Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

WikiProject iconIndigenous peoples of North America NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Move request Edit

There is a move request at Talk:Black Hills land claim that may be of interest to members of this project. Larataguera (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Input requested Edit

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)Reply[reply]

Michael this is the talk page for the Indigenous Peoples of North America, not of Eurasia. That would be out of this project's purview to my knowledge, I and others can offer personal opinions based on UN rulings and scholarly consensus but not from any area of authority. AevumNova (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! Edit

My name username is AevumNova and I am wanting to become more involved in this project! I am pretty new to wikipedia and if anyone knows some simple menial tasks that need to be done please let me know! AevumNova (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AevumNova:, there is a list of things to do at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/To do. If you enjoy looking things up, I think a satisfying task would be to take a stub article from Category:Indigenous peoples of North America stubs and search for reliable sources with which to expand it. You don't need to worry too much about formatting of text and citations, at least at first, as other editors can help with that. Adding content that is supported by reliable sources (with sufficient information to identify those sources) about subjects that fall under this project will always be a benefit to Wikipedia and this project. Other tasks might be more comfortable for you after you have gained more experience with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As for research, if you have access to a decent library you might find some books from academic and major publishers that will be useful. Some journals and older books are freely available on-line, and others might be available on-line through a library where you have privileges. Be aware, however, that older works about Indigenous peoples of North America (and other places in the world) often have problems with accuracy and viewpoint. Members of this project can help you sort through those kind of issues. Donald Albury 17:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! I found an article on domestic abuse in the Navajo Nation to be focused mainly on very old sources and am looking to update them with more modern research! AevumNova (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds good! Donald Albury 20:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of First Nations placenames RFC Edit

Please be aware of the result of this RFC on the use of First Nations placenames for cities and otherwise. It states that First Nations placenames may be used in the infobox even if the First Nations group a minority of the population.

As an example, articles on New Zealand, Ireland, Wales, South Africa, etc. places already do this. Australia has started to roll it out, as can be seen on Melbourne. However, First Nation placenames are not widely used on US and Canadian articles yet (in large part due to editors removing them when people add them). Please feel free to add them to articles, and refer those who revert any such changes to the results of the RFC. Poketama (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you all. I'm happy to finally see this change in policy. PersusjCP (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect it'll still take some work but I'm happy to see it happen. Glad it helps.
Arguments to be prepared for now -
•It should only be used if its an 'official' name (ie. under state law) - woops...should have put that in the RFC. It seems to be Moxy's opinion that this is the case. I haven't seen any actual policy or consensus to back this argument up.
•Your sources aren't good enough! (this one is perennial no matter how good the sources are, seek dispute resolution)
•Whether a First Nations place name can apply to the current settlement that stands atop the prior named territory (an argument repeated forever, rarely it does have merit though if First Nations people don't actually refer to the settlement area by that name)
•Whether First Nations names can be used in the lead sentence ie. Melbourne (Boonwurrung: Naarm). There's a lot of precedent for this but it might take another RFC to work out with North American users. Poketama (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Poketama: Please take a moment to read WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you have concerns about the RfC, please discuss them in a way that assumes good faith, and promotes collegiality and consensus. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Witchcraft Edit

There's a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft about traditional vs western/pop culture/neopagan definitions of the word, and which to prioritize in the lead of Witchcraft. As the article includes Indigenous content, could use some eyes. - CorbieVreccan 17:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clan Mother Edit

Here we go again. Just moved into article space from a student's sandbox. I don't think I can get to this today. Can someone look this over and see if it's acceptable or if it needs to be moved back to their sandbox? If it's not OK, be bold. If it's actually alright, I'd be surprised but relieved. - CorbieVreccan 20:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Previous discussion, which resulted in move of draft (needing overhaul/cleanup) to another user's sandbox, where it hasn't really been worked on. Discussion includes links to related/overlappin articles. - CorbieVreccan 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do apologize for the length of time it has taken. I haven't been able to devote the time needed but I haven't given up either. I am currently trying to acquire some of the books listed to verify their connection with the subject. Any determination or rewrite should still go through this project/community review and subsequent acceptance in my opinion. --ARoseWolf 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't looked at this article in depth but parts of it may be used, provided the sources are deemed reliable, to bolster any rewrite of the other article, a merge of sorts. May be a good idea to reach out to the student editor and see if they would care to collaborate further on the subject. I am all for learning experiences and believe we all can learn but agree that it must be done in the right way for the integrity of the encyclopedia and the subjects being discussed. --ARoseWolf 20:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left a note on talk asking them to engage here. My main issue with the first draft, the sources as far as we could ascertain, and the editor using them, was a general past-tensing and what read like a colonial lens. At first glance the new draft looks to at least be using contemporary Haudenosaunee sources, but I haven't had a chance to check them to make sure. It really should not have been moved to mainspace without more input and review, imho. - CorbieVreccan 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with your assessment 100%. In regards to the first draft, I knew that to be your main concern and that should most definitely be addressed, however, I believe that, if I am, or others are, going to take on the task of rewriting and editing the article from my own sandbox then I wanted to make sure that responsibility is not taken lightly and the article's sources are checked and verified thoroughly. You know that in my initial days of being an editor here I made many mistakes in my assumptions of the reliability of sources and relied upon my own personal understanding of how things worked. That is an error that I have learned from, in part, because of your insistence and guidance. --ARoseWolf 20:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article as it stands now is Haudenosaunee specific. This needs to be reflected in the title or the article needs to be expanded to address the system in other Nations. The sources are fine. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thoughts as well. I suggest posting about this on article talk. - CorbieVreccan 19:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the student and advisor have not engaged, I've moved it to Haudenosaunee Clan Mother and will make Clan Mother a disambig. This can be changed later if the article is expanded. - CorbieVreccan 19:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Edit

Hi, I'm pingnova. I like editing articles on US upper Midwest history, particularly around the Twin Cities Minnesota. I'm a white settler descendant and IRL I work with a lot of Native efforts. I decided to start researching and including Native history for any article I edit since I know it's often overlooked. I plan to continue to do that, so I'm not sure if I fall under the scope of this project since most of my articles aren't focused on Indigenous topics, but I wanted to say hi and thank you for your helpful articles on editing. If there are any particular things I should keep in mind please let me know. I am a systems thinker so I just like processes and lists to check off.

Here's my process:

  • Who isn't in this article that should be? (For me usually women and Native perspectives)
  • Who lived here before white settlers?
  • Who lived with white settlers? What were interactions like?
  • Is there a Native place name missing?
  • Which treaty is associated with the history of this place? What of the treaty may be specifically about this place?
  • Are there Native sources about this place?
  • Do the white settler sources line up generally with Native sources? (When I can't find many specific Native perspectives)
  • Is this school or orphanage really just that? Is this related to boarding schools?
  • Were people related to this topic involved in conflicts with Native groups?

I also try to keep the elements of land acknowledgements in mind since they can be a good summary to build from. Pingnova (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DNA Edit

Native American ancestry could use some eyes. Discussion on talk. - CorbieVreccan 23:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Women in Red this month: Indigenous women Edit

Heads up: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/278 topic: Indigenous women | August 2023. They've suggested people read the WP:NDN-ID essay, thankfully, and I'm going to ask that they check in here. I've had to make some corrections already. - CorbieVreccan 19:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Nations actors Edit

Just added the new article for Paulina Alexis to our wikiproject. Looking through the cast articles for Reservation Dogs, for instance, I'm noticing that a number of bios have not been added. This is the code to add on article talk pages if you've got the time for some wikignoming:

{{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America|class=|importance=}} - CorbieVreccan 21:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

State-recognized groups Edit

Could there be - and should there be - a category for members of state-recognized groups? Such a category could perhaps include sub-categories such as Category:Lumbee people as well as individuals like Lisa Brooks and Jeanne Rorex-Bridges. I wanted to discuss it here to see if it would be worth considering, but I thought it might be useful to gather these people in one category. Maybe something like Category:Members of state-recognized tribes or Category:People by state-recognized tribe? Could there be an article listing people who are members of these groups? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe not a collective list (so many lists of people languish and just duplicate categories), but I support your suggestion for specific categories. The Abenaki and Cherokee state-recognized groups are the most contested. I can't think offhand of any biographical articles for people from state-recognized groups identifying as Shawnee or Delaware. Using Jeanne Rorex-Bridges as an example; the Echota Cherokee are a giant enough group that they could warrant their own category, but then what do about her classification in Category:Cherokee artists? Downcat to Chategory:Artists from Cherokee state-recognized tribes? Yuchitown (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
Seems reasonable, given the issues with the groups named. At least a brief article and a cat. - CorbieVreccan 18:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of unrecognized tribes in the United States Edit

Related to the above section, we could use more input at Talk:List of unrecognized tribes in the United States about renaming this list. Groups that don't meet the definition of a Native American / Indian tribe, and don't meet the criteria for state or federal recognition, are on this list. We are discussing several proposals in an effort to find a more NPOV name for these groups. - CorbieVreccan 18:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Credibility bot Edit

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indigenous Canadian personalities Edit

Needs cleanup. I can see a number of people who are Indigenous but are inadequately sourced. While some whom I've never heard of having heritage are included, with non-WP:RS/non-WP:NDN-RS sourcing, and their bio pages don't mention any heritage. - CorbieVreccan 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a strange article scope. Lists are bad enough. Yuchitown (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

Input Desired at Plains Indian Sign Language Edit

I'd like to make some changes at Plains Indian Sign Language, and I would appreciate some input before going forward. I've linked to the relevant talk page section. Thanks! Aamri2 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section? Fixing link: Talk:Plains Indian Sign Language#Plains Sign Talk -> Plains Sign Language
I'll take a look. Meanwhile, I'd like to take a run at the lede. It's very wordy and a bit convoluted. - CorbieVreccan 23:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acjachemen Edit

Noting that the Acjachemen-related articles, including geographical articles for places in Southern California, have been edited to promote a self-identified "tribe" that calls itself the "Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation". I have removed some of the promotion of this group, but we need to keep an eye open. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also note the same issue exists for the Ohlone and Tongva-related articles. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Witchcraft#RFC on Lede Section on Witchcraft Edit

The article has sections on Indigenous cultures. There has been conflict around the meanings of the words "traditional" and "witchcraft". - CorbieVreccan 19:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polar bear is a Featured Article candidate Edit

There is quite a lot in this article about Indigenous peoples. Would anyone like to make sure it's right? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Hale (cattleman) and Osage Indian murders Edit

Hi all, I've been working on expanding William Hale (cattleman)'s article to try and get it to a good place before the release of Killers of the Flower Moon (film) likely increases traffic to the page. I wanted to post here for two reasons: 1) If anyone has time to look at Hale's article, I've read it too many times and have trouble copy editing because I'm so used to reading the errors at this point and could use another set of eyes. Also, wanted to see if there was any interest in copy editing and updating the Osage Indian murders article if it needs it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improvements for Two-spirit Edit

Hi, I updated the IPNA importance scale to high importance on Two-spirit, indicating need for expert attention and more images. I recommend this action because the page's history of vandalism may have skewed content, that this is a significant social topic in North America (for example many use the acronym LGBTQIA2S+), there is a lack of clarity on the page about Two-spirit as an umbrella term and how it is represented in specific communities, and richer content from modern contexts is required to fully round out the article. This was my first article assessment so please let me know any feedback. I don't have time to edit it right now but I was going to compile a list of more recent resources that may help improve the page. Pingnova (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should anyone have the chance, I made extensive edits to the page to better align with OR, SYNTH, readability, verifiability, and clarity standards. The most prolific editor of the page reversed these edits and we are discussing in the talk page. My main concern is that the article is an academic and Eurocentric overview of a Native cultural topic. There are almost no Native sources, and certainly very little of the material is dated after 2009. Input on talk would be appreciated. Pingnova (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I just said on talk, there are some serious problems with Pingnova's edits, such as
  • the addition of a pull quote by a pretendian,
  • moving cited content to new sections then falsely flagging it as unsourced, and
  • removing the fact that 2S is a modern term from the lede.
  • Doing too many edits in a row for "undo" to work.
  • Pingnovae wants to revive the Two-Spirit identity theory article.
  • Pingnova also put "who?" flags on Native journalists like Mary Annette Pember.
Pingnova, I strongly advise you to please wait for feedback from more experienced editors before proceeding with this. I just had to do a whole bunch of cleanup, and I think that if you had taken the time to read the sources and page history you could have saved us a lot of time. I'm concerned that what you think are "better" sources may be more recent, pop culture or queer studies writings that are not accurate. Is that what you have in mind? Additionally, previous vandalism is not the issue. The page is semi'ed and editiors in good standing wrote the version you've just made massive changes to. - CorbieVreccan 21:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pingnova:, I was initially encouraged that you weighed in here.[1] But proposing a new draft for an existing Indigenous wikiproject article in your sandbox: Draft:Two-spirit is concerning, as are your stated intentions on Talk:Two-spirit to "escalate".[2] Have you read the WP:NDNID essay yet? - CorbieVreccan 23:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pingnova I am very concerned about your Two-spirit draft. Changes that were made to a stable article were unnecessary, inaccurate and for me, cause for concern. I wonder if it has occurred to you that some of the editors on the article are actual members of the 2S community? You were not even aware that an individual that you used a pull quote from is a pretendian. I appreciate that you would like an accurate article - the article was already accurate :) Indigenous girl (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I wasn't aware that the pullquote was from someone who didn't meet the guidelines. I attempted to verify before adding it and wasn't able to find anything that indicated it couldn't be verified. The article you sent me I don't know that I would have been able to find by myself, because it's on a user generated content blog site, which wiki guidelines specifically say arent good sources, I was only looking at established sites and the first several pages of results for keywords, vs every single mention on the internet. I really appreciate that you pointed out that part didn't work. I certainly do not want to include any false or misleading information, or anything against the identity verification guidelines. With the quote I was trying to include recent perspectives in the words two-spirit people.
As for the other edits, the article was confusing to read, and had over 100 sources, yet nearly the whole first half relied on about three. One was a textbook and one an internal staff communication that might have qualified as a primary source. A large portion of the text was quotes from those sources, and quotes that were truncated and recontextualized in the Wikipedia article to make it seem as though they were saying something they were not. Their ref tags were attached to claims that the articles didn't actually make. For example the communication was clipped to make it seem as though the author thought that the term and identity of two-spirit was misleading, but if you read the article she was saying that it is misleading for white anthropologists and archeologists to create records of their studies that called anything they didn't know about two-spirit rather than talking to tribes to learn their own terms. She also went on to say it's bad practice to fold any Native identity that isn't in the western conception of a gender binary under third gender or another gender umbrella, particularly if a modern tribe had record of a specific word they should use. The article was about creating precise and non-biased academic primary sources, particularly in the face of the profession's previous mistakes, not the general use of two-spirit in the way of someone choosing to identify themselves that way. But the wiki article did not specify any of that, it was listed under general criticism. I rephrased the surrounding text to clarify the context, moved it under a section about criticism of umbrella terms in academia, and completed the quote so there was no ambiguous meaning.
Likewise the NYT article quotes were from one person from one tribe and tradition. The two-spirirt article goes to pains to remind the reader multiple times that each tribe has different traditions and that neither two-spirit nor any other words but their own can encompass their experiences. But without specifying what tradition that person was talking about, the quote was framed as a criticism of the identity as a whole and confusingly generalized tribal two-spirit traditions. The only quote included from the NYT article titled the positive "A Spirit of Belonging" was one framed as a broad criticism and none of the other quotes talking about for example why people in the article were two-spirit or as the title implies, what is positive about being two-spirit.
I made grammatical and clarity edits that included reshuffling extended discussion of certain topics into headings about that discussion so the article has a clear structure and each section talks about something distinct, instead of similar points over and over again. There were duplicate references and a few that were broken as well. (One ISBN leads to another book entirely, which I think is the fault of ISBN, because the same duplication happened when I searched Internet Archive and WorldCat, but it should still be corrected.) Particularly in the lede there is extra information better suited to headings such as Etymology, since the lede is supposed to be a summary of key points and not a list of every point. The article also heavily focuses on two-spirit in academics, such as anthropology and etymology, and there's very little information on the people who actually use the term personally. Two-spirit societies, self-identified two-spirits, and a couple other mentions are it. Like I mentioned above, the article is incomplete as it is, and leans more towards the article it was merged with that was about academic theory. Many of the sources even for the two headings I mentioned are from before 2016, and being that it's 2023, about 7 years later, there should definitely be a larger body of recent literature to draw from.
I won't touch the page anymore because I didn't realize the state of the page was intentional and I'm not here to fight with people. I just won't be sending anyone to that page if I want them to get a good idea of two-spirit. I also noticed corbie seems to have copy pasted quite a few of my edits back in even if slightly rephrased and followed a few of of my content suggestions, particularly around the context of quotes. That's heartening even if confusing in the context of this whole exchange. Pingnova (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You wrote:
The article was about creating precise and non-biased academic primary sources, particularly in the face of the profession's previous mistakes, not the general use of two-spirit in the way of someone choosing to identify themselves that way. But the wiki article did not specify any of that, it was listed under general criticism.
But from the very beginning of the coining of the term, many of the Native folks for whom the two spirit label was intended have had issues with it. As we've sourced, a lot of Natives have felt that non-Natives have dominated the support for it, and some of these folks are journalists and academics whose voices are featured in the article. At one point we cut all the non-Native sources but then, ironically, we found that some of the better material was from a wide range of people who had actually attended the conferences and taken time to interview participants who felt unheard in the meetings. This was covered in the article, but if you were confused by it, other readers may be as well, so I took the time to clarify it more.
You are mistaken in thinking the "identiy theory" content was merged. The article was looked over but very little was usable. It was turned into a redirect. We have an ongoing problem of pretendians in academia trying to publish their theories here, in complete dissociation from what is going on in Indian Country. Then at the same time there are principles and protocols about these things that our editors here know, but can't source, because it's in-community stuff that isn't published.
You know, there's not a huge body of recent literature to draw from because the project of using 2S has, by a number of estimations, failed. It's been so widely misappropriated and misrepresented, that at this point it seems the main point of the article may be to document that trajectory. Many Natives who formerly identified as 2S no longer do, due to all the misrepresentations and misappropriations, or because it was just never culturally accurate. It's largely non-Natives who've just discovered a pop-culture simplification/misrepresentation who think it's important. More and more Natives are avoiding the term. So, yeah, we are documenting the history of development and usage in a lot of cases because there's no reason to keep building on something that many never adopted. - CorbieVreccan 00:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured article review Edit

I have nominated Lawrence Sullivan Ross for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dylanvt (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sheldon Jackson Museum Edit

On Commons, I've been adding a large set of photos to Commons:Category:Collections of the Sheldon Jackson Museum; still quite a few more to come. (now completed - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)). There were not a lot of wall texts, and I'm definitely out of my depth on knowing what comes from what tribe/nation; in some cases, I'm not even sure of the nature of the objects in question. If someone has more expertise, it would be greatly appreciated if they could go through these photos to improve description and categorization.Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, the collection is mostly (overwhelmingly) from the 1880s and first half of the 1890s. - Jmabel | Talk 22:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Providing sufficient context? Edit

I am working on drafts for two Wampanoag Sachem Askamaboo and Wunnatuckquannumou, the latter of which was just declined for providing insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter, I have previously only really written articles on contemporary artists and haven't run into this before. Any tips for working through this? Not sure how to contextualize further. Chainsawpunk (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Who, what, when, where, why". Reading these, there's no dates. There's also a lack of context into their reigns -- what issues were their people facing that they resolved? Was it common to have female leaders? etc. Just like contemporary artists, they are creating withing dates and history that influenced their creations, the leaders need context to their article for the general reader. Write like you're explaining it to a 5 year old.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't checked the draft for Wunnatuckquannumou yet, in Askamaboo's there is no indication of when she was alive. You state she was literate however she was not, she recognized the importance of literacy yet she herself had to have the letter mentioned in "Closing the Circle" transcribed (among other legal documents). Aside from being sachem at Nantucket, she had ties to Nunpoag and Chappaquiddick. Her family historically were witness to land transfers and vice versa into her time as sachem. Also, the Starbuck's Account Book which is the day to day accounting of the Starbuck's truck house on Nantucket provides insight into Askamaboo's life according to her trading. It might be available online at the Nantucket Historical Society. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, much to think about. I'm going to get back to work. Chainsawpunk (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Chainsawpunk! I had a look at the draft for Wunnatuckquannumou and saw that throughout her life she was known by various names. Did you try searching for sources about her using those names, and also Mrs. John Webscouet and Mrs. Jacob Washaman? I'll keep an eye out for reliable sources that might be useful. Good luck! Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I was having more trouble finding sources on her than I was with Askamaboo, but have been finding there are some holes in the sources. Am going to go back and scour again but have been trouble finding info on dates and specific territories, I am looking for Starbuck's Account Book as recommended by @Indigenous girl as I think this will be a big help for her article. Chainsawpunk (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been a while since I've utilized this source, [3], you may find some helpful information here or at the very least pointers in a direction to finding more information. I wish I had time to help more but I'm dealing with health issues right now. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Indigenous girl, I'm wishing you the very best for a full recovery. Netherzone (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Netherzone thank you so much <3 Indigenous girl (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Indigenous girl seconded, I hope you have a quick recovery. Thank you for your help. Chainsawpunk (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chainsawpunk thank you so much <3 In looking for sources for both women, aside from searching their names and variants of their communities, also check Chappaquiddick. There may be name variants not listed elsewhere. Also, look into early Massachusetts probate court records. I vaguely remember a plea from Wunnatuckquannumou to the courts regarding the enslavement of a member of the Mingo family or simply Mingo though I could be wrong. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes from "Indian" or other terms to "Amerindian" Edit

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas#Changes from "Indian" or other terms to "Amerindian". Doug Weller talk 11:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dual citizenship Edit

Most tribes prohibit dual citizenship, but some allow it. I think it would be useful to maintain a list of some sort on Wikipedia of tribes that allow dual enrollment and what that entails. I'm not sure if this could be its own article or perhaps a section of an existing article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe there are enough published articles about that subject to support anything about it. Basically, a handful of tribes allow dual citizenship, while most don't. Everything here is supposed to be based on published, secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
Maybe a Wikiproject page might be worth having. It might make copy editing some articles easier. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I promise there isn't much to say about it, and I'd be impressed if there are quality published articles on the subject. Besides Osage Nation, Cherokee Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, and Quapaw Nation, who allows multiple enrollment? Oscar Hokeah is enrolled in both the Cherokee Nation and the Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, which the Kiowas don't allow, so I'm amazed they haven't come down on him yet. Yuchitown (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
I don't know who allows multiple enrollment, which is why I think a list may be useful. Keep in mind I edit about Oklahoma politicians and tribal politicians in Oklahoma so I probably see a disproportionate number of dual tribal citizens. Just off the top of my head I wrote Joseph Tali Byrd (who funny enough I think is Cherokee, Quapaw, and Osage) this year. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure about this new article Native American–Jewish relations Edit

And Category:Native American–Jewish relations. I just removed Felix S. Cohen from it. The article looks good in parts but I think it needs eyes. Thanks. Ping creator of both User:Bohemian Baltimore. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a new article and needs to be fleshed out, with more content and better sources. What aren't you sure about? Thank you. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD that may be of interest here Edit

A discussion about the deletion of an article is taking place: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native American Guardians Association WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dakota War of 1862 Edit

Could use some eyes. Discussion of possible forks and new articles at Talk:Dakota War of 1862. Some users were pinged, but not editors from this project. See also Draft:Bdóte. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan 23:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's difficult for me to wrap my head around Draft:Bdóte it seems like a mash-up of too many disparate things. From geography to parks/cemetaries/burial mounds, to languages/dialects, to restaurants and podcasts. I understand that it is a confluence of cultures, and know it is still a draft, but I'm having trouble getting to here: What is the central key purpose or concept? Without having an understanding of that it is hard to make suggestions for improvements or relevant citations. Netherzone (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor is using "Bdote" to cover a lot of unrelated terms as some kind of POV fork. They seemed to be doing something similar with their other draft on Two Spirit.  oncamera  (talk page) 00:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm displeased at their use of the photo of prayer flags. The aren't the prayers of the photographer, it feels like a huge boundary violation to me. They seem really new to the topic in general, they don't exactly know how to identify problematic individuals, I feel like they are getting ahead of themselves. The Bdote draft is a mess of messes. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alalch E. helped out by turning the same user's 2S draft into a redirect the existing article, as it was a duplicate/POV fork of Two-spirit. The Bdote draft... again seems like something that will never pass AfC and should probably not be there, for all the reasons everyone has cited. WP is not the place for someone's unsourced project. I also think the photo of someone else's prayers is inappropriate and should be removed. I think if the photographer had understood the protocols she would not have taken and posted the photo to flickr. - CorbieVreccan 19:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see an argument for the splitting of the executions into a separate article (if there is enough sourcing to support it). I haven't done a literature review or anything, but coverage/analysis of the massacre may justify a separate article being developed to explore the coverage specific to it that may be out of place in the larger article.
But to do the split well someone would need to expand the coverage of the executions, it looks like most of the sourcing is decades old research which isn't necessarily bad, but adding some new scholarship probably wouldn't hurt. There are over 200 google scholar results since 2019 that could be used to help expand a split. Also, generally agree with folks here that the Bdote draft is not good. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, we already have Bdote Fort Snelling which is a redirect to Fort Snelling, which has this section: Fort Snelling#Bdóte. @Pingnova:, I see you edited this section, to put in a cite (as a bare url; please read WP:CITE and WP:CS1 and learn how to format citations). Why are you not fleshing out existing articles? This looks to me, as with Draft:Two-spirit, an attempt to rewrite existing content as an unneeded, and not in compliance with policy, POV-fork. I propose, like with the 2S draft we redirect it to Fort Snelling or Fort Snelling#Bdóte. - CorbieVreccan 20:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not commenting on the merits of anything here, but as a quick policy note: As much as I respect Alalch E., they're completely wrong on policy here, and I'd caution against taking their mistaken unilateral action as authorative. Unilateral redirection of drafts can be appropriate when the draft is identical to the article, or in lieu of speedy deletion. (That's not even in any policy, but seems common sense.) But there is no rule against using draftspace to rewrite an existing article, nor to work on a potential fork of an article. (I've done it, as part of bringing an article from stub to GA; here's another I have on the back burner.) I'm not going to revert Alalch at the two-spirit draft, because I imagine if Pingnova objected they would have themself reverted, but this is not an appropriate way to convey objections to a draft's content. The correct approach is to either follow the normal editorial process (WP:BRD, talkpage feedback) or to take the draft to MfD (but note WP:NDRAFT). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks both for the pings. So yes, I hear that. However at MfD, speedy redirection per WP:SRE could always be applied (the most obscure guideline maybe?). Redirecting can be a constructive way to signal to an editor that their draft is not promising and that they should test their ideas for improving the article on the talk page. But if the draft indicates the presence of sensible ideas for improvement it should not be redirected. That draft was not promising and I was unable to see any such ideas being expressed within. —Alalch E. 20:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for weighing in, Tamzin. I had asked Liz for advice on deletions because new user Pingnova, who created the drafts is refusing to respond on talk. When Pingnova posted here, they made a number of comments that made it clear they are unfamiliar with the topics they want to write on. This has also become clear in the drafts and other edits they have made. We have a situation where a new editor has some sweeping ideas for replacing existing content on Indigenous topics, but their initial efforts have, by the estimation of a number of us here at the wikiproject, been problematic. - CorbieVreccan 20:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with @Oncamera and @CorbieVreccan that the Bdote draft as well as the Two-spirit draft are POV forks and are unnecessary. I also agree with the above editors regarding use of the prayer flag photo. @Pingnova, I know you are enthusiastic about editing in the indigenous area, and not to quell your enthusiasm, but it's been suggested that you slow down and work things thru with other editors before making sweeping changes.That seems like good advice that is well intended! Netherzone (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what you mean by working things through with other editors, responding to talk page feedback? (Tone is hard on the internet.) As the draft and others in this comment have acknowledged, it's a draft that isn't done yet. I explained elsewhere that I was working though sources slowly because I'm focusing on meeting verifiability requirements from the get-go. I will add a list of sources to the Bdote page since even though it isn't finished I can understand why that would be an issue that jumps out. Sources aren't in templates because I edit on a mobile device, which makes that really difficult. I was going to do the largest content and then align the sources with templates, because that will take a considerable amount of time and effort for me.

Bdote is not the same as Fort Snelling. "Fort Snelling at Bdote" was a proposed name for the park around the fort that was abandoned due to budget threats, as outlined on the Bdote page. All that exists on wiki purely on Bdote today is Bdote Memory Map, which is one of the core sources for the Bdote draft. Fort Snelling is within Bdote, like other locations listed in the draft.

As for responding, I have a job and a life outside of Wikipedia so I can't even be on here daily. I'd really appreciate time to respond to comments that's inclusive of people who can't dedicate large amounts of time to being on Wikipedia. Particularly before large reversions or moves are made on something I've been dedicating a lot of time and effort to. In the past week h I've had way way more pings than I ever had in seven years, which is kind of ooverwhelming. I also only have a certain amount of data each month and can't edit once that's up unless I can get somewhere with wifi. Off-Wikipedia I've been spending time reading some of the books I'm using as sources to make sure I'm getting all of the information that's relevent out of them, usually when I run out of data.

Am I using drafts incorrectly? The help pages say they are for proposing and workshopping new or updated articles, and hosting writing which isn't up to wiki standards yet (typically what the word draft means anyway), which is what I've been treating them as. Especially considering I can't make edits all at once, but in pieces because of my limited free time and internet access, I figured a draft was the way to go.

TulsaPoliticsFan mentioned one of the reasons I've been making the draft and other edits: outdated sources that are decades old when there are hundreds of new ones since just 2019. This is true of two-spirit, the U.S.–Dakota War of 1862, Bdote, the Dakota 86+2, and many other pages I've looked at. Recent sources are encouraged on Wikipedia and by the IPNA guidelines that I read. I want to verify existing sources and update outdated information. Usually outdated info about Native people in MN comes from missionaries and other colonizing authorities, which tend to not be accurate to Native perspectives. A lot of Dakota language on wiki for example sources Stephen R. Riggs's orthography, which was functional at the time, but doesn't totally reflect historical Dakota understandings and definitely doesn't reflect modern usage. His intent in recording Dakota was to translate the Bible and other Christian texts for conversion, which is a major bias to consider when sourcing his work. Authors such as Colette Hyman, Gwen Westerman, and Bruce White, and programs such as Dakhóta Iápi Okhódakičhiye and the U of M are much more recent and accurate verifiable sources for Dakota language construction and orthography, and history and modern culture. Bdote uses info from Hyman, Westerman, and White, as well as some other sources such as the U of M Dakota language program site and the Fort Snelling official website. - Pingnova (for some reason I was unable to use the reply buttons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingnova (talkcontribs) 21:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Bdote could exist, but not the way that it's being written about as if it's "geographical location" on Pingnova's draft. The junction of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers--known to the Dakota as Bdote--is a place of major social, cultural, and historical significance to all people inhabiting the region, a place whose history evokes both pride and pain. It is a place of cultural importance to many Dakota people as a site of creation, as well as a historical gathering place and the site of the internment of Dakota people in the wake of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.[4] It's a sacred location that has many historical events tried to it, from the supernatural to Euro-Dakota interactions, and the draft fails to convey that (yeah, it's a draft). It's written from a Western viewpoint that tries to present a POV that promotes Dakota language, but it's a really empty article when you get past the Indigenous placenames and I think it would be deleted in present form it's taking. I think could write a draft with sourced information that would validate its existence as a separate article but it would have to start from scratch using sources and not just writing an essay and later trying to source it.  oncamera  (talk page) 20:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's an essay tone. Not encyclopedic. WP:TNT. I'd trust you to start over with it. - CorbieVreccan 20:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess, rather than deleting it, you could just TNT in the draft form, if you want. - CorbieVreccan 20:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully support you writing it @Oncamera, whether you start from scratch or nuke the current draft. Currently it's just so bad and there needs to be more of a Dakota input aside from language bits. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AND all the language bits need to be checked, or cut, as well. They can't be assumed to be correct. Which is another reason I want OnCamera to do it. Pingnova has had a lot of their efforts at Dakota reverted, both on WP and on wiktionary. I asked a L/D/N teacher friend to take a look at their contribs and they were also concerned. - CorbieVreccan 21:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, none of my edits on Wiktionary have been reverted. If you have questions about the sources, they are listed on the entries. Pingnova (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edits had to be heavily re-edited in some cases, creating extra work for other editors who also have busy lives. That's why you're being advised to slow your roll until you have educated yourself with the books you say you are reading. Your rush to add information creates work for others having to re-write the things you add.  oncamera  (talk page) 22:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were edited to fix formatting mistakes, not content. Please see the edit notes to verify. Pingnova (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is untrue. - CorbieVreccan 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how to respond to this. Again please see the edit history on those articles. Additionally you can talk to User:Surjection who helped me fix up the formatting. Thanks. Pingnova (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[ec] About the viability of Bdóte as an article: It looks like there should be this article so that the coverage would not be fragmented. The main Bdóte content has been placed within Pike Island as the h2 "History", but the area of Bdóte does not correspond to the island. At the same time, a fragment about Bdóte is in the Fort Snelling article; incidentally, this is the only place with a "Bdóte" heading, however the paragraph starts with a Bdóte pipe which leads to the island (but then, that article says that the island =/= Bdóte). This is highly disorganized, and it would be better to concentrate that coverage at a separate page. Since a draft is in development, interested editors could go and do plain old editing of the draft. Alternatively, a stub can quickly be created, and/or existing coverage of the topic can be copied there, and summarized on the source pages.—Alalch E. 20:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, this is why I originally set out to create the Bdote page. There was no Bdote page and Pike Island and Fort Snelling are not all of Bdote. What do you think I should add to the draft? Pingnova (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally would delete and start over using sources to write the article as is the norm on Wikipedia. Again, you are asking other editors to fix your editing skills and your rush to write drafts without using sources.  oncamera  (talk page) 22:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pingnova: as Wikipedians, we work usually collaborate on existing articles. We create sections in existing articles and then, with consensus, consider if there's enough for splitting that material into its own article. If you want to do the type of unsourced practice you've been doing, your personal sandbox is more appropriate than drafts for a beginner editor such as yourself.
@Oncamera: it might be easier technically, as in avoiding page deletion codes and such, to just manually, as a regular editor, blank the page and start over with the new content when you're ready. It will accomplish the same end with less technicalities. If you want a different title, you can move it once the draft is more substantial. Or, that's how I'd do it at this point. Same effect as TNT, but less hassle. - CorbieVreccan 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, backdoor deletions of drafts are inappropriate. MfD is an option; otherwise, one can always create a second draft suffixed with "(2)". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pingnova, you say you have limited time, limited data and a busy job and a busy life. Join the club, we are all in the same boat as volunteer editors! All the more reason to just slow down, take time to mull over other folks comments, criticism, and viewpoints. Trust your fellow editors, they are awesome and smart and extremely knowlegeable of the field thru their own communities and their scholarship. Netherzone (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toward reconciliation Edit

So, for full context here, I've been talking to Pingnova a bit on Discord the past week or two about all of this. Since I edit about LGBTQ topics, we got to talking about the Two-spirit article, and since then I've stayed abreast of related developments. I haven't commented on-wiki because my awareness only came from these off-wiki discussions, but I happen to have this page watchlisted from a past discussion, and saw this matter come up on my watchlist today, so decided to comment.

My impression of Pingnova is someone who cares deeply about this topic area, and who wants to improve Wikipedia's coverage of it, particularly in decolonizing the sources and perspectives used. My impression of people who've criticized their edits is... the same. It really looks like everyone here wants the same thing.

So, again, I'm an outsider to this topic area, but I know some of you know me, and I know Pingnova knows me, and I'm hoping I can act as a kind of bridge here toward a reconciliation. It seems to me that the main issue here isn't that Pingnova is ignorant as to Indigenous topics, but rather that they are unfamiliar with Wikipedia norms on writing about these topics. And that what they could really use here is some sort of mentorship, either formal or informal.

oncamera, since you've indicated interest in writing the same article Pingnova wants to write, would you be open to working together with them on that, and in the process answering whatever questions that they may have, and clearing up any misconceptions that may arise, regarding writing about Indigenous topics on Wikipedia? That strikes me as a possibility that could benefit Wikipedia both with a new quality article and a new quality contributor. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not interested in editing their draft nor being someone's mentor to Native topics who behaves as they do. Bdote would have to be completely re-written from the start using reliable sources (the foundation of Wikipedia) and so there's no point in trying to save materials from their version which has few sources.  oncamera  (talk page) 22:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tamzin, with all due respect for you and your efforts, Pingnova, a young person who posted above and said they are a white settler, called an article written by Indigenous people, some of whom are two spirit, a product of "vandalism". They wanted to revive a white-lens article on the topic. They wanted to write a new article to replace the Indigenous-written one. They kept showing a clear lack of familiarity with the topic, and that they had mostly read pop-culture misinformation. Pingnova flagged well-known Indigenous writers with "who"? tags, removed the fact that the term is modern from the lede, even though there is hidden text citing sources and saying not to remove the word. They added in a quote from a Pretendian as a giant pull-quote up top and argued with Indigenous people about it. When some of us tried to engage with them here and on talk, they were either incivil or refused to respond. They have whitesplained to Indigenous people, insisting they know these topics better. They have pinged non-Natives into discussions instead of Indigenous editors. Yes, they are eager to make an imprint on WP, but they have not seemed at all eager to collaborate with Indigenous people or the editors who have earned the trust of the Indigenous people in the wikiproject. This can of course change if someone is willing to learn, but we haven't seen anything to indicate that this person wants to learn anything. Please try and see what we're going through having to clean up this mess and tolerate their insults. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan 23:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
we haven't seen anything to indicate that this person wants to learn anything To be clear, I did ask them, before posting this, if they would agree to some kind of mentorship / "on-the-job learning", and they did. What I've seen so far here is that they made some good-faith changes, and you came down fairly hard on them, and they've taken umbrage at that, and now we're in a cycle heading in a bad direction. You have valid concerns, but WP:BITE also applies. This could land at AN/I with a lot of recriminations. Or we could defuse tensions and try to get some quality content out of this. I'd really like to see both Pingnova and you step up to the plate on that. (Also, I do not think it is appropriate to raise the race of editors as an aspect of user conduct concerns.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, with all due respect, it sounds like this user has been very different with you than with us. I can understand your thinking so, but it's not about race. Indigenous identity is about citizenship, family and culture, not race. In editing Indigenous articles, cultural familiarity, cultural competence, and accountability can be relevant factors. We have valued and valuable editors of all backgrounds here. And as people can make any kind of claim about themselves on-wiki, we tend to evaluate people based on their contribs, not what they say about themselves. But for context, it was Pingnova who raised the issue, first in their intro and then more loosely when they said they thought the article was the product of "vandalism" rather than largely the work of editors from this wikiproject. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan 23:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see where they say the page was the product of vandalism. They said the page's history of vandalism may have skewed content, which I read as meaning, there may have been some sort of overcorrection against vandalism. And I agree on evaluating based on contribs, not identity; which is why I don't think it's appropriate to comment in a way that focuses on the identities of both Pingnova and other editors.
This is a new user trying to help. You are one of this topic area's most experienced editors, and an admin. Your attitude toward them has been fairly BITEy, and shown assumptions of bad faith. I'm asking you to step back and reconsider whether the approach you're taking is the one that benefits the encyclopedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to update, I went ahead and redid the draft, removing unsourced information and refocusing the article to stay on topic. Editors can help polish it up inorder to make it ready and promote it from a draft.  oncamera  (talk page) 05:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do that, and for your continuing work on the draft. - CorbieVreccan 19:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does seem to me that Pingnova has gotten bitten here. Maybe they made some mistakes at Two Spirit, but some of the feedback they're getting is definitely confusing. They're being told to slow down, but they barely have any recent mainspace edits. They're actually going pretty slowly at this point. It's been said that they aren't willing to collaborate and are being incivil, but they introduced themselves here of their own accord and I haven't seen any incivility. Tamzin points out that Pingnova's words are being twisted and makes other valid points.

At least with Bdóte, it seems they've identified a legitimate gap in coverage and attempted to fill it. (I haven't actually reveiwed the article, but I read this discussion and conclude from it that the article will wind up in mainspace in some form.) How about some positive feedback for that? Thanks Pingnova for finding a gap in the encyclopedia's coverage of Indigenous topics and for doing something about it! I'm sorry you've been treated poorly. I hope you will continue to find gaps in coverage and try to fill them, even though this isn't always a very nice place to work. Larataguera (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Larataguera and @Tamzin, I can understand your concerns about how @Pingnova appears to have been treated. Please understand that the mistakes that they have made have been, to those in community, significant. I appreciate that they are ready and willing to introduce new material to Wikipedia however they have not been taking Indigenous voices into account. While they did introduce themselves here, they did not ping Indigenous editors on articles they were having frustrations with and for me, that is problematic. I'm hoping that with time they will become a good ally and listen to Native editors :) I get that it's hard when you are young and really want to contribute and do all the things you feel are right :) Sometimes they are not quite right. It's rather frustrating to perceive that we are being talked down to and that our critiques are insignificant and outright poor behavior. I don't believe that Pingnova's edits were made in bad faith, I do believe they were made out of ignorance. And that ignorance has everything to do with not understanding the community they are writing about. All allies go through a learning curve. And that's okay! It may not be fun or pleasant all of the time. Native people should not be expected to spoonfeed people from outside community, that's not fair. Anyway, that's all I have to say right now. Thanks @Oncamera for taking on the article <3 Indigenous girl (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Indigenous girl: You know I appreciate your contributions to this topic area. But some of this feels like that same confusing advice that Larataguera was talking about. Pingnova is new, but they also erred by not pinging Native editors, but no one should be expected to spoonfeed them? How would they have known which Native editors to ping? How would they have known, without becoming acquainted with this project's memebers, who would take that as a request for spoonfeeding? Of course you have no obligation to teach them anything—no editor is obliged to teach anyone anything—but given the choice between teaching a new editor the ropes and pushing them away, editors are expected to do the former (or do nothing at all), per WP:BITE. I think the excerpts of that guideline selected by ArbCom here are apt.
To be clear, I would like to see more participation here from @Pingnova, affirming a willingness to learn, but I understand their frustration at this situation, and would urge you to look at this through the eyes of a new user who tried to fix an article they saw as lacking, and then getting a pretty rough response to it, with contradictory or incorrect demands (don't use draftspace for unfinished projects??) and various allegations being made without any diffs (their Wiktionary talkpage is a redlink, for instance, but reading the thread above one would think they're in huge trouble over there). Innocent mistakes (like using {{who}} for someone referred to only by a surname) have been blown up into something worse, even after explanations. The worst possible readings of comments (like the "vandalism" matter above) have been taken. I'm trying to give a reality check here. This is not an appropriate way to treat a new user. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the talk page of draft Bdote, they made it seem as if I had to ask permission to edit the page. Explaining to them that they don't WP:OWN drafts isn't biting them. Another user said to use their sandbox if they're just compiling info and don't want it edited nor removed for not being sourced, which is what many users do instead of writing drafts and then asking other editors to "wait" for permission to edit.  oncamera  (talk page) 16:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They asked if you would hold off on completely rewriting the draft, while they worked on it. That's a reasonable request, and consistent with what I said above, about how the ideal way to rewrite an in-use draft is to just create a second draft. I do not see any ownership here. But also, your response there is not what I was referring to as biting. I'm referring to the overall way they've been treated. If there is an ownership issue here, it is the general attitude, expressed by several implicitly or explicitly, that an outsider should not be editing IPNA articles without this project's permission, while simultaneously not helping to educate them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a completely unreasonable request to ask others not to edit when it's in the draft space lacking sources. Sourcing information is one of the foundations of Wikipedia, not tone policing folks who bring up the policies.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tamzin Issues such as quoting a pretendian and using pictures of things that are considered highly offensive in community is problematic. I would have no issue if they had come to the project and asked if the picture was acceptable. That would have been fantastic! Because of their inexperience they did not know the individual was a pretendian and attributed them to a federally recognized tribe. People in community and experienced allies are and have been well aware that the individual used is highly problematic. How did allies learn this? By watching and learning. I understand that wikipedia has policies but here in lays the problem, what happens when those policies clash with how we deal with situations in the real world? This is why there is such an issue with retaining new Indigenous editors. It's difficult to write about issues concerning Indian Country when there is repeated disregard for our collective opinion. I'm not saying that we are the only ones who should be editing such articles, what i am saying is that if we see something as a particularly problematic issue, then it is a particularly problematic issue. Being told that we are wrong about something thay affects us directly, do matter how small or insignificant you may see it as, is insulting. I know that you absolutely do not mean it that way and that is in no way your intention. I know you are not that kind of person. I do believe in being honest however so i am being honest, Im willing to 'say' it out loud not to be hurtful but so that you will hopefully understand. This is part of reconcilliation. Its saying and hearing the hard stuff. Peace <3 Indigenous girl (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate, @Indigenous girl, that you're being frank here and, while you're being somewhat critical of Pingnova, I don't think you're assuming bad faith or BITEing—just starting off on a bad foot. Well, still quixotically trying for a positive outcome here: I see that Pingnova has, above, said regarding the pull quote from Enos: I really appreciate that you pointed out that part didn't work. I certainly do not want to include any false or misleading information, or anything against the identity verification guidelines. Do you, Indigenous girl, accept that as an acknowledgment by Pingnova that they were wrong about Enos and will try better? I also note that their very first comment on this page asked that if there are particular things I should keep in mind[,] please let me know, which I'm hoping shows an eagerness to indeed watch[] and learn[] from the people who are more experienced in this topic area; however, that comment was never replied to.
Mind you, this isn't me saying that everyone's responses here have been entirely unreasonable. I understand that this topic area is beset with new users who, through incompetence or malice or both, push misconceptions about Indigenous matters, sometimes aggressively (recalling the context in which you and I first became acquainted), and I understand that that can lead to a sort of jaundice among the regulars. And I don't dispute that there have been legitimate reasons to push back against some things Pingnova has said and done. So on the other side here, @Pingnova, do you acknowledge that you didn't understand the sensitivity of using the prayer flag images? Can you commit to more proactively asking questions about matters that might be sensitive, if you're unsure of what the best editing practie is? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tamzin I'm absolutely not assuming bad faith. I think that Pingnova absolutely wants to contribute in a positive way. The manner in which they responded on the Two Spirit article to Corbie when they initially brought it up, [[5]] was a bit off putting. I understand that Pingnova is new to editing NDN articles but we are not dogs, we are not registered, we are enrolled or we have status. It is very unsettling to have somebody think that they know better or more than the folks who have been editing the 2S article, which includes members of the community. It's a bit of a slap in the face, okay more than a slap in the face. I had made mention on the talk page of the Bdote draft to please remove the prayer flags from the draft as well as the Dakota War of 1862 article. They did not respond and they did not remove the sensitive material. I did. And yeah, there are editors, not necessarily new, who, through incompetence or malice or both, push misconceptions about indigenous matters. And it's super frustrating. Because it happens every single day, on line and off. So do I get snippy? Yes, I sure do, when individuals portray themselves to know more or better. If @Pingnova wants to ask questions on my talk page or email me, I'm totally down with that, however between school and work I'm not always available. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People are expected to have substantial knowledge when editing nuclear chemistry articles. The exact same with Indigenous articles. Experience and knowledge matter. Yuchitown (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
Thanks, @Indigenous girl. An offer like this is all I was looking for for Pingnova. I hope they take you up on it. I know it can be demoralizing to be an enthusiastic new user and have more experienced editors criticize one's work, but I hope they can see that you are willing to help them become better-versed in this topic area (subject to your availability and, of course, their willingness to listen). Pingnova has always struck me, in our 1-on-1 interactions, as someone who very much wants to hear and defer to Native perspectives, and it's a shame that the opposite impression has been given; I hope Pingnova takes the opportunity to set the record straight by seeking your counsel. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Tamzin :) I just discovered more edits that @Pingnova had made which were inaccurate. Thankfully Corbie caught the most egregious. [6] In this edit Pingnova incorrectly explains a monument. They claim the monument is a 'peace pipe' from Dakota Elder Amos Owen. That is absolutely not the case. The monument is made of pipestone and lists all of the bands that were interned at the site. Using the words 'peace pipe', that's super insulting. The sineage that they took the information from specifically states, 'The pipestone in the center of the memorial was placed here by Amos Owen of the Prarie Island Indian Community during a ceremony in 1987. Please be respectful of this sacred place.', it says nothing about 'peace pipes'. In the Fawn Leap Falls article the erroneously state, 'The primary source for Fawn's Leap in the 1880s was sewage and drainage erected for the growing population and industry. The latest recorded incidence of the falls running was 1922.' This is not in line with what the actual material indicates,'No surprise that folks were eager to pave over the wetland, even if it would cost them a waterfall or two. When city engineers began filling in wetlands and laying sewer systems for storm and waste water in the 1880’s the waterfalls began to disappear. The destruction of Silver Cascade was noted in the Pioneer Press on April 24, 1883. City maps were still indicating the locations of Fawn’s Leap and the Silver Cascade as late as 1885 and there are even reports of the falls running as late as 1922, most of their water came from pipes and ditches.'[7] Sewage was NOT the source in the 1880s, the source does not say this. Did the laying of pipes lead to the disappearance/destruction of the falls? Yep, that sure did happen. But that is not what was giving life to the falls at that time. By the 1920s when the falls were dying they were being fed by pipes and ditches which I wrote as conveyed run off, because that is what pipes and ditches are. We don't know if those were sewage pipes or drainage pipes feeding the dying falls in the early 1920s, the source is not clear on that.
So why and I telling you this? Because Pingnova is not using due diligence. I'll be the first to admit that I am full of typos and the like lately. If I catch a typo in an article I'll fix it. But I don't think I'm misrepresenting content. Yet Pingnova was inferring that other editors were misrepresenting content, specifically in the 2S article, I am not sure if they were elsewhere. You might be saying, "omg, Iggy is a big baby, whining about using the word peace pipe." Well, the pipe is a sacred object to many Nations. Minimal exposure to community would have shown proper terminology. This is like super frustrating NDN 101 stuff. It's just plain insulting. Wikipedia is not a spaghetti western, we don't need to use tonto speak. This is why folks have talked about listen and learn and slow your roll. Non-Native people might just blow this isht off but it's really insulting. The misuse of sources, well, whatever. It happens on the 'pedia all the time but for them to accuse others of doing it while they themselves were is hypocritical.
I'm still happy to answer questions that they might have but they need to understand that if I'm talking about Native culture they will have to listen and pay attention and understand that they have hurt people without realizing it. I'm specifically talking about oncamera's treatment around the Bdóte draft. Essentially telling oncamera to sit down and shut up (there are many of us that took it that way, I'm just not afraid to be honest) on an article draft that is about her culture/community is so incredibly offensive, I can't even put it into words. Well, I can but I am not sure if I would get into trouble or not if I made a comment about colonization. I am very frustrated. Other editors are very frustrated. I am also feeling a little cautious and I am hoping that you are not being used, because then I will be upset. I hope I am making sense because I am very, very tired. Peace <3 Indigenous girl (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not being used, Iggy. And I hope you don't think I'm against you here. I'm just trying to offer some guidance to a new user—which, since their desired editing area only overlaps slightly with the ones I edit in normally, has meant trying to connect them with someone with more relevant expertise. And I've accomplished that, with your gracious help. The rest, from here, is up to them. They can heed your critique, or not. I just wanted to make sure they were getting a fair chance to sink or swim. I hope that makes sense. All the best. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I apologize for the mistake with the pipestone and misrepresenting the ambiguity of the falls source. For the pipestone, Amos Owen was a pipe carrier for the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Community, so I frequently read about peace ceremonies he conducted with pipes, particularly in the context of the 1862 war. I misread "pipestone" as talking about a pipe peace monument. I assumed the falls articles were excluding the exact nature of the runoff in that sentence for brevity, since the article had already mentioned the sewage and stormwater systems, but I shouldn't make that assumption when the WP guidelines say to represent just what is in the source text. So you're right it should have just said it is runoff to communicate the unknown nature. I'm sorry this whole interaction has gone so wrong and hope I'm able to communicate those were honest phrasing mistakes. I will be sure to look closer in the future. I likewise didn't mean for my message to OC to be read that way, I wanted to plan with them to reduce edit conflict technical issues in the future, but I was frustrated because I had just encountered that issue and that tone come through. I am not the best at tone on the internet, which I don't mean as an excuse, I just hope some background helps understanding and that I remind myself others have the same issue. Pingnova (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pingnova, I would encourage you to listen and read more than you edit in this area for a while. Gain an understanding. When I fail to read a discussion thoroughly I make mistakes in judgement. Most humans do. This is a very tight community. We definitely bump heads occasionally but we have a mutual respect for each other's experiences. Above all else I know that editors like Indigenous Girl, and Yuchitown, and Corbie, among so many others, have the best interest of this community at heart. If you truly are here in good faith and I have to believe that you are then please heed my words. We may argue with each other over things that are written here but make no mistake about it, there are those of us that have experienced a life of being marginalized and denigrated. This has went on for centuries and the wounds are very deep. I need you to realize that misusing something as sacred as the pipe is not just a mistake, it's insulting to whole nations to which those items are sacred.
I learned a valuable lesson recently. In a discussion I was trying so hard to find middle ground to move the discussion forward and make some change because an article was misrepresenting. I'm a doer. I find ways to make small changes if I have to in order to get to the next step with the ultimate goal in mind. They told me I couldn't grow vegetables and herbs where I live because of the harsh climate. I found a way to make it happen. In my life I don't wait for someone else to do things for me. I see, I do. But in doing that on the article I lost focus. While I believe, opposition to my suggestion could have been handled differently, I was wrong. The honest misuse of one word can cause insult, even if unintended. It can lead to misunderstandings which lead to hurt and bitterness. Please take care when you are editing about Indigenous topics to keep what we are saying in mind. --ARoseWolf 14:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitions of whiteness in the United States Edit

The Native American section of the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article could use some scrutiny. I tweaked a few words, but the section needs a re-write. There are some inaccuracies about blood quantum and tribal citizenship. The bit about Native Americans being classified as white in Oklahoma could use some clarification. The claim that an increase in self-identification as Native American among white people is due to a push back against blood quantum is just bunk. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I'm in the neighborhood, took a peek at the part of that article more in my own area of expertise. It had an obviously suspicious claim—that, 11 years after Wong Kim Ark, Jews feared denaturalization if they were labeled "Asiatic"—which indeed failed verification when I checked the source on OpenLibrary. So perhaps the whole article needs a deeper source review. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think across the board, for a number of articles about race, ethnicity, the census, etc it needs to be clarified that European immigrant groups with a history of social persecution - the Irish, Italians, Ashkenazim, Poles, European Sephardim, Russians, and so forth - may have "become white" in an everyday social sense, but these groups were always legally white when it came to things like the census, naturalization, slave ownership, the Homestead Acts, etc. The situation is a bit more nuanced with MENA people in relationship to legal whiteness. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Oklahoma claim is probably missing the context that indigenous people with a blood quantum over 1/2 in Oklahoma were legally incompetent for years under federal guardianship laws post-statehood, contributing to problems like the Osage Indian murders and accusations of land theft by guardians. It's probably more accurate to say that white settlers saw us in Oklahoma as assimilable more than white. The claim may be technically true, but it's is missing some pretty key context. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC) edited TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, in Oklahoma, that claim is probably extra tenuous when you briefly consider the Freedmen (ethnic group) and, while I'd have to check court records to be sure, I don't think freedmen were considered white; but they are considered native American. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need to dig into what legal whiteness means in this context. And how this would impact census records. Are there any known examples of a person being listed on both the Dawes Rolls and the US census? I know that in Maryland, Chinese-Americans were once classified as "honorary whites" for the purposes of public school attendance, but I doubt those people would have been listed as white on the census. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bohemian Baltimore Yes, but its complex. Like if you look at the census records for one my Cherokee ancestors on the Dawes Rolls, the same individual will say Indian in one census and then say white in another later census. I don't know why and they're dead, I can't ask them now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bohemian Baltimore I've reached out to a few law professors around Oklahoma to see if anyone knows of an article or book that actually covers the topic of the legal construction of race in Oklahoma in detail. I should note, my initial conversations have been along the lines of "that would be a great thing to write, but I haven't heard of an article like that." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Native American Use of Fire in Ecosystems Edit

If anyone has the time and energy ya'll might want to check out a bunch of recent changes that editors with a... certain history of editing pages related to this project have been trying to institute at Native American Use of Fire in Ecosystems. On a related note, if you're feeling really energetic, similar changes have been made at Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and other related pages. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a follow up, GeraldineSeinfeld "retired" under suspicions of sockpuppetry. Folks, let's all help to make sure we keep it clean here, so as not to undermine the credibility of this community Crescent77 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that this Wikiproject isn't Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It's not the purpose of this talk page.  oncamera  (talk page) 01:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, well aware. Just suggesting that we all work to make sure it doesn't turn into that. Crescent77 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template for “Anishinaabe Culture” divided into two templates: "Anishinaabe Culture" and "Anishinaabe Politics" Edit

IMO, these are separate topics. For the former I edited the existing template including creating more groups. For the latter I just did a copy and paste onto a new template thus it needs much additional work. --Denise B-K (talk)

Category:Canadian people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent Edit

Someone nominated this category for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_20#Category:Canadian people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent. Yuchitown (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]