Talk:Catawba people
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This new history section is nice, but it appears to be a direct copy of the text fromhttp://www.ccppcrafts.com/student.html -- which says at the bottom "Copyright 2005 CCPPCrafts.com All Rights Reserved."Pfly07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least portions of this article appear to be quoted without attribution. The section beginning "In 1738, smallpox raged in South Carolina ..." through "...and Mills gives the population in 1826 as only 110." is quoted directly from "Handbook of American Indians" edited by Frederick Webb Hodge:[1]Although source may be in public domain, should at least be cited.--Data2action (talk)17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for the claim that diseases that devastated them came exclusively from the English. It seems to me this would be unlikely considering the tribe was already greatly diminished by the diseases before the English arrived so it makes more sense the diseases came from somewhere other than the English. Considering that the Spanish were the only other European group to meet the Catawba and had contact with them before the English showed up, is it not more likely that the diseases that devastated the tribe came from that source first before anything they may have gotten from the English. I am going by the fact that the statement says there were tens of thousands of Catawba before the Spanish made contact but that there were only about 1500, if I read the article correctly, by the time the English arrived. This section has no attribution and is self contradictory.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2600:6C50:5C7F:B7C8:F9CC:7B59:232E:2DF (talk)08:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that the Catawba people are not a tribe, although the title isCatawba (tribe). Doesn't this contradict? Which is right? –ObentoMusubi(C •G •S)04:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information on the original religion of the Catawba is utter nonsense and contradicts everything ever written by Frank G. Speck, the white expert on the Nation, particularlyCatawba Texts, my conversations with the director of the Catawba museum and my own studies using all the known sources. The terms used for the deities are not even Siouian, the language of the Catawba, but Algonquian! No original sources, i.e. Speck, are listed as sources. - Catawba traditionalist— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.185.25.250 (talk •contribs)
TheUnited States does not use the terminologyIndian Reserves, although the usage of it varies in different regions of the country, we generally use the termIndian Reservation, I am editing the article to reflect common usageAdam (talk)14:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a hatnote on the page about a Grateful Dead song that sends people here. But there is no mention of "Sugaree" in this page. Shouldn't that hatnote be removed, or the now-defunct Sugaree tribe be mentioned here?Gnuish (talk)06:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be a notable historian or author, and does not seem to have ever met any Catawba. IP-hopping user, this addition does not belong in the article. You've been reverted by two editors now. Don't put it back unless you can explain why it's relevant here on talk and gain consensus for the addition. -CorbieVreccan☊☼21:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
