This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
I propose that Smith River Reservation be merged into Smith River Rancheria. Both articles are discussing the Tolowa rancheria; however, the Smith River Reservation stub stops at 1868. Its information could be added to the History and Reservation sections of Smith River Rancheria, which is the federally recognized name of the rancheria, as per the tribe itself and the NCAI.[1] Neither of the two citations on Smith River Reservation actually use the term "Smith River Reservation"—the Office of Indian Affairs link uses "Smith River Reserve" and the other doesn't name the entity at all. -Uyvsdi (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
I would object to combining the two. One has little to do with the other, being separated by decades, by purpose and by location. The Smith River Reservation or Reserve, (note it is called both in the text of the BIA report of the time), was at a different location, with a different purpose, as a replacement of the Klamath River Reservation for the Yurok people and Tolowa and later for all the Eel River people captured in the Bald Hills War. It failed miserably, none of these people wanted to live there, most left or never went there to begin with (the Yurok especially), and it was closed.
I would refer to it by link if you want in this article but it belongs on its own as a historic artifact of the 19th century Indian policy of the U. S. Government, in its early attempts at making reservations for the Native Americans. The fate of the early treaties and reservations here in California in the 1850's and 1860's signified a change in relations with the Native Americans and were a test bed of the policy that would be used to subjugate the Native Americans here and in the rest of the West. Hence I think they all need their own articles.Asiaticus (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, cross-linking seems like a good idea. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Okay, pulled the merge templates and established links to each article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
