citizenship". The Canadian government recognizes Aboriginal Title and Right (in theory, anyways) of all Aboriginal peoples, but the government the people forms is another story... which is why we end up with terms such as "status" (as in their status as rightfully recognized Indian, Metis or Inuit government entity have been confirmed) or "non-status" (as in their status as rightfully recognized Indian, Metis or Inuit government entity have not been confirmed). US went through the same issue back in 1924 with the Indian Citizenship Act. For some tribal entities, it meant to go for federal recognition (as in the case of the Citizen Potawatomi Band) as they too were enfranchised to give up their Potawatomi citizenship to become US citizens back in the 1860s, but they maintained government since then, and when all Native Americans became US citizens, then under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1936, the Citizen Potawatomi sought and re-gained their federal recognition. CJLippert (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent Indians Task Force List

The Cherokee Nation's Fraudulent Indians Task Force Fraudulent Group List is not a reliable source because It lists virtually all state recognized Cherokee tribes as fraudulent, if not all of them. In fact, the Cherokee Nation only recognizes the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes as being legitimate. Therefore, the Fraudulent Indians Task Force (FITF) does not have a neutral point of view when it comes to state recognized Cherokee tribes, and should not be used as a source by for an Wiki article entitled “State recognized tribes in the United States”. According to “Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources” all sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. In other words, the FITF source being used is not supportive of the claims being made by the article. The FITF source would be better used in an article entitled “List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Although the FITF chooses not to recognize a tribe as being legitimate does not have anything to do with weather a given state recognizes a group of Native Americans as a legitimate tribe. Every state recognized tribe that is unfortunate enough to carry the Cherokee name is footnoted in the article with the FITF source. If the tribe is Shawnee or perhaps Chickasaw, they are not tagged with the FITF negative source. State recognized Cherokee tribes listed in the article are being stigmatized just because they happen to be on a list entitled “Fraudulent Indians Task Force”. Where is the proof that these State recognized tribes are fraudulent? It appears that the FITF fraud list is “original research” that just happens to be published on the internet, and not easily accessed by the public anyway. One cannot even access their list without a username and password. The FITF is not a proven reliable third-party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousegg (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio

Removed "United Remnant Band of the Shawnee Nation" since HJR 8 of 1979-80, entitled "Joint Resolution To recognize the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band." is a resolution in which the members of the 113th Ohio General Assembly "commend the Shawnee Nation and salute its people as among the first Ohio citizens" (text of bill). "The content of this resolution is not codified law and does not appear in the Ohio Revised Code, was never printed in Ohio's session laws, and is considered ceremonial or congratulatory in nature." per Debbie Tavenner, Library Administrator, Ohio Legislative Service Commission, Columbus OH 30 may 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkunesh (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there can also be a note about what state recognition means in Ohio, vs. such a ceremonial resolution.Parkwells (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References --over 22% dead links

I suppose it is possible I need to refresh but some references worked and some did not. I received various codes that were dead links for reference # 4--15--23--26--30--33--34--35--37--38--41--43-- and 51. I will look at these a little later (all refreshed) but maybe someone else is watching this page and can help out. Otr500 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also noticed that many were dead links, but want to suggest that so many sources are not needed. Most of these seem to be well-established; many states list which tribes they have recognized and that should be enough. Maybe it is simply time to get rid of some of the dead links. Listing ten cites per tribe when there is consensus on status is not useful. Parkwells (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma?

'"... most Natchez families and communities are found in Oklahoma, where the Natchez Nation is a treaty tribe..." Snori (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Narragansett Tribe

Why is Rhode Island not on this list? According to the Wiki page for this tribe, they have received federal recognition since 1983 and state recognition since 1880. 173.48.76.98 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Timothy[reply]

Because the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island is a federally recognized tribe. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Sources

The Troy Johnson source [1] does not identify the tribes on its list as state-recognized, but as tribes organized by state that do not have federal recognition. This does not mean they have state recognition.Parkwells (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is not the same thing. Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with sources

Why are so many cites given for tribes listed as state recognized? Or that they have petitioned for federal recognition? One or two official sources should be sufficient, especially if they agree; they don't need five or six or eight. What's the point?Parkwells (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a state has a process and an administrative body, such as the Alabama Indian Commission, why are a kazillion other sources listed for its state-recognized tribes; why is more than one state source listed - as another list is a small business administration. It makes the page unnecessarily cluttered and hard to navigate. I suggest that the cites be reduced to two at most, unless someone presents a compelling reason for more. Big databases have to be working off information provided to them by the states, or organizations such as the Conference of States Legislatures, and National Congress of American Indians and we should, too. If sources disagree, then that should be noted and explored. Parkwells (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called Manataka American Indian Council is in part a marketing site, a non-profit representing itself. I don't see that its list of state-recognized tribes adds anything to what is already available from the states, feds and the National Congress of American Indians, and we do not need two citations from the same source, as has been done here. Let's clean up this article by deleting low-grade sources such as this one, which I am doing. A quick look at its articles shows they are undated, often not sourced, and inaccurate - example is one about the historic Lenape and Pequot peoples on Long Island, whose geographic locations over time were mistakenly thought to mean they were separate tribes; the article repeats that mistake. I'm deleting this source. Parkwells (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fret about a hard and fast rule; in some cases it may take multiple sources to verify info. That said, no need for eight, as a rule, unless this settled an edit war or something. I'd look at them case by case. Sometimes a non-profit or other reliable source with a list is easier than going through the statutes of 50 states to find specific enabling legislation. So long as the site is generally reliable, I'd say keep it pending being able to find the statute. Be careful not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Montanabw(talk) 07:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently re-added a bunch of self-published sources and lists of entities that are not necessarily lists of state-recognized tribes.These include kstorm (not a list of state-recognized tribes) nor is USA.gov, WildApache (self-published). 500 Nations is not accurate. http://www.fourwindstribalcc.com/ is a deadlink. All these filler "citations" just confuse the information and should keep being re-added. Yuchitown (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Keep focused

As there is an article, Unrecognized Indian tribes in the United States, wouldn't it be better to have unrecognized tribes, especially those with copycat names, that have no recognition, all put there, rather than giving them any space in this article? Examples include Juaneno Band...(II) Parkwells (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a merge, state-recognized tribes have a specific legal status - and the above is a redlink anyway. Montanabw(talk) 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made a mistake on the title. But, I was not suggesting a merge. In two places in this article on State-recognized tribes, there were copycat tribes discussed with names similar or the same as those recognized, and it was noted that these other tribes had no recognition. I was suggesting that "unrecognized tribes" should be displayed only at the article Unrecognized Indian tribes in the United States, rather than giving them space in this article.Parkwells (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Information

This page was filled with information that was years out-of-date and many of the sources used aren't particularly authoritative—they are just self-published, e.g. www.wildapache.net, www.hanksville.org, etc. Kstrom.net is "Beaded Lizard Books" website, and NativeData.com is some kind of domain parking right now, not a website. Some of the previous references dated from 2007, 8 years ago. I went through the National Congress of the American Indians' tribal directory and the National Conference of State Legislatures' list of State Recognized Tribes to provide 2015 citations for state-recognized tribes. These are two authoritative and objective sources. Neither NCAI or NCSL is pushing through an agenda to support or go against any particular state-recognized or unrecognized group. If there are any lists with greater authority than NCAI or NCSL, then they should be used as well. However, Beaded Lizard Books website from years ago does not trump a 2015 listing by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Yuchitown (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Native American Rights Fund links to both the NCAI and NCSL directories. They link to the BIA's lists, but the BIA only lists federally recognized tribes. They link to dickshovel.com (no date or author listed on that website), so that could potentially be another citation. Yuchitown (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.[reply]
I agree as to RS being used. In some cases, state statutes may expressly acknowledge state recognition in some fashion, even if indirectly, for example, in Montana, the Little Shell Chippewa is state-recognized via statutes such as this. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the Little Shell Tribe's status is confirmed by both the NCAI's and NCSL's lists. Looking over the Dickshovel.com list; it's outdated. It lists the Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians as being "state-recognized," but they've been federally recognized for years. Yuchitown (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.[reply]

While I agree the article needs updating we should cite from state government sources rather than secondary organizations. For instance the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is a voluntary membership organization, which tribes can choose to sign up and pay for. Only tribes that have chosen to be NCAI members are listed on their page. Thus NCAI does not define or determine the recognition status of tribes. 174.61.182.242 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the items removed had sources. If individual items were incorrect, it seems unlikely that such large numbers as were removed were all wrong. Rmhermen (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rmhermen, could you please look at the source websites and their dates? Some of these are deadlinks, many of these are self-published websites whose information was not cited (ala Wild Apache, an Internet service provider). So you've thrown out tons of editing work with recent citations from objective sources. Can you now furnish recent citations from authoritative sources to demonstrate that the tribes removed are in fact state-recognized and NCAI and NCSL somehow failed to notice? NCAI does not determine state recognition, they make no claim to do so, and do not only list "member tribes." Yuchitown (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

The state of Michigan published a "Native American Affairs Glossary" in April 2013, that lists two "state historic tribes" on page 14: Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and Grand River Bands of Ottawa," so if you want you could add those two and restore my previous edits. Yuchitown (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.[reply]

I would suggest adding at least all of the "state historic tribes' listed in the Michigan Indian Directory from 2012-2013 or the four "state historic tribes" listed in Michigan State Plan for Fiscal Year 2015-2016. 174.61.182.242 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the four tribes listed, verbatim, in the 2014 document (since it is the most recent) and how you would cite it: Michigan Historic Tribes

  1. ^ a b c d "Michigan Historic Tribes" (pdf). State of Michigan Community Services Block Grant. State Plan from Fiscal Years 2015–2016. Michigan Department of Human Services. 1 July 2014. p. 67. Retrieved 25 June 2015.

16:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.

  • Having done a review of the changes, I think that Yuchitown's edits were, overall, a net positive. Not perfect, and some cleanup is needed, perhaps a new section about the claims of the tribes removed from the list, but the sourcing is better. Montanabw(talk) 07:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sourcing appears greatly improved. Given User:Yuchitown's edit summary for this recent diff, I just wanted to acknowledge that in my opinion he has done much good work to improve this page. If there is any problem with the specific references for the Golden Hill Paugussett Indian Nation in establishing that Connecticut has recognized them and that the BIA has not, please let me know. My additions (diff) were intended to keep the page factual. I think we can agree that a current Connecticut General Statutes reference trumps the lack of a 2015 listing by the National Conference of State Legislatures as regards a matter of Connecticut state law. That said, I think the NCSL source is considerably better than much of what was there before, even if not legally authoritative. Regards. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page needs further improvement given that some of the tribes on this list according to the present criteria are questionable and have been challenged by leaders of federally recognized tribes including those whose names these groups are invoking. I see previous editors have used Koenig and Stein, but is there any other better criteria we can use? Hedgenettle (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
State-recognition doesn't necessarily confer legitimacy from the Native community, but it is a third-party criteria that has some legal ramifications. But, as you can see from the endless conversations, trying to determine which groups are state-recognized tribes is challenging, due to no neutral, authoritative source maintaining a master list. Yuchitown (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Out of Date

Hello, I happen to know that the Pamunkey have been granted Federal recognition, and according to this website[1] the PAIA Lower Eastern Cherokee have state recognition (I live in South Carolina, so I am privy to this sort of thing). I don't have the energy to do it right now, and sorry for not signing in. Personally, I think this whole article can use an overhaul. Thanks! 104.62.114.211 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://paialowereasterncherokeenationsc.com/

Massachusetts

Inaccurate sources are repeatedly being provided for the Assonet Wampanoag. The correct name is Assonet Wampanoag Inter-tribal Council, Inc. They are an intert-tribal incorporated non-profit organization. They are not a 'tribe' http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?FEIN=000327276&SEARCH_TYPE=1 Indigenous girl (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. They are incorporated for tax purposes, yes, but look at Mass.gov, it lists the Assonet as a state-recognized band in search results 3 and 10. 92.48.194.166 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These links go to various documents, not state statutes. The only two that seem to discuss state recognition are not verified with a link to a statute or resolution carrying the force of law. The "Health of Massachusetts" document here contains a list taken from the Tuition waiver guidelines. The document that lists the Assonet for tuition waivers states explicitly: "In considering the issue of tuition waivers, the Commission wishes to make clear that recognition of a student’s eligibility for a tuition waiver is not synonymous with the issue of state recognition of a Massachusetts tribe.". Sorry, that's a fail. Montanabw(talk) 21:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Assonet Band is not included here http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/lawlib/eo100-199/eo126.txt I'm sorry but you are wrong. They were not nor have they been included in any legislative order granting them state status.Indigenous girl (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can't find anything, either. Montanabw(talk) 01:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links

Hey y'all, I wouldn't know the first place to look, so could someone help with replacing the links with active ones? Thanks. Adam (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honoring and State-Recognition

This has come up more than once, but states pass feel-good bills honoring organizations that carry no legal weight and are not the same as establishing state-recognition. Is there any way to spell this out more clearly in the introduction? The most recent example is a Texas law that just passed that "Recognizing the Mount Tabor Indian Community for its contributions to this state.". Ahalenia (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

The bill that just passed in Texas about the Mount Tabor Indian Community is described as "Resolutions--Congratulatory & Honorary (I0705)". It was passed "as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives and Senate." The bill does not establish any legal framework for the Mount Tabor Indian Community to operate as a tribe within the state of Texas. Yuchitown (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on State recognized tribes in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

Georgia in 1993, gave recognition to ALL of its Cherokee descendants, known as the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, (Inc). In ERROR, the state used the actual date of recognition (1993) as the non-existing address of the Group. Such address did not even exist at the time. The true address was Georgia Tribe Of Eastern Cherokee (Inc). P.O. Box 1915, Cumming, Ga 30040 , which represents ALL Cherokee residents of Georgia. Since that time, several false groups have attempted to claim recognition by obtaining the P.O. Box 1993, in Dahlonega, Ga, which did not even exist at the time of recognition. The spurious Dahlonega groups are a closed family group.(diff).

— 76.97.172.122 (Talk:76.97.172.122)

Massachusetts

Here are two listings that I just pulled from the main list; one has no citation; the other's citations are only about how they were denied federal recognition.

The "Nipmuc Nation" is not listed on the NCSL List. Icecube77 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Icecube77[reply]

References

  1. ^ Troy Johnson. "U.S. Federally Non-Recognized Indian Tribes".
  2. ^ Wild Apache. "Wild Apache Native American Portal".
  3. ^ 500nations.com. "Petitions for Federal Recognition". Retrieved 2007-09-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Self-contradicting

The map of states with state recognized tribes is severely out of sync with the list of said tribes in the article. - Keith D. Tyler 18:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas

Texas HR 812 and SR 438 (2009) are congratulatory resolutions. As are the concurrent resolutions in 2019, HCR 171 and SCR 61. Despite using the language "recognition" and "recognize," they do not provide any further legal mechanisms or grant any privileges. They are non-binding. Similar congratulatory resolutions use the term "recognize," such as:

  • HR 1339: WHEREAS, the House of Representatives of the State of Texas is pleased to recognize Martha K. Spinks...
  • SR 762: WHEREAS, the Senate of the State of Texas is pleased to recognize the Texas Department of Public Safety..., etc.

In January 2021, Senator Juan Hinojosa introduced SB 274 which very explicitly sought to make the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas a state-recognized tribe. The proposed bill's text read: "The tribe is recognized as eligible for all programs, services, authorizations, including marketing and sales authorizations, and other benefits provided to state-recognized Native American Indian Tribes by the United States, the state, or any other state because of the tribe members' status as Native Americans Indians" (SB 74) That would have been a legally binding bill; however, it died in committee in 2021. No similar bills have been introduced since [2].

In the McAllen Grace Brethren Church v. Jewell, Judge Jones said, "Soto is without dispute an Indian and a member and regular participant in the Lipan Apache Tribe, which, although not federally recognized, has long historical roots in Texas," (No. 13-40326, which no one would dispute; however, nowhere in the ruling is there any mention of the Lipan Apache being a state-recognized tribe. Yuchitown (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Thanks for this useful information. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the information belongs in the article and the editor that keeps removing it has a personal bias against its inclusion to the point they are willing to edit war over its inclusion. --ARoseWolf 18:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As we know, the history of acknowledgement for an American Indian tribe can be complicated, especially when they are not a federally recognized tribe. In some states, the state government has set a specific process for the government to acknowledge and then interact with one of their tribes. However, there are states which have not set up such a process. This does not mean that an American Indian tribe in their state does not exist, but rather that the state does not specify how they can recognize a tribe. It is left up to tribes to work with their state’s existing formal legal systems. Two organizations are often used in this wiki page to verify whether an American Indian tribe has met the general standard of being considered a "state-recognized" tribe: the directory list of the National Congress of American Indian (NCAI) and the list of state-recognized tribes by the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). On the latter, the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas used to be on this NCSL list, as were many others, but several years ago, NCSL communicated that they were trimming the list to just tribes that had been acknowledged by legislative law. However, NCSL has now taken down the page that included the state-recognized tribe list; their official representation explained that the page was not intended to serve in any official capacity, nor does NCSL have the authority to make such determinations. The listing webpage will be removed until they are able to research further. NCAI—the oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving the broad interest of tribal governments and communities—does have a process by which they review applications for tribal membership, a process that includes a review of the application, the tribe's type of recognition claim, and their supporting documentation by the organization’s legal team. The Lipan Apache Tribe is on this list as a state-recognized tribe under court of claims. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral sources covering state-recognized and unrecognized tribes are extremely difficult to come by, and the National Conference of State Legislatures is neutral. Regarding NCSL communicated that they were trimming the list to just tribes that had been acknowledged by legislative law, as suggesting recognition only by state legislatures, that's not true. They list the Nipmuc Nation, who were recognized by Massachusetts due to Governor Dukakis's executive order. Yuchitown (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
It does seem that NCSL was at one point evaluating who would be represented in their list by including and not including then including more. What was true in one moment may not have been true later. But now, they have just taken the list down and they stated that the list was never intended in any official capacity. So does the page still continue to use a reference to a page that no longer exists and the reason it does not exist is because the organization no longer supports it? In a similar question but with NCAI, would you say that they are reliable source for the list? If not, should it be removed from this wiki page? Lwalkingwoman (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An aside, my relatives helped found NCAI. I archived the NCSL URL that was used as a citation. What constitutes acceptable citations is outlined at Wikipedia:Citing sources. They should be reliable, secondary published sources, and ideally from a neutral point of view, which is why NCLS has been so valuable; they aren't advocating for or against any groups. The secondary is important since the overwhelming material available on the web about state-recognized groups comes directly from those groups. Yuchitown (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
First, I thank you to your relatives for their service in helping to found NCAI. On the archived NCSL url, it is true that Wikipedia: Citing sources current text supports doing this. But since in this case, the reference to the NCSL page has been taken down by the organization, and thus it is a source that they do not want to share anymore. Perhaps someday they will put up a revised version, but maybe not. I will follow up with Martha Saenz of NCSL on occasion to hear updates. So, given that the source is no longer supported by the maker, should it still be used and wouldn't it be more prudent to replace it with a different source that is currently available? 2603:8081:3005:8500:DC71:EB43:5205:7E93 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is stopping you from adding sources; the problem is your deletion of cited material and pushing a POV that isn't supported by cited material. Yes, archived sourced can be used. Yuchitown (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Respectfully, can you identify the material I posted that was not supported by cited material? 2603:8081:3005:8500:D485:6E86:D6A1:65E1 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Logged out again. I posted the above question. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diff. Yuchitown (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Sorry, I was logged out without noticing when I entered the above response on citing material. I agreed with you that archived an archived source could be use, but the question was should it if it is no longer intended to be shared as an accurate source by the maker? Lwalkingwoman (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why you are removing other reliably sourced information from the article. Can you prove that Texas has a mechanism for recognizing Tribal entities within the state? Did Texas, in fact, pass a bill into law recognizing this Tribe? I may agree with the inclusion of their membership in the NCAI in the article but I also believe that what Yuchitown provided is accurate and reliably sourced. On the article State-recognized tribes in the United States it very clearly states State-recognized tribes in the United States are organizations that identify as Native American tribes or heritage groups that do not meet the criteria for federally recognized Indian tribes but have been recognized by a process established under assorted state government laws for varying purposes. Note my added emphasis on the bolded text. No where in this article does it state that an organization, not debating their legitimacy, outside that of the state established process can defer state recognized status on a Tribe. Can you provide evidence that the state of Texas has, by process, declared this Tribe a state recognized entity? --ARoseWolf 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, only the states can deem a tribe state-recognized. Texas has not done so. Organizations frequently try to reframe congratulatory resolutions as "state-recognition"; however, these resolutions are honorific and nonbinding (another example: SN2, The Senate of the State of Texas is pleased to recognize Israel Pacheco, Jr., who is retiring after 28 years and nine months of loyal service with the Texas Department of Public Safety.... Texas SB 274 was proposed in 2021 to legally, formally make the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas a state-recognized tribe; however, it did not pass, and no similar bills have been proposed since. Yuchitown (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitow[reply]
On the Lipan Apache Tribe and bill SB 274, I see the confusion. It is true that the bill did not pass, but it also did not make it past the point where there was a debate or discussion. It simply died in the committee without being brought to the table before the end of the year's legislative session, so it was not discussed, debated, amended, or voted on. But I do have a question or two for discussion. I don't think there is a legal definition in the country that covers what it means to be recognized by a state. Some states do develop a process, but others do not. We can agree that when states do not, it does not mean that it will always be the case. Texas also had this odd history where there used to be and State Indian Commission that through some apparent legislative flux was closed in 1989. So my first question is, can someone share where the definition of a state recognized tribe is that is applied to all states even those without a process and the legal source? My second question is, is it possible for a tribe in a state that does not have a process to have government to government interactions with a tribe without passing a bill into law. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am just one of many that may answer your questions so don't necessarily take my thoughts as the only perspective one can have. To answer your first question, there may not be a definition applied to all states but there is a definition applied to all contents of Wikipedia. As Wikipedia is not a state or government controlled entity it can make up its own rules for what content is allowed on its platform. That is largely done by consensus through discussions like this one. In regards to state-recognized Tribes, it has already defined that and the definition has been given (See my comment above). As to the second question, if Texas developed a mechanism to recognize Tribes within its state then this discussion most likely would change in favor of following the results of that process of law for that state in accordance with the definition provided above. --ARoseWolf 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article text about SB 274 clearly states that it "died in committee," so there is no confusion about that. Regarding definitions of state-recognized tribes, the US Department of Health and Human Services writes that "State recognized tribes are Indian tribes and heritage groups that are recognized by individual states for their various internal state government purposes" (USDHHS ANA). It would be a purely internal state issue, except that the federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act includes state-recognized tribes within its scope. The State of Texas is the only authority for state-recognized tribes within Texas. Yuchitown (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

It is true that the text says died in committee without explaining what that means. So, I will talk to my district's state senator who is in this particular Texas Senate State Affairs Committee to see if she clarify in writing what happened so as you can better understand what it meant by "died in committee." On the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, the law does not really define a state recognized tribe, rather is defines what an Indian is for the purpose of that law which regulates the use of Native arts and crafts. As you know, there are other agencies that define what an Indian in different ways some of which are open to members of all State Recognized Tribes, or only some State Recognized Tribes, or no State Recognized tribes. So there is no single definition of Indian with different federal and states determining how they will define Indian for the purpose of their laws and/or services of certain agencies. NCSL explains that there are only 11 states have enacted a state recognition scheme but that some states without a formal process for recognition acknowledge the historical and cultural contribution of tribes, some with concurrent resolutions. In their 2008 survey of state-recognized tribes and state recognition processes, Koenig & Stein addresses the various ways that States handle recognition of tribes in their states by categorizing the widely varying approaches to recognition into four groups: (1) State law, (2) administrative, (3) legislative, and (4) executive. Through the legislative process, the state can act only through its legislature, not even requiring the signature of the Governor or passage of a state statue. This can be done through a joint or concurrent resolution by one or both house of the state legislature, even if this type of recognition does not carry the force of law. With the legislative resolutions in Texas, the tribes are guided by the advice of their sponsoring Senator(s) and/or Representative(s). 2603:8081:3005:8500:DC71:EB43:5205:7E93 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've logged out of your account and are using an IP address.
We all know what "died in committee" means; the bill did not pass.
No one is saying IACA defines state-recognized tribes; it's just a rare federal law that includes state-recognized tribes.
We are not defining "Indian" here.
Honorary resolutions are not state-recognition; if they were, then the Lipan Apache Band of Texas (and many, many other heritage groups) would have be recognized. Yuchitown (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Some resolutions can be a recognition by the legislature of one of their state's tribes as NCSL, Koenig & Stein, and others explain. According to the representatives and senators the Lipan Apache Tribe has worked with, the wording in a resolution is important. That I recall, only one or two other tribal communities in the state have been able to do this. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was me and I was cooking when I came back not noticing that I was logged out. It happens, an oversite. I posted also another response above. I will identify it as me too. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original discussion, the difference between SB 274 and all the various concurrent resolutions and simple resolutions is that bills become or amend laws, while "Resolutions are statements of opinions and, unlike bills, do not have the force of law" ("Bills and Resolutions," University of Houston). Yuchitown (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Unreliable source

https://www.500nations.com/tribes/Tribes_States.asp seems to be an unreliable source. For starters, it lists many more tribes as recognised by Massachusetts than the National Conference of State Legislatures (https://web.archive.org/web/20210602114015/https://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/quad-caucus/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx#ma) does, and I'm inclined to trust the NCSL a lot more. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koenig and Stein

I was wondering who Koenige and Stein were and why their recommendations might matter or not.

Koenig and Stein have recommended the processes of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, all established by-laws passed by the state legislatures, as models worthy of other states to use as the basis for legislation related to recognition of Native American tribes. Statutes that clearly identify criteria for recognition or that explicitly recognize certain tribes remove ambiguity from their status.

Alexa Koenig is a professor from UC–Berkeley, but turns out that Jonathan Stein falsely claimed to be a member of the unrecognized but historic Gabrielino-Togva Tribe, and they sued him for "identity theft and defrauding the Tribe out of more than $20,000,000"(CaseText). Not only is he not a reliable source apparently he's highly controversial. Would it be acceptable to remove his recommendations from the article? The final statement of that paragraph is highly debatable opinion. Yuchitown (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State-recognized_tribes_in_the_United_States