Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Beginning

I created the basic framework of the wikiproject but didn't want to get too far without input. How should the goals and guidelines be phrased? -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Added more rough draft ideas - please feel free to edit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I've added some more infrastructure. Some of these will be blank or redlinked until the relevant bots do their next run. Rd232 ^talk 02:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You're welcome. I would also recommend setting up User:AlexNewArtBot and using User:Xenobot Mk V or similar to tag pages with the project banner based on what category they're in. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 16:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning on that, but have been first trying to identity and categorize articles. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Twitter

Hi! I'm going to make a Twitter account for the WikiProject, allowing us to share new, expanded and updated articles with the public. It might even be a cool idea to make a Facebook page. With other projects I've been involved in, it's really helped gain views and awareness about what we're producing. Sadly, I'm not that creative or I'd come up with some clever logo :) I will post an update with the Twitter account and any Project folks interested in the password information can email me. Missvain (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Automated process to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles

A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on categories and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

To auto-assess, the bot looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

Uyvsdi (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC) -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

New articles and DYK

A housekeeping question: should articles that have appeared on DYK (and are listed in the DYK section) be removed from the 'New articles' section? -- Donald Albury 13:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right; I'll get on it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Articles finally autotagged

DodoBot autotagged articles for the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, so next step is assessing them. There's now over 493 articles here: Category:Unassessed Indigenous peoples of the Americas articles, and articles can be assessed for importance as well. This is a great step in finding out where the gaps are in coverage of IPA articles. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Native American stickball in Mississippi

The LA Times did a story on Choctaw Native American stickball in Mississippi:

• Holmes, Baxter. "Choctaw stickball: A fierce, ancient game deep in Mississippi." Los Angeles Times. October 18, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on article naming conventions for peoples, ethnicities and tribes

Please check the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes) on how ethnicity articles should be named. Thanks, -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

College class working on relevant articles, January – May 2012

I'm teaching a class on Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples during spring semester at Hunter College. The class includes a Wikipedia component by way of the Wikipedia:United States Education Program. Its homepage is at Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Carwil Bjork-James). Please welcome my students as fellow editors to topics relevant to this project. Cheers!--Carwil (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Look forward to seeing their work. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'm an Online Ambassador. I'll go ahead and add myself to the course page. -- Donald Albury 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have left some links for refs see here.Moxy (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this article could have a lot of potential. If I were to change or add to it, I would include more about their history and background. Also I could have a separate section made specifically for land disputes and current events happening between the Wai Wai and local peoples of the nation of Guyana and Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffleszrus (talk • contribs)

Waffleszrus, I think this comment belongs at Talk:Wai-wai people. -- Donald Albury 00:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Indigenous people

I have started an RfC at talk:Indigenous people regarding the definition and scope of the article because some editors are using the page to include all ethnic groups who claim to descend from the first known inhabitants of a place - such as Germans, Finns, Russians, Georgians etc. This definition would exclude several indigenous groups that have migrational histories from the scope and conflict with the established political definitions of the term. Please weigh in on which definition to use.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Intro

Anyone care to look into this? An editor who has not contributed to any indigenous peoples of the Americas is pushing his uncited POV that there's something wrong with the concepts of being mixed-race or multiracial. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Added it to my watchlist. -- Donald Albury 13:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Americas

FYI, there's a proposal to create a western hemisphere coordinating project above NA/SA/etc. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Americas -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk: Genocide of indigenous peoples

There is an RfC at Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article about whether that article should employ the narrow legal definition of "indigenous peoples" or a broader commonsense definition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed

See Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD requiring expert attention

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daykeeper could use the input of experts in Maya culture, who I assume frequent this page. Thanks!

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you posted at WP:WikiProject Mesoamerica? That would be where the Maya experts would be. Mesoamerica is North America, so WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America might be good as well. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

AfC submission - 22/04

Draft:Tlaxcalteca nation and affiliated tribes. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi FoCuSandLeArN, have you considering merging your material into the pre-existing Tlaxcaltec article? The fact that you've been able to cite your material should make expanding the Tlaxcatlec article no problem. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'm not the submitter. I'm an AfC reviewer calling for your attention. That's along the lines of what I told the editor too. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Checked it out further and commented there. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Indian Chief

The primary topic of "Indian Chief" is under discussion, see Talk:Indian Chief (motorcycle) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Patasola"

The usage and primary topic of Patasola is under discussion, see talk:Patasola magdalenae -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Hibulb Cultural Center

I've recently added a bunch of photos to Commons:Category:Hibulb Cultural Center. I suspect that someone who works on this project can add to the descriptions of some of the photos, especially the stone tools. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red

Women in Red will be hosting a month-long virtual editathon on indigenous women in August to coincide with Indigenous People's Day. We welcome participation from anyone who wants to improve or help create articles. If anyone is interested in adding curated names to the potential list of new articles, the link is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Indigenous Women. Just add a red link and sources which confirm notability. An invitation to sign up for the event will be forthcoming. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous women & Polar women editathons

You are invited...
	Indigenous women editathon & Polar women editathon Hosted by Women in Red - August 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Wikiconference North America

A session on Indigenous Peoples Day is being proposed for the North America Wikiconference in october in San Diego[1]. Maybe editors here will be interested in attending or presenting. I have myself proposed this presentation for the conference.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Guacamole, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer review from Coropuna

Greetings,

I am planning to bring Coropuna - one of the highest volcanoes in South America with a huge importance in Inka mythology - to WP:FAC and I've started a peer review to get some comments before there. A particularly problematic bit is the section about mythology, but comments are welcome on every part of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move of Guenoa

There is currently a proposal to move the page Guenoa which may be relevant to this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed move of Bororo

There is currently a proposal to move the page Bororo which is relevant to this WikiProject and may be of interest to members. be relevant to this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed move of Akawaio

There is currently a proposal to move the page Akawaio which is relevant to this WikiProject and may be of interest to members. The discussion can be found here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ceramics of indigenous peoples of the Americas

This article is getting a much-needed overhaul and is shaping up to be a very good overview. Many regions' ceramic traditions still need summarizing. Please take a look at Ceramics of indigenous peoples of the Americas, if you would care to contribute. The Guianas/Intermediate Zone and the Amazon could certain expansion and the Caribbean section hasn't even be begun. Thanks for any assistance! -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Textile arts of indigenous peoples of the Americas

Seeing how there's still such a dearth of top-tier indigenous art articles, I just created this article. It's still fairly rudimentary, so any additions and improvements would be gratefully appreciated. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Project: Atikamekw knowledge, culture and language

Hello, you are welcome to have a look at the project Atikamekw knowledge, culture and language in Wikimedia projects. We are looking for endorsements and contributions! Best, Seeris (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Page moves

Pls see here e.g Blackfoot language to Siksiká...... Siksiká is not something English keyboards can type....nor the common name.--Moxy (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Beringian

There's a merge discussion at Talk:Ancient Beringian about a merger with other articles. There's also a content dispute that could use more input. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Guinea pig Featured article review

I have nominated Guinea pig 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) 16:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Input request

Opinions, whatever they are, are welcome at this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Americans and hot springs.4meter4 (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

links from language articles

Although you guys have been good at linking ethnicity articles to the appropriate language articles, we've been pretty slack in doing the reverse. I've made a proposal at Infobox language to add an ethnicity parameter (or whichever term you think is appropriate and easy to type – 'nation' has been unfortunately (and inaccurately) used for states where a language is official, though we can change that to s.t. else with a bot if people like) so that there's quick and easy access to the anthro articles from the language articles. (More obvious and probably more reliable in the long run than a 'see also' link at the bottom of the page.) Please chime in if you'd like that; you'd probably know best here which articles should be linked. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

questions about using template

I've recently added a couple of articles about notable persons with Indigenous heritage (Alan Tafoya, Darryl Tonemah) and am not sure about using the identifying template for this project with them. I put them on the articles' talk pages. Is this correct? Or should it go elsewhere? Or do these articles even fall under the scope of this project? Thanks MinervaK (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. These individuals might be best covered by WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Indigenous peoples from Canada and the mainland United States are well covered by that group. Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America are all geographically part of North America but tend to get neglected by WPIPNA, so I typically double tag those. Greenlandic and Alaskan articles get tagged WPINPA as well as WP:WikiProject Arctic. WP:WikiProject Mesoamerica focuses on precolumbian and protohistorical Mesoamerican history, so anything more recent fall under the aegis of WPIPA. Then any indigenous articles from South America fall exclusively under this group. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Standard for European "discovery" in the Americas

An issue has been raised on what guidelines exist in WP on how to describe the first sighting by Europeans of physical features in the Americas (see Talk:Vasco Núñez de Balboa#Quotes around the word "discovery"). Which made me look up a quote I saw recently, from the author's (Warburton Pike) introduction to The Barren Ground of Northern Canada:

... I naturally passed through a great deal of new country, and discovered, as we white men say when we are pointed out some geographical feature by an Indian who has been familiar with it since childhood, many ...

So, anyway, are there any existing guidelines that would apply, or should we pursue developing a quideline? -- Donald Albury 12:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifth World (Native American mythology)

An editor has just brought this article to my attention. It seems to be based on Graham Hancock rather than any of the academic literature. I'll drop some links on its talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Must get to bed but I've just had to replace all the text as it was straight copyvio. Found an old version which is also pretty bad, but it was either that or blank the page. So it wasn't Hancock after all, someone just added that as a reference. It was the first 3 paragraphs of this page[2]. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Defining indigenous American identity

This discussion is posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America since that Wikiproject is more active, but please, please contribute to the dicussion there, since it needs to be addressed. Of course, no two people on the planet have the exact same criteria for determining indigenous American identity, but hopefully some commonalities can be discovered and good citations shared. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Recognition of Native American sacred sites in the United States

• Recognition of Native American sacred sites in the United States found 27 November 2012. This article is someone's coursework. I found it by accident when doing maintenance. It is currently an orphan. Can you use it? if not then I guess it needs to be deleted. Op47 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The article seems completely notable but would be the scope of WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. I can link other articles to it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Need subject expert concerning Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Gregory Deyermenjian

A couple of us have uncovered a large set of articles which seem to be promotional for Gregory Deyermenjian and which have probably been edited by him or by close associates. We need expert assessment of the articles from someone who is familiar with the state of Incan archaeological studies. It would be simplest if the discussion were conducted at the WP:FT/N section linked above. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nephite and Lamanite

An editor has just added them to this wikiproject - is that appropriate? I'd say no. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"America"

The usage of "America" is up for discussion, see talk:America -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Americas, a landmass comprising North and South America"" — I see no problem with this. -Uyvsdi (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Lanaguage?

I cannot verify that Conambo language existed. Found no hits on Google. It could be google bias against everything non-English and non-western, or it could be a hoax. I don't have any specialized knowledge in linguistics or indigenous peoples. Can someone look into this? Thanks, Renata (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue doesn't mention it, and it has no ISO 639-3, so should probably be nominated for deletion. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Naming convention for identically named indigenous peoples

I'm about to create a new page for the Yuki people of central Bolivia. However, Yuki people already exists, describing an unrelated ethnic group in California. Does anyone have strong preferences about the disambiguating phrase: country, state/department, or broader ethnic category. That is, should there be Yuki people (United States) or Yuki people (California) on the one hand, and Yuki people (Bolivia) or Yuki people (Cochabamba) or Yuki people (Tupi-Guarani) on the other. I'm leaning towards Yuki people (California) and Yuki people (Bolivia) since these are recognizable geographic divisions with the necessary specificity (the Yuki of Bolivia previously lived in Santa Cruz as well as Cochabamba departments).--Carwil (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Maku people is one of the worst case scenarios, I've encountered, so it's remained a disambiguation page. Ethnologue is the best source I've found for alternate names (and for pointing out which names are pejorative and should be avoided). They prefer the term "Yuqui", so that might be your best choice in this instance, with a hatnote placed at the top of the Californian Yuki people article linking to the Bolivian article. (BTW Yuki people has been stable in its name for three years, so even though there's a lot of unilateral moves going on in ethnic group articles :( any moves there should be proposed and consent established.)

Yuqui, Yuquis, and Yuqui people are all up for grabs. Their language, Yuqui language, already has an article, as distinguished from Yuki language, so that establishes a viable naming system. BTW thanks for creating the Yuki-Ichilo River Native Community Lands article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Despite the fact that the letter k is an unusual letter in the Spanish, Yuki appears to be a far more common name for the indigenous group in Bolivia, but sources differ. Advice?

test	Yuki	Yuqui
Google hits	Yuki Bolivia -wikipedia About 843,000 results	Yuqui Bolivia -wikipedia About 44,500 results
Google hits, English phrase	"Yuki people" Bolivia -wikipedia 408 results	Yuqui Bolivia -wikipedia 190 results
Google Books hits	Yuki Bolivia -wikipedia 1640 results	Yuqui Bolivia -wikipedia About 2200 results
Bolivian Constitution	"Yuki"
Ethnologue		"Yuqui"
Alliance for Linguistic Diversity	"Yuki"
Territory		"Yuqui-CIRI"

In general, I don't think avoiding duplicates by using different spellings is a good enough reason, so please help me get this right.--Carwil (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure if this is a good naming precedent to set. We would be basically creatingrenewed impetus for a naming convention that appears to be otherwise declining. Probably a disambiguation solution is better, for example Yuki people (California) and Yuki people (Bolivia).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yuki people is well established, so moving it would require consensus-building. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

User:Uyvsdi has created Yuqui people (and put in some good work on fleshing it out) rather than await an agreement here on what's appropriate. I'm not comfortable with that as the decisionmaking process. (And I would add that this kind of sidestepping an active conversation feels disrespectful and frustrating; if it were my first foray onto wikipedia, it might have discouraged me from coming back.)

Anyhow, comments on the naming? Should I solicit more input at a noticeboard?--Carwil (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to offend you, but the problem is utterly solvable and has been for years. Many ethnic groups who don't have Wikipedia articles do have corresponding language articles, and there is nothing wrong with following the precedent set by the language articles. Yuki people is arguably the primary topic, so there would be no call to move that (and you would need consensus). During the five-day gap in this "active conversation," I was able to create four Bolivian ethnic group articles.

There already are longstanding policies in place about disambiguation. According to WP:NCDAB, "Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English, and equally clear, that term may be used." It goes on: "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation; for instance mechanical fan and hand fan are used instead of fan (mechanical) and fan (implement). If natural disambiguation is not available, a parenthetical is used." There was a simple natural disambiguation here. Parenthetical disambiguation is a last resort, not a first resort. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

BTW Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) spells out some issues. You might suggest edits to that. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

New genome sequencing study

I'd just like to note that I've added information to the Clovis culture article about the genome sequencing study that just appeared in Nature, and nominated the story at WP:ITN/C. Additional edits would of course be welcome. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Will add this to Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas when i read more about it over the next few days. Feel free to do so yourself if your in a rush. -- Moxy (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jemez language promotion from a stub.

Hi there. I recently noticed that a lot of content was added to the Jemez language page. It was roughly put there, perhaps copied and pasted, but it was a significant amount. I've reworded a lot of it, and fixed the crude typological layout and have removed the stub template. I've also added some sources in the bibliography section for further research. If anyone has access to these articles, it could really help that page. Thanks. Joeystanley (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I contacted a user who had access to one source, so I added as much as I could to the page. Tribal rules prohibit the the language to be written, so I wasn't able to put specific words (one of my edits has already been deleted because of this). I also transferred the consonant inventory into IPA charts, though I'm not sure if they look all right. Anyway, that's my update. Joeystanley (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your edits. I added information about the tribe's language program and updated the WikiProjects. Since the Pueblo of Jemez is in the United States, it would fall under WP:WP Indigenous peoples of the Americas' daughter WikiProject: WP:WP Indigenous peoples of North America. WP:WP IPA was created since Latin American Indigenous peoples articles have been so neglected. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Settlement of the Americas

I've raised an issue about possible OR at Talk:Settlement of the Americas and would appreciate comments, or at least eyes. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Mexica

Can someone please take a look at some recent edits.[3] These basically say the Mexica are the Aztec, which does seem to be a popular although incorrect view if [4] is correct. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Taíno

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

Doctrine of Discovery

With the approach of Columbus Day, I searched for Doctrine of Discovery and was surprised by the redirect to Discovery Doctrine which is only about US law, with no mention of the Inter caetera, the Papal bull that was used as precedent for US law. Certainly the larger topic of how Europeans justified the colonization of the Americas (and continues to do so?) deserves its own article, but I don't know enough about the subject to create it.FriendlyFred (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas

Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas needs its lead to be rewritten, and the range of articles on this topic should be better organized and completed. Please come help.--Carwil (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Indian reservations

Does Guatemala, Honduras, French Guiana, Suriname, El Salvador has Indian reservations like this?: Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples--Kaiyr (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but it seems unlikely in Guatemala's case, for demographic reasons. According to Demographics of Guatemala, an estimated 40% of the population are Amerindians. More than 2 million people in Guatemala speak one of several living languages in the Mayan languages language family. A minority of the Amerindians in the country speak one of the Arawakan languages, and there is a small group who speaks one of the endangered (and apparently moribund) Xincan languages.

Unlike the situation in several of the other countries in Central America, the Amerindians in Guatemala represent one of the largest ethnic groups in the country and are actually the dominant population in some of its subdivisions. In the Quiché Department, 88.6% of the population are Mayans and 65.1% of them are part of the K'iche' people. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Chiefdoms of Hispaniola and Columbus

This is an interesting article, though the sources are a bit light, and I don't have the expertise to evaluate them. It does look like a concept that should be a part of the Christopher Columbus and Voyages of Christopher Columbus articles.--Pharos (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Category: Cherokee People

• I've suggested changes to this category, to take into account the issue of citizenship and self-identification. Would appreciate others' contributions t the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_30#Category:Cherokee_people. Vizjim (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting information

This source says Long Island was excluded from lands the Cherokee turned over to the colonists as a result of a July 20, 1777 treaty. Cherokee treaties lists a Treaty of Fort Henry which defined the boundaries of the Watauga Association but that article doesn't even mention the treaty. However, my source refers to the 1777 Long Island of the Holston Treaty which Wikipedia says was dated 1781.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sad to say, but newspapers sometimes get things wrong, especially when the subject is historical. If other sources provide different information, then either the article should reflect the differences in sources, or if the preponderance of other sources agree on a different version of events, I would not use the source in question. - Donald Albury 00:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this man is mostly reliable because he indicates that he interviewed people to tell us historical details. He doesn't work for the newspaper as such, but he can get things wrong from time to time. I tried contacting him another time but he didn't respond. But I don't know where the other sources are.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia articles and list don't actually give sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No sources. How gauche! :) Well, if you can find only one source, that's what you use. - Donald Albury 17:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I sent an email to the writer but he didn't respond the last time, so I don't know. I'll do some more searching at the library.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Haven't checked my email.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I know this is silly, and it dates back to when I was scared to do anything risky at home and also had slow Internet. I don't do Google searches from home. I did here and there were two treaties with the same name. Wikipedia is WRONG.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And I got this from the writer of the newspaper article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I find some sites that list a Treaty of Long Island in 1777, while others list a Treaty of the Long Island of the Holston in 1761. One site that has the Treaty of the Long Island of the Holston in 1761 [5] also lists a Treaty of DeWitt’s Corner and a Treaty of Fort Henry, both with the Cherokee in 1777. I have no idea who or what is authoritative on this. - Donald Albury 23:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

So we have no way of knowing how to fix this at this point.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britanica [6] mentions the Treaty of DeWitt's Corner, May 20, 1777, the Treaty of Long Island of Holston, July 20, 1777, and the Second Treaty of Long Island of Holston, July 26, 1781, pertaining to the Cherokees. This book [7], page 519, mentions the Treaty of Long Island on the Holston, in 1761, but doesn't seem to have any further info. I saw something yeasterday about a private treaty which was repudiated by the states of North Carolina and Virginia. I need look some more for that to see if it is pertinent. - Donald Albury 22:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Merging Tecoaque and Zultepec

The merger of the articles Tecoaque (created March 2009‎) and Zultepec (created November 2008‎) has been proposed. Discussion is at Talk:Tecoaque#Merge discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy

If anyone here is interested, we are looking for volunteers at WikiProject Genealogy. Our current collaboration is Genealogy, an article which needs a lot more international perspective. Thanks! Tea and crumpets (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Weird list

List of Native American peoples in the United States—What is this article and why does it exist? I came across it while trying to fix incoming links to First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun. Many Canadian peoples are included in the list, even though they have no satellite communities in the US or historical territories in what is now the United States. The whole thing seems misleading and pointless. Writing-on-stone (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Writing-on-stone

Tecoaque and Zultepec merger discussion

There is a discussion about whether or not the two articles Tecoaque and Zultepec should be merged. The discussion is at Talk:Tecoaque#Merge discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Disputed material on Pachamama

A single user is repeatedly attempting to insert superfluous and poorly sourced material at Pachamama. The recent edit history tells everything you need to know: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pachamama&action=history Additional eyes on this would be welcome. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. - Donald Albury 21:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Minneapolis RfC, Little Crow

Greetings. The input of this WikiProject would be most welcome at Minneapolis and at Little Crow. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pais de los Maynas

Pais de los Maynas is currently at AfD. I This made sense, given the version that was AfDed. I've reworked it substantially since then, but am no expert at all – so would appreciate any help you could give on the article. Thanks! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've had to remove a lot of copyvio from Sacsayhuamán

Copied in 2010 from Ancient Cuzco: Heartland of the Inca By Brian S. Bauer - most of the stuff about its construction. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Indians?

I have been looking around for some sort of MOS guidance about the appropriateness – or otherwise – of referring to various indigenous people and peoples as "Indians" (e.g. here/here), but I haven't been able to find any obvious WP mention of this matter, which perhaps isn't as simple as it might seem (cf. Indian Peace Commission). (On a related point, would it perhaps be helpful to add Indigenous peoples in Brazil to this project's Open tasks - copy edit list?) 86.191.67.245 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Here and here are discussions, USA specific, from a couple of years ago. I don't think there is yet a good consensus in WP on the use of "Indian". Use what you think is appropriate, and be prepared to discuss your choice with whoever has a different perspective. - Donald Albury 01:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Interactive Map

Just stumbled onto this interactive map which seems like it might be of interest to the wikiproject. EdwardLane (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting AfC review - Albert Yava

I created an article about Albert Yava, a Hopi autobiographer: Draft:Albert Yava. I would appreciate any feedback or help moving this through the AfC process. AnonQuixote (talk) 07:08, 18 January 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)

Request for Collaboration—Cueva de las Manos

Hi! I'm currently working on an article on Cueva de las Manos—an ancient cave that was home to many indigenous peoples of Argentina—and I would love to have your help in collaborating to get it from B class to GA status. Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:18, 17 April 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) 02:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Operation Auca

I have nominated Operation Auca 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Assistance Required Gathering Sources for List of indigenous peoples

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of indigenous peoples regarding the absence hundreds of sources in this article. If possible, contribute to discussion and provide input.

List of indigenous peoples is a massive list of which the majority of entries are are without citation. The article is in need of a team of editors to procedurally review each entry and identify reliable sources--or lack thereof.

There is also an ongoing discussion regarding the terms of inclusion in this list, which you are welcome to get involved in.

01:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen^💬

Missing topics page

• I have gathered a list of some potential missing topics related to Native Americans to one of my Missing Topics pages (mostly Noarth American at the moment). They are collected from various sources. I do suspect that some might be suitable mainly as refirects but I do not really know enough to make a decision. I would be grateful for any related comments and hope some of you might find the page useful - Skysmith (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Norte Chico

I have nominated Norte Chico civilization 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. (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board has an RFC

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the [page]. Thank you. Poketama (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Posting this here as I thought this WikiProject may have some useful input on whether Indigenous placenames should be included in the article lead and what other regions have considered. Thank you. Poketama (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Inuit or the Inuit

Looking for opinions and comments at Talk:Inuit#Inuit or the Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Can someone sort out this edit war

[8] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Muisca raft

Hi there. I'm working on expanding Muisca raft, and shaking things up a bit. I've left a note on the talk page with my assessment of the references. If someone from this project is interested, I'd love to have someone glance at what I'm doing so I know I'm on the right track. Thanks! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 22:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Should Indigenous peoples of the Americas mention European languages?

See talk page discussion. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Editor adding "sovereign tribal" to multiple articles

This is Xuenkitze (talk · contribs) - see their contributions. I've also got problems with these edits[9] Besides the tribal bit, "totonac culture" is not in the sources. I've warned them about adding unsourced material before, but this is actually added to sourced material. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes this should be removed.....only place it could be mentioned is at Native Americans or Indigenous rights as its a term that "refers to the right of American Indians and Alaska Natives to govern themselves." We have an article on it at Tribal sovereignty in the United States. Moxy- 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I see they're also changing terms causing red links much more care needs to be taken.Moxy- 14:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: this hasn't stopped. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And still no reply? Moxy- 11:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy No, although they've edited since. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy no, and see their talk page. I may block. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC Metis Ontario

Pls see Talk:Métis#RFC Ontario Moxy- 15:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I Welcome Your Eyes And Your Input On New Article - Welfare Colonialism

Hi - I just completed a very brief article on Welfare Colonialism. I welcome any and all input on how best to further develop it. Please take a look. Warm regards. Iguana0000 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Might there be something happening offline trying to get rid of certain terms used in our articles?

Look at today's edit history of Native Americans in the United States[10] A new editor jumping in with edit summaries "First Americans" or "Native Americans" are colonialist terms, that are racist and offensive to the Indigenous people" and "American Indians" is an offensive term used by colonialist - America is not India, "First Americans" is not an accurate term" only hours after User:Bipppppp removes "also known as American Indians from the lead with the edit summary "They should not have "American Indians" as one of their primary titles. Columbus was mistaken in thinking that they were Indian, so there is no reason for this title to be here unless it is referring to Columbus' mistake in calling them that". Doug Weller talk 09:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

As you know, these users show up periodically. Younger people, and a number of well-meaning non-Natives, often go on sprees like this. Older people and those in certain regions still prefer "Indian". Others still prefer "Native". "Indigenous" is popular with younger people. Many use all of the above interchangeably. We need to stick to the sources from Native/Indian/Indigenous communities, usually using the name of folks' Nation/Tribe/Community, and however legit folks self-describe in WP:RS and WP:NDNID-RS sources. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion

See Talk:Native American religions#Requested move 5 April 2023. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous religions in the Americas

Indigenous religions in the Americas is a redirect to Native American religions which is about Native American religions in the United States. Does anyone know of a better target. I couldn't find anything but I may have missed it. If there isn't then I may turn the redirect into a disambiguation page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Similar note, in the Category:Native American religion (should religion be plural or no?), they have pre-Columbian religions as subcategories. Should that category be underneath Indigenous religions in the Americas (doesn't exist) as the main and then Native American religions as a subcategory instead of being the main one? I think if you make a disambiguation page, that can be linked if the main category goes by that since the category right now links to Native American religions at the top of the page.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This request was withdrawn. – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America into WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. These two WikiProjects are essentially the same and there is no reason for both of them to exist.

Here are the intros for each of the WikiProjects:

Welcome to WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Several Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below.

– Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas

We are Wikipedians who have formed a project to improve, maintain, and organize the information in articles related to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. We hope this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. This page and its subpages contain our suggestions and discussions.

If you would like to help, please introduce yourself on our talk page and add your name as a participant! Or, jump in and expand a stub article with reliable sources. Feel free to ask for help ...

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America descended from the WikiProject Ethnic groups.

It covers all information on Indigenous peoples of the Americas available at Wikipedia, with the purpose of providing a unified coordination of all articles, stubs, categories and lists on the topic and closely related subjects.

– Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

See how similar they are? Both WikiProjects claim to cover all information on the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, even WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America which from the title I would have assumed only covered the Indigenous peoples of North America. Even if it only covered the Indigenous peoples of North America it should be a task force of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, not it's own WikiProject. – Treetoes023 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know yet whether I will support or oppose a merger, but I thought I would add a bit of context. The IP of North America project has been around a long time; I joined 17 years ago. The IP of the Americas project seems to have started when it was realized that the Indigenous peoples of MesoAmerica and the Caribbean did not fit well into the North America project. Central America and the Caribbean islands are geographically part of North America, but the Indigenous peoples of those regions were/are culturally closer to the Indigenous peoples of South America. I have found an old talk page conversation (near the bottom of the linked section) that was part of the conversation that seems to have led to the IP of the Americas project being started. Despite the apparent overlap in names, I believe that the two projects were intended to cover different geographic areas. – Donald Albury 18:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Well in that case I think that WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas should be changed to cover all of the Americas and then there be task forces to cover different geographic areas, such as a task forces for the Indigenous peoples of Northern America, Mesoamerica, the Caribbean, and South America. There should only be one WikiProject about the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and all other projects that are meant to cover a smaller part of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas should be changed to task forces of the universal Indigenous peoples of the Americas WikiProject. – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I would support this becoming thr project to cover all of the Americas, but even as its current scope of North America, Anglophone bias means this project is overwhelmingly focused on Canada and the US, which will likely remain the case. Yuchitown (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

BTW I think there used to be a WikiProject Anishinaabe but that fell by the wayside like most WikiProjects have. Yuchitown (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

@Yuchitown: Unfortunately there will always be Anglophone bias no matter what happens, however it can be counteracted (to an extent) by making task forces specifically for none English-speaking areas. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good then! Yuchitown (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

@Yuchitown: Okay, thanks! – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury and Yuchitown: If it is not contested by either of you I will go ahead and convert WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America into a task force for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. I'll probably do it later today around 18:30 UTC. – Treetoes023 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Whoah there. Slow down. I've never seen a merge of two WikiProjects before and would like to hear from the more experienced editors about what they think and how something like this could be managed. Yuchitown (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

@Yuchitown: Sorry, I have a bit of a patience problem lol. I'll wait for more people to comment. – Treetoes023 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I will just say that I am not sure what will be gained by a merger. Merging projects will take some time and effort, and may leave some editors confused. On the other hand, I would like to see a discussion of how a merger would improve the encyclopedia, specifically, how would it improve coverage of Indigenous peoples in the Americas? What we need is more editors interested in developing quality articles about Indigenous peoples of all of the Americas. How can we recruit such editors? - Donald Albury 19:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: The main advantage I see for this merge is that it unites the membership of the two WikiProjects. It is better for a universal WikiProject so everyone can work together more effectively. Now on the question on how we'll get more editors interested in the Indigenous peoples of the Americas I am not sure. That is a great question that I unfortunately do not have any answers for, as I don't know of any ways to recruit editors to WikiProjects without them just stumbling across the WikiProjects themselves. – Treetoes023 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I don't see how merging the projects will change the way that I work. I am a member of both projects. I interact some with other members of the North American project, which I do not think the merger will affect. I also work some on articles outside the remit of the North American project, but have little interaction with members of the American project who are not members of the North American project. Donald Albury 22:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I think that the merge will increase interaction between members in the general American project which would be a positive as it covers more information. A larger user base for the general American project will help increase coverage over non-North American articles, which arguably need the most attention. – Treetoes023 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of merging two continents into one Wikiproject. Differences are too big to say they're similar. And merging just to increase membership seems to be missing the point of the Wikiprojects topics. The other should be renamed to IP of South America instead of saying IP of the Americas.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The original point of calling the project Indigenous Peoples of the Americas was because of the realization that Mesoamerica and the Caribbean did not fit well in the North America project. Although I have worked on articles about indigenous peoples of the US, the Caribbean, and South American, I feel that a more workable division is a project about the indigenous peoples of what is now the US and Canada, and another project for Mesoamerica, the Caribbean and South America, with what is now northern Mexico fitting in either one. That division would resemble the division of Anglo-America and Latin America, but those would not be appropriate names for projects about indigenous peoples. Donald Albury 23:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking though @Treetoes023: contributions, I see they have been moving a lot of articles with "Native Americans" in the title into "Indigenous peoples"... without any discussions. I find this behavior highly problematic as I don't see them contributing to the articles in any other manner besides enforcing their personal naming convention across many articles. This discussion to merge needs to slow down majorly as I'm concerned by their behavior.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oncamera: I do these moves because the term "Native American" is used exclusively for the Indigenous peoples of the United States and many of these articles cover more than just the United States. These are not my own personal naming conventions. "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" is the only widely accepted term for all of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas used right now. – Treetoes023 (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You should have started discussions because some of the articles pertain mainly to Native Americans in the United States. Your rationale in one edit to move a page that you said was "due" to the "Native American name controversy" also seems inappropriate and biased. I rather see discussions on a main Wikiproject talkpage for mass changes, build a consensus since it seems like now there will be numerous discussions to undo or discuss the changes you made. A lot of wasted time forced onto editors when a larger discussion would have sufficed.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oncamera: Sorry, I thought there was already a consensus on this. A user left a message on my talk page that put me under the impression that there was already a consensus involving the term "Native American". I never thought to look for it, a mistake on my part. – Treetoes023 (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

One person's one sentence response on your talkpage is not a consensus to start moving multiple pages without further discussion. It feels almost like this behavior is to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oncamera: I never said that one person's one sentence response on my talk page is a consensus to start moving multiple pages without further discussion. I said that the person's response made me believe that there was already a consensus, you want to know why? Because they provided a reliable source and stated it like it was something obvious that I should have already known. You should try assuming good faith. It feels almost like this behavior is to misrepresent what I said. – Treetoes023 (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

While it is fine to be bold, when you see a particular style or terminology in wide-spread usage in Wikipedia, it is better to ask why that style or that terminology is in wide-spread use before setting out to change it single-handedly. If some term or phrasing has been in long-term and/or wide-spread use in Wikipedia, there may be a widely-supported consensus for such use. A while back I asked about the use of "Indian" as a term for people and groups who are descended from the people present in America before the arrival of Europeans. I asked that question in a forum where I could be sure that editors who identify as such descendants would see it. The responses were such that I feel comfortable leaving the term "Indian" in place in many articles. It is better to ask before making major changes. Donald Albury 14:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023 in the US there are only two widely used terms, Native American and Indian. Doug Weller talk 07:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Okay, where should I go to get a consensus on the usage of the term "Native American"? – Treetoes023 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Start a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. You should get at least some responses there. By the way, the discussion I mentioned above about the use of "Indian" is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 19#Use of the term "Indian". Donald Albury 18:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge at this time and Strongly urge new user Treetoes023 to take a step back and stop changing names and moving pages without consensus. This user, only active since last summer, has been doing a lot of disruptive editing and is simply not yet familiar enough with the field to be doing any of this. @Treetoes023: I have now posted on your talk page twice about this and you have not responded on user OR article talk. This is not good. Your refusal to discuss these things with other editors is a serious problem. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @CorbieVreccan: I do not have a refusal to discuss with you. The first message you left on my talk page I didn't respond to because you fixed the problem on your own, the second message you added to my talk page was added while I wasn't online, a mere 2 hours ago. I would be happy to discuss with you when I have the time. I have no intent of harming Wikipedia and I do appreciate when someone informs me that my actions do cause harm. – Treetoes023 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Close. Posting this here on 20 March but not at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America until today isn't good. Also this discussion has turned into two separate things. One on the merge and another on naming of Native Americans. As Donald Albury says above that should be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. This should be closed and a proper Wikipedia:Requests for comment opened. 21:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs)

Survey

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage of the term "Native American" on Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This proposal was withdrawn. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

---

The term "Native American" is primarily used in the United States and is used to refer to the Indigenous peoples of the United States, specifically the Indigenous peoples of the contiguous United States, as the Indigenous peoples of Hawaii and Alaska each have their own separate names (Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native). I propose that the term "Native American" is only used in articles when referring exclusively to the Indigenous peoples of the contiguous United States, when referring to more than just the Indigenous peoples of the contiguous United States, the article should default to the catch-all term "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". – Treetoes023 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If the article is mainly about Native Americans, it should stay with the term Native American. If the article is covering two whole continents, then the perhaps term you prefer can apply. However using a term like "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" is very long and not commonly used in news articles or even scholarly articles. For example, per WP:COMMONNAME, I don't think moving Native American name controversy to Indigenous peoples of the Americas name controversy was following Wikipedia policy. Wikiprojects can't make their own policies that go against Wikipedia policy at the end of the day.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oncamera: I know that the term "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" is long and not commonly used because of that, but I haven't come across any other catch-all term. Even when just referring to the Indigenous peoples of North America, each country has its own set of preferred terms, so wouldn't using the term "Native American" on an article when not exclusively referring to the United States be United States centric? – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there shouldn't be an automatic "catch-all" term per WP:TITLE. And if you read Native Americans it can refer to Indigenous people of the Americas outside of the United States. WP:COMMONNAME says to use the common name in the title and not to be pedantic.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oncamera: I know that "Native American" can refer to Indigenous people of the Americas outside of the United States, but it usually refers to the Indigenous peoples of the United States. See this Native American and Indigenous Peoples FAQ by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Take that up with Talk:Native Americans and try to move that page again to Native Americans in the United States (or the other way around) with a move discussion. It's been a few years and I think terms have been better defined since then in recent sources but it requires consensus to make the update here on Wikipedia.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023: remember when you asked for advice, only a few days ago, and I said you needed to take some time to learn your way around these topics before making proposals? This is inappropriate. This shows me you have not been reading and listening. You don't seem to understand the basic terminology yet. Don't waste people's time with these proposals until you know the field better. This will not happen in a matter of days. Take months to read and learn then reconsider. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I apologize, I thought I had learned enough to make a proposal regarding the term "Native American". I spent the past 5 days looking into the topic before making the proposal as an attempt to better learn about the term, I know now that 5 days is much too short to learn about a topic like this. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Inca categories

It seems like the Inca categories are a bit of a dog's breakfast at the moment. Apparently, some things (straightforward things such as items of clothing) are in the top-level "Inca" category, some in "Inca Empire", some in "Inca society", and some in an "Inca culture" category within "Inca society" which seems redundant. I'm not sure I know a lot about the Incas, so I'm not sure whether there's any rhyme or reason to this that isn't immediately apparent, so I wasn't sure that it would be useful for me to start throwing things about. But if other people think it's a mess, maybe it would be useful for somebody to re-organise those categories. Wombat140 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Took a quick look and I see Category:Disestablishments in the Inca, which has one sub-category (no pages), Category:Disestablishments in the Inca civilization by century, which in turn has two sub-categories (no pages), Category:15th-century disestablishments in the Inca civilization and Category:16th-century disestablishments in the Inca civilization, each of which in turn has just one page. I'll wait on dealing with that until we've seen what else needs to be fixed. Donald Albury 12:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

How Wikipedia tells Indigenous history

Hi, I thought this article is of interest to this project, and wanted to share. I agree with the author on most points made.

https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/wikipedia-native-american-history-settler-colonialism.html Magonz (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on a relevant article to this WikiProject

Please give feedback to the new article:

Denial of atrocities against indigenous peoples

Talk:Denial of atrocities against indigenous peoples Magonz (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on usage of First Nations placenames on Wikipedia

There is an ongoing request for discussion concerning whether First Nations placenames can be used in the infobox on Wikipedia. Please provide your feedback here. Poketama (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Map update needed

On Indian reservation the map needs to be updated. Specifically, it needs to include the restored reservations in Oklahoma (unless I'm wrong to call these reservations?) —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 01:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Manuscript

Why is the Voynich manuscript within the scope of this project? It seems to be entirely of European origin and history. Is there something I'm missing? weeg (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Input requested

There’s a discussion at Talk:List of larger indigenous peoples of Russia#Dubious on the identification of ethnic Russians as an Indigenous people. —Michael Z. 20:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to split History of Guyana article

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:History of Guyana#Split into pre- and post-independence history? about splitting the article into two parts, one covering all of Guyanese history up to independence and another covering everything from Guyana's independence to the present-day. This discussion may be relevant as Indigenous people are mentioned various times within the History of Guyana article as they are a key part of Guyanese history. Comments would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)