Talk:Taíno/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

From Wikipedia:Speedy deletions

• Taíno - cut & paste move. Need to delete in order to move Taino there. —John | Talk 21:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Why no discussion on the Talk page about the move? How many people agree that it should be moved? I ask this because it was originally moved the other way in Dec 2002. (Also, I am restoring the redirect on Taíno instead of the cut-and-paste. Wait until the merge/move. Don't try to maintain two articles.) - Tεxτurε 21:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
    • The correct word is Taíno, with an acute on the 'i'. Have you noticed the convenience used in the Führer article? Taíno should be the main article, with Taino being a redirect to it. —John | Talk 23:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
      • That is a valid point. Since it has already been moved once in the opposite direction I think it best if you start a topic on the talk page regarding your suggested move. - Tεxτurε 23:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
        • Please leave this on the talk page for a week first. If there are no objections, then it can be moved, but currently most pages link to Taino, not Taíno, and there are far more Google hits for Taino than Taíno. Angela. 00:00, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Article's introduction; cultural heritage

I am about to make a pretty severe edit of the introduction to this story. The simple truth of the matter, which no serious academic questions, is that the Taínos culture ceased to exist in the 16th century.

The problem is that there are a couple of small groups who insist that they are full-blooded "Taínos", mostly based in New Jersey, intent on gaining recognition as a tribal nation. This is simply ridiculous, given the historical record. Claims about DNA tests are irrelevant for two reasons: (a) there was a significant number of South and Central American Amerindians who immigrated to Puerto Rico throughout its time as a Spanish colony; (b) whatever the DNA of anybody in Puerto Rico, Taíno culture has been dead for 400-450 years.

The current introduction also has a glaring flaw of logic where it "proves" that supposedly 62% of the population of Puerto Rico has a significant amount of Taíno descent. -- 171.64.42.82 04:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello, if you haven't registered your username so far please take a moment to do so. You can do so by visiting the register your loginname page. It takes only a few seconds. =)

While I may agree with you that the Taino culture can be considered as dead, others do not. That is why Dr. Juan Carlos Martínez Cruzado from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez is currently investigating this on his research projects.

—John | Talk 05:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Martínez Cruzado very clearly flubs Puerto Rican history by saying that the "Indians" in the 1777 and 1787 censuses were Taínos-- hell, he's citing Salvador Brau, a 19th century historian. It is well known that there was Amerindian immigration to the island from South America (a fact that can be picked up easily if your source is more recent than 1894!).

mtDNA is weird: it is transmitted almost exclusively through the maternal line. It is stereotypical of colonial situations that the colonists are predominantly male, and that they take native wives and/or concubines. One definitely expects a founder effect for mtDNA.

And anyway, the whole project is infused with a subtle racism that I don't know whether you can grasp. -- 171.64.42.82 09:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I made an edit to your edits. First, the center of contemporary Taíno self-identification is New Jersey, not Puerto Rico. Second, I looked through the article about Taíno heritage in the Dominican Republic; the article's conclusion that "the roots of traditional Dominican culture are truly Taíno" is plain ridiculous. Just because the Dominicans have a folk ideology that attributes admirable qualities to the Taínos doesn't mean that their culture is Taíno. Very, very little of what the author mentions is any actual cultural transmission; and a lot of it is disguised racism (it's good to be "indio", bad to be "black").

Every place where you say the plural "scholars", you mean something like "two loonies with a weird agenda." Also, you reinserted the nonsense math averaging the averages of two samples, one of them admittedly nonrepresentative.

In short, I suspect this article is being hijacked for a political agenda, by prominently citing two utterly nonrepresentative sources of scholarship on this topic. -- 171.64.42.82 10:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Beware hijacking

I just reviewed the history of this entry, and I must warn editors that it runs a terrible risk of being hijacked for political causes.

Taíno culture ceased to exist over 400 years ago. However, in recent decades, a small group of Puerto Ricans in the USA, based in New Jersey, have been agitating to be recognized as the true item by the US Government and gullible academics.

As such, this group of people endeavors to place their Taíno survival propaganda all over the web. The history of this entry shows this very clearly.

The people doing this are intellectually dishonest. The one truly interesting bit of information that they cite is mtDNA studies of the Puerto Rican population. They regularly fudge the math on these; for example, this article had the following statment: "In research, sample sets collected from people who claimed to have a maternal ancestor with Native American physiognomic traits showed a higher likelihood of possessing Native American mtDNAs (70%) than did unbiased sample sets (53%). Averaging between these two figures would suggest that 62% of the entire Puerto Rican population descend, at least in part, from the Taíno..." This is really, really bad math, averaging from two different, non-representative samples.

Another thing that jumps out is the fact that one of the references inserted by JohnCrawford's recent edit was from the e-"journal" Kacike. The name of this journal is cognate to the word "cacique", which is the word recorded by the Spaniards for Taíno chiefs. A quick examination of the journal's index reveals that a grand total of 12 people have published in it, and 7 of these are either in the Editorial Board or Editorial Staff ("peer review" my a**). It can't have had more than 3 or 4 issues. Also, browsing through the articles, they are clearly about pushing an agenda, and a number of them show very questionable scholarship; for example this article by P.J. Ferbel (who, incidentally, is Assistant Editor) reads like something an undergrad would write.

The biggest problem is that before long, the combination of fake New Jersey "We want affirmative action and casinos" "Taíno tribe", and the Dominican "I'm not Black like the Haitians, I'm Indian like the Taínos" racists, will again conspire to pass fantasy and questionable scholarship as fact, and set their aims at this entry again. -- 171.64.42.82 11:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Relax dude. Then register up. —John | Talk 05:23, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Zemi

I removed the proposal to merge Zemi in the main Taíno article after expanding the Zemi article enough that it can stand on its own. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2019

Godoffrye12 (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests on how to use this template. There is nothing in your request to act on. - Donald Albury 14:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eed49.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

DNA Samples

The DNA samples that show that 63% of the subjects tested possess Native American ancestry is not reliable proof of Native American ancestry for the Puerto Rican population as a whole. Puerto Rico has a population of 4 million people. Nor does there seem to be a wide variety of geographical locations represented. I would like to know how many other studies of this kind were done, and by what other Universities, organizations or Scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LightingBug (talk • contribs) 04:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to Europeans to say who is Native or not or your companies. Modern day Boricuas from Puerto-Rico are the Tainos and they were never extinct but you keep devaluating the oral history of the indigenous people as you want your European presence to be remembered. It is not true. The Tainos are still here. How can they disappear if most Boricuas still carry their blood today? Wikipedia needs to be decolonized as well. This is a Eurocentric basis and it is not up to you white people from the North to decide who is alive, Native or not. Focus on your own ancestors. You did enough damage to us.

The problem with this scenario, and the reason I have edited the section on Taino in modern times, is that this was according to a mitochondrial DNA test, which does not indicate amount of ancestry, but rather that one has a distant female ancestor of that type, which can be generations upon generations ago. So, 62% of boricuas (Puerto Ricans) can have a far less than 1% Amerindian heritage. Gee, white American Southerners typically have a smattering of Native (in some areas) or black ancestry (in other areas of the South), but it is so miniscule as to not qualify describing them them (in an encyclopedia) as anything other than lily white. Most Puerto Ricans are of varying proportions of white and black descent. There are, however, a few boricuas from certain locales who truly are of noticeable mixed Native and white descent and we need more exposition here, more history told. I'm dying for someone who has done anthropological studies on the island but they seem to be few and far between.

Next, there is a contributor who keeps saying "the tribe" requires DNA tests. The definition of a Native American tribe is very well defined in the USA and unincorporated territories, and even in our neighboring countries such as Mexico and Canada. Persons or groups claiming to be a "tribe" on Wikipedia must define who they are and how they self-govern or at the very least how they affiliate in the case of legitimate unrecognized groups with true tribal continuity (see Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and Apalachee for a better example. Although I am sure (but not certain) there are persons in Central/North Florida who may feel they are of Timucua descent, there is no such TRIBAL entity. Tribe implies continuity and governance, not just affinity with one's purported ancestors. Please cite to your "tribe's" homepage and membership criteria. --Noopinonada (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying is totally false. YOUR science defined mitochondrial DNAs for the Natives but it is not true. How can mdoern day Boricuas only carry 1 per cent of Tainos blood when they LOOK NATIVE TAINOS? Our new generation will DEBUNK colonial science and Eurocentrism. You raped them but they are still here and will never disappear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneMoreau (talk • contribs) 05:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC) (Note:Comment moved from middle of earlier comment. - Donald Albury 12:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC))

You're saying that having a Taino matriline isn't having Taino ancestry as long as the patriline is European? That's both sexist, and racist. And, it isn't correct. Mitochondrial DNA represents matrilineal ancestry, the mother's side. It doesn't go bye-bye just because the father's European. My matriline has married European a few times in a row, but I'm still reported by geneticists as a full quarter Polish from my Polish matriline. I'm still strongly Polans tribe no matter how many European MALES you throw into my MATRIline. Just because most people sexistly follow only the patriline in ancestry doesn't mean only male ancestors give DNA, or heritage. It's a sexist, and inaccurate practice. And, you're exaggerating how far back Europeans have been mixing with the Taino. It isn't thousands of years. Europeans in the Americas is new history. When you're not a geneticist, you are not supposed to be acting like a leading authority on genetics to people on wikipedia. --184.101.91.185 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Modern Taíno Tribes

It's outrageous that the people who say WE are extinct are mad and do not possess the proper command of English or spelling. Furthermore, these so called "facts" are taken from books from the conquerors (Spanish and American). I, on the other hand, am a native Cuban, part Taino. If anyone of you naysayers have ever traveled to Cuba (which I doubt) or any of the former nations of the Caribbean where my ancestors inhabited, I think you would change your minds. I have relatives in Cuba that I travel every other year to see.

I have visited with my family and we have gone to where other clans live mainly in (Las montañas de Oriente) they live moch like on reservations like in the US and are referred to as las batas blancas so        

when you do research on the subject at least get the so call facts straight in plain words you don't know what the hell you talking about. yes there are no full bloods but you can say that about ALL of the Americas, yes we are mestizos in Cuba,but most of humanity is in it ?? so i will direct you to theses sites http://www.indigenouspeople.net/taino.htm > http://americantaino.blogspot.com/2007/03/tano-people-of-cuba.html > http://www.onaway.org/indig/taino2.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis2112 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, I would like to offically contest and protest this untrue public statement about the Taino people by someone whom had edited and added this statement on the Wikipedia section on the Modern Taino Tribe, as the statement found below is an absoultly untrue and without any real crediable documented proof. I here demand that it be removed or it shall be contest in a federal court as a public slanderous untrue statement and your company will have to show and provide the legal proof of burden.

"Some Taíno groups are known to 'adopt' other native traditions (mainly North American Plains Indian)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japerez (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The three organizations mentioned above are not Indian Tribes nor has it been proven that they are legitimite authorities on Taíno culture. There are unfortunately today, no legitimite authorities on authentic Taíno culture. Even historians and scholars can only learn so much from historical records. The Government of the Jatibonicu Taino PeopleTaíno Nation of the Antilles (1993), the United Confederation of Taíno People, and the Jatibonicu Taino People are heritage groups composed of people of dubious Taíno ancestry. There may however be remnants of Taíno culture in Puerto Rico that blended with African and Spanish traditions. If anyone knows of authentic Taíno traditions that still exist, I would like to here them.

I would also like to add that the Spaniards, in additino to bringing in African slaves to Puerto Rico and other parts of the Carribean, also brought in Indian labor from the Yucatan peninsula, and from other areas of Latin America such as Venezuala to replace the Taíno labor, whome were almost brought to the brink of extinction because of abuse, and disease. So the DNA test cannot specify Taino ancestry, only Indian ancestry.

Academics say the modern-day Taino are descended from a 19th-century movement island intellectuals launched to stir nationalism against Spain and are maintained by mainland Puerto Ricans to downplay their African heritage. There is most likely however, a minority of people in Puerto Rico and in the Carribean who do have Taíno ancestry from many generations ago but it is something that would be almost impossible to prove or disprove today because the vast majority of Taino traditions and cultural knowledge has been lost to time and the traditions that did survive tended to mix with Spainiard/European and African traditions. LightingBug (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see your post; you nail it on the head to a certain degree. However, I am certain that there are mestizos of varying proportions in certain enclaves in the Caribbean, especially the very Eastern tip of Cuba and the Southern Dominican Republic, as well as a small portion of mountain-dominated central PR. National Geographic conducted an interesting study a few years ago on Eastern Cuba and the Taino descent. You may have to google it to read further. --Noopinonada (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lightningbug's comment above pretty much sums up the issue as it is. The heritage groups listed above are pretty much what one would define in Indian country as "wannabes." There may in fact be a few persons who have Taino ancestry, and that's pretty much it. It is not verifiable or provable that it is even Taino (and not some other group the Spanish imported to PR), and even if it were, there is has been no true tribal entity. There is no government or tribe that is Taino. As far as I have gleaned, some of the heritage groups listed in the article are just that, heritage associations, who may have incorporated in the states where they are located, just like a business or restaurant can do. Incorporation does not create tribal status or tribal government status.

These heritage groups are the same as the gazillion native heritage groups in the USA: they are not a tribe, only recently came together to pay hommage to supposed ancestry, and are not Indian by any stretch. What is the excuse with recently resurging wannabe groups? Usually "hiding out" and "in the mountains" and such. I'd like to hear these groups' theory.76.237.187.199 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Its really sad to read that prejudice and racism against the descendants of the Taino people of today is still alive as it was some 500 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.14.226 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are confusing the reporting of historical fact in an encyclopedia with your own self-defined concept of "racism" and "prejudice." I, for one, am a brown-skinned person. The Taino as a tribe (no tribal continuity, no governance, and certainly no culture or language more than a typical Caribbean might have) have not existed for many hundreds of years. Just because you are interested in the cultural history of Puerto Rico, and you think you may be of some proportion Taino ancestry does NOT make you Taino. To give you a lucid example of the ludicrous assertion you make, I will quote from Wikipedia's article on African-Americans: "With the help of geneticists, the historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African-American ancestry in these terms: "58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent)." The last time checked, 60% of African Americans don't run around telling people they are white simply because they may have some white ancestry. If you want to user a few Taino words like "batey" and "areito," (like all boricuas, Cubans, and Domincans use) or even look up some more words from a Taino dictionary or Bartolome de las Casas writings and play, "let's pretend we are Native American," then by all means you do that in your heritage group, social club, or family picnics. But do not use Wikipedia as your soapbox and try to distort historical fact. This is an encyclopedia and it is not open to personal opinions.68.255.100.73 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

slaugter of the tianos by who chrisopher columbus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.22.2 (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All Tainos are extinct, this is a fact, it is not racistic to say the truth. “The Jatibonicù Taino Tribal Band of New Jersey" are in no way descendants from the historic Tainos, simpley because they are not related. Writing false information in wikipedia wont give them tribal nation status with the US government, ok ? Simply because legislators base their decisions on facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.214.74 (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tainos as a tribe are extinct. However, Taino descendants exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabrikananixi (talk • contribs) 00:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC) 

The taino are not extinct. They still speak Taino, and have chiefs. And, having Taino ancestry makes Taino NOT extinct. You people arguing that they're extinct are completely illogical. You need to see a psychiatrist. http://www.taino-tribe.org/tedict.html --184.101.91.185 (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please present the independent published reliable sources that support your claims. Note that secondary scholary sources take precedence over other sources. - Donald Albury 15:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Tainos are and WERE NEVER exctinct they exist and are the majority of the modern day BORICUAS ! They never left but European historians and scientists want you to think otherwise! Taino influence is in the vocabulary everything, music, words, customs and the people are STILL Boricuas !— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneMoreau (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC) (Note:Comment moved from top to bottom of section. - Donald Albury 12:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC))

Latest edits on Taino modern identity

I'm quite astonished that so much fact about current Caribbean culture has been proposed by some contributors, specifically Uyvsdi, as "proof" of Taino existence in modern times. It is stunning to see that use of Native American customs now makes one Native American in the Caribbean basin. As far as I know, eating cornbread, grits, chestnuts, hominy and wild leeks (ramps) never made a white hillbilly Cherokee, but I guess that is now not the case. Taino cultural customs and vocabulary are VERY widespread throughout the Caribbean, as are Southeastern tribal culture (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, you name it) spead throughout the South, and other tribal customs, names, and Indian food use spread throughout the whole of the USA. Being a fraction Indian does not make you Indian. Being a fraction Taino does not and will not make me Indian. Of course, I am sure, as most Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and dark Cubans are, that my very curled hair is in fact Taino, as is my skin color. I seem to remember many pcitures of Native Americans with afros and such. Let's stop the game and shoot for accuracy in an encyclopedia.--76.237.201.11 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy in an encyclopedia is derived from citing scholarly secondary sources and listing multiple points of view, which are present in the article. Find scholarly sources - personal opinion is insufficient. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Unfortunately, you are confusing claims of Taino ancestry with evidence of Amerindian mitochondrial DNA in Caribbean populations. One can claim to be Taino all they want, but this is not cited nor proved in the article as it is today. Amerindian mitochondrial DNA is certainly present in the Caribbean, and this is impossible to deny. What we are shooting for here is a cite to back up claims that it is Taino, as well as cites to back up claims that Taino culture, not the typical Caribbean amalgamation, has somehow surived in various locales in the Caribbean region. The former is not provable, especially considering the enormous importation of Natives from the srrounding regions to make up for the unrepentant slaughter, death by disease and abuse of Tainos, including Neo-tainos such as Ciboneys and Lucayans. Please cite to something showing that this is in fact Taino ancestry we are describing, or at least make the language more neutral...such as allowing descent from Taino to be described as a "claim." I will wholeheartedly concur with you if you can offer some cites to prove that said claims of being Taino, and not just of some other Native American descent, is correct.--69.209.206.253 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I provided quotes and references from scholarly journals. I encourage you to do the same. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Why dont you post your “The Jatibonicù Taino Tribal Band of New Jersey” mebership card instead, because your "quotes and references from scholarly journals" are just bogus, fake informations, only written to change public opinion, and give you and give the “The Jatibonicù Taino Tribal Band of New Jersey” tribal nation status. Everybody can write something like that, but it will not be based on facts, please refrain from posting lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.214.74 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Being more than 70% Taino does make you native american, According to federal law determination is made by individual tribes with the most common being 1/8 or more. I don't use US Native American customs because I know nothing of it. All I have is oral tradition passed down by my grandparents. it's funny how people identify me a Puertorican, as hispanic, We are mostly Native 60%+/-, Black 20%+/-, French and Spanish 20%+/- in that order. I can only speak for myself I still have artifacts given to me by my great-great grandmother that I have seen in encyclopedias myself. It can be argued that being 20%+/- European does not make you european does it? Just because you lost your identity through assimilation does not negate your heritage. We may be different from our ancestors but we are still Boricuas. Also the claim by the OP of importation of other natives to the islands is silly since Tainos were very racist and would not mix with other tribes. The only reason they mixed with europeans was because of rape. Htij143 (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)htij143

I have posted some sources about continued Taino cultural practices in the Eastern parts of Cuba and a Smithsonian article about a cultural exhibition that recognizes the surviving legacy of the Taino in the Caribbean and the diaspora abroad. I believe this should be enough evidence for cultural continuity and authentic cultural revitalization of the Taino culture and peoples. Mtgarcia369 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Boriquen / Boricua / Taino

I took History some time ago, but as far as I recall, the Taino are a cultural stage and belong to the same group of people as the Pre-Tainos and Igneri did. They are all Central American Indians closely related or belonging to, the Arawaks. Also, they were not Christians so the translation given here of Boriken as something "blah blah Land of the Lord blah" is completely inaccurate and as a Puertorrican it is the FIRST time I have ever heard them term translated. I also eliminated the sentence mentioning that they called themeselves "Boricuas". I believe the term Boricua is a modern term, perhaps even originating in New York as a corruption of Borinqueño", as I can't recall any mention of the word in popular art or culture in the mainland of Puerto Rico, and it is (to this date) commonly used in more colloquial terms, while Borinqueño or Borincano are used a bit more formally...

In any event, I doubt that the Tainos would call themselves anything. The concept of property and individuality was brought on by Europeans. I have serious doubts about the idea that they would answer "Oh yes we are Boricua.". The concept of "tribes", "culture" and "group of people" where probably very alien to them. It is more likely that the Spaniards came up with the word and coined the term based on the fact that the natives called the place Boriquen.

I invite anyone with the knowledge to come in and add to the article, but please use proper citations. --Reefpicker (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yateras Indians

For those who claim that there are no Taino left, how do you explain the Yateras Indians of eastern Cuba? You can read all about them in the anthology "Indigenous Resurgence in the Contemporary Caribbean" by Maximillian Forte, in the chapter “Panchito, Mountain Cacique: Cuban Taino Survivals" by Jose Barreiro. There are historical records of the Yateras Indians fighting for the Spanish in the colonial revolts of the 19th Century. They consider themselves Taino descendants and have been regarded as Indians by their neighbors.

Also, why do skeptics hold Taino claims to such unreasonably high standards? It seems as if you want modern Tainos to be exactly the same as their Pre-Columbian ancestors, whereas many officially-recognized Native Americans in the United States have mixed ancestry, no longer speak their indigenous languages, and live Westernized lifestyles. A great example of this is the Mashantucket Pequot. --96.245.119.190 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

[redacted] The Taino have dies out, this is tragic, but it is nearly comical how certaing political persons and "tribes" try to change history just to get what they want. Maybe we should start an "Tribe of Atlantis" or something like that.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.214.74 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem argument that does not refute any of the actual evidence presented in Forte's book. "History is written by the winners" and does not always reflect reality. The fact of the matter is that DNA evidence has conclusively demonstrated that Taino heritage has survived in the Caribbean, just as it has proven that the Anglo-Saxons merely assimilated the indigenous Britons rather than outright replacing them in England. The story of the Yateras Indians is not all that different from the growing number of recognized Native American tribes that emerged from tri-racial isolates in the eastern United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.150.125 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Allowing information about organizations

I do not believe it is misappropriate for a fraternity to use Taino imagery. As they embrace several aspects of Taino culture and celebrate the culture in various ways. As the section is titled “Taíno heritage in modern times” it is important to note and describe organization that celebrate or feel some type of connection to that culture. Specifically, when an organization embraces a Taino native as it’s symbol of cultural pride. The addition does not make any outlandish claims but instead just notes that this organization has embraced the Taino people as there symbol. Monarca7 (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The appropriation Taíno imagery may or may not be offensive but it's not notable (unless published in secondary sources; for instance if it was involved in a court case). -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I did not delete your discussion but moved it to the bottom. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Move

The recent move of this article was not discussed at all, despite the article being actively edited by a large number of editors. A (correctly performed) move to Taíno people is fine with me personally, but the disambiguation info needs to go to Taíno (disambiguation) and Taíno should redirect to Taíno people, since it is hands down the primary article for "Taíno." -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

That's fine. I'm overriding the dab page though to preserve its page history.

But really? There are only seven articles which link to "Taíno", while over 500 link to "Taíno people", so what's wrong with keeping "Taíno" as the dab page? Isn't that what we normally do in such situations? — kwami (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at actual page view statistics as well. "Taíno" got 12,745 hits in the last 30 days, and the majority of those people are looking for an article, not a disambiguation page. Taíno language received 1926 page views in the last 30 days; Taínos_(film) received 488; Taino_(VA) received 181; the other links don't even use "Taíno" in their article title. Taíno people received 20,529 page views. Taíno people is clearly and demonstrably the primary topic for Taíno, so it should redirect to that page. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Possible problem with sentence

I just reverted the unexplained deletion of the sentence, "Despite this massive decline in population, it is safe to say that there simply wasn't enough of a Spanish military presence to be attributed to the large reduction of native manpower," from the section on Population decline. That sentence appears to have two citations just for itself. I do not have ready access to the sources, so I cannot verify that the cited sources support the statement. However, the statement seems to me to be awkwardly worded and not encyclopedic in tone. Any suggestions? -- Donald Albury 23:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing reference

Please give complete refernce to "Chrisp 2006, p. 34." --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent IP edit (rape vs interbreeding, etc.)

There's an IP changing this article who has obviously read What Became of the Taíno?, watched a tv program on it, or something similar. Unfortunately they aren't using sources and are leaving the article a bit of a mess. I don't know if anyone feels up to fixing this, but I don't have time at the moment or really the background. Doug Weller (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

More recent IP edits

An editor has replaced the word "raped" with the euphemism "interbred", giving the following changing explanations:

• (Changed "raped" to "interbred with", since the former choice of word seems to be concerned more with advancing a decolonization narrative than accurately describing the reality of the situation)
• (Extrapolating from the source you're referencing that "the Spanish did bad things to the Taino" equates to "the interbreeding of Spaniards and Taino was characterized mostly / entirely by rape" is intellectually dishonest)
• (I'm asserting that the picture which results from how it's used in this context is a caricature. Rape was a component of the interbreeding process, not its sole constituent, as is suggested by the current edit.)

I reviewed the cited sources (3 in the lead after the occurrence of the word "rape", a couple more in the 'Women' section of the article), and while I didn't find a single instance of the word "interbred", I did find many instances of "rape" / "outraged" / "Raped" / "trampled on the chastity". Now, I'm sure the "reality of the situation" changed over time, as sources attest. According to records, the first 39 Spanish raped. They were soon killed. Later expeditions arrived, more women were raped, and many were "taken" - and the sources do not mean in the "Do you take this woman to be your wife" manner - forcibly taken. Some Taino women did indeed enter into marriage with the Spanish, and some with Africans, but we must keep in mind that within the first decade after arrival, the Taino society of millions dwindled down to scattered tribes of mere hundreds. We can certainly describe the details of the "interbreeding" that occurred between the Spanish & Taino & Africans, but we can't sanitize out rape, abductions, and exploitations when they feature so prominently in the reliable sources. And perhaps of further concern is that such sanitization of history to legitimize such brutality has been happening over time, as noted repeatedly in our Accilien source, perhaps exemplified by the Guitar paper submission.

If one aspect of the inter-relationships between groups of people should be expanded, we don't start by removing another reliably sourced aspect. I'd be happy to work with the IP editor on this content. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Upon reviewing your detailed explanation above, I recognize that my editing efforts here were misguided.

What I originally perceived myself to be doing was correcting an exaggeration: my animating impulse was the perception that the article as written was saying something like "the development of the mixed-ethnicity population of the Caribbean was characterized almost entirely by sexual violence committed by the Spanish against the Taíno / other indigenous groups", which struck me as a misrepresentation. After reviewing your above response, though, I recognize that:

• That was not quite what the paragraph as written was trying to argue.
• The narrower point that WAS being made was, as you outlined, supported by the provided sources (which I confess I did not thoroughly review before).
• Though I perceived myself to be acting in the interest of objectivity, the effect that was in reality achieved was, as you said, sanitization.

I thank you for taking the time to deconstruct my misguided effort here, and apologize for my unscholarly and amateurish blundering. --65.51.185.130 (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Scope of 'Lucayan'

The lede has the following, "In the Greater Antilles, the northern Lesser Antilles, and The Bahamas, they were known as the Lucayans." There is a citation to 'Alegría, Ricardo E. "Taínos" in Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia vol. 1, p. 345. New York: Simon and Schuster 1992.' I don't have access to Alegria, but, even if the Alegria source extends the term "Lucayan" to all of the Antilles, the preponderance of sources restrict the term to the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands. - Donald Albury 15:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Mythology section

How will the Mythology section differ from the existing Spirituality section? If the Mythology section is not started within a day or two I will delete it. We should not leave empty sections in articles. If the Mythology section duplicates or largely overlaps the Spiritualogy section, they will be merged. - Donald Albury 16:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree that mythology and sprituality should be somehow merged/combined. Also, a verbatim recitation of several myths seems out of place in an encyclopedic article. Finally, most of the stories seem to have copyright issues. Glendoremus (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't thought of it. I've hidden those versions and added copyvio templates to both user pages. - Donald Albury 21:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Introductory Material

"Cuba, the smallest island of the Antilles ...." This can't be correct. Probably "largest" is meant but I don't know. OldAndTired (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Taino people

Any one know how the Taino people got from south American to any Island's in the Caribbean.

Taino descendants today section

I think this section has a tone that is quite un-encyclopedic. I am also uncomfortable with the point of view. I did not remove the section because I can see the possiblity of some useful being made of it, but I think it needs work. I will work on improving it, but do want to hear other opinions. - Donald Albury 20:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to this. I'll add that two sources are cited in the section repeatedly: One is a dead link, and the other is completely unrelated to the Tainos.--MattMauler (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that. I hadn't looked at the sources. - Donald Albury 21:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I took a closer look at those citations, and deleted one repeatedly reused in other parts of the article as well as in this section, because it linked to a web page that did not even mention Taino. I also removed the dead link from the other citation, as it has not been archived. The citation seems to conflate a newspaper article about an interview with David McLellan and a book about Karl Marx written by McLellan, but McLellan has written several books about Marx. - Donald Albury 01:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been reading and checking sources in a very long-winded dispute (but not contributing to it) on the talk page of another article most of the day, and didn't have the heart to start a conversation here. I've boldly edited the section to try to make it more encyclopedic in tone, as I felt that it contained information worth keeping. Carlstak (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Dominican girls

Shouldn't it be told that the two Dominican girls are actually mulattoes, and not Indians? Ok, it's told that it's carnival, but it's still misleading. --Lecen (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issue

See this diff for the copyrighted content that was added on Oct. 21, 2013.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff, Eloquent Peasant. I've amended the text to make it less closely paraphrased. Carlstak (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Source or Not? Fiction or Non-Fiction? Or both?

I read "Taino: A Novel" by Jose Barriero which is likely the same as "Taino: The Indian Chronicles." I highlighted many passages in the book that is significant to history. However, what makes it real and genuine versus what makes it a fictictious pseudo novel? Jose Barriero himself calls it the true story and he also explains how he found this information from a local village friar in Cuba as you read into the book and listen to some of his interviews. The reason why this is important is because introducing the source Taino: A Novel on wikipedia may get the book denied as good source material based on the life on Dieguillo "Guaiken" Colon. Not to mention I had a dispute with a wikipedia editor/user who means well and has contributed to the Taino page of this website. In my opinion, I believe its very real in terms of what Dieguillo thinks and witnessed during 15th and 16th century. Another problem is that the book by Jose Barriero may have re-imagined the accounts of Dieguillo, even though this is the journal of Dieguillo written in 1st person narrative. What is your opinion?

Just think Jim Carry recently mixed fiction with Non-Fiction in his semi-autobiographical "Memoirs and Misinformation" and another example is the The Bible. These are examples of what we believe to be real and fake and its all about how we judge, trust, and use our intuition on the material. To better confirm how real "Taino: A Novel" is, I believe we must find sources of Christopher Columbus and Bartolome de Las Casas; introduced as logs, abstracts and expecially journals. This won't guarantee that these historical figures have written about Guaiken a.k.a Dieguillo Colon in particular, but if there is any evidence from their writings of the Taino Indian then it helps to verify the authenticity of source materials written by Jose Barriero.

Please feel Free to check out the draft on my user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californianscholar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Barreiro

Barrierro, Jose (1993). Taino: A Novel. Fulcrum Publishing 4690 Table Mountain Dr., Ste. 100 Golden, CO 80403: Arte Publico Press. ISBN 9781555917678.

(Californianscholar (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC))

The novel is historical fiction. Perhaps the author does a good job of portraying the era but it's not factual and would not be appropriate as a source for Wikipedia. I've seen a couple of book reviews and people seem to like it. Perhaps you can find enough background material to write a Wiki article about the novel. Glendoremus (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

True the novel is a historical fiction. However the paperback version of the book also says its based on a true story. So this is loosely based on the Taino indian. I just saw what other source material are possibly good accurate non-fiction accounts that mentions Dieguillo, as mentioned by Jose Barriero. I will verify as I do more avid reading. These include "View from the Shore: Toward an Indian Voice in 1992" by Jose Barriero, "History of the Indies" by Bartolome de Las Casas, "Historia general y natural de las Indias" by Gonzalez Fernandez de Oviedo, "The life of the Admiral Chrisopher Columbus by his Son Ferdinand," "Letter of the Second Voyage" by Michele de Cuneo, "Decadas del Nuevo Mundo" by Pedro Martir de Angleria, "European Discovery of America by Samuel Morrison, etc. (Californianscholar (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC))

If Jose Barriero has written scholarly articles/books as a historian about the historical personage "Dieguillo", those would probably be acceptable as WP:RS. But, the historical fiction novel, no. It does not matter if he sprinkled it with historical facts gleaned from other actual sources. "he found this information from a local village friar in Cuba" sounds like a Frame story, a common literary device for hanging a novels structure on.

And, we didn't have a "dispute". Here User talk:Californianscholar#August 2020, I pointed out to you that novels were not acceptable as WP:RS, as well as provided you links to a few other core policies like WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE. As well as advised you that if you didn't want to accept my word for it, it could be brought here for other editor input or the RS noticeboard. While nothing is 100% out of the realm of possibility, I do not foresee any Wikipedia editor disagreeing with the answer provided above by Glendoremus or by myself over this matter. The novel by Mr Barriero may be very well written, convincing, and chock full of historical information, but in the end it is still a fictionalized retelling and therefore fails WP:RS. Heiro 23:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Glendoremus and Heironymous Rowe are correct—a historical fiction novel is not a reliable source. Their points are well founded. Carlstak (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Smallpox epidemic

Hi, this claim in the article 'A smallpox epidemic in Hispaniola in 1518–1519 killed almost 90% of the surviving Taíno' is not true. It cites an old article from 1972 and a book on the global sugar industry. Historians who deal specifically with the topic like Massimo Livi Bacci stress that the changes associated with the European arrival, including forced labor etc, caused the massive depopulation and epidemics were merely an auxiliary factor, especially since the first major epidemic did not occur for 20 years after arrival yet the population was already dropping massively beforehand. Papers that are more specific about the topic in question are much better sources for a specific claim like this one. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/38903 181.118.13.77 (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Raceandhistory.com a group blog?

I have marked a citation to RacandHistory.com as possibly self-published. At the top of the site's home page it states, "A community of volunteers committed to social development." While articles have authors listed, I see no signs of any kind of editorial process. This looks like a group blog, which would make it a non-reliable source per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. Convince me otherwise, or I will remove the citation. - Donald Albury 19:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Found on the same site, this and this is WP:FRINGE material related to pseudohistorical Afrocentrism. If they publish stuff like this without comment or editorial control, then this site is not an WP:RSN and shouldn't be used to cite anything on Wikipedia. Heiro 20:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember a way of looking for urls across the site, but don't recall how to use it. There seems to be a cluster of similar sites, including trinicenter.com, africaspeaks.com, amonhotep.com, howcomyoucom.com, rootsie.com, and probably others we should look at. We probably need to take the wider discussion elsewhere, but start with raceandhistory.com at the RS noticeboard. - Donald Albury 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

I think this page should be requested for semi protection. Too many neo-Tainos vandalising it. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, the rate of problem edits on this article does not really justify semi-protection at this time. I know that there are other admins who also watch this page, and since they have not acted to semi-protect, I suspect they are of much the same opinion. If the pace of problem edits picks up, I may change my mind, but in the meantime I think there are enough eyes on the page to deal with such edits in a timely manner. - Donald Albury 19:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

We'll see how this continues. Ddum5347 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It's time. This vandalism continues non-stop.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: Have you made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? As I have actively edited this page, I do not feel I should protect the page myself. - Donald Albury 22:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask why this page was protected? Why were the corrections reverted repeatedly, and now locked? Jnjn0616 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I, too, would like know why the page is being “protected.” Also, what’s the issue with Taíno descendants changing the page? It isn’t vandalism and it’s a correction that needs to be made since it’s clear to see many of you aren’t well versed in Taíno history and people. Realblasiann (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Social Studies13:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)72.27.118.182 (talk)

File:Txt

Tainos

The Taíno were an Arawak people who were the indigenous people of the Caribbean and Florida.At the time of European contact in the late 15th century,they were the principal inhabitants of most of Cuba,Jamaica,Hispaniola(the Dominican Republic and Haiti),and Puerto Rico. --72.27.118.182 (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue of the Taíno paged being locked after corrections were made by Taíno people.

I’d like to know why some of you non-Taíno people felt it was right to lock the page after people were correcting false information. The Taíno ARE and not were a people. They never went extinct. There are most literally full blooded Taíno in the mountains of the Greater Antilles and across the entirety of the Caribbean. Even if there weren’t, there are descendants of full blooded Taínos who have significant percentages of Taíno ancestry. Realblasiann (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please provide citations to the reliable sources that support your claims. - Donald Albury 00:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ancient DNA Reconstructs the Genetic Legacies of Precontact Puerto Rico Communities Maria A Nieves-Colón, William J Pestle, Austin W Reynolds, Bastien Llamas, Constanza de la Fuente, Kathleen Fowler, Katherine M Skerry, Edwin Crespo-Torres, Carlos D Bustamante, Anne C Stone Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 37, Issue 3, March 2020, Pages 611–626, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz267 Published: 09 November 2019 https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/37/3/611/5618728 Jnjn0616 (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Those sources do NOT say that any currently living people are Tainos. The presence in current populations of DNA derived from the indigenous inhabitants of the Antilles does NOT mean that the current populations are Tainos. They are, in varying degrees, descended from the Taino people. Identification with a people involves a lot more than DNA. - Donald Albury 15:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The article DOES cite multiple sources that trace MtDNA of Caribbean people to indigenous people originating from regions where many Taíno ancestors inhabited. This is something ALREADY cited and stated in the Taíno wiki. You’re right - Taíno identification is more than DNA. Having Taíno language, customs & spirituality passed on from generation to their descendants is more than enough to simply change “were” to “are”. I don’t expect you to understand the intricacies of identity & culture, as I can imagine you are not from the very land & people we are talking about. Taíno identity IS shaped by colonization, endogamy, and the many events impacting the region. To say that descendants of Taíno don’t exist borders on erasure. We exist as a blend of ethnicities & cultures, whether that’s my Andalucian, Senegalian or Taíno ancestors. The tone & thesis of your response reeks of a neo-school of the antiquated one-drop rule. Jnjn0616 (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your fulminations are pointless, and will accomplish nothing until you and these mysterious *others* suddenly appearing produce some reliable sources, per Wikipedia policy, that support the changes you want. Show us the scientific evidence that the Taíno people still exist as a distinct culture. Carlstak (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is a nat-geo article that summarises not only that living people in the Caribbean have genetic ties to their Taíno ancestors but also that they still identify as Taíno. It also talks about how the government committed a "paper genocide" against them, hence why it's important us as Wikipedians not replicate that. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/meet-survivors-taino-tribe-paper-genocide I apologise to the Taíno people who have had their edits reverted and experiences invalidated, please do not let that discourage you from improving this article and others about your people and culture. --Contrawwftw (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You may apologize all you like, but be clear that no editor apologizes on behalf on WP, speaking in the voice of WP. These edits have been rightfully reverted because they did not respect WP policy, which all have to follow, whether they like it or not. The Nat Geo article you linked to with a bare url just stuck in a sentence prominently displays a photo of Jorge Estevez, who is quoted here as saying, "Higuayagua prides itself on using Divine Academic Inspiration"! That says a lot about his particular group's approach to the subject. Ham-fisted attempts by groups to force a POV are what should be apologized for. Carlstak (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

1) You left out the context of that quote.

""Higuayagua prides itself on using Divine Academic Inspiration," Cacike explained. This means research is done on every aspect of our culture, instead of relying upon Spanish narratives as doctrine. These narratives are used as clues, to help supplement and inform in-person interviews with our closet Arawak relatives. As such, there is a significant amount of evidence that tells us our ancestors wore head dresses."

I don't see anything wrong with that methodology. From what I know it's quite common among groups whose culture has been lost, erased or banned post-colonisation. Additionally, Estevez has worked in museums such as the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian and is the leader of a Taíno organisation, I think that's enough to be an authority on his own people.

2) I never said I was apologising on behalf of anyone but myself.

3) (a more general point) I think defending the use of past tense is futile when there's people with genetic and cultural links to pre-colonial Taíno people as well as people who identify as Taíno. A lot of Indigenous groups around the world have written about the harm that can be done by referring to them only in the past tense and talking about them as if they no longer exist. It harms reconciliation and decolonisation efforts. Contrawwftw (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"In-person interviews with our closest Arawak relatives" is not a reliable way to establish the continued existence of a Taino people. You need to cite reliable sources that say that the Taino people continue to exist as a community with a continuous history of maintaining their culture. People calling themselves "Taino" without evidence from reliable sources that they have inherited Taino culture in an unbroken line does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia policy. - Donald Albury 23:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The Nat-geo source I originally provided covers some of the history that you’re asking for. I was just providing context for the “Divine Academic Inspiration” quote that @Carlstak brought up. Contrawwftw (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't bother with the rest of paragraph, although I considered using it, because "Higuayagua prides itself on using Divine Academic Inspiration" aptly sums up the mystical approach of claiming that "a significant amount of evidence that tells us" is derived from "in-person interviews with our closet Arawak relatives", informed by "Spanish narratives". This sounds like a very casual methodology.

That Nat Geo article is "as told to" Nina Strochlic by Jorge Baracutei Estevez, and refers only to "Later DNA studies started to show that people in the Caribbean did indeed have Native American mitochondrial DNA: 61 percent of all Puerto Ricans, 23 to 30 percent of Dominicans and 33 percent of Cubans." It doesn't cite the studies.

The Unionhiwayawa.com site refers to one paper that is a preprint, not certified by peer review, and thus would not be acceptable as a reliable source for genetic data concerning Taino DNA. The group also links a paper published in Science, the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the abstract of which says,

The Caribbean was one of the last regions of the Americas to be settled by humans, but where they came from and how and when they reached the islands remain unclear. We generated genome-wide data for 93 ancient Caribbean islanders dating between 3200 and 400 calibrated years before the present and found evidence of at least three separate dispersals into the region, including two early dispersals into the Western Caribbean, one of which seems connected to radiation events in North America. This was followed by a later expansion from South America. We also detected genetic differences between the early settlers and the newcomers from South America, with almost no evidence of admixture. Our results add to our understanding of the initial peopling of the Caribbean and the movements of Archaic Age peoples in the Americas.

and seems to conflict with some of the claims made by the Higuayagua group. I can't access the paper, so I haven't read it. Carlstak (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

New sources have been added for a while but no one seems to have looked at them. 152.13.249.80 (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources need to be added to the article to show this people/culture still exists today. Do we have such sources? For example, we say that the Sioux ARE Native Americans because they are officially recognized to exist today. Are Taino people equally officially recognized?

The various articles (NatGeo, etc.) brought to this discussion are useful but not enough because we need to avoid WP:SYNTH, and these article don't quite absolve us from doing synthesis and/or original research, both prohibited WP practices. We need sources that actually state the Tainos' existence as a matter of fact, not just articles that review a re-birth of Taino cultural pride.

A dead giveaway that Tainos still exist as a culture today is if we could see several (2-3) reliable sources pointing out where they live as a group, as their own culture. Do they live, for example, in their own indigenous reservations? Another dead giveaway would be sources pointing out how they dress regularly (not promotionally), and on a day-to-day basis (not just for promoting the Taino culture their culture at rallies, forums, or before TV cameras and/or journalists at TV studios, etc.) We need sources showing this alleged current-day people's manner and places of worship, and how their religious beliefs, today, are unique and different from all other religions. Also, do they cook differently from mainstream Caribbean cultures at large, such as the current-day Puerto Rican, Dominican, etc., cultures? Do today's alleged Tainos have their own and unique cuisine that is well-documented in reliable sources? Do they speak, on a regular and day-to day basis, their own unique language as their primary language which they, also, pass on to their children? Do they teach their children their Taino culture? Do they live their culture, not as a promotion of pride in the Taino heritage, but as a day-to-day habit that their own children then absorb as a natural by-product of being raised by these alleged Taino peoples of today and thereby grow to be Tainos themselves, and to identify with that culture and only that culture?

We need reliable sources documenting this sort of things before we can update the article to reflect they are a people today. I am afraid what we have seen so far are some members of today's ordinary Caribbean cultures seeking to promote their long-lost roots. If this is the case, that would be a very noble act in itself, but not one that proves their is a Taino people in existence today. That is, we should not confuse having Taino blood, or being of Taino heritage, or being partly descendant of Tainos, with actually being a member of a Taino people today that have live CONTINUOUSLY in this manner since before the Spanish conquistadores took possession of their lands and until this day. Mercy11 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Mercy11 has clearly and convincingly explained why we refer to the Taino people in the past tense. They do not exist as a people with a continuously existing culture, and have not done so for hundreds of years. Carlstak (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have posted some sources about continued Taino cultural practices in the Eastern parts of Cuba and a Smithsonian article about a cultural exhibition that recognizes the surviving legacy of the Taino in the Caribbean and the diaspora abroad. I believe this should be enough evidence for cultural continuity and authentic cultural revitalization of the Taino culture and peoples. Mtgarcia369 (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Mtgarcia369

Another type of acceptable source would be mainstream academics documenting a recent related cultural reappropriation or movement with a relevant narrative (in which case the article could mention it and would need to describe it as such). Unless WP:RS have a special treatment of colonial narratives, that is also unlikely to be very useful, since for WP it's not Spanish vs Taino that counts, just mainstream scholarship... —PaleoNeonate – 05:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There has been this movement for some time...outline ....here..Kyra Landzelius (2004). Native on the Net: Indigenous and Diasporic Peoples in the Virtual Age. Routledge. pp. 143–. ISBN 978-1-134-50180-9.. Moxy- 02:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Taíno erasure

The use of the past tense to describe the Taino people who are not extinct and still inhabit their land. The fact the page has been locked is embarrassing especially after the concerns voiced by many Taino people. 2001:B07:6461:5B94:E8A9:ECF2:C02E:9BB4 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is it when actual Taíno people and other Indigenous people give clear and exact evidence it's labeled as "not enough". How can you say you know more than *actual* Native Americans, scholars, museums, and organizations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.215.221.89 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for policies applying to what information can be included in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 15:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've read what I need as true information, and all my evidence fits this. Articles from Museums, Scholars, Organizations, etc. Even record of Taíno students being given scholarships only for Native Americans. What more could you need?

Can I please get an answer back on my claims? Because it seems you all only have things to say when you can easily dismiss our evidence, but when we have actual evidence like Native scholarships from Harvard being given to Taíno students, y'all are silent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:906:20C7:5919:3F25:8991:F10D (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A Taíno tribe has just been officially recognized in The Virgin Islands, proving we still exist. Some big edits need to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:906:20C7:8DEF:1F14:3C13:7238 (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I made this edit based on the official recognition by the USVI government. Please continue providing such links to articles, books, etc., which may provide the WP community the right amount and quality of information to re-assess the issue of past vs. present tenses. You should keep in mind, however, that secondary sources will be the most convincing sources, especially books published by respected publishing houses or articles that have been peer-reviewed. Newspapers (e.g., The St. Thomas Source) are considered primary sources and major decisions are rarely made based only on newspaper articles. Mercy11 (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources

A flourishing Culture, BBC

Indigenous Cuba, American Indian Magazine

Taino Peoples, Smithsonian Magazine

Change "were" to "Are"

18 December 2021

In the sentence "The Taíno were an indigenous people of the Caribbean.", change the word "were" to "are". Mtgarcia369 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I see the sources, which should help, but this needs to be discussed. There is active discussion in the section above. Please reach consensus on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It states ‘Taíno were’ when it should in fact state ‘Taíno are’, as they are not extinct. 72.140.40.245 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

4 April 2022

There are several million Taíno alive today in the east coast of the United States. Beings that are alive are not extinct or past tense; please change the first line from were to are thank you. 69.127.242.53 (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Donald Albury 15:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

4 May 2022

Change were to are. A Taíno tribe in the US Virgin Islands has been officially recognized.

https://stthomassource.com/content/2022/04/06/usvi-taino-chief-seeks-members/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:906:20C7:8DEF:1F14:3C13:7238 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

2603:7080:906:20C7:8DEF:1F14:3C13:7238 (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Just from looking through this talk page I've noticed there are several sources which are aparently not enough to change were to are, despite evidence of cultural continuity. 152.13.249.80 (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The quality of sources matters. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for information on what kinds of sources are acceptable for citations in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 19:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Why has this not been done despite several sources being posted? The article itself refers to a revival; not changing were to are is contradicting the article. Bovianchovy (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"Native Amerindians" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Native Amerindians and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Native Amerindians until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources + source notes

This still seems a bit unbalanced.

Starting with these 3, orphaned in a comment from a few sections up:

• A flourishing Culture, BBC, Christopher Parker. Taino in Cuba.

  contrary to popular claims, Taíno bloodlines, identity and customs were never completely extinguished. Spanish authorities refused to acknowledge the existence of Taíno people. Yet 19th-Century records are full of references to caseríos in the mountains. In the 1940s, Cuba’s preeminent geographer and anthropologist Antonio Nuñez Jiménez – who would later hold top positions in the Castro government – had documented dozens of caseríos scattered throughout the Sierra del Cristal and Macizo Nipe-Sagua-Baracoa mountains. Following the 1959 Cuban Revolution, however, the communist government vehemently promoted the notion of the Taíno’s extinction.

• Indigenous Cuba, American Indian Magazine

  "After years of modest traveling through Cuba rekindling the Native family bonds, the old campesino Cacique Panchito... formally broke through the historical extinction barrier in 2014, when his community was acknowledged at a formal national-international conference on Indigenous cultures of the Americas."

• Taino Peoples, Smithsonian Magazine}}

– SJ + 21:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The Taino debate in 2022

The page for Taino people has seen a significant amount of conflict that has been unresolved, and doesn't appear to have had any formal discussions, for over a decade. This is primarily around if Wikipedia should recognise the several groups who claim to be Taino in modern times. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Taino have not existed as a people for hundreds of years; while the opposing view is that the Taino have either continued quietly or have reinvigorated a sleeping culture. Both have research and sources to back them up.

Even if it is readily demonstratable that the Taino are not a continuous culture and are instead represented by a sort of 'Neo-Taino' - this also warrants addressing in the article. As it stands, there are many people who claim to be Taino who attempt to edit Wikipedia or express themselves on the Talk page and are shut down. This isn't a very good look; and the controversy has led to an article that is confusing to a huge fault. For example: in the lead it says that the Taino 'were' a people, while in the article body it talks about many Taino communities; including one that received Federal Recognition in 2021 in the US Virgin Islands.

While the case of the expressed extinguishment of the Taino people would have been many generations before, from an Australian lens this doesn't seem enough to disqualify their legitimacy. Neither does, as one user said on this talk page, a requirement that they constantly speak Taino language, wear Taino clothes, or cook Taino food. This is not something that most people on reservations in the US do either. I also am unsure of the claim that because they are not a registered tribe by the US Federal Government, they are not a tribe. This sets off a lot of red flags as I'm sure anyone with a cursory knowledge of colonialism would understand.

Following input from users here, I think an RfC on this issue may be necessary to resolve this long-standing conflict.

Disclaimer: My understanding of North American indigenous peoples is limited. I've done some research into the Taino to try to get my head around it but have not formed an opinion on the issue. I am focused on Australia, where there are not the concepts of 'blood-quantum', formal tribal rolls, or recognition of 'sovereign' tribes. So the situation is significantly different, and the general understanding in Australia is that an Australian Aboriginal person is any person with Aboriginal heritage no matter how distant. There's also not a significant number of people here who claim Aboriginal ancestry without it being truthful. All these issues appear to be near-opposite in the USA. Specifically in regards to the Taino, in Australia, significant movements to reinvigorate near-extinguished cultures have been hugely successful and have been seen as legitimate because they are run by people of descent from those groups, and with the understanding that their culture was extinguished by force during colonisation.

PS I have also posted this comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Poketama (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Poketama: Just what do you propose that an RFC settle? Please note that Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories are all relevant to the article. I think the article is compliant with those guidelines, and a local consensus, if one did emerge from an RFC, cannot override those guidelines. - Donald Albury 12:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be good to hash out the differing claims that have been made over time in a consolidated place, to resolve the issue. I think clear consensus needs to been shown that the people who claim to be Taino are actually fringe theorists, and that their sources are unreliable. Just as there has not been reliable sources given for their claim, neither is there reliable sources presented that their claims are false. Furthermore, simply throwing sources at eachother does not solve the problem. Sustained discussion and analysis solves the problem.

Poketama (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What are the good published sources that discuss neo-Taíno identity in light of the centuries of mainland Native Americans being sent to the Caribbean as slaves? Books like Slavery in Indian County just speak generally about colonists sending mainland Native Americans to the Caribbean, but I wonder if published sources discuss the Native ancestry in Puerto Ricans, Cubans, etc. coming from the centuries of mainland enslaved American Indians, as opposed to the Taíno? Yuchitown (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

I don't have the sources at hand, but authors have suggested that Spanish raiders were kidnapping people from the North American mainland and enslaving them in the Caribbean even before Ponce de Leon "discovered" Florida. There also was a lot of shuffling around of Tainos. Within 20 years of Columbus "discovering" America, every last Lucayan had been removed from the Bahamas in an attempt to replace the large numbers of Tainos who had died in Hispaniola. I know there are sources that discuss Native American captives being sold on the slave market in Charles Town (Province of Carolina) and shipped to the West Indies, but those people were probably sent to English-held islands, and so probably did not contribute significantly to the ancestry of the peoples of Cuba, Hispaniola, or Puerto Rico. The few surviving Native Americans that the Spanish evacuated from Florida in the 18th century mostly died shortly after reaching Cuba. - Donald Albury 16:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

French and Spanish also sent mainland Native peoples to the Caribbean for centuries. The Spanish even sent American Indians from New Mexico to the Caribbean. Just need decent sources discussing the reality of neo-Taínos descending from centuries of mainland American Indians, since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Yuchitown (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Barbuda Still Has A Native Taino Population

We still speak almost nothing but Taino. I learned to understand English, but I think it's too difficult to speak. I've been said to speak English poorly, when I tried to recently. --184.101.190.233 (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to cite reliable sources that explicitly state that the Taino language is still the native language of people living on Barbuda. People who have learned Taino as a second language as part of an attempt to revive the language are not native speakers.- Donald Albury 17:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Estoy totalmente de acuerdo, quiero decir, ¿cómo puedo saber para obtener información confiable de usted cuando no usa recursos confiables? 166.182.86.2 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)