Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

Latest comment: 10 hours ago by Oncamera in topic Related WikiProjects
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.

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)

Article about US ethnic cleansing in general

edit

I am having trouble finding any single article generally covering American ethnic cleansing/genocide/forced displacement etc. of Native Americans, or even covering it west of the Mississippi, or after 1847. Indian removal (and the associated Indian Removal Act) covers 1830-1847 east of the Mississippi, and various articles e.g. California genocide cover specific incidents later/west of the Mississippi, but there doesn't seem to be any unified article about such policies throughout American (USian) history, or even specifically about such policies after Indian removal (the Eastern US policy) ended in 1847. Aspects of it are also touched on in various articles, e.g. Manifest destiny, Native Americans in the US, History of the US, etc. The closest article I can find is Native American genocide in the United States but, perhaps as a necessary result of its title, it seems to be primarily about whether such policies can be deemed a genocide, although it does make an attempt at presenting the history and the events involved, albeit far from comprehensively. Am I incorrect, and if so, can someone point me to the right article? And if I am not mistaken, do other people in this WikiProject also feel this topic deserves a general overview article (and if so, under what name)? Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Seems like all the forced removals should be under Indian Removal, since that’s what the U.S. federal Indian policy is most commonly called, but the article has massive gaps in the West—like Chiricahua Apaches being imprisoned in Florida, then sent to Mississippi then Indian Territory. Or captain Jack’s Modoc band being forced to NE Indian Territory. Yuchitown (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Yuchitown @ARoseWolf thanks for your comments. I thought about this, but I guess an objection people might have is that in the literature the term seems to largely just refer to the Indian Removal Act and its immediate consequences. Am I wrong about this? Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
You could argue it would apply to forced removal after the Act passed which became U.S. federal Indian policy all the way into the 1870's with the various wars conducted to force Native Americans to assimilate or live on reservations but I do agree that is somewhat subjective. --ARoseWolf 19:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The forced removals all stem from the 1830 Act. There’s just a slight SE bias because so much has been written about those tribes compared to the Modoc Nation, for example. Yuchitown (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed with the forced removal aspect stemming from the 1830 Act. Where it becomes subjective to me is after the 1860's. They had removed or eliminated most tribes, especially in the east' by then and it became more about control and assimilation. I still think the case can be made that some tribes were still fighting for self-determination, albeit to get off reservations and not be assimilated. However, there are very clear examples of forced removal that occur like the Black Hills War which eventually led to the annexation of the Black Hills and removal of the Sioux after the establishment of reservations. That was in 1874, a decade after the Civil War, so clear examples of forced removal continued well into the late 1800's. These could be added to the article to expand it if consensus is that this is a continuation of Indian removal policy. --ARoseWolf 10:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree with Yuchitown. It most likely should be under Indian Removal. I suggest starting additions for the West it in sandbox first and ping others to it to allow a wider collaboration. That is just a suggestion though. --ARoseWolf 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Yuchitown and ARoseWolf that it should be covered under Indian Removal. PersusjCP (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's a discussion to move Native American genocide in the United States to Persecution of Native Americans: I don't know if that's the move you'd like inorder to cover all the topics of ethnic cleansing/genocide/forced displacement etc against Native peoples. The lead should be less about IF Euro-American scholars agree on the terms and more about the numerous events that constitute these crimes against Native people.  oncamera  (talk page) 14:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Infobox for federally-recognized tribes?

edit

Is there an infobox specifically for federally recognized tribes in the US? I know the First Nations infobox exists. I see a mix of {infobox ethnic group}, {infobox settlement}, and {infobox country}. I stick to {infobox settlement} or {infobox country} since the ethnic group one I usually keep for articles about the ethnic groups, rather than the tribal governments/entities. PersusjCP (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, thank you for bringing this up! I would love (when I have the time) to try to create more articles for Alaska Native tribes and villages. Honestly the settlement template, link on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation usually has information I cannot locate, especially for tribes without reservations. Do more experienced editors know of any places in Wikipedia to get assistance creating in a template? Yuchitown (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
"create more articles for Alaska Native tribes and villages" This, too, is what I want to focus more on. It is a subject severely in need of support. --ARoseWolf 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ARoseWolf I have created around two dozen articles on Alaska Native tribes, mostly Yupik, Aleut, and Iñupiat. I list them on my main page. It can be hard to find source for the tribes. A lot of both media and Wikipedia articles aren't very precise in distinguishing census-designated places from federally recognized tribes. Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes and Yakutat Tlingit Tribe are high on my list for articles in need of being written. It's also frustrating that a lot of articles related to Alaska Natives don't seem to mention specific federally recognized tribes. It's a mess. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Yuchitown, Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes might be a good place to start. Netherzone (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Persecution of First Nations

edit

I noticed this article got created recently, and I figured the people here might want to give it a look/add things. It's pretty bare-bones right now.PersusjCP (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"People of the American Indian Wars" categorization

edit

I'm unsure what the distinction is between Category:People of the wars between the United States and Native Americans and Category:People of the American Indian Wars. Unless I am mistaken, couldn't these two categories be merged? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is confusing. I see there is also Category:American people of the Indian Wars and Category:Native American people of the Indian Wars. Seems confusing since most of the wars, if not all, were before Native people had citizenship in the US so why are they "Native American" people vs "American" people?  oncamera  (talk page) 06:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would support a merge, and also a rename of subcategory as per oncamera. PersusjCP (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion/merge of several categories

edit
  • Propose deleting Category:First Nations drawing artists
  • Propose merging Category:Inuit drawing artists to Category:Inuit artists
  • Propose merging Category:Native American drawing artists to Category:Native American artists

Conversation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_30#Category:First_Nations_drawing_artists. Sigh. Yuchitown (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply

Taíno categorization

edit

I have noticed that pages and categories for the Taíno are often listed as "Native American". An example would be that Category:Taíno leaders is a subcategory of Category:Native American leaders. Maekiaphan Phillips, a Taíno revivalist "chief" in the Virgin Islands, is classified under several "Native American" categories. I'm skeptical that Taíno people should be listed as Native Americans for multiple reasons, not least of which their pre-1924 extinction as a tribe. Indigenous-related articles for the Taíno in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, the Chamorro and Carolinian peoples in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Samoans, etc all pose the question: do we need to create more parent categories for peoples within the US who are Indigenous but aren't necessarily Native American? Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans, legally speaking? My impression of Alaska Natives is that some are considered Native Americans, but others are not. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Census says Taino descendents identify as Native American/American Indian and they are part of the United States. Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islander have a separate category on the census. It says "American Indian or Alaska Native" for the others. Calling them extinct seems odd when their genetics and culture continues on to this day. The National Museum of the American Indian has educational material about them that even says the Taino people living today and revitalizing their culture are challenging the notion that they are "extinct".  oncamera  (talk page) 06:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
A large majority of Puerto Ricans and Latinos have some degree of Indigenous ancestry, but that alone doesn't make them Indigenous. By "extinct", I mean as a distinct group and culture, not that every single Taíno died without leaving any descendants. It's unfortunate, but cultural genocide/assimilation are realities. Many Puerto Ricans and other Latinos who have been living as white-mestizos for generations/centuries are now championing Taíno revivalism, in some cases 400 or 500 years after the Taíno stopped existing as a separate cultural group; does that make those people Native Americans? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Oncamera Circling back to this, since there have also been broader discussions on whether or not "extinct" is proper
terminology...would "historical" be a better term? Is it grammatically correct to say something like "are an historical" tribe/group? Many articles use "were" for historical groups. EG, the Susquehannock (who do have living descendants enrolled in the Seneca-Cayuga Nation). Just trying to be careful and clarify, since whether a group exists or not is often contested; EG, the Opata people in Mexico. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
North America is commonly defined to include Central America and the Antilles. This project does tend to concentrate on the Indigenous Peoples of Canada, the U.S. and (northern) Mexico. Culturally and historically the Taino are related to the Indigenous Peoples of South America rather than those of North America. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas was started to cover that part of the Americas not covered by the North America project. There is no dividing line defined, but I feel that the Indigenous Peoples of the Caribbean should be grouped with those of South America (Central America and southern Mexico are a different problem). The term "Native American" is an invention of the U.S. government. How we use it in Wikipedia depends on how it is used in reliable sources. If it is being used in reliable sources to refer to Tainos and people of Taino descent, then I would argue that it is no longer tied to peoples indigenous to the United States, and its use by the U.S. Census is not relevant to how we categorize Tainos. Donald Albury 16:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reservations are an "invention" of the American government, yet we consider them sovereign lands... "federal recognition" is important to Native American identity today, as well too. I don't think editors can just easily dismiss the US government when editing articles. And Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands is part of the United States, you can't deny that lol. Also the Guainía Taíno Tribe of the US Virgin Islands was officially recognized by the Virgin Islands Government in June 2021 and the article states: "In 2022, the tribe was contacted for consultation by the National Park Service of the US Department of the Interior on a project involving the exchange of land". Bizarre these all interactions between the US government and the Taino are being ignored just to be classified as outside the scope of this Wikiproject or to be called extinct.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Oncamera What does recognition mean in this context? Is a territory-recognized tribe equivalent to a state-recognized tribe? Do the protections of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act apply to the Guainía Taíno Tribe? Has any tribal heritage group in a US territory ever applied for federal recognition? There have been numerous non-profit organizations in the continental United States who have made false claims to be "state recognized tribes" on a flimsy basis, like citing a friendly resolution from a politician or legislature. So I'm curious what the exact legal status of the Guainía Taíno Tribe is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The governor of the Virgin Islands signed a proclamation recognizing the Guiania Taino Tribe "as an indigenous American Indian Tribe of the Virgin Islands, for the purpose of assisting this tribal entity in establishing eligibility for federal health benefits, federal education benefits, housing benefits, job training, land use, and the right to engage in traditional religious practices and ceremonies." State recognition of tribes is pursuant to legislation, either a process to granting recognition established by law, or a special act of a legislature recognizing a specified tribe. A governor's proclamation does not rise to that level. As this was a proclamation from the governor, and not a legislative act, I do not think it confers any legal status on the tribe. The requirements for recognition as an American Indian Tribe by the Federal government are laid out here, and a proclamation from the governor of a state or territory is not one of the requirements. Donald Albury 23:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but this accords with my understanding of the legalities involved. Carlstak (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Donald Albury The Guainía Taíno Tribe's website states that "Iukaieke Guainía of Borikén has established, through separate organizing documents, a non-profit entity entitled Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc, in Borikén to further its goals for community development. While mutually supportive and interconnected, Iukaieke Guainía, Borikén and the Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc. are separate entities." Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc is a domestic non-profit corporation with the registration number 354273. Is the Guainía Taíno Tribe also a non-profit corporation or organization? I'm not seeing the Guainía Taíno Tribe or Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc listed on the IRS search tool for tax exempt organizations. I see two listings of Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc on the Government of Puerto Rico's website: one expired, the other active. @Yuchitown Would you know how to look this up? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That all seems to be in Puerto Rico. The proclamation from the governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands doesn't specify if it refers to the organization registered in Puerto Rico, although I would expect that there is a counterpart registered in the Virgin Islands. I do not see any of those organizations listed at List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes#Puerto Rico, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes#Virgin Islands, or at State-recognized tribes in the United States. @Yuchitown:, is it time to add them? Donald Albury 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not crazy about overcatting, but they aren't a state-recognized tribe (Keep waiting for some official source to publish a list of state-recognized tribes). I don't believe Taíno is commonly considered "Native American." Native Americans in the United States currently says it covers "American Indians from the contiguous United States and Alaska Natives." With unrecognized/state-recognized, we don't use the organization itself as a source, so any acknowledgment would have to be cited by an outside official source. Yuchitown (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply
@Donald Albury I don't see any such organization in the Virgin Islands listed by the IRS. Could the VI have their own list of non-profits? I'm not sure why the Puerto Rican nonprofit is listed by the government of Puerto Rico but not the IRS. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Non-profits have to register annually in the Virgin Islands to operate there. I would expect that the tribe was properly registered when the governor issued his proclamation. I haven't found how to search for such registrations on-line (I haven't looked very hard). Residents of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands do not pay income taxes to the U.S. on income earned in those jurisdictions. Residents of the Virgin Islands pay taxes to the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue. I assume that means that non-profits in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands do not need to obtain tax-exemption certificates from the IRS, with such exemptions handled locally. Donald Albury 01:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Donald Albury Thanks for the clarification. Found it. The Guainia Taino Tribe of the Virgin Islands (TN0120928). It is listed as a domestic partnership corporation. An expired listing can also be seen here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't want to retread the lengthy conversations at Talk:Taíno, but seeing how Chamorro and Native Hawaiians are categorized under Category:Indigenous peoples in the United States, I'd say problem solved. It's clear that "Native American" isn't exactly defined as "Indigenous peoples of what is now the United States" but rather "Indigenous peoples of the contiguous United States." Of course, the Caribbean is part of North America and part of this WikiProject. Back to the original question, Category:Taíno leaders can go under Category:Indigenous leaders of the Americas (so I put it under that). There's also Category:Caciques, but determining which Indigenous leaders are Caciques or not seems arbitrary, so that should probably be deleted. Yuchitown (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply

Could there be a category such as Category:Indigenous leaders in the United States? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
What's wrong with Category:Indigenous leaders of the Americas? Seems like categories should be created due to a need. Yuchitown (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply
@Yuchitown That's for both continents. There's already a subcategory for Category:Indigenous leaders in Canada. My thought process was that a US category could include both Native American and non-NA Indigenous leaders in the US. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed renaming of a category

edit

A proposal – that may be of interest to this WikiProject – was recently opened to change the name of Category: Native Americans' rights activists to Category:Activists for Native American rights. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 8.

Netherzone (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill

edit

Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill is described in her article as a Native American and as a person of Mohawk descent. She was not a citizen of any tribe. The article claims her biological mother was Mohawk but that there's no proof of her Mohawk heritage. Her husband was Oneida and she was an honorary member of the Oneida Nation, but was never a citizen. Media have inaccurately claimed she wasn't allowed to be an Oneida Nation citizen due to blood quantum laws. The Oneida Nation does have a blood quantum of one-quarter, but that seems irrelevant as her "blood quantum" was zero. She never even claimed to be an Oneida descendant. I'm not sure describing her as the "second Native American female doctor" is suitable. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have this project talk page on my watchlist for some reason, and from time to time I take a peek. Usually it is over my head. But after reading the thread below, I saw this thread, and then read the article, and ... I guess I'm just really confused. It appears her father was Mohawk, her birth mother was Mohawk, she lived as a Native American, so how is she not Mohawk, piece of paper or not? At the very least, how is she not Native American? This isn't a gotcha kind of question, I honestly don't understand. I understand there are groups of hangers-on that kind of pretend to be Native American tribes, or "the" official group representing the tribe, for various reasons, and I understand there are tribes that are not officially recognized, but which have a continuous history of living as - and being treated as - Native American. So I understand there are some really complicated issues here. But this seems like low-hanging fruit. Having two parents both members of a recognized tribe, and marrying someone from another recognized tribe, seems like being able to be described as Native American just strikes me (and, likely lots of other casual observers) as obvious. If both my parents were Black, and I married a Black woman and never tried to "pass" as white, I wouldn't need a piece of paper. I guess I just don't understand - even after reading the section below - why Federal recognition or bureaucratic record keeping matter so much, but for Native Americans only. If I understood better what was going on, maybe I could possibly help out sometimes, but right now I'm just totally puzzled. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That "piece of paper" is tribal sovereignty and Wikipedia respects citizenship established by the tribes because they are nations per MOS:CITIZEN, not just ethnic groups. This is an issue of citizenship that is established by tribal law.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, but then do we need proof that someone born to parents who are both US citizens is a citizen too, before we say they’re American? That doesn’t seem to be how nationality is typically handled. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Tribal citizenship requirements vary widely between tribes and are generally more complex than the U.S. citizenship requirements. A short answer is every child born to a US citizen is automatically a US citizen; every child born to a tribal citizen is not automatically a tribal citizen of their parent's tribe. So there isn't the same presumption of tribal citizenship based on a parent's tribal citizenship as there would be for US citizenship. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Citizenship is whatever the law says. My grandmother, who was born in Kentucky and lived in the U.S. all of her life, lost her citizenship when she married my grandfather, a British national. U.S. law at the time specified that a woman changed her citizenship to that of her husband when she married. My grandfather became a naturalized U.S. citizen, but by then the law had changed, and my grandmother did not regain her citizenship when he was naturalized. She was quite upset when government agents showed up at the beginning of WW II and made her register as a resident alien. So, yeah, the definition of citizenship in a nation is dependent on the laws of that nation. Donald Albury 00:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have been working on the Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill article recently. She's described in reliable sources as Mohawk and her mother and grandmother are described as Mohawk. Her father was Quaker, and she was not a citizen of any Native American tribe because of federal government blood quantum laws. I understand that someone questions whether she is really of Mohawk heritage, but there does not appear to be anything published anywhere saying she is not Mohawk. The Wikipedia article does state that she is not considered a citizen of any Native American nation. There are also sources that say that she is Native American.
There are a number of reliable sources that say that she is Mohawk and also that she is "The second Native American female doctor in the United States, after Susan La Flesche Picotte (Omaha)". I have not found anyone else stated to have this honor. The cited content was removed and she was said to have self-identified as a Native American. I have not seen that anywhere. To believe we should second-guess our sources and believe something that is not published, sounds like both verifiability and original research issues. I am so confused how this has come up as an issue and hope it's not a trend. Your perspective would be helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
CaroleHenson, thank you for your hard work. Understand that I truly appreciate anyone that researches and follows what sources say about a subject. We are definitely required to do so, generally.
When it comes to citizenship, which is what being Native American is, not an ethnic group or a race, there are many nuances. Let me ask a question. If I am born in America to an Italian father that immigrated from Italy and a German mother who immigrated from Germany can I claim to be a citizen of both Italy and Germany? Am I truly Italian or German despite those nations having no claim on me? Or am I descended from Italians and Germans? We can't expect all sources to understand something they are not accustomed to, even the reliable ones.
It's really just that simple and it isn't as complicated as it is made out to be. If my father was a citizen of the Mohawk nation and my mother was a citizen of the Mohawk nation that doesn't make me a citizen of the Mohawk nation because I am born to them. I must be claimed by the Mohawk nation and be a citizen of that nation myself, some documented verifiable proof has to exist that I am accepted as a citizen. That is what it means by having "papers". A sovereign tribal nation which has entered into agreements with other sovereign nations and is recognized by them has accepted me as a citizen, therefore I am Mohawk, therefore I am Native American. That's how Native American citizenship works. --ARoseWolf 11:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
ARoseWolf, Thanks so much for your comments. I really appreciate it. I'm trying to sort this out in order of importance.
  • Minoka had no citizenship with a Native American nation
  • Sources say that her mother's family were Mohawks, but it seems the point is that it's immaterial, whether her mother was also mixed-race or there was some other reason she (Lillie) wasn't considered a citizen.
  • I don't think it's fair to say that she self-describes as Mohawk, I really have a hard time with that (Rachel Dolezal comes to mind). But, maybe what is meant is that is what she heard about herself. Would it be appropriate to say that "what Minoka heard about herself was that she had (some) Mohawk ancestry"?
  • I think it's very clear that she identified as Native American, for whatever that is worth... which may be very little.
The think what has me puzzled the most is why does it appear that there is no dispute about her being considered the 2nd Native American medically-trained physician? I cannot find another woman with that distinction and there are a lot of sources that say that she was. I searched on variations of "2nd Native American medically-trained physician" without a name to see what names came up.
I don't think there are words to tell you how much this means to me. Your username, a Rose Wolf, sounds really appropriate. You are a treasure. Thanks so much!
P.S. I feel like her surname Minnetoga may mean something, but I don't know that it can be figured out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Added Lillie in parenthesis - to distinguish from her mother.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC) And (Rachel Dolezal comes to mind).–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your kind words. I am definitely not the monster slamming new editors who come here in good faith as some off-wiki have suggested. I have no authority to legitimize claims of Native American ancestry or discount them. For that we would require the sources, as we normally would. In the case of identifying as Native American we need that extra step of verification to definitively say that they are because it is about citizenship.
I think it's very appropriate to say she claimed to be Mohawk or identified as Mohawk if in fact she did and we find the sources which say she did. I think it is also appropriate to include "2nd Native American medically-trained physician" if the sources say that. We just need to make sure to attribute that to the direct source in the statement rather than Wiki-voice. --ARoseWolf 14:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I am sure she thought she was Mohawk and Allen did what he could to reinforce that. I think my problem is intent. I don't think she ever tried to fool anyone. There are people that fraudulently self-describe as a member of a Native American nation. It would be nice to have language that distinguished the two cases.
Lightbulb moment re: "Wiki-voice". Thanks! That helps a lot!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have lots of whirling thoughts on this, but don't have the time to organize them properly or word this properly. But I guess it boils down to two main worries. First, it feels like WP is using "self-identified Mohawk descent" to completely discount her lived experience. I now understand why we wouldn't say she was Mohawk, but I don't get why we won't say "of Mohawk descent". This is not some pretender, this is not some weasel saying "I'm one sixteenth Cherokee". Second, I guess I would disagree with @ARoseWolf: that "When it comes to citizenship, which is what being Native American is". It's a more complicated concept that is part heritage, part lived experience, part self-identification, and part citizenship/membership, isn't it? I understand it makes things much more difficult, but saying someone who is not a member of a US government-recognized tribe isn't Native American is like saying a DREAMer who has lived all their life in the US is not an American. Sure, they aren't a US citizen, but being an American is part heritage, part lived experience, part self-identification, and part citizenship/membership, isn't it? Would we say "self-identified American"? It's all so much fuzzier than the tribal membership criterion makes it appear. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
For an analogy: If I grew up Baptist, but am currently not enrolled as a member of any Baptist church, several people here seem to be saying WP wouldn't consider me a Baptist. Maybe a self-identified Baptist. Which I disagree with, but can at least understand the logic. But they also seem to be saying WP wouldn't even consider me a Christian. I guess a self-identified Christian? For me, this just fails the "take a step back and do a reality check" test. Is there really no room for nuance? Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm with you on this one. It should be "of Mohawk descent." That is clearly what the reliable sources state. I don't think she should be claimed to be Oneida or Mohawk or a citizen of any of those nations. But the reliable sources state that she was of Mohawk descent. That is enough proof for Wikipedia.
Now, if someone came along and did research and found who her mother was, and it turned out she wasn't Mohawk, or someone wrote a piece claiming she wasn't, I would be fine with saying it was "self-id" and that she wasn't of Mohawk descent. But I don't think we can write that when the reliable sources say otherwise. PersusjCP (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It really isn't that simple. What about minoritized/diaspora communities? I would say being born to Chinese immigrant parents makes you ethnically Chinese even if you are not a citizen, because you have a heritage with that culture. It's simply not that black and white. What about disenrolled people? Do they suddenly become white when they lose their enrollment? What about people who are born just outside the BQ cutoff? People can ethnically belong to a culture even if they are not a citizen of its associated nation.
I think this compounds when many reliable sources, especially those from Native media, can be ignored simply because there is no official communique from the nation stating that they are a citizen. It doesn't work this way with any other citizenship. Now, I am totally on board with limiting claims of citizenship in specific nations and not putting their ethnicity in the lede, but I think there should be less push for Wikipedia editors to unilaterally decide that people aren't ethnically part of some culture when reliable sources state otherwise. It is clearly controversial and non-neutral and especially an issue with BLP.
Now, I don't necessarily think that's the case with Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill, given all the evidence. I understand that this is a contentious topic and definitely don't want Wikipedia to give undue weight to pretendians and such, but I feel that the current understanding is a little too restrictive in its application. PersusjCP (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
But Native American is not an ethnicity or race. There is no one Native American race of people. It is absolutely predicated on citizenship in a sovereign tribal nation. Can someone please point to where I said we can't say she is of Mohawk descent or I challenged her heritage? "I think it's very appropriate to say she claimed to be Mohawk or identified as Mohawk" and I think it is also appropriate to include "2nd Native American medically-trained physician" if the sources say that. --ARoseWolf 16:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I never said that "Native American" is a race or ethnicity. I'm saying that there are ethnic identites as part of that grouping. Generally these have one or more tribal bodies associated with the ethnicity. For example, Mohawk. The Mohawk have the various Mohawk communities in the U.S. and Canada: the St Regis tribe and the various Mohawk First Nations in Canada. All of these have different standards for citizenship, and they are all Kanien'kehá:ka/Mohawk.
Another example is Tulalip. While there is a quickly growing trend of people to identify as a Tulalip person over the last few generations, "Tulalip" is (at least for most of its existence) purely a term of citizenship. There are various communities of different tribes/ethnic groups on the Tulalip Reservation, such as the Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skykomish, etc. Someone might be enrolled Tulalip (citizenship) but be of Snohomish and Skykomish descent (ethnicity). Hell, tons of people just identify as ethnically "Coast Salish" nowadays. PersusjCP (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the US Census are among the reliable institutions that consider Native American an ethnic category. It is common sense. Tribal citizenship is just that: citizenship. But it does not describe ethnicity. Some tribes accept non-Native spouses and children as citizens and thus have ethnically Scandinavian members. I am American but I am not ethnically American - I am Scandinavian.
Further if reliable sources describe someone as Native or their specific ethnicity or tribal enrollment, and there is no indication in other reliable sources that fact has been challenged, then it would be OR to make that claim on their page. Particularly if claims are made using only primary sources. This is a universal Wikipedia rule for all wiki content. Native topics are not exempt. Pingnova (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Donald Albury I was born in Miami with an ancestry in America going back to the Mayflower. I moved to London when I was 27 and became a British citizen 4 years later. The US Embassy asked for my passport back as the law then said you couldn't have dual nationality. I kept it and told the Embassy I still considered myself American. Years later I discovered that a US space shuttle pilot was an Irish citizen and my dad, who worked in Washington DC for the Internal Revenue Service, found out the law had been overturned. So I got my passport back and my children, born in the UK with an English mother, also got US passports. So I have always had American nationality, lost my citizen ship for a while, and have never considered myself to have British nationality. My children have dual citizenship - but I don't consider them to have American nationality. Does that make sense? Doug Weller talk 08:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Citizenship is set by law, and laws can change. Donald Albury 14:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could this conversation move to Reddit or somewhere else? WP:NOTAFORUM. This conversation has long moved beyond the article, which should have taken place on that talk page (however the article's issues are being resolved). Endlessly rehashing opinions is not helpful. For the new folks, please read any of the existing discussions all over this talk page, its archives, and innumerable other Native article talk pages. Yuchitown (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply

Ah, new people not welcome. Got it. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I value your perspective, Floquenbeam, and I am glad you came here and offered it. --ARoseWolf 20:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is related to Wikipedia. It is related to this Wikiproject. It has spun off from the topic of discussion, yes. But there's no reason why consensus can't change, and shutting down good discussions isn't the way to resolve this. However, I do concur that it probably should happen in another topic... PersusjCP (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. This is related to Wikipedia. It hasn't been endlessly circling the drain. What I have come to realize is in the past 24 hours and helped to have input from PersusjCP, Floquenbeam , and the grace and background from ARoseWolf has brought good clarification, a little more refined over the past 12 hours:
The key first issue is - is a person a citizzen of a Native American nation or people?
Their heritage is important, but it's key whether they are a citizen or not.
I appreciate that I am not the only one that differentiates someone who acknowledges someone's family history vs. someone who claims to be of a certain people WITHOUT heritage.
And, it is seeming that there is more consensus on people who are cited as of being a certain heritage, and we shouldn't ignore that.
Last, if they are universally considered xyz Native American in sources, but they are not a citizen of a nation, then cite and state the info - but don't put it in the infobox or in the introduction (no Wiki-voice). I think refinement of this idea should be typed up somewhere - if I am getting the points right or just needing refinement - at least an update of an essay. I am not going to be the only one that needs the info - and it's not fair to ask people to read through archives (and then essentially come to their own understanding of the discussions). Thanks so very much for the great discussion!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Missed this trying to avoid an edit conflict:
That's what I've got from the continued discussion. And, to be fair to everyone, I am not new. I am in the top 800s (826?) of new article writers. I have been here since 2011 and have several niches including Southwestern native peoples over thousands of years, Puebloans over thousands of years, prehistoric life in the Southwest, and colonial Spanish / Mexican history. But the citizenship in context of heritage, and being considered a particular heritage or "Native American" if not a citizen - that's new to me. I heard it before, of course, but not with the nuances. I have followed WP citing rules and regs... with a twist going forward.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know you've been contributing great articles for a long time. Sorry for my grumpy comment; it was not aimed at you—or anyone. It just seems like the discussion about Native American identity is endlessly repeated all over this platform. If you are focused in the Southwest, the 1978 NM Indian Arts and Crafts Sales Act might be worth looking up. Santa Clara Pueblo's patrilineal mandate for enrollment was upheld in the 1977 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez court case. Pueblos also reserve the right to ostracize/disenroll members who posed a threat to the community. Indigenous ancestry can always be listed on an article if substantiated, but saying one is a tribal member is a totally different situation. Yuchitown (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply
Understood. Thanks for your comments. Yes, I realized people could lose their citizenship - or be disenrolled - based on their behavior.
Thanks for the Sales Act and patrilineal mandate for enrollment for Santa Clara being upheld. I will look into both. I have heard about the first, because I deal with specific biographies and artisans, but not the second.
I truly think it would help a lot to summarize the understanding, as I tried to do just above this. I may not have it right, but I think a couple key points are that will help others. There's heritage and then there's citizenship - and citizenship is required to be a member of the group of people from which you descend... as one key principle.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yuchitown (talk), great citation to make the point that the foundation of Indian identity isn't US law. The act to disenroll women who married out of the tribe was taken out of fear that White men would pursue Pueblo women as a scheme to stake a claim on rez land, as was similarly depicted in a recent a hit movie (more on this later). The fear was justified. It had been happening in NM for some time by then. The Spanish land grants (mercedes) in Norther NM, which border the Pueblos, were broken up largely this way. That was the local law, but most of the disenrolled folks stayed in the community cuz that's what they and their enrolled kin desired. Ultimately, this desire proved stronger, and local politics reversed the law and let back in generations of Pueblos who only non-community members would say they had been "self-identing (?)" since their grandmothers. The Case for Re-Argument Before the American Indian Nations Supreme Court. This story is not unique to NM. It's repeated In Indian Country throughout NA. CaroleHenson (talk), the POV that only enrollment/BIA-certified citizenship in a tribe acknowledged by the US govt confers Native American identity is in fact new. This platform is one of the few places you'll see it. There's no body of literature that supports this notion. I've asked and searched myself and come up empty handed. Consider UNDRIP_E_web.pdf. It's a very deliberated statement on the subject. Also the consensus among Natives in Central and South America, as well as NA. I consider myself to be well read on this issue and haven't come across anything even close. Tsideh (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Tsideh, Thanks so much for the information and your perspective. I assume by "this platform" you mean this page. I am not surprised to hear that there has been good conversation on this page, if that's what you mean. The UNDRIP is very good. I tried to see if the U.S. has done anything in response.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would note something Yuchitown said which may have been overlooked. "Indigenous ancestry can always be listed on an article if substantiated" We have never disputed that on Wikipedia or in this Wiki-project. --ARoseWolf 16:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have an open question about the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill article about the wording her of status as a non-citizen and that she was told she was a Mohawk at Talk:Lillie_Rosa_Minoka_Hill#Mohawk. If you are interested, would you please weigh-in within a week with your opinion? Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Project mentioned off-wiki

edit

This Project has been mentioned in a local news article.. (which can be accessed more easily here). --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Descendent and direct descendant (i.e. one's parent is a tribal member) are used all the time in the art world since it mostly follows the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. I've been actively trying to find the most neutral terms especially for individuals who self-identify as being Native American but aren't tribal members or direct descendants or organizations who are self-identifying as being Native American tribes. Suggestions are absolutely welcome.
Articles about federally recognized tribes often contain unflattering, controversial material (see Muscogee Nation#Muscogee Freedmen controversy or Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians#21st century which talks about the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal) because these are articles about governments, not private publicity blurbs. It's challenging to find published information about either state-recognized tribes or organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes that comes from outside sources, so the nonprofit information is useful because it's neutral, fact-based, and verifiable. There is nothing in the world wrong with being a nonprofit! Some state-recognized tribes and unrecognized organizations do have well-documented ties to historical Native American communities, for example, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.
Being an single-purpose account just to promote an organization with which one has a conflict of interest without providing reliable, published sources goes against Wikipedia policy. Calling out sockpuppets and meatpuppets isn't name-calling; it's calling out behavior that goes against Wikipedia policy. This happened with numerous accounts brigading Lipan Apache topics (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TelGonzie/Archive). Tsideh has never contributed to a Wikipedia article, only commented on talk pages and discussions. User:Madigoosh spent a great deal of energy claiming that the LATT were part of the Apache Alliance (discussion here) because they had attended several Apache Alliance Summits; however, that didn't even turn out to be the case since all sources state that the Apache Alliance members are the nine federally recognized Apache tribes.[1] Anyone tracking all of this should be aware that the many SPAs promoting the LATT have also tried to delete info or lessen info about the Lipan Apache Band of Texas, the group from which the LATT broke away.
Being state-recognized does not confer legitimacy (or take it away); however, it is a classification—just one that is unclear since there is no single, authoritative list for which groups are or are not state-recognized. One has to go state by state. Massachusetts had one state-recognized tribe from its Executive Order 126, which named three state-recognized tribes, two of which have gone on to gain federal recognition. It has the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs, which was never given the authority to create state-recognized tribes.[2] I included information that the LATT and Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe are both listed as being "state-recognized" by the National Congress of American Indians to their respective articles.
For years many historic tribes' articles were completely neglected, and the main people contributing to them were people promoting their own unrecognized organizations claiming descent from them. I've been trying to disentangle the historical tribes (many of whom were forced to relocate and merged into other tribes) and modern heritage groups. A minority of the latter have legitimate ties to historical tribal groups, as I have mentioned many times on Wikipedia. My goal here is just to try to provide accurate, verifiable facts and a neutral tone. I regularly edit established tribes' articles and individual articles but these don't get noticed. I am Native American and don't know anyone else here IRL. But we all want to serve the Native American community by providing accurate information. Yuchitown (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply
I don't believe any of us know each other IRL. I've certainly never met anyone here. But we have worked around and with each other for some time now and I do recognize those genuine in wanting to improve the encyclopedia. The members of this Wikiproject see the need and have the desire to serve and support Native American communities on Wikipedia by providing accurate information with-in policy requirements. What Yuchitown has presented here is pretty much the heart and soul of every member I have been fortunate to meet, even those that have since left.
I know there are legitimate groups with ties to historical tribes. But what I know or think I know doesn't matter. What is reliably sourced matters so the members of this Wikiproject have tried to find those sources and we continue to. And we welcome both the scrutiny of the community and discussion, when its aim is to improve within policy, not personally attack members of this editing community.
As we look for those sources that can be found I would far rather declare groups and individuals as self-identifying (their claims being acknowledged) than have nothing in the article, a more egregious position of denial, until verification can be made. What we don't want, and if these groups are legitimate they should stand with us on, is to have claims sourced and legitimacy given only to find out it isn't true and Native American communities being negatively impacted by being profited off of. Everyone has to agree that happens far more often than it should. But I have never questioned the legitimacy of someone that we list as self-identifying. That term has never meant something negative to me and I'm sorry if anyone has taken offense because of its use. However, Wikipedia does not accept personal unpublished knowledge of anyone as a legitimate source for claims. So I always ask for the sources to verify the claims. --ARoseWolf 18:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. We have to keep to the facts and accurately classify tribes/groups as federally recognized, state recognized, or self-identifying. This is a legal and political matter, not a value judgement. As Yuchitown said above, there are groups in California that do have Native American heritage but that don't have federal or state recognition. There are also plenty of self-identifying individuals (EG, adopted) who very likely do have American Indian ancestry, but for whom tribal descent simply cannot be determined. Self-identifying doesn't mean "Pretendian". I object to the characterization that any editor here is part of a "far-right movement" or conspiracy. None of us know each other IRL and aside from a common desire to improve Wikipedia, we all have our own opinions on various matters and are not always in agreement. Furthermore, I have never stated a desire to "prevent" members of state-recognized tribes from "selling their art" etc; that would take an amendment to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 anyway, which grants protections to state-recognized tribes. Correctly classifying groups as state-recognized or self-identifying does not "erase" them. In fact, I have created several articles about tribal heritage groups, including Muwekma Ohlone Tribe (who really are Ohlone descendants, from what I can discern) and Chappaquiddick Tribe of the Wampanoag Indian Nation. I'd say creating articles that increases awareness of these groups is the opposite of erasure. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given that the attack piece by Sherry Robinson was published in the Independent of Gallup, New Mexico, where about half the population is Navajo, Hopi, or Zuni, I wondered what the local reception of it was by Natives. I remember the place because I went rockhounding in the area when I was a kid. Carlstak (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gabrielle Tayac

edit

As an example, the article for Gabrielle Tayac has her nationality listed in the infobox as "Piscataway Indian Nation". Shouldn't the nationality be listed as American? And to clarify further, for articles that list people as "citizens" of a state-recognized tribe, shouldn't "member" be used instead of "citizen"? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would agree with making those changes.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Yuchitown (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Developing Countries WikiContest

edit

Starting this July, we will see a new contest on the scene - the Developing Countries WikiContest (WP:DCWC)! Think of it as a WikiCup but only for articles and media on developing countries.

Competitors may submit GAs, GTs, FAs, FTs, FLs, FPs, and DYK and ITN entries from/on developing countries to gain points and proceed to further rounds. Points are also awarded to those who review GAs, FAs and FLs.

Greenland is listed as a developing country for the purposes of this contest, so articles related to the Greenlandic Inuit, their history, culture, and anthropology, as well as notable individuals, are eligible to be submitted for points. I encourage everyone here to sign up and compete with editors from around the world to create high-quality content!

Append your name to the DCWC signup page today!

Best wishes, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 16:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Multi-heritage tribes

edit

There are a number of federally recognized tribes or First Nations - such as Colorado River Indian Tribes, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Six Nations of the Grand River, Tlingit & Haida, etc. - that include citizens of multiple tribal heritages. Is a Colorado River Indian Tribes citizen of Navajo heritage to be described as a Navajo person or as a person of Navajo descent? Would it be overcategorization to tease these things out, along the lines of Catgory:Mohawk people of the Six Nations or Category:Six Nations people of Mohawk descent? That I can see, the status quo is that people like Martin Sensmeier (Tlingit enrolled with Tlingit & Haida) is categorized under both Category:Tlingit people and Category:Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes people, which is itself currently a subcat of the cat for Tlingit people. EDIT - on closer examination, Six Nations people can be organized by band: Bearfoot Onondaga, Upper Mohawk, Upper Cayuga, Delaware First Nation, etc. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lumbee categorization

edit

I know it is a bit tricky when it comes to state-recognized tribes, but currently Wikipedia has an article for the Lumbee and the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, as well as categories for Lumbee people, Lumbee descent, and self-identified Lumbee descent. There is a category for Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, but not for Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina people. Any clarity here? Presumably there are people who identify as Lumbee without being a member of the state-recognized tribe. Don't know how that could be verified though, or if it would need to be. Help? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit

This is about the heritage/citizenship stuff about. See this Tumblr post[3]. It mentions the Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill discussion and the Project mentioned offwiki one. It says "Some of the tribes I have spoken to are taking legal action against these editors. Any groups affected by their policies should also reach out to the news to make knowledge of this more widespread." Doug Weller talk 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Instead of expending all this energy cyberstalking editors here, folks could just actually read Wikipedia policy. We didn't invent wp:coi and claims made on Wikipedia articles have to be substantiated by external sources. Yuchitown (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand why they expend so much effort on volunteer editors on a volunteer encyclopedia who are interpreting policy of the encyclopedia. I'm not here to start-up this discussion again because the lines are clearly drawn by now. We, meaning Wikipedia, do not rule on legitimacy of claims but the claims have to be credibly sourced by independent reliable secondary sources that can be attributed in the articles. --ARoseWolf 14:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then is helping anything by amplifying an individual's social media posts? Yuchitown (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply
They can sue the federal government or the Massachusetts state government, as that is the source of the information used on Wikipedia. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lol: "Dear judge, there are people asking us for reliable sources about our Native American claims and we want legal action to make them stop."
Judge: "ok, but where is the proof of your Native American claims?" Then they'll be writing articles stalking the judge. Lol,  oncamera  (talk page) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Careful, they'll write another scathing and completely accurate blog about you on the always reliable Tumblr. lol --ARoseWolf 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Subtribes/Bands sections in ethnic group articles

edit

I keep running into lengthy, often undercited, lists of subtribes/bands in Native ethnic groups articles (right now, I'm looking at Cheyenne#History#Historical Cheyenne bands). My inclination is to move them to the bottom of the page. There's a tendency for these articles flow chronologically, but it seems they should be organized more by what information a reader (typically a young student, I'd imagine) would actually want to know. Has anyone else dealt with this situation? Yuchitown (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merge discussion at Persecution of First Nations that may be of interest

edit

There is a discussion at Talk:Settler colonialism in Canada#Proposed merge of Persecution of First Nations into Settler colonialism in Canada to merge Persecution of First Nations into Settler colonialism in Canada which may be of interest. PersusjCP (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Written guidelines

edit
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.
Withdraw due to lack of interest. –CaroleHenson (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be good to have better, clearer guidelines - hopefully in one place that can be linked to from citizenship, etc.:

  • Definition of citizenship
  • Definition of membership
  • Definition of Native American, such as the Office of Tribal Justice, DOJ; Native American Rights Fund
  • Definition of self-identifying Native American or tribal member. When to use it, when not to use it.
  • Claims of "Native American" accomplishments
  • Dispute cited content - not sure whether or not anything specific is needed here or not

I can start a draft for review. Is there anyone interested in helping identify what should be included and work on it? Any thoughts?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't this go on Native American identity in the United States and WP:NDNID? Yuchitown (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yuchitown One link is an article and one is the essay WP:...Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, so neither are guidelines. But they look like great resources for creating a master guideline document, perhaps WP:Guidelines for Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities. I imagine the intention is to keep the essay as it is.
I don't know all the guidelines yet that might also be effected - with links to and from the master guideline. Some that I can think of are:
  • MOS:BIO
  • MOS:CITIZEN
  • MOS:NONSOVEREIGN, just to review for consistency
  • WP:RS, if something different should be said for Native Americans, such as in the section "Reliability in specific contexts"
  • WP:WIKIVOICE - whether there should be certain things that don't go in the infoboxes or intro regarding a Native American.
What do you think?
As an aside, I added an underlined comment for the bullet * Dispute cited content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would like to start drafting the WP:Guidelines for Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities using the essay WP:...Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, notes from conversations about citizenship and identity here, the Native American identity in the United States article (and it's sources), and other sources.
Would someone be open to working with me on reviewing drafts. I can try to do my best to write the drafts (I used to write policy and procedures documents and I have worked a bit on drafting guidelines), but I am under no illusion that I can get a finished product without the experts here familiar with citizenship, identity, etc. In other words, it doesn't even make sense for me to start if I am to do it by myself.
In the end, the intention is to have places to refer to with specific language about how to write about identify that sets the standard for writing and evaluating articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not fully understanding what guideline would achieve that the essay and article aren't achieving. I'm not against this proposed project but personally want a break from having same conversation about Indigenous identity over and over for a while (which presumably would be why to have the guideline to reference). Could contribute later. Yuchitown (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yuchitown Neither of those documents are guidelines, which are formal instructions, for users on how to write articles and to use to respond to contributors who are not following the guidelines. They are also concise and get right to the instruction about how to write and not write about the topic. They then can be used with warnings to say that the user is not following the guidelines. You cannot do that with an essay or a Wikipedia article, right?
In the past week, the only guideline I heard about was MOS:CITIZEN, kind of late in the game.
I am not trying to pressure anyone who isn't interested, available, etc. I am trying to determine if anyone can help.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yuchitown I just looked back to the comment that make me convinced that guidelines were needed. It was "Could this conversation move to Reddit or somewhere else? WP:NOTAFORUM. This conversation has long moved beyond the article, which should have taken place on that talk page (however the article's issues are being resolved). Endlessly rehashing opinions is not helpful. For the new folks, please read any of the existing discussions all over this talk page, its archives, and innumerable other Native article talk pages. Yuchitown (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown"–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Self-identifying

edit

Based upon a definition of Native American or American Indian with reliable sources and meets with consensus:

It seems that the definitions of Self-identified Native American needs to be updated a bit to state how someone can be of Native American heritage, but not be a member or citizen of a tribe or nation. The definition of Native American by the DOJ allows that there are different definition of Native American or American Indian. Perhaps a bit more work on this section.

I have another suggestion to review articles where someone is considered "self-identifying" that might be like Lily Gladstone.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Potential sources for definition of self-identification google, JSTOR, to start.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@CaroleHenson Lily Gladstone is a known Blackfeet and Nez Perce descendant. I wouldn't call her self-identifying. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Bohemian Baltimore, but I understand that at one point she was labeled that way. To be clearer, I mean find others labeled "self-identifying" who are not.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No one ever questioned that they were a descendent. I think that's been very well documented. The question came about how to describe them in the lede. Some wanted to describe them as Native American. The resolution on the Lily Gladstone article, after much discussion and debate, was to say they are an American (citizenship) actress and follow that up with their heritage, in this case Blackfeet and Nez Perce (ethnic identity). In this way we satisfied both the recommendations of NDNID and gave Lily the recognition they deserved. We also left in that Lily was the first Native American to win the the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama per the sources given. I think this was an important compromise. And I think this could be the way forward. --ARoseWolf 13:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it needs to be said that the editor(s) who called Lily Gladstone "self-identifying" were three single purpose anonymous IPs originating from Bozeman, Montana whose only edits to WP were these edits. 153.90.233.177: [4], and [5], and [6], and from 153.90.233.151 [7], and from 153.90.233.248 [8]. Perhaps a check user needs to look into these IPs to see if they might be a WP:LOUTSOCK. Netherzone (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see @Netherzone, ARoseWolf, and Bohemian Baltimore:. Gotcha. Your explanations help. Thanks! I am more concerned about written guidelines. I struck out the suggestion for finding self-identifying people. I got ahead of myself. Sorry about that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I would drop the "self" and just state that they identify but I agree I think it needs to be defined. Current recommendation absent clear policy says something entirely different than my personal view so giving it clarification and definition is a good thing. The UN uses self-identification to describe all those who claim Indigenous heritage but are not claimed by a specific and recognized tribal nation within sovereign nations. But also gives guidance to avoid identifying whatsoever and cautions that rules for identification vary by law worldwide. We will never make everyone happy no matter what we do. I just want it defined so good faith editors aren't arguing, casting aspersions, and edit warring every time this topic comes up. Activism is very much needed and there is a place and time for it. Every editor on both sides of this debate should be standing firm on the fact that hit pieces like the one's discussed above against good faith editors and the push to allow activism to determine policy on Wikipedia should not be acceptable under any circumstances. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to protest. --ARoseWolf 12:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
ARoseWolf, Could we work on the self-identifying definition together? I put these thoughts out there as an option, but you might have a better approach.
Perhaps starting with Native American identity in the United States#Self-identification definition and refine it a bit, such as including what self-identify doesn't mean. I wonder if there could be a distinction between those who totally make up that they are Native American and those with some Native American heritage (even if the definition comes to include both) and create Draft:Self-identification definition, which could be used for a guideline and update the Native American identity in the United States#Self-identification and WP:NDNID - so that they are all in synch? Or, do you think it's better to just write the guideline at the moment and not be concerned about the other documents right now?
It seems to me that this ties into a definition of "Native American". Does it mean individuals with Native American heritage? Or, just those with citizenship?I picked up two definitions in the first note in Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill, perhaps that's a good place to start for that?
It would be really great to work with you on this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sources. IMO, it would be good to look at definitions from Native American sites, like the Native American Rights Fund, federal sites like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Tribal Justice, US Department of the Interior, etc. for the U.S. Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Assembly of First Nations for Canada. From the UN United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples , and perhaps International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
The sources in the Native American identity in the United States#Self-identification article, my humble opinion, do not seem adequate for this discussion - article about Michigan State Law, and "Native American identity", New Directions for Student Services. There's not really a definition in WP:NDNID - but the closest is the paragraph about the Native American Journalists Association, but that probably shouldn't be the only source for a self-identification definition.
If you like I am very happy to start the research of the sources I mentioned if they make sense - then can list each definition where it's defined by the organizations - to see what makes sense for a thorough consideration. Of course, there would not be references in the guidelines, but perhaps in the article and essay for the best definition/source (not a long list).–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am assuming that there will be just a couple of sources that stand ahead - and encompass other definitions - for the U.S. and Canada... and it would be interesting to see what the U.N. says.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Native American

edit

I started Draft:Native American definition. I think this will be easier, but already have two topics of conversation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities. Is this a WP:POVSPLIT?  oncamera  (talk page) 18:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, that's an essay. See my response here and what comment made me think guidelines were needed (besides all the talk on the LRMH article). Check out MOS:CITIZEN for Native Americans for an example, I know you're familiar with this one, but just in case you haven't looked at it for awhile.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You could also look at Draft:Native American definition - most of it is work sections. There's one section for the actual guideline. Right now the U.S. version of the definition is about done and ready for a draft guideline, unless there are other sources that you think would be helpful and perhaps change the definition.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
On MOS:CITIZEN, the essay is linked there a couple of times: (See also WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities § Notes.). I don't see how what you're writing is much different than what's on the essay and there's no way all that you're writing is going to be added to MOS:CITIZEN. Maybe merge the "Research" section to the essay under resources or give it a better title. Otherwise, it's just rewriting the essay and thinking you're going to put all of that on the MOS page which won't happen. All of these complexities are put on the essay for that reason to provide guidance for uneducated editors on Indigenous identities.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
An essay is not a guideline. Please see Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm aware, Carol lol. But you're not going to get that draft turned into a guideline.  oncamera  (talk page) 03:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just out of curiosity - why is it important for you to stop an effort to make things clearer for users about
What could be wrong with that? Just as a side note, my name is Carole, just so you don't type CarolHenson as a username, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Vanessa Jennings is absolutely a tribal citizen. She’s pretty famous. Yuchitown (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply
She's in the American people of Native American descent category with the description "Americans who have proof of Native American ancestry but are not members of any Native American tribes."–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
She's in Category:American people of Apache descent because she's enrolled Category:Kiowa people. Yuchitown (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply
Ahhh, the apparently tried and true, let's just wear her down approach. Well, I said earlier that if no one wants to work on the guidelines, I don't think it makes sense for me to continue. I don't have the background to do this alone and it's very clear that it's not a desired outcome. I hope that some time down the road you rethink it and work on it yourselves. It would be a really nice work and help out users and people that evaluate articles about Native Americans. All the best.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.

Academic journal article of interest

edit

This academic journal article mentions several members of WP:IPNA. Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia - published yesterday in the journal, Settler Colonial Studies, published by Taylor & Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2201473X.2024.2358697?src=exp-la – if that link doesn't work try this one: – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2201473X.2024.2358697

Note that the footnotes on the T&S website are buggy, you may have to copy and paste the urls into a browser to see the diffs in the footnotes. Netherzone (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for sharing the article. It is a lot to take in. I have been concerned about the lack of Native American history in "History of..." or the History section of articles about places, but I had not realized that someone had been deleting them. I have added them where I could, but that might be a new niche for me... to look for missing sections about Native Americans.
There is a lot to take in. I am not sure that it tells the full story of the problem. I think that there are more ways that there is a lack of objectivity and openness.
There is also a great opportunity here. For instance, as forward-thinking as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples may be, it has been rejected by the U.S. and Canada. It would be great to see objective articles that tell the truth of Native American history and Native Americans as people to help change public perception about what indigenous people have experienced since colonization, particularly to the people that tried to build relationships with people in government and mediated for treaties to have more and more land and rights taken away over time. It would be nice, and in my mind necessary, for Wikipedia to be objective in the handling of Native American issues and have input from editors who are Native Americans.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will note that in many cases any content in WP about the Native American history of places in the U.S. is poorly sourced, and often so vaque as to be useless. While citing sources, the content at Lakeland, Florida#Early history, for example, tells us nothing specific about the early history of the city. The content at History of Bartow, Florida#Pre-Columbian era to statehood is even more verbose, without actually telling us anything about the history of the site where the city now stands. There are also plenty of articles about places in the U.S. that do have usable content about Native American history in the area: see History of Gainesville, Florida#Native American, Pre-European, or Ocala, Florida#History, or Brevard County, Florida#History. I would like to see a list of articles from which Native American history has been removed, to see what was actually removed. I know that many articles about places in WP should have (more) coverage of pre-European history, but in many cases that may be best handled by linking to articles that cover such history for a wider area, if there are no reliable sources for the early history of a specific place. Donald Albury 15:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The author's email is linked at the beginning of the article. I'm sure they would be willing to share the examples they found that led them to their conclusion. Yuchitown (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Something to add to my to do list. Having just finished Chatot, I was planning to work on some non-Native American history for a while. Oh well. Donald Albury 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have added it to my to do list Donald Albury at Working on. I was going to start with some of the Colorado places that I haven't deliberately worked on. It is great that you have an interest in Florida places. Thanks, Yuchitown for the suggestion to contact the author. I will do that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are you planning to email that author? If so, we should coordinate. I think it would be best if only one of us requests the list, and then shares it here. Donald Albury 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you're right, Donald Albury. Go for it. I didn't realize you were thinking of that, too. If you wouldn't mind sharing what you learn, that would be wonderful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for sharing "Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of Native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia", Netherzone! I'm glad User:Indigenous girl and User:CorbieVreccan's stories are preserved in a scholarly journal, that we lost two brilliant editors due to non-Native fragility. Kyle Keeler provided excellent analysis.

This was a heart-breaking loss to the community, and continues to play out less dramatically on an ongoing basis. Yuchitown (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree 100% Yuchitown, Kyle Keeler did an excellent job on the article. I deeply miss the presence and efforts of Indigenous girl and CorbieVreccan. They both made incredibly well-researched contributions to IPNA and its associated articles. The depth of each of their respective knowledge and understanding of community was exceptional. They did stellar work for the encyclopedia, and I'm still very saddened about how their voices were silenced by WP. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
One can easily see the trends Keeler describes in the many efforts to remove the word genocide from articles relating to Indigenous peoples' histories. Cornell Law School mentions "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group", so the starvation on reservations, removal of Indian children into residential schools, and forced sterilization of Native women without their knowledge or consent that continued into the 1970s in the US and at least the 1990s in Canada makes it clear that genocide occurred here. Yuchitown (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply
It was. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
— Frankly, Keeler's essay. seems rather juvenile in its aspect, typically aimed at a young and naive college audience. Aside from playing the race/ethnic card at every turn, he uses the obtuse term, "settler nationalists", or other such variants, such as "settler colonial erasure", some 88 times. This coming from someone who teaches at and draws a paycheck from Lafayette College, founded in 1826 by "settler nationalists". His right to free speech, and other such rights, is also the product of "settler nationalists". He also ignores the fact that settlers were those who came to the new world in the 1600 and early 1700s, yet he refers to the lot of us editors today as "settlers". He typically confuses the idea of "genocide" with any sort of warfare, ignoring the fact that many Indians were bent on settler removal over the entire continent, and resorted to unspeakable tactics that also effected women and children, while Lafayette college (under investigation for promoting antisemitism) openly called for the genocide of Jews and, to use Keeler's own term, "settler nationalists", across America, when protestors at Lafayette College, and elsewhere, chanted "death to Israel" and "death to America".i.e.genocide.
— In any case, yes, Keeler resorts to general overtures in his accusations of "colonial erasure" here at WP, but never outlines any definitive examples. e.g.The use of the term "genocide", while such attempts certainly occurred at the hands of both Indians and settlers, is an idea too often equated with general warfare and is often misused by professors, activists and other like minded individuals. Please tke a close look at that essay -- lot's of generic claims and footnotes -- no actual examples. He cites one incident where an editor was banned for constant disruptive behavior, which Keeler assumes was only part of a greater conspiracy by "settler nationalists" trying to erase American Indian POVs, which, like any other POV, is not above honest criticism.
— If anyone can outline actual examples of this so called "settler nationalist erasure" of American Indian aspects of history articles please cite the example(s), and more over, try to equate this as some sort of overall conspiracy here at WP. Please don't confuse removal of any content for lack of citations, original research, acutely slanted POV's, etc, with "erasure", which any material may be subject to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
— Last, if Keeler and others are able to point out "erasure" and other such affairs here at WP, why have they not logged on to Wikipedia and added any material themselves? It can't be removed if it is cited by reliable sources. Overall all we have here are complaints, no actual editing -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't claim to be Native, but as a descendant of a Cherokee man who had his land stolen by whites and was marched on the Trail of Tears but managed to escape, I certainly believe that the government of the United States and white settlers often engaged in what amounts to genocide. I read every word of Keeler's essay except the notes with their infernal one-way links, and regard it as a fraudulent, ferocious hit-piece written to advance the career of its author, completely unscientific, and a very shoddy bit of pseudo-scholarship. He ignores the vast amount of work successfully done by Natives and African Americans on this website to correct the historical record depicted here, and concentrates on the injustices suffered by particular Native editors. He writes as if Natives have no agency and cannot defend themselves, and must depend on the Great White Savior to stand up for them. So ironically, he is perpetuating the very settler colonization against which he rails.
Glaringly absent from his attack piece are the actual accomplishments of editors such as ARoseWolf whose talk page input was crucial to the rewriting and decolonization of the Andrew Jackson article in the face of much heated contention, or of Xicanx, a self-identified Xicanx who wrote most of that article, practically all of the excellent Detribalization article among others, and revamped the Tongva article, for example, as well as many others, in scholarly fashion. Finally, I must mention the estimable Hoodoowoman, who has done so much to improve articles about Blacks and Black culture across WP, especially in such contentious articles as Lost Cause of the Confederacy, which prior to her additions] lacked coverage of the work of Blacks generally and Black women particularly to counter the pernicious effects of Lost Cause ideology and propaganda.
May I ask, what has Keeler done to improve Wikipedia's coverage of such issues? After all, anyone can edit it. If he had any guts or sincerity, he would be right here in the trenches. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, as he appears to be too busy trying to enhance his reputation among his students. Carlstak (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your accurate estimation of editing affairs here on Wikipedia. Yes, many (very) unfortunate events happened between settlers and Indians, and from what I have seen, it is well represented by editors of WP history articles. Indeed, there has been exception taken to the often habitual use of the term "genocide" when referring to almost any conflict between settlers and Indians, but at the same time, there is no denying such events occurred at the hand of both settlers and Indians. Again, if there are reliable sources to cite any of the affairs in question, editors are free to edit accordingly. Keeler's article is indeed a hit piece against almost every editor of American history articles and only does a disservice to the credibility of any legitimate complaints that are made. In Wikipedia's defense, anyone can indeed edit, so long as they abide by the policies that apply to all editors, esp in regard to Original Research, SYNTH, acutely biased POV's, and poorly or unsourced statements. WP would not have stood as a leading source of information for all these years if this was not the case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I started to write something but I really ran out of desire to halfway through it. Part of being an editor is accepting criticism when it is mentioned. I've received my fair share. How much of it is justified doesn't really matter. I miss Corbie. I miss Indigenous girl. I miss many other editors, even the ones I have clashed with. I am thankful for editors that I have worked with like Netherzone, Yuchitown, and oncamera. I appreciate Carlstak mentioning my name below and I am proud of what we were able to get done on Andrew Jackson. It is not perfect or exactly what I wanted. It is demonstrably better. I'm not going to criticize any viewpoint taken here or off-wiki. --ARoseWolf 14:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • For the moment, I am waiting to assess the evidence the author has. I have emailed him for a list of the articles from which he says Native American history has been removed or blocked from being added and he has responded, agreeing to send me the list as soon as he pulls it together. I want to know about articles from which reliably sourced, due content about Native American history has been removed or kept out, so that I can fix the articles and evaluate further appropriate action. - Donald Albury 14:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The complaint was not made so much over simple criticism, but Keeler's sweeping accusations that the writer has yet to substantiate with actual examples. As of yet, Keeler has failed to provide any actual examples where well sourced material concerning Indians has simply been deleted for no reason. IMO, Keeler has a deep seated contempt for "settler nationalists", a term he uses some 88 times in his essay, and has gone so far as to refer to editors here at WP as "settlers". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have wp:courtesy blanked a section titled "COI issues", written mostly by myself. I don't think I violated policies but the section is causing us stress that probably is not worth it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [9]Reply
  • I'm not part of this project and I'm off Keeler's radar, but I have followed his timely writings for a year or so. Per the "CorbieVreccan" and "Indigenous girl" discussion above, Keeler explained that both were "brought before Wikipedia publicly for refusing to allow non-Native editors to add colonial viewpoints to Native pages, and their work to protect Indigenous histories on Wikipedia was used against them...in addition to being publicly shamed, both users were harassed off-Wikipedia, made to fear for their safety so that they would not return." In my understanding of his article and previous articles on ToolX and "methodology", Keeler called for revisions to the "content resolution structure" and a "conference with a consortium of universities where experts are asked to audit their subject areas." I'm a bit alarmed by the harassment both editors received, or at least what Keeler claimed they received. Conversely, his comment on these editors "refusing to allow non-Native editors to add colonial viewpoints" warranted clarification, given that he self-identifies or self-identified as "settler-descended" (that doesn't preclude "Native" endonyms, although he also premises arguments on a strict Native/Non-Native dichotomy). He recently presented on how "public knowledge is crafted and controlled on Wikipedia", without an explicit reference to Native Americans and indigenous peoples. I don't mean to make you a proxy, so perhaps I'll wait for the list, but I did want to add my own thoughts. He received criticism from Wikipediocracy users as well, which may be neither surprising nor relevant. Bustamove1 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Note on that presentation here:[10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the interested: User:Tamzin/Public_response_to_the_editors_of_Settler_Colonial_Studies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-06-08/Opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Native American, American Indian, Indigenous American

edit

I have been using "Native American" because that is the label used in Native American and Native Americans in the United States - the foundational disambiguation page and article about indigenous people of the United States.

Is it better, or more proper, to say "American Indian" or "Indigenous American"? It seemed to make more sense to ask here before asking for a move on the talk pages.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask why you have a sudden interest in writing about Native people and that you continuously create topics about identifying them? Like if you have so much difficulty over even that, other editors will have to hold your hand throughout writing articles which can be taxing.  oncamera  (talk page) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I find this uncivil, particularly inappropriate for a project talk page, and I responded to your user page here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think oncamera's is fair question and not uncivil. I scrolled through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology; it appears that participants there come to the table with a basic understanding of the subject matter. Not everyone needs degrees in the subjects they contribute to; Wikipedia supports autodidacts, and fortunately books, journals, and online courses on Native American studies are readily available. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yuchitown, I am not understanding your point here. We have to agree to disagree. I wanted to clarify if "Native American" is the best label for indigenous people of the United States or not. For context, I was prompted by an article that spoke of these three and that "Native American" may not be the best of the three. It's not the first time I have heard that. I wondered it it appropriate to bring up for Native Americans of the United States. Based upon the next part of your response, I won't.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
But to answer your original question: terminology depends on your subject matter. If you are writing about Indigenous people of the continental United States, Native Americans should work. American Indians or Indians are the majority of Indigenous peoples of the Americas, but the term is considered pejorative in Canada. The US Census uses American Indians and Alaska Natives because not all Alaska Natives are American Indians. Yupik peoples, Aleut, and Inuit are not American Indian. The Indigenous peoples of Greenland are Inuit. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit are the Indigenous peoples of Canada. Indigenous peoples is commonly used in Mexico and Central America. Native people is a good catch-call. But one can also just use the terms found in the reference books and essays one is reading to inform edits. Native American name controversy is a good article on terminology. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yuchitown, Thanks for your response. I said in my question that I was asking about indigenous people of the United States. I agree that "Native American name controversy" is a good article on terminology. It doesn't, though, offer a suggestion about what is most appropriate. I am getting from your comments:
It's fine to use "Native Americans" and "American Indians". It's better to be more specific when writing about people from Alaska, using Native Alaskans, and I am guessing you also mean Native Hawaiians for indigenous people from Hawaii, too.
It sounds like "Indigenous American" is not used often in the United States - and would not distinguish someone as from the U.S. (I don't remember reading that in the article.)
I do use "native people" and "indigenous people" within the body of articles rather than repeating "Native American" and I don't capitalize them to make it seem as if I am talking about another group of people, but merely that they are native or indigenous.
Next steps:
I appreciate your respectful tone and thorough answer quite a bit! Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indigenous is capitalized when referring to human beings, WP:INDIGENOUS. Likewise Native people has a capitalized Native. These are standard with AP, Chicago, APA, etc. Terminology depends on what exact group of people you are discussing. Yuchitown (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Yuchitown, I will make that change going forward. I haven't seen it used that way consistently, but I am happy to be part of the crowd that follows the definition and terminology standards.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I made edits to "Next steps" - which are underlined.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
And what people of European descent feel comfortable calling the people whose ancestors lived in the Americas before Europeans showed up is in constant flux. I won't bother listing the terms that have been used in the past century or two (some of them are highly offensive), but I see no reason to believe that discarding old terms that have come to be seen as perjorative, or disrespectful, or impolite and adopting new terms will stop the cycle, as any term begins to take on negative connotations from its association with a minority group that the majority does not fully respect or accept. I believe that it is right to call a people by a name that they accept for themselves, but that works best for groups that share a language or a relatively recent shared history. I don't feel entirely comfortable with any of the terms commonly used in WP to refer to the people whose ancestors lived in the Americas before Europeans arrived. Donald Albury 17:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Donald Albury Yes, of course, it is best to use terminology that is not offensive, perjorative, disrespectful, or impolite terms. I haven't used "Indian" for that reason. I don't know that there's one term that everyone feels great about, but I think your goal or intention is right-on. I think that has been the intention in recent years, but I don't know how well the effort comes across. Out of curiosity, what do you think is the right terminology?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
When I have asked here in the past about using "Indian", the consensus has been that it is OK to use it. The use of "Indian" certainly has not been deprecated. As for the "right" terminology, "Indian" is controversial, "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" just feels too academic/pretentious(?), although I did choose the title Indigenous peoples of Florida when I created that article. I don't think "Amerindian" and "American Indian" ever caught on enough to be serious contenders. I suppose "Native American" is OK in contempory topics in the U.S., but I edit a lot on history, and the term has felt anachronistic to me when I am editing on topics prior to the 20th century. Thinking about that some more, I see that one book I've been heavily using as a source recently is The Native American World Beyond Apalachee by John Hann, which covers roughly the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries, so "Native American" does have scholarly use in the study of history. I think I'm talking myself into supporting "Native American" until something better comes along. Donald Albury 18:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Donald Albury, That is where I am at, too. I recently read an article that said that "Native American" is the worst of the three, but based upon the comments here and what I read in most sources, Native American seems to be most prevalent. Some complaints are that some people think that it means someone who is born in the United States, but I have not run across that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The term "Native American" is indeed controversial. First, the term was invented in 1902 by the American Anthropological Association and other white people in an attempt to appease their critics, journalists and activist types, and also to appear politically correct. By the 1960's the term was often used by white politicians for the same basic reason. Second, many Indians don't identify themselves as Americans and overall prefer to be identified in terms of their tribal ancestry. Third, the term more than suggests that non-Indian people who were born in the U.S.are native to no land, which to many, is an exclsionary term, based on race. Yes, many historians often employ the term, even to those Indians who were around before their was ever an America, while many historians use the common term Indians, esp in regard to the period before the US was founded. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
As an enrolled citizen of a Native American tribe, I can tell you "Native American" isn't really that controversial, mostly to European Americans who think they should be considered native because they were born here on stolen land.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I try to refer to the people I write about in articles by their tribal identity, but most of the articles I work on are about people who have left no descendants that are identified as part of that people (i.e., peoples who are often called "extinct"), so I have to use what Europeans recorded as their names, whether that is some approximation (filtered through European ears) of what the people called themselves. or of what some enemies called them, or something that some Europeans made up. The problem in choosing a name for all of the people who originally lived in the Americas and their descendants is that we have only what Europeans invented. In Canada, at least, they settled on "First Nations", but even there, it is an English term. We need to use terminology that most of our readers will recognize. We cannot create a novel term. So what do we use that is least offensive or misrepresentative, but still recognizable and precise enough to be usable in the encyclopedia? Donald Albury 19:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Native American/Category:Native American history is the term used on most article titles here.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indigenous peoples of Canada is the most inclusive term in Canada. First Nations doesn't pick up Metis and Inuits in the sub-artic region. If we followed the rest/most of the rest of the Americas, it seems it would be Indigenous people of the United States. See Native American#Ethnic groups.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Per Indigenous peoples of the Americas: "Indigenous peoples of the United States are commonly known as Native Americans, Indians, as well as Alaska Natives."  oncamera  (talk page) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to get in a fight with you, I really don't. It's nice to start fresh. Starting fresh, though, still means addressing what you see. The sentence you referenced didn't have the word continguous in it and seems inadequate. I looked it up and it said "clarification needed".–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
How am I "fighting" you?  oncamera  (talk page) 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
If this was misunderstanding on my end, I am glad to sort it out. I think I am getting your writing style a bit better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was answering Donald Albury and thought it would be rude to exclude you. Perhaps, I should have put the ping on, after all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm replying on this topic, being a Native American, regardless of who you were addressing lol.  oncamera  (talk page) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not understand your point. I am not telling you not to reply to this topic - and I bet you are not telling me not to reply. Time for a break, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion re: name change of Genocide of Indigenous peoples to lower case indigenous

edit

There is a discussion going on at Genocide of Indigenous peoples to change the name of the article to Genocide of indigenous peoples (lower-case indigenous.) The discussion can be found here: Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Requested move 25 May 2024. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's also Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Proposed merge of Canadian genocide of the First Nations into Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Canada on the same talk page. Yuchitown (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Horace Pierite, Jr.

edit

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Pierite, Jr., if anyone has any thoughts on this matter. Yuchitown (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"was" vs "is" for articles on ancient human remains, including those of Native Americans

edit

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Archaeology#"was"_vs_"is"_for_individual_ancient_human_skeletons for a discussion regarding whether Wikipedia articles about individual human remains (like skeletons and mummies, including those of Native Americans) should be described in the past or present tense. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipediocracy

edit

Wikipediocracy has a thread "State-recognized tribes and the Indigenous peoples of North America WikiProject" about this WikiProject and editors are mentioned in there, since that's the apparent standard to share these links on this talkpage.  oncamera  (talk page) 04:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not un-interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could lead to WP:canvassing since I see active discussions are being posted there and editors have been blocked in the past for making similar posts on Wikipediocracy.  oncamera  (talk page) 09:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure what role anyone thinks I have in First Nation discussions. I don't usually edit First Nation articles or about Indigenous people in Canada. I think I've even said that before so that comment kind of perplexes me. --ARoseWolf 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Additional thoughts coming, I just need to clear my head space and I have chores to complete first. --ARoseWolf 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh my word, no one has ever claimed that Joy Harjo is not Native American. But glad that folks have a place to vent that isn't here. Yuchitown (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: Joy Harjo is a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. I don't understand how anyone actively weighing in on Native issues could not already know that or easily look that up. Yuchitown (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is frustrating that these off-wiki commentators are seemingly so dead-set on assuming the worst about Wikipedia editors that it has apparently impaired their ability to read. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The internet loves conspiracy, outrage, and projection. Unfortunately, Wikipedia appears to be no exception, which saddens me. Yuchitown (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons noticeboard, Patricia Marroquin Norby

edit

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patricia Marroquin Norby about how self-identification and sources should be used that might be of interest to editors.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

MOS:CITIZEN / Native American/First Nations citizenship

edit

There's discussion to remove tribal nations from MOS:CITIZEN at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Native American/First Nations citizenship.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Man, it's Crush Indigenous Sovereignty Week at Wikipedia. How dare we try to assert our existence? Yuchitown (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess our existence is the Great Wrong that must be corrected on Wikipedia since they always bring up WP:RGW when mentioning MOS:CITIZEN.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regina M. Anderson

edit

I have a question at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Regina M. Anderson about whether ethnic or race information should be in categories if it's minor. In reading MOS:Ethnicity, ethnic background or race should only be in an article if it is part of a person's notability and of defining importance.

In Anderson's case, the only thing that is relevant to her education, career, and participation in the Harlem Renaissance is that she has African heritage. There's only some specific information about her African heritage. And, it is not relevant that she has partial Jewish, Swedish, Native American, etc. heritage. Please comment there if interested.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You literally answered your own question after posting the guidelines. Being African American is the only part of her ethnicity that is relevant to her career so she doesn't belong in other categories.  oncamera  (talk page) 15:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well kind of, my question was about categories. I sorted out that the answer applied to both inclusion in the article and use of categories. That kind of awareness in steps happens some times with my brain. I tried to give you the most up-to-date information in this post. And, I posted here because I thought the Project might have an opinion about leaving out minor heritage info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:People of Native American descent

edit

Is Category:People of Native American descent being used properly? Per Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people#Defining:

Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. The principle of "defining characteristics" applies to categorizing people, as it does to any other categorization. As the guideline on categorization says:

The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.

  • For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless their legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to their acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized. Similarly, celebrities commercializing a fragrance should not be in the perfumers category; not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.

I see people put into descent categories where their claims are not why they are notable. An example is Category:People of Sioux descent, there are two articles, one is Linus Woods, who is an artist where his Native culture plays a crucial part to his notability, the second is Jas Mann, whose claims of being Native seem to have no notability to his musical career. I'm not saying the claims have to removed from the article, but instead, why is he in that category when it's not a WP:Defining feature?  oncamera  (talk page) 02:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

These evolved out of necessity because editors kept dumping various celebrities into Native categories over and over. Yuchitown (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unless their ethnic backgrounds are relevant to their careers, why would they need to be in a category about their heritage anyway?  oncamera  (talk page) 02:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, I'll add that if someone is enrolled citizen, they should be put be into categories about their citizenship etc, even if it's not totally why they are notable since citizen. That's different than the "so-and-so of tribal-nation descent" categories about heritage, and not citizenship.  oncamera  (talk page) 02:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it just evolved from a practical reality of Wikipedia. If you take these away, editors will just add and re-add them of the main Native categories. Whether their heritage is deemed notable or not. Yuchitown (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ in declarative statements, rather than table or list form

Mohawk skywalkers

edit

I've started an article on the Mohawk skywalkers. It needs work, but I was surprised that there wasn't anything on Wikimedia Commons. Photos would be a nice addition, if any can be found in the public domain. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing this - there is a substantial section in the Kahnawke article here: Kahnawake#Working in New York. Some years ago I saw the independent Indigenous film, on them and the Little Caughnawaga neighborhood in Brooklyn (where a lot of them lived). There should be an article on the 'hood as well. I've created a stub on the Little Caughnawaga neighborhood, please feel free to expand and improve.
Photos added to Mohawk skywalkers.Because some of the bridges were built before 1930, there should be photos out of copyright. I'll see if I can find any, and if not, I'm pretty sure I remember there were historical images used in the film - so maybe a screenshot might work? Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Netherzone Perhaps the article could also be nominated for "Did you know..."? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Bohemian Baltimore, I had the same thought just this morning. Mohawk skywalkers would make an excellent DYK. It would be of interest to many readers, and would call attention to this important Indigenous history. Please let me know what I can do to help improve the article. One thought I had was to create a gallery of images. Lewis Hine, who shot the 1928 photo of the workers sitting high in the sky on the iron I-beam, did a series of photos of the skywalkers, the Smithsonian owns these photos. I've been trying to access that archive of images online (so far, not successful, but I'm persistant ;-). Thank you again for creating it! Netherzone (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll also look for photos and source material from other regions where the skywalkers worked. I did not know it was so widespread, thought it was just Canada & New York. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Netherzone I think it may be too late to nominate the article, but I'm not super familiar with how the process works. Sorry. I've been a bit hectic lately. I think the only way we could nominate now would be to get the article to GA or expand 5x? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries, Bohemian Baltimore there will be other opportunities to collaborate. I've done a few DYKs but found the process labyrinthian and somewhat confusing. But am willing to give it a try again. Years ago I was hoping to bring Pueblo Pottery to GA, but again found the process/procedure intimidating so I gave up. On another note, I have been meaning to thank you for all the hard work you've done on categorization, and of course your many article creations. Netherzone (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this edit ok?

edit

[11]. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:INDIGENOUS

edit

Apparently the establish consensus has been overturned [12]. Sure to be a concise and calm discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's many style guides that say it should be capitalized, where are the published sources saying it's not?  oncamera  (talk page) 22:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not really something that most readers will even notice. Most editors that are interested in indigenous topics will capitalize the word anyways simply based on the knowledge they have of the topic. ... We'll only get a few here and there that will consider it racist not realizing it's just a grammatical preference. Moxy🍁 02:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be a lot of retaliation against Native topics lately and the guidelines meant to help newbies in the area write better articles.  oncamera  (talk page) 03:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will be capitalizing no matter what. They can block me. That discussion was full of uncivil mocking of fellow editors by those that shouldn't ever touch an article about Indigenous topics let alone be commenting about it as shown in recent comments made and pointed out. --ARoseWolf 11:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. The discussion at Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples is appalling (and folks have lots of free time on their hands!). I keep peeking over about Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and wonder how they handle the need for a base level of familiarity with the subject. Of course we aren't saying "we know best, everyone should trust us" a la WP:EXPERTISE; we all consistently provide citations. But we have the challenge that the broader public has limited knowledge of Indigenous topics coupled with a lack of desire to learn more or listen to Indigenous voices (due to centuries of structural prejudice in Western societies). On physics subjects, I'd imagine there's an expectation that you've at least studied it on the college level (or a heroic autodidact). Yuchitown (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks like WP has hit a new low. Sigh.... Netherzone (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Same with medical articles, of course we have MEDRS for that. Wish we had INDRS or something like it which clearly defined what is a good reliable source for Native American or Indigenous identity and how best to define/label. We don't have that and it has caused a major rift, imo, within the Wikipedia editing community and between Wikipedia and Indigenous communities. The last few discussions have been appalling. At least with the off-wiki discussions, I finally read them, I can say the criticism, though some of it misguided, is at least coming from a place of trying to, in their minds, respect a person Indigenous identity. I can't say that about some of the discussions on wiki that I've been a part of or watched recently. It is absolutely a new low and disheartening that I am supposed to work with these people that don't respect for other humans. Wikipedia does have rules but those rules are not supposed to hurt the encyclopedia and this clearly does hurt the effectiveness of Wikipedia to relate to its readers. --ARoseWolf 14:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ARoseWolf, see message below. Please help us to include more Indigenous news sources from Alaska! Netherzone (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll add that I disagree with Moxy. I think this is a serious issue and it will become more serious when we start seeing good faith edits reverted where Indigenous is capitalized in articles. This isn't an effort to remove errant language from a guideline or essay. This an effort to force a particular POV on editors who know better by those that simply don't care about the cause and effects of their decisions. --ARoseWolf 14:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's also being removed from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. I would suggest someone create a RFC at the MOS or WP:INDIGENOUS with the style guides so consensus can be established once and for all.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The United Nations updated their Editorial Manual to include that "Indigenous should be capitalized when referring to cultures, communities, lands, languages, etc., of Indigenous Peoples, e.g.: Indigenous culture in Ecuador, Indigenous languages are dying out. If referring to flora or fauna, lower case should be used." --ARoseWolf 17:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hopefully when it's closed who ever does it we'll see the disconnect between the random links vs the style guides. Basically we have someone saying look at the Chicago manual style or United Nation they doesn't capitalize in everyday usage....... Yeah both places have a style guides that say you should. Odd that some simply reject academic protocols like...."Capitalization". University of Waterloo. February 24, 2016. Retrieved June 13, 2024.Moxy🍁 21:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's more than odd, it's verging on disruptive. Probably schoolmarmish types nursing a pet peeve. Carlstak (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The rejection of academic publications is one reason we have a problem with Wikipedia:Expert retention. Moxy🍁 01:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
FYI Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Example in MOS:RACECAPS section?. Moxy🍁 13:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

List of Indigenous newspapers in North America

edit

Here's some good news! Over the past week or so, @Yuchitown and I have been crafting a new list article List of Indigenous newspapers in North America that will be helpful in providing sources from the various Tribes/Nations. It also includes tribal newsletters. It's not quite "finished" and may never be, however it is comprehensive enough that I feel comfortable posting this here (a link is also on the IPNA main page).

Please feel free to continue to improve and expand it. Within the next few days I hope to create a List of Indigenous magazines and academic journals in North America. It would also be excellent to have a List of Indigenous Media, TV, radio and podcasts in North America.

Thank you in advance for helping out with this project!

BTW, it will be interesting to see whether Indigenous is capitalized or whether it is not in these scores of sources. Netherzone (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have just created two userspace drafts User:Netherzone/List of Indigenous magazines and academic journals in North America and User:Netherzone/List of Indigenous media, TV, radio and podcasts in North America. (The titles of which of course can change if these aren't quite right). Please contribute to these drafts! Netherzone (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I used to read the Juneau Empire. I just scanned it for articles and they capitalize Indigenous (i.e. Indigenous leader, man, woman, people). Not exactly an Indigenous owned newspaper but one that recognizes the importance of Alaska Native's to Alaska, both current and past. Then there is Alaska Native News. News for Alaska Native's which you already have listed but is really good source. Southcentral Foundation does a free publication of Native news in and around Anchorage. I'll continue to look for more media sources. --ARoseWolf 16:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Tlingit & HaIda Central Council releases a quarterly newsletter titled Tribal News. --ARoseWolf 16:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I've added Tribal News and Anchorage Native News to the list article. Will look into the other two you mention. Netherzone (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've added some to the User:Netherzone/List of Indigenous media, TV, radio and podcasts in North America. I added the National Film Board because while they are not predominately by or targeting Indigenous peoples there are quite a few works by them that apply.
How about things like Up Here (magazine) or News/North? The first is a glossy magazine that is not really aimed at Indigenous peoples but does sometimes contain articles by Indigenous peoples. By the way there is the Canadian Indigenous Media Index. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for these contributions and for pointing to the Canadian Indigenous Media Index. Yes to Up Here and News/North. All contributions and improvements are welcome! Netherzone (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just realised that it might be best to keep the lists to individual countries otherwise it could get very long. See List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see what you mean. Since I live in the US, I'll try to remain focused on that country. I'm glad you brought this up as it crossed my mind when working on the List of Indigenous newspapers in North America and wondered if it should be broken up into US and Canada and Mexico; however, you have called attention to the fact that the matter is larger than that. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Brulé

edit

Requesting move of Brulé to Sicangu at Talk:Brulé#Requested_move_14_June_2024. Yuchitown (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should have just moved it, it's not controversial  oncamera  (talk page) 18:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Probably, however, so many folks jump in and unilaterally make moves (see below), that I didn't want to do the same. Yuchitown (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion at Atakapa

edit

See: Talk:Atakapa#Requested_move_17_June_2024 Yuchitown (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)YuchitownReply

Residential schools at RSN (again!)

edit

There is a thread at RSN Catholic Pope and the Canadian House of Commons that may be of interest to editors here. Elinruby (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

RfC on Dorchester Review at RSN

edit

There is currently an RfC at RSN on the reliability of the The Dorchester Review. Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit

There is now a discussion at WP:NORN here about the related article 2021 Canadian church burnings Elinruby (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse scraps US filming plans after outcry from Native American Groups

edit

[13] Doug Weller talk 20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had no idea that the "kill the Indian, save the man" ideology still exists

edit

They took part in Apache ceremonies. Their schools expelled them for satanic activities Doug Weller talk 14:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, unfortunately, although it's surprising that a Lutheran school did this. Yuchitown (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is sad that, even today, it continues. The genocide of cultural beliefs and practices thrives on. And like cowards they refuse to respond. What are they afraid of? If this is something you believe with such passion as to expel children from school over then surely you could answer some questions about it and explain your position while accepting criticism for it. --ARoseWolf 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move of Apache Indian

edit
 

An editor has requested that Apache Indian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit

Do we need two separate projects: WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas and WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Perhaps these would be better merged? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. Indigenous people of the Americas refers to Indigenous communities in South and Central America. Indigenous peoples of North America refers to Indigenous communities in the United States, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. It would be like saying Aboriginal people of Australia is the same as Indigenous people of Asia. They uniquely different regions. --ARoseWolf 12:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay. Without saying South or Central, "Americas" seems to imply all of the Americas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Right but the very first goal of the wiki-project states "Specifically, this Wikipedia can improve and create new articles in areas not covered by the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or WikiProject Mesoamerica." --ARoseWolf 14:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Let me correct one thing I said. I included Central America in Indigenous people of the Americas but it is actually under the umbrella of Indigenous peoples of North America. IpNA, includes Greenlandic Inuit, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Native Americans in the United States, Indigenous peoples of Mexico, Indigenous peoples of Central America, and Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean. In turn IpNA is a sister project of IpA. --ARoseWolf 14:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. North America means North America. Some articles, like Classification of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, includes all the Americas so the broader WikiProject covering both Americas makes sense. Yuchitown (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the discussion on this talk page back in 2011, and in the formal proposal for the new project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Indigenous peoples of the Americas) some editors felt that the North American project focused primarily on the United States and Canada, and that a broader project was needed for the areas south of the U.S., including Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. I still don't see much about Central America or the Caribbean in the North American project, but then I don't see much about them in the wider project. Donald Albury 15:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This Wikiproject is for North America, which starts at Panama and goes north to Greenland. South America is neglected but would also be neglected if it was merged into this WikiProject. I'm sorry the broader areas are neglected and contribute occasionally. Seems like many WikiProjects are less active in recent years. Yuchitown (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas should be changed to include the name "South America" since this one includes North America.  oncamera  (talk page) 22:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would solve some confusion. Moxy🍁 22:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that makes sense. Yuchitown (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've dropped a suggestion at that project's talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I could see this change being beneficial and resolve any confusion. --ARoseWolf 19:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sems an easy but important thing to do. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think merging is the way to go here. This is quite an active project, but WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas and for that matter WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia is struggling. Unifying them into a new WikiProject Indigenous peoples would bring more editor attention to the overarching topic and reduce duplicated work on things like banner tagging. And if there's a desire to retain more geographically-focused collaborations, they can always become task forces (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples/North America. – Joe (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indigenous peoples is a global concept and includes Indigenous peoples from Asia, Oceania, Africa, and Europe. Honestly most of the those are outside most of our spheres of knowledge and will likely guarantee they are neglected. Indigenous peoples of South America are already fairly neglected (although I try to edit those articles occasionally). Yuchitown (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The idea would be to broaden the group in order to bring in people that do have that knowledge. – Joe (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why not recruit new editors to those less active projects? Over the years I've received a number of invitations to join Wikiprojects, and have always appreciated that outreach. Netherzone (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In short, it won't work; see below. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:IPAustralia and WP:IPAmericas show up on your link below as "Active" not "struggling". Has anyone tried to contact the participants of those projects to reinvigorate them? Or checked to see if articles relevant to those areas have been created, but the WikiProject template simply has not been added to the talk pages of those new articles? Also, editors may be actively participating without necessarily using the WProject talk page or modifying the Project page. Netherzone (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The activity statuses haven't been kept up to date either, unfortunately. I recently reviewed all the history and society-related wikiprojects and found that about three quarters of the projects listed as active were not. If that holds for the other categories, the true statistic is probably more like 80% of wikiprojects are inactive. Sadly WikiProjects as a concept have been in decline for many years now.
In any case, I'd call both of these wikiprojects semi-active right now as there is sporadic talk page activity but little else. If there is activity that doesn't leave a trace on any of the WikiProject project pages... well, I'd question whether that's really 'participating' at all. WikiProjects are supposed to be about facilitating and coordinating collaborative editing, not just putting banners on talk pages. – Joe (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just wondering if anyone has tried to contact the participants of those two Projects to reinvigorate them and ask them to document whether or not they are coordinating collaborative editing but just not announcing that they have done so on the Project talk page? Netherzone (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not to my knowledge. But what that would that even look like? FWIW, I've been somewhat active in articles relating to Indigenous peoples in South America for over a decade and don't remember ever hearing a peep from the wikiproject. – Joe (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
WikiProject Women in Red did an excellent job recruiting members and inspiring participation by using the mass-messaging system and in-person and online events. Maybe the foundation could throw some money at those struggling projects to develop in-person edit-a-thons, conferences and similar events focusing on Indigenous people and Indigenous land, water and environmental justice issues, and Indigeneity in general. Just a thot.... Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Speaking as a talk page lurker, I really don't think a merge or name change is going to solve anything. People contribute where their interests and expertise lie, and that isn't going to magically change through a merger (or anything else). A name change (such as the recommendation above to add "South America" to the WPIpA name) might draw in some with that interest and expertise, but merging a project with a clear name with one that isn't won't have the same impact in my view. Intothatdarkness 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It does not make sense to me to merge WP:IPNA nor WP:IPA into an overarching Wikiproject Indigenous peoples - it is too vast and there are way too many cultural, geographic, customary and historical differences to lump all Indigenous people together. As Yuchi says, Indigeneity is a global concept. IPNA is an active project and it could water-down its effectiveness and the work we do here; to my mind, it seems more pro-active to try to recruit editors to the less-active projects like IPAmerica and IPAustralia. Changing the name of IPA to IPSouth America is fine with me, as long as Middle American / Central American countries and Caribbean countries have a home in one or the other project. Netherzone (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Very niche projects like Indigenous peoples of America/Australia have had over a decade to show that they can be viable and it hasn't happened. Looking more broadly, more than half of all wikiprojects are dead – and that's using a very generous definition of activity. I would love it if we could revive all of these small projects, but experience shows that it simply isn't realistic. There's a certain level of participation that's needed for a wikiproject to sustain its activity in the long-term (I've heard 20–100 active editors as a rule of thumb), and recruiting a handful of new participants doesn't get you over that.
That a project on the scale of this one has succeeded is the exception, not the rule, and that's why I think there's an opportunity to use that kernel of activity to give adjacent topics a boost. A WikiProject Indigenous peoples would still be quite niche in the grand scheme of things, considering we have projects like WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Science. But of course, it would only work if the existing participants of the constituent projects are willing to try. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, and maybe this is me being selfish, I don't want to generalize this wiki-projects name any more than it has to be. We already have a block of editors on Wikipedia that are very biased against Indigenous people treating us like third class citizens in discussions and making condescending remarks and mocking our positions on topics very important to us and allied editors. I feel a generalized name gives them reason to attack us and topics related to this wiki-project further. This wiki-project has a very specific, focused and proper name for a group of people with more of a common history, geographically and politically, than they share with other similar groups around the world. --ARoseWolf 15:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
100% agree with @ARoseWolf. There have been a wave of efforts to silence or disempower or discredit Indigenous voices on Wikipedia in multiple venues.
It is very disheartening. Speaking from a personal perspective, I've never threatened to quit WP editing, however of late it has crossed my mind several times because of this trend. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It has very much been weighing on my mind too. I've contemplated the possibility that efforts to increase Indigenous topics on Wikipedia has largely been in vain. The loss of Corbie and Indigenous girl along with other editors who have either lost interest or left the encyclopedia are equally disheartening and places a tremendous load on those that remain to continue their efforts, even on those topics where we didn't necessarily agree on every point. I know I have felt it. It seems you have too. --ARoseWolf 16:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
And the manner in which this leadership was taken down was, at least to my mind, quite shameful. Netherzone (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Diluting this project by combining it with other projects that appear to be at least semi-inactive has in my view the unintended consequence of diminishing what this project has accomplished. Expecting those accomplishments to somehow carry over to other areas where current participants have little interest or expertise isn't realistic. In fact, it has the distinct possibility of being counter-productive. Intothatdarkness 15:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That certainly wasn't my intention in suggesting this. My thoughts were quite the opposite: that the activity of this project could be used as a launchpad for improving our coverage of Indigenous peoples in other parts of the world. As a concrete example, one of the most recent successes of this project seems to have been gaining a consensus on the capitalisation of Indigenous. But this of course is not an issue that is relevant only to North America. As someone relatively active in editing articles relating to Indigenous peoples elsewhere (especially South America), the first I heard of that was when S. America-related articles on my watchlist started getting moved. Which was great to see – but a surprise. So you see both sides of the coin there: on the one hand, the activity of WP IPNA achieved an outcome that benefitted global coverage of Indigenous peoples. On the other, there was a missed opportunity for editors active in other regions—including Indigenous editors—to participate in the discussions and potentially make it easier to gain consensus.
But it's just a suggestion. If the participants of this project don't want to happen, it won't happen. As an alternative, would there be objections here if I proposed merging the two semi-active wikiprojects (on South America and Australia) into a WikiProject Indigenous peoples that did not include North America? – Joe (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I definitely believe your effort is good faith. I don't want that to be misstated. I think gaining the perspective of Indigenous peoples and allied editors from other regions is most beneficial. You should feel free to propose any merge or any other action you feel would benefit Indigenous topics on Wikipedia. --ARoseWolf 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Joe, with all due respect for your work and efforts towards resolving lack of visible participation, it does not make any sense to me to mash-up South America with Australia in one Wikiproject. At all. South America is huge and has millions of Indigenous people and relevant topics and should either be its own WikiProject Indigenous people of South America or be left as part of WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. A suggestion re: Australia might be a WikiProject Indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand and Oceana. Netherzone (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
My understanding is that one of the main reasons we've ended up with hundreds of dead wikiprojects is that there has been a tendency to divide them up based on the potential of the topic rather than the potential of the editor base. If you look at just the topic then yes, of course, Indigenous peoples of South America seems like a massive scope. But the sad reality is that the number of editors actively working on it is in the single digits, at best. There is simply no way to get a group that can sustain the level of participation that you guys have here without up-merging. Broad scopes can and do work. Above you mentioned WP:WOMRED as an example of a highly successful wikiproject (I completely agree): it covers all women that have ever lived, anywhere! – Joe (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please forgive me for being so blunt, but merging/"up-merging" our highly functional, productive, and collegial and sustainably scaled and managed project into a mega-project to "rescue" less-functional or dysfunctional projects is not a good idea. It runs the risk of disappearing or watering down IPNA. Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes I think it's very clear that IPNA does not want to be involved in a merge. No problem. I was responding to your comment about merging the other wikiprojects, which don't have anything to water down. – Joe (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
With the current way editors of Native topics are treated on Wikipedia, I certainly wouldn't recommend this place for editors to contribute. So I don't see how merging projects is going to fix the way editors and topics related to Indigenous people are treated around here that would encourage new editors to stick around.  oncamera  (talk page) 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)#Requested move 9 July 2024

edit
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply