Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

New project: List of Mississippian sites in Cherokee homelands

As shown on the Talk page for List of Mississippian sites, Tsistunagiska has good ideas for a project to add Mississippian sites in Cherokee homelands to this list, and to add nav points to related ancestors and tribal nations. (Nikwasi is already listed in this table, which consists only of sites with existing WP articles). Kituwa could probably be added, but needs to be checked for relative conformity to other sites. Because our discussions have been concentrating on Cherokee history and its relation to Mississippian-era and earlier culture period sites/mounds in its homeland, I added some ideas for how to proceed on that Talk page, thinking that other editors might be interested in such a project.Parkwells (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This will probably be a multi-step process, as noted in the possible strategy at Talk:Cherokee history, with different kinds of opportunities for editors: 1) assess existing Wikipedia articles for Mississippian-era sites in Cherokee homelands (or upgrade existing articles to have common types of information as shown in the List table; 2) settle on Benjamin Steere's article (as cited way above on this page for "Cherokee mounds") as a framework for selecting other sites to document, 3) select new sites/towns to be added, based on his assessment of those that have the most information, 4) develop articles to achieve that. Making a separate article, "List of Mississippian sites in Cherokee homeland", or similar title, would provide a starting point. The table model format could be copied from the List of Mississippian sites. Then sites could be transferred into the big List of Mississippian sites. Parkwells (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Really, really late to this conversation, but "South Appalachian Mississippian Tradition" is a term used for this region (RLA-UNC). Usually, a contemporary ethnic group to describe precontant earthworks from a wide region just unnecessarily creates problems and assumptions. Tribes such as Pedee can't speak on their own behalf; due to Indian Removal there's strong erasure of the Muscogee Creek Confederacy in this era; emerging evidence suggests major mound sites were multiethnic and multilingual; and many Indigenous groups ceased to exist to Spanish-introduced diseases before their names were recorded in written history. Yuchitown (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Time to Revisit Junípero Serra?

I just wrapped up a quick review of the article on Junípero Serra and was sorely disappointed by what appeared to me to be an apologist bias. Given the importance of this fellow to the history of California and its indigenous peoples, would anyone be willing to help me bring some more objective history to the article? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Historic Cherokee settlements

Wanted to write something about the above article. I elected to refrain from further involvement in Cherokee related articles in deference to a family request. That does not mean that I won't point out an amazing article when I run across it or am involved in watching it grow. GenQuest really did due diligence on this one and, through determination and a little assistance from others, created what is arguably the most comprehensive list and article of historic Cherokee settlements there is online. I am very appreciative of the efforts. I hope everyone will give it a look and even though you might be able to find ways to improve it, which is always encouraged, I think it's pretty incredible as it is. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

John Buck (Onondaga politician)

Just created this by cobbling together a number of (mostly antiquated) sources. If anyone more familiar with the historical context could take a look, it'd be very much appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Code of Indian Offenses

Just came across this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Code_of_Indian_Offenses Does anyone else think that the description in the first sentence is highly biased and sounds as if it was taken straight from this legislation itself? "The Code of Indian Offenses was an 1883 body of legislation in the United states, intended to help the Indian tribes live up to the white man's standard of civilization."

I'd argue to remove the subordinate clause starting with "intended ..." or rephrase it to make it more neutral, or perhaps indicate from the outset that this legislation probably violated the 1st amendment, as indicated later in the article. (But as a non-native speaker I lack the cultural background/sensitivity to rephrase it appropriately ...) Hattifnatt~dewiki (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was a mess. I just did a fairly massive restructuring and cleanup. Still needs work, but at least I got rid of the poor tone it had, threw out all the cruft that wasn’t relevant to the topic so it doesn’t read like somebody’s C-graded term paper any more. Thanks for bringing our attention to this. Montanabw^(talk) 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson#Indian removal policy

A request for constructive input regarding the wording used in this Featured Article at Talk:Andrew Jackson#Native Americans. 86.186.168.206 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I did a bit of much-needed cleanup there. Thanks for the ping. Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Montanabw. (There's a new pony in the forest :-) Cheers, 86.186.168.230 (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sq**w

This perennial needs eyes. Per usual, insertion of unsourced opinion and weasel words "Some may find it offensive...", privileging of non-Native and other incorrect interpretations/bad sources, etc. And the regular rounds of vandalism. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama

The IPs and new accounts (most likely the usual COI suspects) are back, trying to abuse the 'pedia to promote this non-Native hobbyist group as a real tribe. The Alabama commission's mistake shouldn't override the sovereignty of the Cherokee people. The Cherokee Nation enrolls anyone who can prove heritage. The "Echota" enroll anyone who expresses a sincere belief they are Native. Their websites used to have fake clans, to which they assigned non-Natives based on what area of the country they live in, and roles for their hobbyist members like "shaman", and photos of them dressed in Hollywood Indian made-up regalia costumes. Unfortunately, some well-meaning, newer members don't seem to know this stuff about them and are siding with the IPs and perennial socks/SPA's to claim they're a real tribe of Cherokee people. Could use more eyes from those who actually know about this stuff. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan I actually ran into a group from this "tribe" when I was travelling between the Carolina's and Oklahoma. I debated a few things with them. However nice they were in the beginning it always turned ugly when I started inquiring exactly how they can prove their ties to the old Cherokee Nation-East. They always mumble something almost indiscernible about Dragging Canoe. Push harder and they say they don't have to prove anything. Ok, I guess you are right, technically. Have you seen specific evidence of them making fraudulent edits here? I admit, I have stopped watching the Cherokee articles almost entirely. --ARoseWolf 21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There are behavioural patterns going back for years now:

Two new accounts and an IP or two show up. They blank all sourced criticism, notably statements from the federally-recognized tribes and other actual Native people/s. The two new accounts usually then insert POV, essay-like content extolling the virtues of their group. Usually it is completely unsourced, or cites sources that don't source the content, or is only sourced to their personal site. The content often includes details that would only be known to group members (indicating possible COI). After being warned and edit-warring a bit the new accounts and IPS go dormant. But several months later, the pattern repeats with... two new accounts and another IP or two. Wash, rinse, repeat.

This activity sometimes occurs after some of their members are called out online, such as when some of their non-Native artists get reported for violations of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to request permanent semi protection on that article and pending changes review so we restrict these drive by edits. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Montanabw. Thank you CorbieVreccan for bringing it to everyone's attention here. This type of censoring and washing of information is a big problem. The staple of Wikipedia is to maintain a NPOV. We can't do anything about groups like these being notable, even if they are mostly known for the wrong reasons, but we can ensure that all sides are represented where reliable sources can be found. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't protect it myself as I've done cleanup on the article. Some admins would just do it themselves anyway, but that's actually against policy. The first request didn't fly as the admin looking at the request didn't seem to understand this isn't just one IP. I've refiled the request with a fuller explanation. We'll get it protected eventually. Pending is not ideal as I think well-intentioned users who are unfamiliar with real tribes vs hobbyists that managed to wrangle state recognition would accept edits that they don't realize are hoaxy.

We should also take the time to do a sock report and get the COI socks blocked. It's clearly the same one or two connected/COI users. Since they initially went dormant for longer periods before reincarnating, I didn't bother. But now that they're pushier, I think it's time. I'd rather someone else put it together, as my time on here is a bit limited right now, but I can help with it. I've also removed and put in for a rename of the photo that was added by one of the COI new accounts. See what I put on talk. We have no idea who that individual is (unless someone recognizes them), and definitely no reason to assume they represent that group. Given that account's edit history, I don't think it's unreasonable to demand sourcing that they have permission to use that person's image. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Protection is only for a week. Be ready to deal with disruption when protection expires, including requesting re-instatement of protection, this time for a much longer period. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

on covering archeological sites

Hey, i am not an archeologist, but am developing about a lot of sites which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I have been encountering problems/gaps in trying to link to wider archeological topics. Have raised some specific and general questions, would welcome comments, at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Archeological sites on NRHP in South Dakota. Thanks for considering! --Doncram (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

BC–AD –> BCE–CE — is it time to change the Archaic period? (discussion)

A discussion about changing the era dating style at Archaic period (North America) is underway at Talk:Archaic period (North America)#Era (times are changing). Please join. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedians learning by helping

Hello friends, I have just started writing in Wikipedia. My entries so far include Land Back and Red House eviction defense. I am pretty good at fixing sentence structure and grammatical things and happy to help anyone in the group if that's useful, as I learn my way around a bit more. Also I could help with research, just let me know. Art to Tech (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

NMAI Native American Women Wikipedia Edit-a-than

NMAI is hosting a NMAI Native American Women Edit-a-thon on Friday, April 23, from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm EDT. Pre-registration recommended via Eventbrite. Ahalenia (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia

Tecumseh Day

Greetings. I've recently rewritten Wikipedia's article on Tecumseh with scholarly sources, with an eye toward making it a Featured Article and getting it on the Main Page. I've since learned that last year the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma began commemorating October 5 as "Tecumseh Day," so naturally that seems like a perfect target date for featuring Tecumseh on Wikipedia's Main Page. The review process is slow, so it may take some time. The article is currently undergoing an A-class review with the Military History Project, although it hasn't generated much interest yet.

Now I'm wondering if even more might be done on the Main Page on "Tecumseh Day." Sometimes there are "themes" on the Main Page for certain notable events. I could easily write/upgrade a handful of Tecumseh- or Shawnee-related articles that could appear under the "Did You Know?" section on the same day, and I'm sure other editors could do the same. I'm guessing for something like this to happen, a group of interested editors would need to support it. If a Shawnee "theme day" actually gets in the planning stages, I would reach out to the three Shawnee tribes and let them know what we're up to.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Kevin1776 (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Tecumseh is currently a Featured Article candidate. Kevin1776 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be willing to support this, but I'm not sure what I can do. Cmacauley (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you could contribute a lot. Your recent work focuses on obscure Shawnee leaders. Maybe you could prepare another one for the "Did You Know?" section of the Main Page on October 5. Paxinosa, perhaps? Also, several of your recent articles are already close to Good Article standards, like Kakowatcheky. Come October, you could nominate several of these as Good Articles, so they could then appear on the Main Page in the "Did You Know?" section, which accepts both recently promoted Good Articles as well as recently created articles. Kevin1776 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am willing to give that a shot. I think my articles are far from GA worthy, but they might get there. Researching 18th century Native Americans is not easy, as documentation is often sparse. I might be willing to do a GA review, any suggestions? Cmacauley (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think we'll want to do our GA reviews in September. We can't do them too early, because to appear in the "Did You Know?" feature on the Main Page, they need to be recent promotions. I'm planning on getting Blue Jacket and Cornstalk to GA status by that time, and maybe Captain Logan and Black Hoof as well, so Good Article reviews on those articles could use your help come September. I'm also planning on creating Kekewepelethy/Captain Johnny and John Lewis (Shawnee leader) as new articles (not necessarily Good Articles) for "Did You Know?" at that time as well. Thank you for your interest and help! Kevin1776 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been working on Neucheconeh but still have a ways to go before it's ready. Cmacauley (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Good deal. Let me know if you need any cites from Lakomäki, Sami (2014), Gathering Together, which has useful references to Neucheconeh. My draft of Captain Lewis is under development here. Kevin1776 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Apache languages

Do we have any experts here on the Apache languages? I posted a pertinent question at the Language RefDesk and was told to ask it here instead. Muzilon (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Of interest

Project members may be interested in this: Wikipedia:NMAI Native American Women Edit-a-thon.Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Pop Wea for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pop Wea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop Wea until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ahalenia (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia

Native Americans and hot springs

I'm wondering if we can get some additional eyes on the article Native Americans and hot springs. I've tried to clean it up and improve it, but I'm not sure if it needs TNT'ing. I've trimmed unsourced statements like "Native Americans always used these phenomena as natural shrines" and "they believed they were walking on sacred ground." It is both overly generalized as well as only focusing on a handful of on hot springs - four hot springs systems to be exact, which seems odd given that there are well over 1,600 in the U.S. alone. The article does not cover any other countries/nations/peoples in North America other than the U.S. I've added a few sources but it is still mainly sourced to an existing paper by a civil engineer for his Geothermal energy R&D company. Maybe it's PROD or AfD material? Netherzone (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I could add more about northern Plains tribes if you want specific tribes included. Although maybe if it was about springs in general instead of just the hot springs it could be more inclusive.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oncamera, thanks for your speedy reply. I can contribute info on hot springs and indigenous peoples in the Western US (I've created several hot springs articles and several of these already include info on NA's.) I'm concerned that the issues with the article might be more systemic which is why I posted here to gather other points of view to get a sense of whether it should be retained and improved or TNT'd or turned into a stub. If it is kept, I'd be happy to work together on it. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

These New Age, over generalized articles are inaccurate and useless. TNT is my view. Where a specific tribe used a specific spring for spiritual purposes, that can be noted at the appropriate article. A generalized gathering of romanticized Woo is original research and not useful. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Tecumseh needs your help on FAC

Tecumseh is currently a FAC and could use a couple of reviews here. Thank you! Kevin1776 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think the article needs more members of this project to weigh in. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tecumseh/archive1 Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous Ways of Knowing

Lots of over-generalizations and inappropriate homogenization of diverse cultures. Continually asserts that there is one, unified, "Indigenous Worldview". There will be a cherrypicked quote from a person from a single culture, followed by an assertion that this is "THE Indigenous Worldview", implying the view of one person, sometimes a nn person, is help by all Indigenous Peoples. *sigh* Needs cleanup at the very least. I've cut some stuff, but this is a mess. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Also: Native American rhetoric. Looks like a student paper. I took a pass at it the other night. Needs way more cleanup, if it should even be an article on here at all. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

AND, we already have: Traditional knowledge. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan: I admire your amazing work at cleaning it up but, personally, I would propose the article for deletion. There is no "one unified Indigenous worldview". We all know that to be true. Being among several nations and familiar with many more, there are similarities that can be drawn from them in some cases but I would hardly call them a unified worldview. The article does present reliable sources but the sources themselves do not perpetuate a "unified" worldview as much as it does in reflecting the similarities in each of the individual or tribal views (plural). And, like you said, the addition of non-native persons and implying their view can somehow be juxtaposed upon those of native peoples is highly problematic. I think many of us, meaning native and non-native alike, find peace and a deeper sense of a connection with the past and present when we are engaged in activities surrounding our views and those we have been taught but I can't say it's unified just because there are similarities. Maybe a partial merge with Traditional knowledge is possible? I don't know. I do think you made an admirable attempt and the article is definitely better than before. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I Prodded both Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Native American rhetoric, but both Prods have been objected to. So, we have to either propose a merge or AfD. I'm thinking AfD on rhetoric and merge on "IWOK".. Actually... I don't think "IWOK" should be cluttering up any other article... So I'm not sure what the best option is there. The creator of IWOK is also re-introducing some of the more questionable content and sources. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, these articles need more editors or hands-on support in doing something with them. The person who wrote Indigenous Ways of Knowing is getting very WP:OWNy and not listening. ANI is probably the next step, but ANI editors don't always understand Indigenous issues so a better first step would be if more folks with the background could help out here. This is a mess. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan I think you did the best you could and that's admirable. I also think I was very blunt but not aggressively in responding to them. You can't misrepresent over 2 million people in the United States and countless other millions of people around the world by trying to pass off their individual and tribal beliefs as one united belief system. I don't care how many academic scholars you pull your sources from. It doesn't make it true. On a side note, my fingers are sticking together they are so cold. Makes typing difficult. (LOL) --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the talk page. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't done a thorough comparison of previous edits of the article to the more current edits but it's easy to see deficits in older versions. Despite this being a subject of academic research, the parameters of the subject are really broad, all Indigenous cultures. Some of the academic material is almost philosophic in vagueness. The article had (and has) wa-a-ay too many generalities without support citations. Also generalities backed with very specific cultural citations. It is such a mess I have trouble seeing ways to improving it without stripping it down to almost stub level and starting over from a sturdy foundation. Or maybe delete it. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted, as it needed to be. But look what the user who created that mess just posted: Two-Eyed Seeing, with a section that duplicates some of that content. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The institute that promoted two-eyed seeing has been closed for almost 10 years. Folks in Miꞌkmaꞌki found it troublesome and exploitative of the elders they roped in. The program is no longer being used and was used in a very limited copacity (thank god). I don't feel that it's in the least bit notable. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The article had a subsection on.... Indigenous Ways of Knowing. Basically, an attempted end-run around the AfD. I have strongly suggested to Xicanx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that they check in here and get up to speed with the concepts of collaboration and consensus before proceeding any further with these attempts to create problematic "Indigenous" articles. @Xicanx: this is where we are. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. It helps to actually see a conversation happening rather than just being notified out of nowhere that the articles I've worked on have been deleted. I do think that the way this second deletion has occurred is unfair, especially considering that the article Two-Eyed Seeing was entirely based on reputable sources (much more clear than Indigenous ways of knowing [which I can see was less clear and based on concepts/application that were less clear]) and cited publications from 2020, 2019, 2018, etc. The definition of the term also explicitly used the phrase Indigenous ways of knowing. I did not, just as I did not before, make up this term or create it out of thin air. It just interested me, this attempt to bridge and compare perspectives (as broad and 'problematic' as that may be) in a world that is so obviously out of balance. However, I do not want to have any ongoing 'feud' (lol) with anyone or whatever. So, with that said, I will not create any articles on 'Indigenous ways of knowing' as that is what is appeared to be desired. Thank you again for the invitation. Xicanx (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done some more looking for sources which reference the 'problematic' elements of Two-Eyed Seeing, and I have found zero. All I keep finding are more and more (not a small amount) which use the framework as a research method. For the record, here are many published from 2020 and 2021 on Two-Eyed Seeing:

• A Two-Eyed Seeing Context-based Approach for Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into School Science Teaching
• ‘Two-eyed seeing’: the integration of spiritual care in Aboriginal residential aged care in South Australia
• (Re)claiming our bodies using a Two-Eyed Seeing approach: Health-At-Every-Size (HAES®) and Indigenous knowledge
• Envisioning indigenized geography: a two-eyed seeing approach
• Positionality and Research: “Two-Eyed Seeing” With a Rural Ktaqmkuk Mi’kmaw Community
• Two‐eyed seeing: A useful gaze in Indigenous medical education research
• Two-eyed seeing of the integration of oral health in primary health care in Indigenous populations: a scoping review
• “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management
• Co‐creating better healthcare experiences for First Nations children and youth: The FIRST approach emerges from Two‐Eyed seeing
• Reimagining conservation translocations through two-eyed seeing.

Here's more from 2019 and 2018:

• An Application of Two-Eyed Seeing: Indigenous Research Methods With Participatory Action Research
• A Two-Eyed Seeing Approach to Research Ethics Review: An Indigenous Perspective
• A “two-eyed seeing” approach to Indigenizing nursingcurricula
• Using Two-Eyed Seeing to Explore Interagency Collaboration
• “Two-eyed seeing” supports wildlife health
• Using Two-Eyed Seeing in Research With Indigenous People: An Integrative Review
• Indigenous works and two eyed seeing: mapping the case for indigenous-led research
• Using two-eyed seeing to bridge Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems and understand long-term change in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada

I could go on, but I think the point has been illustrated. This is why these arguments and actions are confusing, considering the amount of sources discussing this topic. It's not just 'a few articles', as was argued. If it's about removing information you personally do not agree with, just say that. I'd accept that because that appears to be more truthful rather than these other types of arguments (attempts to frame something that isn't actually there). Anyway, I still stand by what I said about not recreating this page or related pages because I personally do not have the energy to engage. I am stating this for the record. Thank you. Xicanx (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This has zero to do with our personal opinions on the material. You wrote an article misrepresenting that this is utiltized by, and authorized by, the Elders of a specific community. I was contacted by representatives of said Elders / community with information about how this material wound up in academic papers, how it's being misrepresented, and who adamantly insisted that they not be misrepresented this way. As an admin, and as a member of this wikiproject, I take these issues of ethical representation very seriously. Not every paper or article that gets written is a good, reliable, or ethical source, especially when it comes to Indigenous issues, which are fraught with misrepresentation, exploitation, and academics trying to make careers out of violating cultural boundaries. If you had actual contact with, and respect for, the communities you are trying to write about you would know this. We are not just here to document anything and everything that someone somewhere has written about. Please consider these issues of boundaries and Indigenous Sovereignty. They are more important than Publish or Perish. At least to Indigenous people and relatives. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 02:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If it was a misrepresentation, it was a misrepresentation on the part of numerous sources and the authors themselves. I did not write that the concept was "authorized by" anyone. I wrote that it originated from a particular origin (which was supported by several sources). The concept has since been applied by numerous academics, some of whom identify as Indigenous and some of whom are not non-Indigenous. In any event, thank you for your informative message. Best. Xicanx (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"some of whom identify as Indigenous." I am going to have an aneurysm. Yuchitown (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

I have been reflecting on this situation a lot. I realize I was way too obsessed with creating these pages. I put a lot of time into creating them, so when they were proposed to be deleted, it was overwhelming. I took it way too personally. This is not an attempt to excuse how I responded, just a reflection. I am one of those people who are stuck in their own head constantly and are overly sensitive. I also overthink way too much. I need to be better about letting things go before I react in a way that causes them to escalate just because I am hurt in the moment, because all that does is cause more pain for others and traps me in my head even more. It doesn't matter if I think I am 'right' or if I think something is 'unfair.' There's a lot of things I need to work on, like becoming more emotionally mature. I apologize for this unnecessary situation and the effects of it. Xicanx (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible notable Omaha

An IP tried to add Josephine Barnaby von Felden as a notable Ohama with these edits. I reverted with my standard reason of "Notability not established, no WP article". Other than this book published by the Omaha Tribal Research Project, on-line sources are very thin. I did find here that she was in charge of the day school at Fond du Lac in 1901, and was considered to be one of the best teachers working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If anyone has access to better sources than I do, this looks like a worthy subject for development into an article. - Donald Albury 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Input would be helpful at Native Americans and hot springs

Opinions, whatever they are, are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Americans and hot springs.4meter4 (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment Rolling Thunder (person)

And could use more eyes. The grandson of Rolling Thunder (person), aka John Pope, has been editing the article to remove criticism and add his own books about his grandfather. He has started a Request for Comment at Talk:Rolling Thunder (person)#He's a fake. Feel free to jump straight to the recent stuff under the personal attack: "User CorbieVreccan blatantly lying and distorting facts on this page". Cheers. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

COI user has now been indef-blocked at ANI from editing the bio page, but is not blocked from the rest of WP. Page has a history of quacking driveby IPs and SPA account disruption. The RfC was malformed; not sure what the point of it was supposed to be. User has vowed to continue to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, so ongoing situation could still use eyes. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Input needed on renaming discussion on Dakota War of 1862 page

Discussion and voting are going on right now on the possible renaming of the page Dakota War of 1862 to U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Myotus (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Article issues

A review needs to be performed on Haida people. There are issues to include a 2007 "More citations needed" tag and this is not in line with the criteria (especially #1). Otr500 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Native American cultures in Template:Paganism. Removed, but could use more eyes

Despite the template documentation stating that the template does not belong on Indigenous pages, there was a Native American / Indigenous religions section. I have removed it. But this could use more eyes as I would not be surprised if someone tries to add the section back. Template documentation reads:

Note: A general consensus has been agreed that this template should only be placed on articles that are about general Paganism, where more specific templates such as [the Neopaganism template] are not more appropriate. There are other templates on Modern Paganism and specific traditions. Do not add this template to Abrahamic or Indigenous religions that are not considered Pagan.

- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Worse, the same user that ignored the template documentation to recently add the section went through and added the template to a whole bunch of Native articles. I'm surprised it went largely unnoticed till now. I just spent a lot of time that could have been better used going through like a bot and removing all that damage. No fun. *sigh* Next time I'll ping someone to run autowikbrowser or similar. Feel free to check if I missed any, or to make sure it doesn't get added back. I've also had to keep things like the Smudging article out of the witchcraft templates and similar stuff. You can check for this disruption by using the "what links here" feature in the sidebar of articles. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, It was re-added to the template. I tried expressing my view on it through the talk page rather than revert that section of the template again. --ARoseWolf 13:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. That user does not have consensus to do this. They think their opinion outweighs consensus and tribal definitions. They are wrong. I have reverted and warned them again. Feel free to do the same if they start up again and you see it first. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I will help watch for any changes to the template and revert if needed. Thank you for your continued watch for these type issues and letting the community know so we can assist. --ARoseWolf 19:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've also noted on the template talk page that there is already a nav template for Native religion articles. It's embedded in Template:Religion_topics. While that is the place to do any needed improvements, I think, we will still need to watch out for this user making a mess of things, as they are obviously not familiar enough with the subject matter and have their own biases they are trying to assert here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Modern Métis Woman AfC

Please can someone help with a review of the Draft:Modern Métis Woman. The AfC (Article for creation) is awaiting approval, and it's my first article. If anyone can help with a review, and edit, to be sure the "Tone" is correct, I would appreciate it. Is is also possible for help in an "official review" so the article can be approved? This is a registered charity that provides scholarships to indigenous woman. Noapplause (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Neoshamanism and Harner's claims about Native "shamans" etc

Yikes. Someone is overhauling Neoshamanism and including Michael Harner's claims to have studied with "shamans" of various Native American Nations as fact. Even though only Harner claimed this. Also claiming that neoshamans do real sweat lodge ceremonies instead of imitation ones. Needs more eyes. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ughhhhh...they keep coming don't they? --ARoseWolf 20:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lunaapeewak People

At London, Ontario, the history section states that London is within the traditional land of the Lunaapeewak People. I have searched for a source to support this, but have found very little history about the Lunaapeewak. If an editor with expertise in Indigenous history could suggest a reliable source regarding the Lunaapeewak People and a map of their settlement I would appreciate it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Magnolia677, quick glance and found something from the London Music Office, City of London[1]. --ARoseWolf 13:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

They are Munsee. I added wikilinks to the article, which hopefully will help people better understand who these people all are. Ahalenia (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia

Magnolia677 Further a statement from the SCCDSB in the neighboring St. Clair County acknowledgement [2]. I think this is a neat little read summarizing a little history from someone with direct ancestral ties [3]. The Museum of Ontario Archaeology has an example of a longhouse, typical used by most of the cultures spanning from as far south as the Carolina's north to eastern Canada stretching to the mid-west/Great Lakes area. This included the Delaware people (Lunaapeew or Lenape). The Delaware were forced out of their lands by colonial expansion and the expansion of neighboring tribes. Some Delaware's even made it to Oklahoma where they purchased land from the Cherokee who were, themselves, forcefully relocated (See Delaware Nation). The Delaware languages were called Munsee and Unami, respectively. --ARoseWolf 14:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Slight correction: The so-called "Cherokee Delaware" are now the Delaware Tribe of Indians. The Delaware Nation is a separate tribe based in southwestern Oklahoma. The overwhelming majority of Delaware people today are based in Oklahoma. Ahalenia (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia

@ARoseWolf and Ahalenia: Thanks for your help. All those acknowledgments are just an identical text that has been copied and pasted by various universities and civic groups, but none are supported by any sources. Is there a map or some reliable source that shows the Lunaapeewak in Southern Ontario? Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This Magazine article from 2018 places the Delaware, Lunaapeew or Lenape people historically being in Oklahoma, Illinois, Ontario, starting around the mid 17oo's to early 1800's, with smaller bands left in New England. Still no maps indicating this but they are recognized by the Canadian government. This [4] gives a brief synopsis of the Delaware Nation at Moraviantown. I think what I find more sad out of all of this is that Muncey, Ontario redirects to Strathroy-Caradoc and completely leaves out any mention of its Indigenous/Native past though Muncey very clearly was derived from the Munsee --ARoseWolf 17:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The settlement of Muncey is located on the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation reserve, slightly upriver from the Munsee-Delaware Nation reserve, and roughly adjacent to the Oneida Nation of the Thames reserve. I would redirect Muncey, Ontario to the Munsee-Delaware reserve, if not for that odd geography. Which should it be? I agree that redirecting to Strathroy-Caradoc is bad. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector If you actually look at the defined lines of each reserve, Muncey falls between the Chippewa and Oneida reserve, but each of the three holds land within the surrounding community. What is really odd is that the town of Delaware, which is most likely taken from the Delaware village mentioned in the treaty below, says nothing about the Delaware people for which it may have been named. Maybe it came from somewhere else? I don't know but it's fascinating. It does say there is an Iroquoian village replica in Delaware. --ARoseWolf 12:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There may be more info on the history of the village of Delaware in that article's history: several years ago a researcher wrote substantial info there but it was removed IIRC because it was their own research and otherwise entirely unsourced. The reconstruction might be referring to Ska-nah-doht (spelling from a 30-year-old memory), at Longwoods Conservation Area, a few km west of the town and north of the reserves. I'll try to look up more info later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the best starting point for understanding the history of the Munsee-Delaware Nation: see Chapter 18. Information on the Munsee at Delaware, Ontario is harder to come by. Robertson equates an "Upper Delaware village" mentioned in the writings of Gov. and Mrs. Simcoe with Delaware, and Hamil mentions "bands of Indians from the Monsey and Delaware towns." As far as I can tell, virtually no details are known regarding how the groups who inhabited the places called Muncey and Delaware were connected. Cobblet (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Excellent sources!! Thank you for providing this. It fills in a few gaps in information for me. The maps were very helpful. --ARoseWolf 17:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Great question! Pinging Dnllnd in case she has any ideas from the nearby University of Waterloo. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There are the people you are looking for: Munsee-Delaware Nation. Ahalenia (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia

@Ahalenia: Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Kind of off-topic, or at least a side note, but maybe Muncey, Ontario needs to be redirected to that article instead? --ARoseWolf 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

My concern at London, Ontario is that it says the Munsee-Delaware Nation was located there, but it is actually located a distance southwest of London. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Magnolia677 I think this is pretty definitive. The treaty of London Township was entered into by the Chippewas and the British Crown. The document states the grant started some 19 miles upriver from the Delaware Village. I'd say the Chippewa People were there. The Delaware were already established some 19 miles down river from the treaty grant. Treaty of London Township (1796) --ARoseWolf 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretendian

Hi all -

Following Jacqueline Keeler's publication of her spreadsheet of Pretendians, I thought it overdue to create an article on the same. I can imagine that this page will not be uncontentious, and I am not around on wiki as often as I should be, so please take a look and add to your watchlists if you have time.Vizjim (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That was some extraordinarily quick and thorough work!—Yuchitown (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Anything to avoid the project I'm actually getting paid to work on. Vizjim (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Good job! 18:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Indian School

We really need more eyes here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 04:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

POV push is proceeding, removal of, and ignoring of, sources that document abuse, in favor of a p.r. push and whitewashing. I have other stuff going on right now, very limited time for W.P., and am outnumbered. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

For instance, users trying to insist that people chose to send their kids there, and ignoring sources - even Catholic sources - that stress that parents were misled about what they were sending their kids into, and testimony from former students about how they were forced to write letters saying they were OK when they were actually being abused. All of this has been posted on talk, but the POV pushers are ignoring it and I have limited time to deal with this right now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, I am trying to hold the line in regards to having the truth kept in the article without turning the talk page and article into a battleground. It is very troubling if editors decide to ignore all the sources provided simply because one source may not be verifiable online. No where does it state that a source must be verifiable online in order to be kept. They seem to be stuck on the one Landrum source but, even if, there are other sources that corroborate the statements if they cared to look. --ARoseWolf 15:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been busy offline, unfortunately. Do we have any publication data for Landrum. Policy is that it stays if it's readable, even if it's only readable at the University. The data they want to remove her for is available on their own website, as well. They admit they were/are a classic residential school with assimilation as the goal. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I have searched everywhere. I can find another thesis paper she did when she went for her doctorate at Oklahoma State, I believe, but it studied two other schools and not St. Joseph's. SDU most definitely has a copy of this thesis in their possession. I have found out that much. I have even emailed someone I know in SD to see if its viewable at the university. I helped organize a protest at Mount Rushmore a few years ago and that's where I cam into contact with some Lakota. Haven't had much contact with them since before the COVID pandemic but figured it was worth the attempt. --ARoseWolf 19:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

See what I just posted on talk. You already posted what we needed with the Worldcat ID. With that, policy is that it can be included. We just add that link to the citation and her work, and what it cites, can be added back. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Attempts to add fringe theories at Black Indians in the United States

Pre-Columbian Black Indians - The term Black Indian may also refer to pre-Columbian black peoples in the United States, as well as elsewhere in North, Central, and South America. There are historical reports of black indigenous Americans, and many scholars have asserted that black populations existed in the Americas at and/or prior to European contact.

Either unsourced or sourced to non-RS sources for the field. This is a fringe theory usually promoted by anti-Indigenous groups who then characterize Native Americans as Asian. I haven't gone over all the "sources" being cited yet, but no reputable scholars believe this stuff, and it has been wielded by certain groups with harmful intent. User is quacking a bit so this may need SPI, as well. Just getting on it after a complaint. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas esp the map of Haplogroup X

Our genetics articles are often not exactly stellar, but for this one I'm particularly concerned about the maps, in particular the one for Haplogroup X (mtDNA) (where the map is also used), a haplogroup often used to make fringe claims about the origins of Native Americans. I'm not at all convinced we should have this map (which is OR in any case). It is only the X2a subclade that is found in North America. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagreement on Article Etienne de Périer who decided destruction of the Natchez people in 1731

Hi, there is a disagreement on Article Etienne de Périer who decided destruction of the Natchez people in 1731. A consensus must be found. If your are intested by the subjet your opinions are welcome on Talk:Étienne de Perier. --Belyny (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It is wise to broaden the debate, but do not present these arguments alone. You are still not objective. Try again. --LouisianaDavis (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

From 1726 to 1733 he was governor of the French Louisiana where he tried to control the Native Americans with fear[2][3], seeking to enslave and ensure the complete destruction of the Natchez people in 1731

These links are messed up. GenQuest ^"scribble"

On Wikipedia we follow the sources. NPOV does not mean that an article has to be balanced between showing someone as equally "good and evil" or positive and negative. We lay bare the realities of the sources but do so in a neutral way. Sources can be extremely biased and still be included if they meet the actual criteria for a source. If we are directly quoting that source then the exact wording can be used when attributed to said source. If we are going to speak in the voice of the encyclopedia then we must use neutral terms without diluting the enormity of the situation or denying fact as proven. In direct response to LouisianaDavis, no one is really objective. There are no objective people in this world because we all are inherently flawed with both a blessing and curse, we can and do form opinions, usually based on our own experiences but almost entirely on our own view looking outward. It is why I typically say we all have a conflict of interest in some way or another. Our experiences form interests and interests form opinions and opinions, undoubtedly, involve conflict. These are conflicts of interest that we can, hopefully, find some kind of mutual agreement on or, at the very least, come to a consensus about without denying or altering facts. We don't have to make this guy look good if, upon finding sourced facts, it is determined that he did bad things. Neither do we have to make him look bad. We do nothing except tell his sourced story. It was his life. He lived it. All we do is allow the sources to guide us on his journey. --ARoseWolf 17:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

American Indian boarding schools moved without discussion

See Talk:History of American Indian schools#Scope of this article and potential American Indian school articles. This was done by one of the same editors from the St. Joseph's article. I have strongly suggested that he self-revert and follow policy. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Add University of Minnesota Morris as within this WikiProject's scope?

Hi, I was wondering if we should maybe add this page to the scope of this Project, as it used to be a native boarding school and there is still a large native presence on campus. It is currently the target of a student-led campaign to search the school's grounds for graves after all the news about Canadian residential schools. Thank you! -IKJade (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Need input on a recent page moved without discussion from Kewa Pueblo back to Santo Domingo Pueblo

Hello fellow editors, Additional eyes and/or feedback could be used on a recent change (the move, at least to my eyes seems controvertial but in good faith), however it would be useful to hear other voices on this).

The article on Kewa Pueblo, a very-much-alive pueblo of Keresan-speaking federally-recognized Puebloan peoples in the Rio Grande Valley of Northern New Mexico, was formerly called Santo Domingo Pueblo which had been named by the Spanish conquistadores in the 17th C.

One of the rationale given was that the Kewa name-change was unsourced, but this is not correct. A citation exists in the article a little further down in the history section sourced to the major New Mex newspaper:[5].

The other rationale is that the CDP (Census designated place) name is still in use. (?) What complicates matters, at least to my mind, is that most maps still use Santo Domingo, however the Kewa pueblo people themselves has officially decided on the name change in 2010. Even the RailRunner (State commuter train) uses Kewa Pueblo. I do not think the move was made in bad faith, but rather that the editor may not have read through the article to find that source. Any thoughts? Netherzone (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a "no brainer" to me. If we have sources that show that the people officially changed their name to Kewa Pueblo back in 2010 then Wikipedia should reflect this. The only time I would disagree is if no sources could be found to verify this. I trust your judgement here, @Netherzone. --ARoseWolf 20:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I dropped my thoughts on the talk page. If you two were to leave your input as well that would be very helpful. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Pliny the Elderberry, done, thank you. And thank you ARoseWolf for your feedback Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

List of Native American firsts

Stumbled upon List of Native American firsts, and it's so rife with errors, it seems like a good candidate for TNT, but I've had terrible luck trying to convince Wikipedians to delete any Native-related articles. What do you all think? Yuchitown (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

It also seems pretty scattershot. I don't understand why first contact between Cherokees and Europeans and first contact between Navahoes and Spanish are on the list, but not numerous prior first contacts between other indigenous peoples and Europeans. It reads like click-bait, but I can see why it would be hard to get it deleted. - Donald Albury 12:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It does seem like a random selection. The errors should be removed. I don't really care one way or another if it is deleted, however what I do find potentially useful are the redlinks. If it gets TNT'd-AfD'd it may be a good idea to save these redlinks somewhere (a user page/sandbox?) to research the ones that have enough sources out there to support new articles. Netherzone (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Native American newspapers

A colleague has created this page and would like to see it get some attention from knowledgeable editors. Passing this on for them. Vizjim (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Native American newspapers Vizjim (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Promising draft article

As one of my tasks, I go through expiring drafts and I found one that looks like it might be a potential article, Draft:Boys With Braids. It's about a social media movement, started in Canada, to make young indigenous boys feel proud about their long hair. The draft contains some solid sources but they have to be included in the text of the draft and right now they are just listed at the bottom of the page. I think for an experienced content creator, it wouldn't be a big job but that is not one of my strengths so I postponed the deletion and am bringing it to the attention of this WikiProject. I hope someone can help. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The draft focuses strongly on Michael Linklater. Only one of the listed sources does not start off being about Linklater. Much of the biographical material on him in the draft seems to also be covered in his own article. One of the listed sources, at michaellinklater.com, is currently private. I'm thinking that, pending finding more sources that concentrate on the movement rather than on Linklater, Boys with Braids could be adequately covered for now in the Advocacy section of Linklater's article, with a redirect from "Boys With Braids". - Donald Albury 16:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles for inclusion

Hello WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. In 2018 I created two articles which I believe are suitable for inclusion within your project: William Ralganal Benson and Mary Knight Benson. Kind regards to all, Hu Nhu (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a place to notify project members of articles for deletion?

Here is a recent article for deletion discussion taking place. Is there a better place to post this notice? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It automatically gets listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Article alerts if the WikiProject is listed on the article talk page, which is the case with this AfD. You can "subscribe" to Article Alert notifications by placing those of interest on your watch list. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Choctaw

This article is twice as long as the recommended article length. It's almost unreadable. I've been trying to summarize sections and shortened it. Are there more experienced Wikipedians who might offer solutions? There isn't a general Choctaw history article. Are there protocols for cleaving a giant section out of a general article to create a more specific article? Yuchitown (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Since the history sections are the biggest part of this article, you can just create a new article entitled History of the Choctaw and move all the history material from this article into it. You'll need to write a synopsis of the material as the lede for the new article. Generally the lede should have a paragraph for each section of the body. You can then copy the synopsis to this article with appropriate citations. See WP:SPLIT for more details. Indyguy (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. I figured it wasn't okay to just copy-and-paste the history sections into a new article, but damn, that is an involved process. Yuchitown (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Don't lose hope, Yuchitown. There are brilliant minds here and amazing writers involved in this project. I think you are on the right path with a split and we will work together to make it happen should the community agree with the proposal. --ARoseWolf 14:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that! And thank you for voting on the split discussion at Talk:Choctaw/Archives/2022/March#Splitting_proposal. Yuchitown (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

By the way, when you’re copying and pasting into a new article, it’s allowed, but you do have to include an attribution link at the talk page. If you want to ping @Diannaa:, she can explain what to do. Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There's two steps: Include an edit summary at the destination article that says where you got the content from. Sample edit summary: Copied (or moved) content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution. The {{Copied}} template goes on the talk page of both the sending and the receiving articles. Here's a streamlined version with the essential parameters: {{Copied |from = |to = |to_diff = |date = }}. The template is optional; the edit summary is mandatory. There's full details at WP:Copying within Wikipedia.— Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sappony

Can some of you look at Sappony and the recently opened discussion at Talk:Sappony? I have gotten into a dispute with @Federer20201: over the article, and I am recusing myself from further action there. - Donald Albury 23:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Dene music

… is currently up for deletion. I'm finding it difficult to think of an appropriate resolution. There's an apparent dearth of sources. One option I thought of was using Drum dance to create an article on the Dene drum dance, which is the main point of departure for most ethnographic studies on Dene music. But then it turns out there are sources on drum dance(s) in the Great Lakes region (see [6], [7], [8]). I suppose the article could be divided into sections on the Great Lakes drum dance and the Dene drum dance. Thoughts and expertise welcome. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn the nomination. Your latest source definitely tipped the scales in favour of keep-and-improve. The original article's use of the most expansive version of Dene identity threw me off. Vizjim (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Language diversity conversation on Maryana's listening tour

Bogreudell, I logged in to respond to a wiki-friend and email some family and saw your question on my talk page. Not sure when I will log in next so I figured this was as good of a place as any to send you to. The Cherokee Wikipedia is and has been basically inactive for over a year so I doubt many if any would respond there. I am sure there are others here that may be interested in your question so please repeat and extend your invitation to this project. Good luck to you and I wish I could attend. I find languages and cultures to be fascinating and enlightening. I wish I could be here to experience it. This is a great project full of amazing and valuable editors from all paths in life. I probably wont respond again as I am logging out. --ARoseWolf 20:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Thank you so much for your response while away and for your recommendation. I'm sorry to hear that Cherokee Wikipedia has become inactive. I'll leave a section here inviting anyone to join the event! — Bogreudell (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Language diversity roundtable with WMF CEO tomorrow, Wednesday 11/10

My name is Daniel and I’m the director of Wikitongues, which helps people get started with mother-tongue documentation and revitalization. We also maintain a User Group and have organized a roundtable chat about language diversity within the Wikimedia movement as part of Wikimedia CEO Maryana Iskander’s listening tour. We would be honored if anyone from WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America could join us, especially if you have contributed to or are actively involved in any mother-tongue Wiki projects, from mother-tongue Wikipedias to adding your language to Commons, Wiktionary, etc. From the opposite end, if you have been unable to initiate or participate in any mother-tongue Wiki projects and have feedback for Maryana about how things could be improved, your insights would be valuable.

If you’re free on Wednesday 11/10 @ 10 am ET, I can add you to the calendar invite. Just reply to this post with your email. If you can't attend but have ideas or questions for Maryana, please reply to this post with your comments and the Wiki project you represent, and I will pass them along. I apologize for the short notice, here: Maryana's schedule has filled up fast and we were only able to secure this last-minute time slot!

Thank you very or in my ancestral language, Yiddish, a sheynem dank. — Bogreudell (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Braves (Native Americans)

The Braves (Native Americans) article is a mess - lots of unsupported statements, broad brush stereotyping, colonial sources etc. I changed it to a redirect to Stereotypes of indigenous peoples of Canada and the United States, but this has been reverted due to lack of discussion. Rather than get into an argument over being bold, etc, I've taken it to the talk page. Would appreciate input from project members there.Vizjim (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

My first impression is that while the article is poorly sourced, it does make it clear that the term is an ethnic stereotype. I think we need to improve the article rather than make it go away. - Donald Albury 14:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That may be because I've done some radical surgery on the article today. Here's the version that was up when I made the original comment [9].Vizjim (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And I have to admit that I was not able to find reliable sources that discuss the use of "brave" to refer to American Indian men. So I withdraw my argument to keep the article. - Donald Albury 16:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I responded at article talk. I think you can go ahead with the merge and redirect now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with redirecting the article to one about ethnic stereotypes because a lot of reliably sourced information on Native American culture and warfare was lost. The problem seems to be with the title, not the subject matter, and therefore I have renamed it Native American Warrior and replaced controversial terms like "brave" with more neutral ones like "warrior". 53zodiac (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes that 53zodiac made, because they simply returned the article to being a mish-mash of various tribes along with stereotyping assumptions that all Native American peoples are Plains Indians (the equivalent would be an article on European soldier, and there's a reason that that doesn't exist). It's useful to have the page as a redirect for exactly that reason. However, 53zodiac is also correct that there was quite a bit of perfectly good, sourced material on that page. I would suggest extracting that information and adding it to less broad-brush articles. A lot of it could go into American Indian Wars, then there are more specific articles such as Eagle feather law where some of this info might find a home. Vizjim (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As discussed on the talkpage of the redirected article, wouldn't it make more sense to change the wording of the text to refer only to the Plains Native American warriors who fought in the Indian Wars of the mid to late 19th century? Perhaps a title like Plains Native American Warriors in the 19th century would be more acceptable? 53zodiac (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That title seems overly specific to the point of being absurd. I agree with merging it into the Stereotype article as the best course of action along with moving other materials in already existing pages.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland

Hello, I am Smerdyakov911 and I am working on an article for Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland. I am running into some roadblocks finding reputable sources and I would love some feedback. User:Smerdyakov911/Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland. I also don't know how to remove the hyphen from the title. Also open to suggestions if there are articles that are higher priority, this was just one of the first ones I saw. Thanks. Smerdyakov911 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There are *so* many Alaska Native tribes and villages that are redlinked. Some of these are quite large and influential but are still redlinked. Yuchitown (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Yuchitown, I jumped online for a few minutes to kill some time. I don't have long but I will do what I can with the list. I know Anaktuvuk Pass has an article so I will link it. --ARoseWolf 17:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lee_Maracle_and_MOS:ETHNICITY

Watchers may be interested in this discussion I just started. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Eskimo archery

Input welcomed on the talk page of the article Eskimo archery. Quite apart from the use of past tense throughout the article, the article should also probably be moved to Inuit archery.Vizjim (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Massachusett

Massachusett is insanely long, but the overwhelming majority of the text is not about the Massachusett tribe but regional groups. I flagged it for being inadequately referenced and being too long, but any help welcome! Yuchitown (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

I found most of the text to be related to the tribe, but removed what seemed like it could be deleted without taking away context. Since you tagged it, are you planning on doing the work to resolve it? It's my pet peeve on Wikipedia when people lazily tag something as being too long but doing nothing to fix it, like creating a new page for the history section and then summarizing the contents.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will work on the article; however, I do have gainful employment, family, etc. The point of tagging it and posting here is to step back and get other people's perspectives and feedback. WP:AGF. Most everything after the 17th century is a goulash of New England tribal histories, with a lot of material about Wampanoags, not Massachusett people. Yuchitown (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

I would just like to say that one reason I may tag an article rather than just fixing it is that I may not know the subject very well, and hope that the tag will jog someone else who knows more about the subject to work on it. I also believe it is better to tag a problem, even if I don't have the time or knowledge to fix it right away, than it is to ignore the problem. - Donald Albury 01:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I got the bulk of the heavy lifting finished with Massachusett and setting up Praying Indians of Natick, but now real-world work takes precedent. If anyone wants projects, the articles about Native topics in New England are terrible. Even the biography stubs are riddled with errors. See Category:Native American history of Massachusetts. The surrounding states aren't much better. Yuchitown (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Frybread and Bannock - proposed merge

These articles seem to be describing pretty much the same thing, but with different names from First Nations and Native American nations. Suggest merging (discussion is on the Frybread talk page.) Vizjim (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"King Hendrick"

Can anyone help me figure out who this is? King Hendrick (a WP:INTDAB) refers to two people, but neither of the transliterations of their names seem very close to "Soi-en-ga-rah-ta". The closest seems to be Sayenqueraghta, which page 473 of this old journal identifies with "King Hendrick" without citing Schoolcraft. A recent book about the two Hendricks mentions "Soi-en-ga-rah-ta" but the relevant portion of it isn't on my Google preview. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The answer is: it's both of them. I got The Two Hendricks from the library. Henry Schoolcraft relied on Giles F. Yates, who conflated the two Hendricks. See Hinderaker, Eric (2011). The two Hendricks : unraveling a Mohawk mystery. Harvard University Press. pp. 283–284. ISBN 978-0-674-03579-9. OCLC 318875573.

[In 1846] Schoolcraft published an expanded second edition [of Notes on the Iroquois]. … Though the first edition contained no mention of Hendrick, the second … included a long biographical sketch of him. Schoolcraft relied for his account on correspondence with Giles F. Yates, a local historian of the Mohawk Valley. … [284] Yates got a few things right, but his account of Hendrick contained many errors of fact, nearly all of which have long persisted in other historical accounts. Yates erroneously gave Hendrick the Mohawk name Soi-en-ga-rah-ta. He posits a single Hendrick who visited London twice …

Talk:Jimi Hendrix#Heritage

Could use more eyes, notably from members who understand what are and are not reliable sources on Cherokee heritage. The long-debunked claim was in the article as if WP:BLOODMYTHS are WP:RS; I took care of it; now it's on talk. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Content essay

@CorbieVreccan, @Yuchitown, @Indigenous_girl and some other members will already be aware of this, but a while ago there was work done in my sandbox on an Wikiproject essay on determining Indigenous American identities. Have now moved this into Wikiproject space. Have a look to see if it needs more work, please, and then we need to determine where it should be placed on the Wikiproject page etc. Vizjim (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and First Nations identities

@CorbieVreccan: Could you add the redirects for the Shortcuts? Then shall we add this to the front page? I have to confess I don't know how to do that. Vizjim (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That's what I was just doing :) : Shortcuts made: WP:NATIVE-IDENTITY, WP:NDNID, WP:BLOODMYTH, WP:NOTCHEROKEE, WP:NOTNDN - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a Resources section on the main page, up fairly high. We sort of have that in a couple places, but I only see a few books listed. Some of the resources I think we need to list are in the essay itself. We also have a discussion on doing a style guide, which we never completed, that should be included (linked as-is for now, and can certainly be put into finished form at some point... unless we did and it's slipped my mind where we put it...). - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I did a bit of restructuring and added some content. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Alaska Native tribal entities ‎

Pinging @Yuchitown:: I have done what I can with redirects to either articles or sections of articles in which the particular tribal entity is mentioned. Those will suffice to allow readers to find more information until an article on the specific entity is written. I made sure to follow the advice of the list and not just assume that because there is a village by the name of the entity that the village should be directly linked unless it was stated in the article that it is one and the same, even if I know it to be the case. It's better to err on the side of caution. At some point soon I hope to begin researching and gathering reliable sources to write articles on the tribal entities themselves which will replace the redirects and red links on the list. I encourage anyone else to do the same if they feel so inclined and I would be happy to collaborate with any other editor to turn these red links blue. --ARoseWolf 16:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That is fantastic! It unbelievably impressive how many entries you could bluelink on List of Alaska Native tribal entities! Yuchitown (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

You could, theoretically, link them all because almost every one of them is linked to an actual village or community (with an article), however, because not all villages are Native run or run by the entities themselves that would be a nightmare to try and verify with a reliable source. That's why more could not be turned blue at this time. Still, many were able to be linked to something which will give a reader more information than they had with just a name. I learned somethings by doing this so thank you for mentioning it. --ARoseWolf 14:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Chaco Culture National Historical Park Featured article review

I have nominated Chaco Culture National Historical Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ratified Indian Treaties between the US and Native nations

Greetings,

I and a few colleagues are working to augment the information available about the series known as the Ratified Indian Treaties. These are some of the treaties that appear in the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties#U.S.-Native_American_treaties . Others do not yet appear in that list. For some of the Ratified Indian Treaties there is not yet a Wikipedia page or subsection of a page.

Any of you who have working with the treaties before (or tried to find them!) appreciate what a complicated matter it is to build out a list. We have been working on this with two goals:

1) We have at our site DigiTreaties.org images of the official original copies of the treaties, transferred from the US State Department and now newly conserved and scanned by the US National Archives and made available online with additional context (thanks to an anonymous donor). Sometimes the text of a treaty is hard to find. These images also provide the original document, including signatures and sometimes clan markings of the Native signatories, official seals, wampum, and other visually based items of interest. We think it's worth including a link to the original treaty on our site because of the rich primary source resources and additional context.

2) We are in the process of assembling a list of links of the Ratified Indian Treaties entries on Wikipedia so that each page featuring a treaty on DigiTreaties.org will link to Wikipedia. We'd like people who visit our site -- there are many and we have high search engine results -- to go on to Wikipedia for more exploring about the treaty, the history, and the tribes. Also, sometimes people write to us with additional information about the treaty, and Wikipedia seems a good place for some of this important information to get added.

When there is not already a Wikipedia page, we are conducting research and writing at least a stub page to get things going. Another approach we've tried is adding a subsection when it seems like a good fit for a lengthy history section of a particular tribe's page.

As far as #1: I must give my apologies. We are all very new at Wikipedia. I drafted up some template text on how to add a link to the original treaty image on DigiTreaties.org and consequently we may have used text that looks spammy, but really our intent is that we just want to get people this information.

Working together, we added the link to the original image of the treaty on the respective Wikipedia pages, but mea culpa our language caught the eye of someone who has deleted almost everything.

I wonder if you could help us find a way to find a way to make these additions to Wikipedia that is supported by the project and thus a lot less likely to be deleted?

Thank you! Povipin (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and revert one of those changes that got deleted. You should make it clear the IDA is partnered with the National archives. Perhaps even create a Wikipedia page for it (if others think that's a good idea). I personally do agree that these should be linked on Wikipedia articles related to the treaties.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Just for an example, here is a Wikipedia article on the Bdote Memory Map, a similar online Indigenous educational resource, if you want an idea of how a page for the IDA could look. You could start it in your sandbox and have folks from here help before moving onto it's own article page.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)