Wikipedia

User:CJLippert/archive/2006

< User:CJLippert

Additional "my contributions" edit

Here are additional "my contributions", wheather due to being a dolt and not logging in or the system logged me out and I didn't realise that it did.

Quick Ojibwe Question edit

Hi. Just a quick question. Would bakite'aa be a valid verb in Ojibwe, to say "he is hit"? Or would you have to say something like obakite'igaazo? Thanks, --Whimemsz 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that really depends. The word "bakite'waa" (with a -w-!) is "he is hit" (since "aa" indicates n3 goal). But more often you do need an actor, either n1 or n2, so you would see the word as nimbakite'waa or gibakite'waa... after all bakite' is (vta)... and its root is bakite'w=. If you are referring to n3, n3' or nX, with no goal, then you would use the (vai) form "bakite'igaazo", which turns up as bakite'igaazo, bakite'igaazowan and bakite'igaazom respectively. CJLippert 19:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Miigwech. --Whimemsz 19:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ojibwe graphics edit

Okay, I can fix the syllabary chart right now.

I took the Ojibwe map from Mithun 1999; that's about the extent she shows for it, and the maps are said to represent approximate language locations at the first European contact (although when that contact was obviously differed enormously depending on the people). Most of the maps in Mithun are, I believe, redrawn from those published in the Smithsonian's Handbook of North American Indians. I'll ask Ish if he knows what time the map is intended to show, and I'll try to look in some of the other books/resources I have, and see what I can find. Take care, --Whimemsz 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Native American Tribal Entities edit

Please see the note on Talk:List of Native American Tribal Entities about maintaining the list. It will be much easier to merge in current (2005) and future updates to the list (the BIA publishes the list regularly) if we don't add any more markup to it than neccessary. As such, and since the names listed there are names which have some official meaning, it's probably best to add redirect pages for the names listed by the BIA rather than editing List of Native American Tribal Entities directly. Thanks for your interest in fleshing out the list, and if you have the time to contribute to the effort, feel free to dive in, creating redirects for the many tribes that I haven't gotten to yet or writing articles for those that have no page on Wikipedia yet. Thanks again. -Harmil 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not make every reference to a state into a link on this page. The best way to approach this page is to think of it as a disambiguation page. Create a single link for most entries to the best source of information about that particular tribe. A second concern that I have is that you are linking tribes to reservations in many cases. Reservations and tribes are orthoganal. In most cases, it will be far more helpful to create a new article for the tribe if it does not exist than to direct a reader to the reservation article.
One further concern: these changes that you are making ARE based on the 2005 version, correct? For example, the removal of the "six component reservations" text was, in fact, a removal in the original, right? -Harmil 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the text is from FR70-226, pp.71194-71198. The names are as listed in order of listing. Sublistings are also listed in order of listing. Missing are words such as "(Six component reservations:...)" for the MCT before the sublisting of the six components and "(Four constituent bands:...)" before the sublistings of Te-Moak, and the addition of the words "Reservation" after each of the component Reservations of the Seminoles (FL), missing of the word "(includes...)" under Pit River's sublistings. CJLippert 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Missing text incorporated. CJLippert 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Lots of good work, thanks. -Harmil 05:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC) PS: I don't watch this page, so if you want to contact me, see User talk:Harmil.

Ojibwe Grammatical Person edit

" 3'p — animate [third person] obviative plural, or animate fourth person proximate plural"

According to Grammatical person, obviative = fourth person. If this is so, how do we have an animate obviative proximate plural person? Sounds rather strange to me. Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something.

Khepidjemwa'atnefru 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are two animate plural pronouns found in Ojibwe:

  • ogowedi (pr3p) = these SB over here
  • ogowedig (pr3p) = these SB over here
  • onowedi (pr3'p) = these SB over there
  • onowedin (pr3'p) = these SB over there

So yes, 3' = 4, and 3'p = 4p. However, the it wouldn't be called "animate obviative proximate plural person." It would be called either "animate obviative plural" or "obviative plural third person" or "proximate plural fourth person."

The closest thing I can give as an example in another language would be literary Japanese:

  • ware = 1 => I
  • kandi = 2 => Thou
  • kore = 3 => That person here/He
  • sore = 3' => That person there
  • kare = 3" => That person way over there
  • tare = X => Someone
  • warera = 1p => We
  • kandira = 2p => You
  • korera = 3p => Those persons here/They
  • sorera = 3'p => Those persons there
  • karera = 3"p => Those persons way over there
  • tarera = Xp => Some persons

Did this answer your question? CJLippert 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous American Barnstar edit

Awarded on 02:13, 25 March 2006 by Aaron Walden

Thanks! CJLippert 07:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

‎"‎װיקיפּעדיע‎"‎ and ‎"‎װיקיביבליאָטעק‎‎"‎ edit

Anishinaabe maps edit

Which tribes did you include in this grouping for these maps? For instance it appears you included the Sac and Fox which seems questionable. Rmhermen 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sac and Fox were not included. The prototype maps have now been deleted and instead replaced with one that represents the single timeframe of about year 1800 and it was then divided into the subdivisions of the Anishinaabeg. The image is strictly for the Anishinaabeg and the Anishininiwag. However, the more solid areas depicted in the map are where the population majorities are located while the less solid areas are more of a mixture. A good example of this is the southern Wisconsin/northeastern Illinois area where the Boodewaadamiiyag were located, but they were not the majority. Instead, the majority population were the Sac, Fox, and various members of the Iliniweg Confederacy (Moowiingwenaag, Gaaskaaskeyaag, etc.). CJLippert 17:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Image licenses edit

Hi CJLippert. I see that you've uploaded Image:Anish-1800.GIF, Image:Anish-1900.GIF and Image:Anish-2000.GIF, but did not specify a license for them. Since you created the images, you should choose an appropriate license and add it to the images' pages. Otherwise, your images may be deleted. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks! ~MDD4696 01:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The images Image:Anish-1400.GIF, Image:Anish-1500.GIF, Image:Anish-1600.GIF Image:Anish-1700.GIF, Image:Anish-1800.GIF, Image:Anish-1900.GIF and Image:Anish-2000.GIF are a set. However, they were put up for quick reference. These images may be deleted since they have served their purpose. CJLippert 02:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi CJLippert, I've deleted the above images as you requested. In the future, it would really help out if you could add {{db-author}} to the page of images you uploaded that need to be deleted. Thanks, Pagrashtak 23:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Virus article edit

Could you please use the information on this Japanese-language page to update the English Virus article? It would be much appreciated! --AlanH 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure can, but I am quite busy until around 15 May 2006, so any updates I provide will be some time after that date. CJLippert 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mud lakes edit

Hello,

You really seem to be interested in Mud Lakes ! Have fun editing ! Travelbird 14:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. After the Mud Lakes, I will be tackling the Rice Lakes. Then, I think I'll be laked-out for a while. CJLippert 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Central Asia edit

WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: BC Land Districts edit

I should have written a preamble to that section; there are only a few Land Districts in BC - New Westminster, Lillooet, Yale, Kootenay, Cowichan, Comox, Alberni, etc. A Land District is a specific thing in BC legal/landlaw language and history; it is not the same thing as a "district" in the sense of a muni, or even a traditional region (Cariboo, Omineca, Chilcotin etc), nor anything like a regional district. It is an underlying legal principle and historical survey system; the ones you've added are NOT Land Districts. What they can be broken off as and called I'm not sure, I'll have to look at the list. Gimme a bit and I'll dig up an 1896 map (maybe already ref'd on this page) that shows the Land District boundaries; they're immutable.Skookum1 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PS the reason there's not a main Land District article yet is I haven't looked up the legal language and statutes and purposes; probably best for me to call a Title Search company, although a friend is a historical/constitutional law prof at U.Vic and I should just email and ask him for a short definition/history.Skookum1 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I got the list straight from the BC Ministry of Environment. The Canadian Geographical Names Data Base maintained by Natural Resources Canada also uses these land districts. NRC also indicates these land districts are further divided into divisions. My impression is that, as you say, they are associated with cadastral survey, a legally binding land survey system, much like the Meets & Bounds (Federal Township-Range) system found in the United States. For the "district" in the sense of a municipality, the preferred term in BC seems to be Regional District, and not land district. CJLippert 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in common usage, "district" usually is a reference the a District Municipality, e.g. the District of Mission, and formerly the Districts of Burnaby, Surrey, etc (Langley is a "Township"). It may be that the Cedar District etc you've listed are subdivisions of their respective Land Districts, in that case it would the Nanaimo Land District; but in the usage I'm familiar with it would be "Cedar Division of the Nanaimo Land District"; it sounds like Cedar, etc are municipal districts, i.e. district municipalities; which yes, are what people mean when they say "District"; when we're talking about Regional Districts we generally say "RDs" or just "the Regional District"; if you say "the District" in terms of a political body (and not a region/area) you're definitely talking about a municipality. Or, for example, there's the Kamloops Division of the Lillooet Land District, or the Okanagan Division of the Yale Land District, etc. "Land District" is a very precise term in BC legal/historical language, and is on every surveyed title/deed, depending on where it is. Land Districts are very obscure in the public mind, but they're intrinsic to the BC historical and legal landscape. Found the map, here given with various cutaways/closeups for close examination, as I needed to know their boundaries in order to work out Electoral District boundary descriptions at the Elections Canada website: SWMainland_british_columbia_1896.png

Not sure what the North looks like; I think there's a Skeena Land District but I'm not sure, and a Peace Land District; will have to check in a BC-wide map, which I haven't as yet seen. Might be an Atlin Land District, too; sounds familiar. The boundaries shown here haven't changed since 1896; they can't.Skookum1 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I stand corrected; just looked at the Geonames database and searched "Comiaken" and got "Comiaken Land District"; scratching my head as to why Vancouver Island has had further subdivisions; Lillooet and Yale haven't, nor Cariboo or New Westminster....will go over the list and get the descriptions in place as stubs I guess. Surprise, surprise, y'learn something every day....20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Please visit Tantalis GATOR and see the "Land District" definition. CJLippert 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06 edit

The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal has been established, as a starting point for those wishing to learn more about the subject, with information and links on a wide variety of issues. It also contains news regarding the continent's various tribes and nations. It's a graphically pleasing site, and everyone is encouraged to check it out.
The project's home page has a new design, featuring tabbed subpages on participants, templates, articles, categories, and the to do list.
The Article Classification lists have been moved to their own subpage due to size. This is a sign of progress in the ongoing work of this project.
The project's talk page template has been updated, along with the classification system, to include the assessment on the talk pages of the articles that have been classified and assessed.
Balance
 
As the Project reaches its first six months of activity, the great effort all of you have invested in it has turned the vast information available on Indigenous North American topics from a deorganized cumulous into an excellent and easy to consult database. Although much work is still in order, few WikiProjects are able to obtain the amazing results we are proud to show today. To all of you, thank you and congratulations!
The assessment of articles within the scope of the project is still an ongoing process. We need people to help in this who are not contributors to the articles they are assessing. Also, there is the ongoing need for identifying and cataloguing articles that fall within the scope of this project. As of today, nearly 1,500 have been identified within the Project's scope.
Signed by
Aaron Walden & Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota edit

Do you have any comments on Minnesota#Origin_of_the_name? I am hoping you have better access to Naitive American/Lakota materials than I do. -Ravedave 01:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh DAK-1 = Dakota, perfect! I think I have that section right, but any input would be helpful. -Ravedave 01:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother, can you take a peek? -Ravedave

Anishinaabemowin language edit

Okay, great! Yes, I have been to Valentine's site often. His verb charts are particularly helpful. Thanks for the tip about the readme file as well. Miigwech, and take care, --Red Newt 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps edit

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. I worked on them and here's what I have: WI and Iowa. Just thinking about it, I should add Stillwater to the Wisconsin territory map. What are your suggestions for these and would you happen to know of any maps that need to be made? Fay2 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I've uploaded newer versions of the three, Wisconsin Territory, Iowa Territory, and Minnesota Territory and I think you'll approve. I am interested in your proposition and gradients are entirely possible. I haven't tried to do them with other shapes just linearly, though. I'm trying some new software to draw the maps, but I won't have access to the Adobe programs until September so you could let me know what to do and I'll try doing it with what I have, but worst case it may be a month. Thanks Fay2 21:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The maps look great! Thank you! CJLippert 22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin Territory Border edit

Hello, I am not completely sure of this (I will look it up tonight), but I believe that the legislation that allowed Michigan to be admitted to the Union (but only with the Toledo Strip for Upper Peninsula exchange complete, see Toledo War) was passed by Congress in late 1835/early 1836, and that the Wisconsin Territory was created after this in 1836. Since Michigan didn't officially become a state until 1837, it is my assumption that the land in question remained a part of the Michigan Territory during 1836. If this is true , your maps would be correct. I hope this helps, and I will post a followup with my "research" :-) Hotstreets 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (Original Message)
Okay, this one I actually got lucky with: it was in the first place I looked. According to "Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State", which I've been using for research on Toledo War, during a session of Congress around December 1835, "there emerged... a compromise that called for an acceptance of the Harris Line to satisfy Ohio, but gave to Michigan a large area in what is now the Upper Peninsula. Acceptance of the compromise was foreshadowed in foreshadowed in April 1836, when the territory of Wisconsin was established by law with... boundaries fixed along the... Menominee and Montreal rivers." So, to answer your question, the land was never unincorporated, or part of Wisconsin Territory, it remained a part of the Michigan Territory until Michigan's admission as a state in 1837. I hope this helps! Hotstreets 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That clarified things. But now, it seems strange that Michigan was "awarded" something it already had jurisdiction over. But then, Michigan's copper country was not Michigan's to mine until after 1842. CJLippert 02:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Blue Flower edit

You corrected the verb of "blue flower" in the Ojibwe grammar article to ozhaawashkaa. Shouldn't it be ozhaawashkwaa? I thought the root was ozhaawashkw-. Maybe I'm mistaken, though.

Take care, --Red Newt 06:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Both are correct, but if the example is for the form spoken in Minnesota, yes, ozhaawaashkwaa is the more correct form since ozhaawaashkaa is used only in parts of central Ontario. Will fix. Miigwech for pointing it out. CJLippert 03:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Lake and Other edit

Miigwech for the help and comments on the Sandy Lake Tragedy article. I hope you saw my edits and talk on Talk:Anishinaabe as well. Do you know much about fair use regarding images? It'd be nice to get that pictographic petition that Schoolcraft collected on a few of these articles about removal and related topics. Also, the Wisconsin Historical Society has an image of a painting of Chief Buffalo on their website (www.wisconsinhistory.org). Would that be public domain? Another question: the Fond du Lac band and a few of the other bands in Minnesota were historically more linked with the bands now in Wisconsin and the UP than they were with say the White Earth Band, but on the Ojibwa article's list of bands, no bands currently in Minnesota are listed as Lake Superior Chippewa. I've been meaning to at least make a stub of that article, but I can't figure out exactly which bands were classified as such by the treaties. Can you shed some light on this? Chi-Miigwech.

(Leo1410 17:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

Couple of issues, eh?!
  1. Image. If you go to the original copy of Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History and scan the image, it would be free of copyright since it was published over a century ago and the author has been dead for over 75 years. If you could find an electronic copy at the Library of Congress, the image there too is free of copyright. However, the image you're talking about was made electronic by the Wisconsin Historical Society in 2004. That particular scanning cannot be used unless you ask WHS their permission to use their scan of the image. Also, check the Fair use policy and the Wikipedia:Free image resources and other at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators to see if there are option from there
  2. Lake Superior Chippewa. The Ojibwe Bands in Wisconsin are of the Lake Superior Chippewa, as with many of UP Michigan Ojibwe Bands. In Minnesota, it isn't as easy. Only two Bands can clearly claim as the Lake Superior Chippewa in full: Grand Portage Band of Chippewa and Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Others as part of successors apparent of the Lake Superior Chippewa are the Bois Forte Indian Reservation via the Lake Vermilion Indian Reservation, Leech Lake Indian Reservation via the Chippewa Indian Reservation, Mille Lacs Indian Reservation and White Earth Indian Reservation via the St. Croix Chippewa Indians. Mille Lacs and White Earth do not have treaty rights in the 1854CT but Leech Lake does, but Leech Lake does not exercise that right. However, Grand Portage, Bois Forte and Fond du Lac do. Due to the extensive blending of several historical Ojibwe Bands in Minnesota, I think when the list was compiled (only about 85%) of the contemporary Bands and Comminities of the Tribes and First Nations, it was just easier to have Minnesota Chippewa Tribe listed with their component Bands. That listing do need to be untangled. Maybe we need 4 columns for that list - Recognized/Status name, Anishinaabe name, historical Tribe, and contemporary Council affiliation. The Mille Lacs' story about the St. Croix Band is relatively easy. White Earth's story is a bit more complicated, involving the Gull Lake Band of Mississippi Chippewa. Leech Lake originally was five differnt Reservations, of which many of the Fond du Lac Band members were encouraged to be removed to the Chippewa Reservation, but the US was not successful. Today, Chippewa National Forest carries the name of the original Chippewa Reservation. Originally, Chippewa Reservation was going to be the Chippewa Reservation after the Sioux Uprising but there still were degrees of animosity between the those who supported the Sioux, those who supported the US and those who stayed neutral. Consequently, only a handful of families from Fond du Lac were coerced to be relocated to the Chippewa Reservation. Others were located to the greater 1855CT surrounding the contemporary Leech Lake Reservation until a solution was found, and the solution was in two parts: White Earth Indian Reservation and the White Oak Point Indian Reservation. White Oak Point IR is now part of the contemporary Leech Lake but the White Earth Reservation is in existance in their own right. Because of this funnling of the Ojibwe of many Bands onto White Earth, White Earth ended up with the largest population base and have remained as such to today. Take a look at the St. Croix, Leech Lake and Mille Lacs article on the feel of this slicing, dicing and aggregating that happened in Minnesota. In Minnesota, only Grand Portage did not experience this! So are you ready to open the pandora box of history? If you're willing, write something up that is more than a "stub-article" that can be called a "start-article", then I think the Wikipedia contributors can help slowly build that article up from there. There are bunch of us out there where if you provide even the basic framework of your vision of the article through its set-up, the rest of us will fill in that framework. After all, this is Wikipedia! CJLippert 00:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Pandora's Box is an appropriate description. Thank you for your thorough response. Now, I know why I was so confused in the first place. I'll have to chew this over for a while--I may just stick to people, places, events. (Leo1410 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

Only two things this time edit

I hope you'll look at the new Lake Superior Chippewa article and clear up any factual errors regarding the Minnesota bands. Second, you mentioned the other editors above. Would it be worth the trouble to start a WikiProject Anishinaabe? If for no other reason than to organize all these articles and add some consistency? (Leo1410 02:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

There is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. I can see Wikipedia growing in the direction where eventually might be a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anishinaabe. However, I think the main push for now is to 1) find all the Anishinaabe-related articles (which I have found many of them, but not all), 2) get them all linked to each other (which many yet are not), 3) make all the Anishinaabe-related articles be more than a "stub" or "start" class (at least a "B" class), and then 4) get all the major articles relating to the Anishinaabe be of the "FA" class. But then, this is only my opinion. The nice thing about Wikipedia is everyone's opinion, if can be substantiated or documented, is valid, as long as the NPOV is maintained. CJLippert 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

More than anything, I just want to see what's out there and sort it somehow. Especially, I want to see what's red-linked that I could help with. I'm creating a list at User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe. If you have a similar list, it'd be great to see it.

Also, miigwech for the help on Lake Superior Chippewa (Leo1410 14:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Miigwech gayegiin. I was just on a phone conference with US EPA and at the same time double-checking the links at the Lake Superior Chippewa, noticing Lac Vieux Desert link goes to their former association, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. I have just created a stub article for the Lac Vieux Desert Indian Reservation and now proceeding onto the tribe itself. CJLippert 14:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
p.s. When populating the User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe, visit the "What links here" link located in the toolbox on the left at each of the Anishinaabe-related pages to find out what links are there and determine if any are ancilary or actually Anishinaabe-related. CJLippert 15:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Taking a peek at User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe, in a course of a day, my goodness, that page has been quite populated. Great job! CJLippert 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great contributions you have made edit

I am in Manitoba, Canada, and I have noticed all of your editing of Ojibway and native articles on Wikipedia. You have done a great job, and I hope to keep seeing your name often. You should come up north to check out the Sundance here, and compare and contrast the differences over space and time. All the best to you. Meegwetch. joseph 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Wow edit

User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe is getting huge. Nice work! What to do now? (Leo1410 02:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

This is where input from many helps. The idea of Category:Anishinaabe that was suggested was really, good. Next after all the articles are identified, the path divides into two ways: 1) going through and identifying gaps (which we are already starting to doing so) and 2) going through each article to review, ensure they are linked as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, and also rating them. After that, we just cycle through 1) and 2) until all the articles are up to the "FA" class rating. Of course, the reason for the iteration is the more we know something, the more we find out we don't know something else. With Wikipedia, there is a bit of a trick that we need to be aware of and that would be the handling of oral history. Since everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to a documented source, the issue of using oral history and teaching are discouraged. Unfortunately, for the Anishinaabe-related articles, some are documented but many are not. The question then becomes, how much to tell or how to tell the oral sources when put up against the written documentation that might be really off-base. As a non-Anishinaabe working for an Anishinaabe tribal government, there is only so much I can contribute. Anything more would be highly inappropriate. For an Anishinaabe contributing, there are the issues of ensuring the reflection of the real history, ensuring what was documented is properly presented to the world in today's circumstances of community recovery (and not of the reality of a century ago's march towards extinction), but also getting together with elders and asking them what is appropriate to present and to what level. In many Anishinaabe communities, the Midew are in the minority or exist as "crypto-Midew" and only handful of communities have a majority or near majority of Midew. Just like Judaism and being Jewish goes hand-in-hand or Shintoism and being Japanese goes hand-in-hand, Midewiwin and being Anishinaabe goes hand-in-hand. Ultimately, the decision on where all these articles go would be guided and flavoured by the Midew. There's a lot of good discussions going on. We'll just have to see. CJLippert 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I know what you're saying. I'm not native either, so I've tried to steer clear of the Mide related articles. The truth is, I don't think many traditional (or non-traditional for that matter) Anishinaabe would be too happy about having this information out on the internet. The anthropologists have already done a number on them. At least it's not as bad as the Sioux with Black Elk Speaks and such. Anyway, you may have noticed that I rely heavily on Patty Loew's Indian Nation's of Wisconsin. It does a terrific job of balancing oral history with written history and ethnography. I'm working with Patty right now, and she really knows her stuff.
(Leo1410 12:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
ps. Did you get a chance to see User:RedMan11's edits?
Yes I have. His focus currently is more with Indigenous issues than specifically Anishinaabe issues. He has adjusted the Ojibwa article to which I ended up adjusting the his spellings within that article and then adjusting the Anishinaabe article to agree with the Ojibwa article. CJLippert 17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe edit

Any objections to moving User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe? I voiced my reasons at User talk:Leo1410/Anishinaabe. All I'm worried about is if the redirects will work normally. (Leo1410 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

Go ahead and move the page. It should be just fine in the move. Otherwise, you could as the administrator to help un-do and then re-do the move. CJLippert 16:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I just moved the page for you. It did it without a hitch. CJLippert 16:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of High Culture edit

Awarded on 15:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC) by Vizjim

Thanks! CJLippert 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Crow edit

A few days ago, I did the article for Battle of the Brule, and the account I read mentioned the Dakota chief being named Old Crow. Do you know if this could have been Little Crow's father? Leo1410 02:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. However, I can check around at work in the afternoon at Archives. CJLippert 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't find anything much at Archives. However, I did find a copy of the book by Benjamin Armstrong. I have added the book as Additional reading but I see you have place there an External link to the a digital copy of Chapter 5 of that book. Sorry, I couldn't be of more help here. CJLippert
Miigwech anyway. I was just curious. Thanks for your additions. I got my hands on Warren's history, and he backs up a lot of these events in a more detailed manner. He doesn't write on Battle of the Brule, but he does describe Tragedy of the Siskwit and the events that went into establishing the various communities. Leo1410 01:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


Wisconsin and Minnesota c.1300 AD edit

Hi, I was reading the Lake Lena, Minnesota article and was really intrigued by the Pre-Dakota section. Where did the Dakota come to MN from? Also, I've heard of the possibility of the Cheyenne and other Western tribes having once lived by the Great Lakes but I don't know anything about it. Finally, the Fox are listed in the area before the Dakota and Ojibwe, but I've always been under the impression that the Fox didn't come west of Lake Michigan until the Iroquois expansion in the 1600s. If you'd tell me about this stuff, or direct me to sources, I'd be grateful. I'm interested in all of it for my personal knowledge more than anything. Leo1410 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the oral history of the region, the ancestors to the Dakota lived in what now is northern Illinois and most of Indiana. At this time, supposedly, there wasn't a split yet between the Upstream People (Omaha) and the Downstream People (Quapah). The "Grandfathers" (i.e. the Lenape) moved up the Ohio River valley and first encountered the Dakota peoples. I haven't quite found a source saying why the movement on behalf of the Dakota but the portion I've heard was that that ¼ of the original Dakota joined the Lenape to eventually form the Munsee while the remaining ¾ moved through and past their "grandfathers" (i.e. the Ho-Chunks) and made their way to what now is east-central Minnesota to western UP Michigan. The Sac People lived in what now is LP Michigan, but the Fox and Mandwe Peoples peoples lived in what now is Wisconsin. Similarly, the Menominee and Noquet Peoples shared their territory that stretched along the entire Wisconsin River and the entire length of southern UP Michigan with the Ho-Chunks. There were two different "People of the Little Prairie" in southern Wisconsin: Iowa People whom the Anishinaabe called the "Naadawensiwi-Mashkodens" and the Mascoutens People called the "Ni'inaawi-Mashkodens"—later on, a third "People of the Little Prairie", the Prairie Band of Potawatomi or the "Mashkodensi-Boodewaadamii" came about as well, but the common "mashkodens" designation has caused the confusion among those not familiar with the name, mixing the Prairie Band with the Mascoutens! The Fox People lived across the Lake Michigan from the Anishinaabeg, which is why the Anishinaabeg calls the Fox People Odagaamii ("Those across the waters") rather than Miskwaakii ("Those of the red earth"). The Meshkwahkihaki in southern and central Wisconsin were lead by the Fox totem, thus they were called "Nations des Renard" that lead to their current English name "Fox". However, the Meshkwahkihaki about Chequamegon Bay and the southshore of Lake Superior were instead lead by the Fisher totem, which is why they were instead called "Mandwe". If you read Warren, he records how in the oral history the Ojibwe describe the Mandwe as "an evil nation", but I think the what is going on here is that the Meshkwahkihaki word for "fisher" (mandwe) and the Anishinaabe word for "speak evil" (maanaadwe) are puns of each other, thus the Meshkwahkihaki along the Lake Superior was depicted as being "evil" by the Anishinaabeg. This also leads to the residual Meshkwahkihaki term for "Bad River". The Meshkwahkihaki name for the river was "Meshkwisepi" to mean "Red River" but was made to fit the Ojibwe speech patters as either "Maji-ziibi" (thus "Bad River") or "Mashkii-ziibi" ("Marsh River"). So among the Marten Clan members on Bad River, they will tell you the name is not "Bad" or "Marsh" but instead "Red", though "Red" is not reflected in the current name. So, other than Warren, try the various ethnographic reports on the Fox, Cheyenne and Menominee since they do address the locations of the Meshkwahkihaki and the later absorption of the refugees into the Menominee Nation from the conflicts between the Anishinaabeg and their neighbours. CJLippert 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the quick reply. Dates are unreliable, but the story I've always heard was that at the time of Columbus, the Dakota were in Northern and Western Wisconsin and Minnesota, the Menominee in Eastern and Northeastern WI and the UP, the Ho-Chunk and related people (Ioway, etc.) were in Southwestern WI, and the Anishinaabe (pre-Ojibwe Ojibwe) were at La Pointe. Then the Iroquois Wars pushed the Odawa and Meskwaki into Wisconsin via the UP, and the Sauk, Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Illini, and Mascouten into Wisconsin via Indiana and Illinois. I interpreted "Outagami" as referring to those on the mainland while the Ojibwe were on the island. Is any of this at least partly true? Leo1410 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. However, the Ojibwe and the Odaawaa were on the Manitoulin Island as the "Fourth Stopping Place". At the timeframe of the Fourth Stopping Place, the Potawatomis were already in southern LP Michigan, just have pushed the Ozaagii out. The current best estimates of when the "Fourth Stopping Place" timeframe was about 2000~3500 years ago. By 600~700 years ago, the Ojibwe were well-established at Baawiting (Sault Ste. Marie), the political center at the "Sixth Stopping Place" in the St. Louis River was already at a decline and the rise of the "Seventh Stopping Place" was immerging. About this time the Dakota were no longer in Michigan, other than an occasional war party, battles in Wisconsin were starting to wind down, while the battles in central and northern Minnesota were just beginning. By this timeframe, the Wendat Peoples had villages all along Lake Superior and major trade corridors in Wisconsin. The Odaawaa were the most pervasive Anishinaabe at that time because of, again, trade. The Odaawaa at that time were centred about northern LP Michigan and Manitoulin Island, but the trade network had them pushing down into Ohio and Indiana, while through other networks travelling from the east coast to the Rockies, from James Bay to the Gulf. Most of the other non-Anishinaabe tribes the Anishinaabe knows about came about because of the the Odaawaa and their trade network. The Iliniwag were pushed out of Michigan then as well, but they were still a very strong presence in Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and southern Wisconsin. The Naadawe 600~700 years ago was focused more on eastern UP Michigan than in LP Michigan, as well as the the point between via Nipissing, but there weren't any major tribal relocation due to the Naadawe campaigns at that particular time. All this volitile condition really did not blow up until about 250 years ago, with the Menominee getting the brunt of refugees, Mascoutins being absorbed, Sac & Fox becoming more of a unified tribe, and the Iliniwag and the Giiwigaabawaa just doing their best to protect their interests. CJLippert 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you've hit on somthing else I've been wondering about. Ojibwe oral history puts them at Madeline Island well before Columbus but on the oldest Jesuit maps and journals, Shagawamikong is shown as inhabited by Odawas and Wendats. However, the arrival of Allouez and others is well within contemporary Ojibwe history. On those same 17th-century maps, the area around Baawiting is shown as inhabited by peoples of several different Anishinaabe names. My Ojibwe isn't good, but I assume they are clan names (Mississauga is one of them). Early 18th century maps show the Saulters as a large tribe with a village at Shagawamikong. Now, it's well known that when the Ojibwe spread outwards in the later 18th century, the Ojibwe and Odawa indentities had been formed hence the name and story behind Lac Courte Oreilles. However, Warren speculates that the identity of a large united "Ojibwe" people is a phenomenon that developed relatively recently. So, were those "Outouacs" at Shagawomikong in the 17th century mobile Odawa traders or were they the direct ancestors of today's Ojibwe? To what extent would a sharp distinction between Odawa and Ojibwe have been made by the French or for that matter individual Anishinaabe? Leo1410 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't know. The term "Saulteaurs" is identical to "Baawitigwininiwag" and do refer to the Ojibwe specifically. However, the terms like Algonquins, Outawacs and Otchipaouais during that period is more vague. Sometimes they mean specifically the Algonquins, Odawa or the Ojibwe, but other times those terms are used to mean Anishinaabe and not the specific divisions among the Anishinaabeg. For example, in the case of the term "Algonquin", originally it was a term used to mean those along the lower Ottawa River, but the name was then applied to all Anishinaabeg. Today, the Nipissing (Odishkwaagamiig - Those at the end of the lake) and those "Down the River" (Omaamiwininiwag) are considered "Algonquin. However, there are also plenty of maps that place the Algonquins in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, NW Ontario, Manitoba and edging into Saskatchewan. Since the people we now call Algonquin have not ventured that far (other than the few trade groups), it becomes appearant the term "Algonquin" in this case refers to the Anishinaabeg in general, and not the specific "Algonquin" communities. Similarly, the Council of Three Fires, because they were also called the Ojibwe-Odawa-Potawatomi Council, many times the Potawatomi communities were called "Chippewa"! So, I guess what I'm saying here is don't take what explorers say literally. Instead, compare them with other accounts and then bounce them against with oral histories of both the Anishinaabeg and non-Anishinaabeg communities. In the case of LCO, here are several explanations:
1. A corpse of frozen Ottawas were found at the lake (OJ:dakw+odaawaa+g)
2. Ottawas lived at this lake; they didn't stretched out their ear piercings like the Ojibwe so they had short ears (OJ:dakwaa+tawag; FR:courte oreille+s)
3. People around LCO had permanant villages and grew short-eared corn (OJ:dakwaatawag, again)
and my personal guess, which people have said I was in the wrong:
4. the Ojibwe pronunciation of "Dakotas" (OJ:Dakwaata+wag) which is a homophone to "Short ear" (OJ:Dakwaa+tawag).
Whatever the real origins, today (and the past 200+ years) it is called Odaawaa-zaaga'igan - Ottawa Lake. CJLippert 19:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've seen the use of Algonquin like that and wondered if those early early maps with OUTOUACS all across Lake Superior were an example of the French using the term of one branch of Anishinaabe to describe all. It wouldn't be hard to believe. I have a map from the early 1700s that shows Potawatomis far north of Lake Nipigon. I'm thinking that must be Ojibwe. Back to the Odawa, though, because it isn't as easy to write off the Odawa in the Northern Wisconsin of the 1600s as mistaken Ojibwe. Some of the earliest French maps I could find that show the region show "Lac des Outouacs" and "Lac des Vieux Deserts"--curiously enough, right next to each other. These maps predate or are contemporary to Warren's dating of the settlement of Lac Courte Oreilles. The short ears story seems to be the most popular, and as you mentioned would have the same meaning as Odaawa Lake. Which brings me back to wondering whether the Outouacs at La Pointe were Odawa that later left and were replaced by Ojibwe, were Odawa that became Ojibwe, or were members of clans that would later come under the umbrella identity of Ojibwe but at the time the French labelled them Odawa not seeing a significant enough difference in the two groups. If you have "History of the Ojibway People" handy, there's kind of a funny part on page 116 where the editor declares in the footnote that Warren is flat-out wrong in placing the Ojibwe at Chequamegon in 1665 when Allouez only described Ottawas and Hurons living there. This, of course, comes after Warren has already challenged Allouez's credibility and explained how he thinks the term Ojibwe wasn't used yet at that point. Oh well. I seem to be getting more questions than answers out of this conversation, but someone once told me that that's the mark of true knowledge. Chi-miigwech, Leo1410 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote request edit

Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is Wiktionary:anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 67.70.68.51 12:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote edit

Please vote 67.70.71.160 10:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nakwetamowin edit

Enh, "Biskishini-miskwitawagameg" ingii-izhinikaazoban...aanawi gaawiin zhigwa! "Miskwito"...baapinwewin aawi: miskwi dash zagime. My Ojibwemowin is still as clumsy and horrid as ever, of course (please do feel free to correct it...)! At least I've got Valentine's grammar for a few weeks--gabe-gikendaasowigamigong indayaa now so I can check it out of the library. Mino-ayaa miinawaa waabaminaan! --Miskwito 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rice Creek (Minnesota) name origin edit

Hi CJLippert-- Could you take a look at Talk:Rice Creek (Minnesota) regarding the origin of the creek's name? The MNHS name origin site suggests it was named for Henry Rice rather than being derived from the Ojibwe. The article has been nominated to appear in a "did you know?" blurb on the main page based on the "river full of wild rice" name, so I'd like to get it sorted out before that process goes further. You can see its entry here if you'd like to comment. Thanks! Malepheasant 20:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ojibwe language userboxes edit

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Babel#Ojibwe_language_userboxes CJLippert 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CJLippert/archive/2006&oldid=1038738186"