Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Irataba FAC

The article Irataba is now at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive2. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move Indian Chief (motorcycle) needs input

There is an RM at talk:Indian Chief (motorcycle) that would benefit from input of this project.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Comanche

Seems to have a reasonable request. I don't see much about the Comanche culture in the article and I don't know anything about any festivals they might have or have had. Rmhermen (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Relevant move request(s)

There is a move request regarding the word "Indians" and the page Indians at Talk:Indian people‎ and Talk:Belizean people that members of this project may be interested in. (It's actually the same move request, introduced by two different editors in two different multi-moves.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren Native heritage RFC

Request for Comment:Talk:Elizabeth_Warren#RfC Native American Ancestry Controversy section. - CorbieV^☊ 17:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh god, not that again.... Montanabw^(talk) 01:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Settlement of the Americas

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

Menominee Tribe v. United States nominated for TFA

Menominee Tribe v. United States has been nominated for Today's Featured Articles, if interested, please visit and register your support or opposition to the nomination. GregJackP Boomer! 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Kennewick Man

See WP:RSN#Kennewick Man - using an unread book as a source. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oh boy, more tinfoil...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Alex Jones says "tinfoil" is a trite, meaningless buzzword used by would be self declared "authorities" in an attempt to discourage or squelch further inquiry or discussion, as a substitute for their lack of substantive points. Would you be willing to comment further on your position here? 172.56.34.238 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You are on your own, anon IP. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to explain your removal of an 'n' in Kennewick Man, and why your edit summary "Undid revision 657833984 by CBHA (talk) violation of wp:talk; this page strictly for improving article content" elsewhere doesn't apply to you comment here? Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this drama needs to go elsewhere, and Doug, if you need it, there is always ANI. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, removing the n was unintentional. Thanks for fixing it! 172.56.34.238 (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review request

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock has been submitted for peer review in preparation for a run at featured article. If you are interested, please go the the peer review page and help out. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Economy of the Iroquois FAR

I have nominated Economy of the Iroquois for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Mexica

Can someone please take a look at some recent edits.[1] These basically say the Mexica are the Aztec, which does seem to be a popular although incorrect view if [2] is correct. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've seen other stuff claiming they were the Toltecs. Sigh.... Montanabw^(talk) 16:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Past-Tensing

Plains Indians needs cleanup. As it stands, most of the content has the Plains peoples only existing in the past. I've done some initial cleanup, but the whole article needs it. Oh, Karl May and Native Americans in German popular culture need work, as well. - CorbieV^☊☼ 00:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a problem with dozens of articles tagged by IPNA, I'm all for working to put things in the present tense and advise boldness in doing so! Montanabw^(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I'm being bold. I've updated lots of articles, but you know how it is when you open up one you've never seen before and it's a huge mess, as are all the articles linked from it. Here we go... ;) - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And the IPNA ones are among the worst. One time I think I spent an entire wiki-day of my life just removing the overuse of "Chief." Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Care to review Draft:Lewis Mitchell? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Is there precedent for using a people's preferred name over the name in common use? Aleut is considered a slur by the folks that call themselves Unangan, yet that article is titled Aleut because it is in common use...73.169.242.214 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a hot topic, we had a similar discussion at Eskimo. Over there, because not all "Eskimo" people are Inuit, it sort of fizzled out. Does Unangan have a separate article? Montanabw^(talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't find any evidence that it is considered a slur. In fact I see sources discussing how they embraced the name to differentiate themselves from Eskimos (still called that in Alaska). Rmhermen (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Unangax is also used, so any wild moves would be ill-advised. -Yuchitown (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Menominee Tribe v. United States is Today's Featured Article

Menominee Tribe v. United States is Today's Featured Article and was brought to featured status by members of this project. GregJackP Boomer! 01:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Timpanogos

It has been a misconception that the Timpanogos Indians are Ute Indians. The term Utah Indian was used in Utah to refer to many bands of the larger Shoshone nation. In reading the older versions of history you will find that the term Utah Indians is used. After the Bear River massacre Colonel Conner wrote in his report that the "Utah" Indians were no longer a threat. The massacre was on Shoshone people not Ute. In 1868, in Colorado the seven bands of Ute Indians were confederated. see Treaty with the Ute Mar. 2, 1868 15 stat., 619, after the meeker incident in 1879, Congress relocated four of the Colorado bands to Utah. The Uintah, Yampah or Grandriver, (Whiteriver) and the Tabaguache, (Uncompahgre), see Congressional Act of June 15, 1880 21 stat. 199 The Timpanogos are not listed in the formation of the Ute Indian Tribe as they are not Ute. The Timpanogos Indians are indigenous to Utah and were Shoshone. The Timpanogos Tribe has a web page which you are free to access at www.Timpanogostribe.com We would be willing to answer any further questions you may have. Thank-you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.219.255 (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Ramsey (1926) FA nomination

United States v. Ramsey (1926) has been nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Ramsey (1926)/archive1 for featured article. The case is about the Osage Indian murders in the 1920s and one of the first murder investigations of the Bureau of Investigations, which later became the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If interested, please stop by and add your comments, either for, against, or neutral. GregJackP Boomer! 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

State recognized tribes in the United States

A user has made large changes to this article based on (to me) unclear criteria. I reverted it all so it can be discussed. Any input is welcome. Rmhermen (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You reversed my edits (which had 2015 citations), without initiating any discussion on the talk page, so I began discussion on the talk page. Yuchitown (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.

If people want to throw all my edits, would someone please go through the citations, remove the deadlinks, looks at the websites cited and update the information on the article, based on what groups are *currently* listed as a state-recognized tribe? As opposed to who was listed eight years ago? Yuchitown (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.

From what I'm seeing, I favor your changes, I am not sure what the actual problems were beyond just a lot of changes that looked odd. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Michigan has four "state historic tribes," which weren't listed by NCAI and NCSL (probably because the status of a "state historic tribe" is undefined). So hopefully someone else will restore my edits and add the four "state historic tribes" in MI based on the 2015 citation 174.61.182.242 found. If I do anything Rmhermen will just revert again, without actually looking into any of the changes or helping in any other manner. Yuchitown (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.

Could you provide a permalink to the version of "your edits" you think should be restored? I do best if I can review the precise diff in question. Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link. Then the four State Historic Tribes in Michigan need to be added (I listed them and their citation on the talk page). Rmhermen keeps reverting and demanded discussion on talk page but hasn't contribution much to discussion, so I don't know if you need to comment on the discussion first??? Thank you. Yuchitown (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.

Moving further discussion to that page. Montanabw^(talk) 07:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrea Smith

Since there have been so many discussions about Native American identity already on Wikipedia, would anyone from here care to examine Andrea Smith (academic)? Ahalenia (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Ahalenia

Progress report on assessment

Click on [show] for progress bar for the Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles
86.3% complete Backlog: Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles Goal: 0 articles Current: 258 articles Initial: 1,880 articles

?

Question: Why do the flamboyantly anti Native admins on the English Wikipedia often flamboyantly flag their partiality toward Communism and Marxism on their userpages? Simply put it gives me zero confidence in this adnin's intentions. 208.54.90.232 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What? - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note I had placed my comment directly under this Admins comment to register my non-confidence in this admin, despite his deceitful attempt to make it seem otherwise by arrogantly taking it on himself to move my comment elsewhere. 208.54.90.232 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Because this comment is somehow related to discussion about non-Cherokees in the American people of Cherokee descent category? Please elucidate the connection. Yuchitown (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

United States v. Kagama Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Kagama is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Kagama/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Igloo, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by North America1000 00:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

More false claims of Cherokee ancestry

I've been attempting some cleanups on the category American people of Cherokee descent. Fans of people like Cher are insisting that statements of personal belief in People Magazine and other pop-culture bios are WP:RS for Indigenous status. Could use more eyes on these articles. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Rez dog (Hot dog variation)

Today I learned that there are two referents for the term "rez dog", one, Rez dog, is a type of dog, and the other is [a variation of hot dog that Wikipedia knows nothing about|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbP4KEGbqks]<--02:10 You Tube video.

I found the following sources on rez dogs which could be used to cite an entry on Hot dog variation or even to cite a full article, Rez dog (hot dog variation)

https://books.google.com/books?id=cP364QVijAMC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=%22rez+dog%22+%22hot+dog%22&source=bl&ots=nP5OkVvAI2&sig=rxWN0YwfcGDGhspb8xDNRJvtKE8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFQQ6AEwDGoVChMIjZyInfHnxgIVgqmACh0fswhF#v=onepage&q=%22rez%20dog%22%20%22hot%20dog%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=Mo2MK9AVB-4C&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22rez+dog%22+%22hot+dog%22&source=bl&ots=vyVAlQ10-K&sig=d2K9kYRhZxfUCZiyFF2QyeEpmoY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFcQ6AEwDWoVChMIjZyInfHnxgIVgqmACh0fswhF#v=onepage&q=%22rez%20dog%22%20%22hot%20dog%22&f=false

http://alibi.com/food/42722/Best-of-the-Worst-of-the-Fair.html

http://alibi.com/food/48563/Restaurant-Review-Pueblo-Harvest-Cafe.html

I hope that someone here would enjoy taking this ball and running with it. Chrisrus (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Medicine wheel

has just had all mention of "sacred hoop" removed from it by IPs associated with the Air Force. There seems to be numerous sources linking these[3] and specifically [4] but I don't know enough about the subject. Doug Weller (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to do some research; I hadn't heard "sacred hoop" used before, but I also don't hang out in academe much these days. If Native folks find the term a bit too precious, I'd support removal, but if they think it's preferable, then it should stay. Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It's not a synonym for medicine wheel but is a similar concept. I think that it was the Ogalala medicine man, Black Elk, who spoke of it from a vision he had, but I can't recall. I reverted that part of the IPs edits. GregJackP Boomer! 15:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll go look at the articles. A number of L/D/N spiritual leaders talk about the Sacred Hoop of Life, but it's not really the same as the Medicine Wheel. But it depends on context (wheel as metaphor vs physical structure). - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Awkward moment on a high visibility page

Awkward attempt at welcoming indigenous viewpoints on a high visibility page. (Ouch!) Evidently the situation had already been discussed at this noticeboard. Hope the folks here who are more experienced than me can check in on how things are going at the Junípero Serra article from time to time, especially as Serra may be canonized during the upcoming papal visit. Might turn out like Bartolomé de las Casas, might not. If not, it could be a challenge to ensure that we respect the religious sentiments of Catholic readers while simultaneously ensuring that indigenous viewpoints and editors are welcome. --Djembayz (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sacred pipe issues

None of the attempts at resolving this have been very good. Fact is, most ceremonial people don't want the names of, or details about, ceremonies and ceremonial items on Wikipedia. The whole Calumet thing is awkward, but I think it's preferable to some of the other options that would result in pan-Indian and new age misinformation being dumped into articles that use individual tribes' private terminology. In trying to explain the problems with "peace pipe", I'm encountering some editors who seem to be unfamiliar with the issues here, and could use more eyes on it. More details in the edit history for Calumet (pipe) and on the talk page (Diff:[5]). - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I hesitate to agree with a statement like " most ceremonial people don't want " -- it's a case by case basis. That said, I agree completely about watching for "pan-Indian and new age misinformation ". Not a lot of active people here, and I know little about this topic, but I'll take a peek. Montanabw^(talk) 06:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation requested move

Expert input would be welcome at the Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation requested move at Talk:Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation#Requested move 2 August 2015. Alakzi (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson recent claims of being "Sioux"

An editor thinks a recent claim in a Rolling Stone promo is a usable source for Native heritage. Warner/Manson's genealogy has been done and if there is any "Appalachian Sioux"[sic] heritage there, it's too far back to be plausible. Could use more eyes on this. Diff:[6] - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

They are probably trying to say Saponi, a Souian-speaking people in Appalachia, but yeah, some poorly articulated self-identification that doesn't even include a proper tribe is insufficient to establish Native heritage. Ahalenia (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Ahalenia

At least once upon a time they knew to call their mythical ancestors "Cherokee". See List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. Rmhermen (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

FFS. That's al I have to say. Montanabw^(talk) 05:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Facepalm

Cultural appropriation

As regularly happens, those who don't think this should be talked about, or that talking about the subject is inherently POV, and who don't like that we have an article on it, want to change the meaning of the article to something that more resembles "(equal) cultural exchange," which is a different concept. Discussion happening on talk page. - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Would appreciate more eyes here, on recent page history and talk page. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"Peace Pipe"

The usage and topic of Peace Pipe is under discussion, see talk:Peace pipe (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed, unitlateral moves of ethnic group articles

Somehow the discussion about language regarding wp:primary topics in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages) spawned a recent flurry of undiscussed, unilateral moves of ethnic groups and creation of disambiguation pages with only two dabs. As someone who actually uses Wikipedia for quick reference, these are ungodly annoying and run contrary to Wikipedia policy. Every ethnic group article should link to the corresponding language article, and language articles link should link to the corresponding ethnic group articles. No changes have been made to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), so these undiscussed moves are unjustified. Examples of recent moves: Pima Bajo people, Western Apache, and Eyak are examples. Since undoing the move is impossible, I reverted the two dab disambiguated pages back to redirects to the primary topic. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Uyvsdi

A discussion has been initiated at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(languages)#Interaction_between_WP:NCLANG_and_WP:NCET. --Taivo (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There *is no primary topic* per longstanding consensus. However, I would have no problem making the ethnicity the primary topic if we were to come to consensus on that. Currently we have a bit of a walled-garden problem, with many US, Canadian, and Australian nations taking the root name, but with dabs at the root name for ethnolinguistic groups of Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Either way is fine, but we should have a guideline as to which way to go. And yes, discussion in one place please, with notification rather at other projects. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The is no primary topic in *your* view, not as per any longstanding consensus. You are moving pages that have been stable for years. Several of which I created. This was not a consensus; this is your recent return to activity that has been widely criticized and challenged. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Need eyes over at Calumet (pipe) and related pages

Please see the talk page. We have a user insisting on terms like "peace pipe" and "Calumet" for Native ceremonial pipes. The article currently called Calumet was moved there solely for the reason that it was less offensive than "peace pipe." An editor is editing against consensus to retain these outmoded terms, and reverting those of us who are trying to update the articles. We are also proposing a page move of Calument (pipe) to something more like Ceremonial pipe (Native American) - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been bold and moved the page to Ceremonial pipe (Native American). I'd prefer Sacred pipe, but "ceremonial" probably fits better for WP purposes. I expect the user who wants the anachronistic and offensive terms will contest. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CorbieVreccan. It would be useful if a few more people weighed in on this. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 01:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please weigh in at: Talk:Calumet (pipe)#Requested move 19 August 2015. As I said there: It has been proposed (at Talk:Calumet (pipe)#Requested move 19 August 2015) that Calumet (pipe) be renamed and moved to Ceremonial pipe (Native American). Calumet (pipe) → Ceremonial pipe (Native American) – No one refers to a ceremonial pipe as a "Calumet." The page only wound up at this title as it was less offensive/inappropriate than "peace pipe." We had a discussion. Three established editors, two of us admins, agree it should go at the less colonial, more contemporary name. I also made improvements to the article to stop placing Native Americans solely in the past, and to stop privileging an outsider, colonial view in both the descriptions and naming conventions. Paine Ellsworth went against the three of us to repeatedly move the page back and revert all improvements to the text, pushing a POV that Native people and ceremonies no longer exist (Diffs:[7] [8] [9]). I don't think this move is controversial. I have to stress that there are systemic bias issues here, and I humbly request that anyone commenting here be at least somewhat familiar with the issues we deal with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Commenting there. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark

There is a discussion on whether 0.1% of the population not being citizens by birthright (American Indians) requires the removal of the phrase "practically everybody" from the lead of the article. GregJackP Boomer! 08:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:European colonization of the Americas

There is a request for comment at Talk:European colonization of the Americas involving a new user that became rather heated, and appears to have been shut down. May be worth having some of the more experienced people here keeping an eye on this to ensure that a constructive and collaborative atmosphere prevails. --Djembayz (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass page moves of biographies

I am seeing a large number of page moves by Montanabw of biographical articles, with the edit summaries of "real name" or "Per WP:Honorific". To me, WP:HONORIFIC is pretty ambiguous (particularly since it does not directly deal with article titles) and the "real name" argument seems at least potentially at odds with WP:UCRN. Has their been any central discussion about this prior to the mass move? If not, what to people think? VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed elsewhere in the past; we don't call people Queen Elizabeth or President Obama; we do call Queen Latifah by her stage name, though. What I'm doing here is a systemic bias fix; I am moving the articles titled "Chief X" where "Chief X" is not the name of the person, but rather a made-up title. Most I move to "X (Native American leader)" or "X ([Tribal name] leader), a few I am moving to a legal or birth name. I moved another batch a while back, a couple years ago, I think. This was a cleanup of the rest. There are a few that are ambiguous, and I left those, such as Chief Joseph or Chief Seattle, where the actual name is little known and not clear as to preferred transliteration, or if the title is part of a stage name such as Chief Dan George, (or one of the controversial mascots like Chief Wahoo) and thus, I considered most of these individually and in some cases, reviewed sources to see how the name was stated. These people were not named "chief" and "chief" is not even the title given to many of them by their own people. In many cases, it is potentially offensive when applied incorrectly; the determination of when "Chief" is actually used by the tribal nation itself is complex and has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I'm open to reconsidering on a few of these, but most of them are just applying "chief" as a generic honorific - or even a somewhat condescending title. Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Chief isn't even an Indian term, it is the white term for a tribal leader. In some cases it is racist. We need to use their name, with a parenthetical as needed. GregJackP Boomer! 07:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, it might be more helpful if you cite relevant policy in your edit summaries and discussion. We don't use Queen Elizabeth because it is ambiguous (criterion #3); parenthetically disambiguating with the name of the tribe seems a reasonable way to avoid this. "President Obama" is a red herring because it is not more recognizable than the actual article title (criterion #1). Am I correct in interpreting here that your position is that we should ignore WP:UCRN because the previous titles were potentially offensive? VQuakr (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy is NPOV, WP:honorific is a guideline. UCRN is not the only guideline, as here a lot of the articles were improperly titled in the first place; I checked the sources cited and clearly, "Chief Foo" wasn't even what historians called a given individual, so in many cases, I was actually complying with UCRN. Whoever created a lot of these articles just named them "Chief Foo" for unknown reasons that can't even be supported by WP:RS or UCRN. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

UCRN is a section within WP:TITLE, which is policy (not guideline). I already mentioned that it was one of the five titling criteria. The policy you are looking for regarding neutrality of titles is WP:NPOVTITLE, also a subsection of WP:TITLE. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• In addition, we do not go out of our way to have racially offensive article titles. See, e.g. Jim (Huckleberry Finn), instead of the term used in the books, "Nigger Jim." There are plenty of other examples. Here, some that are still racially offense titles are still used, such as Washington Redskins, Chief Wahoo, Chief Illiniwek, etc., because they are the best title for the article even though they are offensive. On the changes that Montanabw has made, they are not the best title, we should use the individual's actual name. GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr, is there a specific article move that you think is inappropriate? The articles should be at the real names. Looking through a few of them, that seems to be all that's going on here. The articles I checked seem to be better-aligned with WP policy now that Montanabw has moved them. I haven't read every article that's been moved, but so far it looks like these are all improvements to the 'pedia. - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't oppose the idea of moving at least some of these articles to the individual's actual name, where we can reach a consensus on what it was and how to spell it. (see, e.g. Irataba for an example of the problem) In other cases, we may have to keep the English translation of the name simply because the individual is so very famous (i.e. Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse) but without the usually wrong and often offensive "Chief" moniker. (And also push for WP:PRIMARY where relevant) There are a very, very few cases where WP:UCRN may apply (I've thought long and hard about Chief Joseph, for example and still have not decided where I sit on that one)

"Real names" is not Wikipedia title policy; "best known as in English" is the policy. Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. See WP:Title. Nowhere in the five attributes of a good title is the concept of historically accurate or politically correct. --Bejnar (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bejnar, the example of Jim in Huck Finn is a classic example. Respect is not "politically correct". Respect is not calling people by offensive, racist terms. Plus, WP:HONORIFIC also states that we don't call people by titles, particularly where the title wasn't even used. Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I saw this large set of moves after contesting a bold move at Chief Paulina to a much less recognizable transliteration of his name. I still object to that move (to Pahninee) because there are several geographical features that bear the name "Paulina" named after him. I think my original question has been answered, albeit with a great deal more bluster and drama than necessary. Does anyone object to a move of Chief Paulina to Paulina (Paiute) based on the conversation above regarding the term "chief"? VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that, though (Paiute leader) might be a better disambiguation. I'm comparing it to an article like Steve Bullock (Montana politician) where the original dab was to (Montana) and the RM consensus was to add "Politician". Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done VQuakr (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward, what do people think of starting a naming essay to support decision-making on the specific issues commonly encountered when applying WP:TITLE to indigenous people? VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not yet. I sort of did a bunch of cleanup of things that were 10+ years old. I'd say if there is a problem moving forward, maybe, but for now, let's not get into instruction creep. I think I was able to justify most of the moves I made under the existing guidelines and policies. Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I view supporting essays as less of instruction creep and more formalizing the productive parts of the input provided above. You are probably right that it is not of critical importance, though. VQuakr (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think such a thing could be useful, if enough of us agree to do it. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd participate if someone else started the effort. But my recent experience with these efforts is that they tend toward sound and fury, but go nowhere other than to waste bandwidth. I know that Skookum1 pretty must gave up in despair trying to get actual tribal names used for article titles wen he went up against the USEENGLISH crowd. I think that some research into things done in other areas of wiki (Uluru/Ayers Rock, for example) is worth looking at... there are bigger policy issues at play. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Only one of these came across my watchlist. That particular move creates yet another naming incongruity, as we now have Shakes (Tlingit leaders) and Chief Shakes Historic Site. Speaking of chiefs and of article titles, we also have the inconsistency of David Salmon (tribal chief) and Paul John (Yupik elder), even though the reason we have articles on either person is due to the honorary recognition given to them by their respective peoples, a title commonly known as "Chief". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Category help

I really shouldn't have started on this at this time of night. I need some help cleaning up categories like: [[Category:Lakota goddesses]] and all the related stuff that comes with that. Since all the tradish Lakota I know insist these are Spirit Beings, not Goddesses.... Argh. - CorbieV^☊☼ 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. I think lots of these don't need to be divided by sex or gender. I moved them all to Category:Lakota spirit beings, at least for now. But there are cascading levels of naming here as we work up through the categories. - CorbieV^☊☼ 01:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that it's appropriate to move articles into appropriate categories and make sure the categories are properly nested within the cat structure. If that happens to empty a category, a bot may come along later and delete the cat altogether, not sure how long it takes, but beats the circus of CfD. Montanabw^(talk) 06:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What I could use input on, is, do any traditional folks see these beings as "gods and goddesses"? Everyone I know, every culture I know, doesn't see it that way. It's just a different worldview than the Classical polytheism these cats were obviously based on. So... I started with Lakota as I know how that goes, but as I work my way up the chain, it's getting a bit harder to make the call about all the included cultures, even with terms like "mythology", and whether parenthetics should indicate culture or type of being. I'll muddle through, but if anyone has input, please jump in. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are the cats in question. It starts out pretty simple, with one culture's worldview, but as we work up into generalities, it gets more complex:

• Category:Goddesses of the indigenous peoples of North America
• Category:Gods of the indigenous peoples of North America
• Category:Deities of the indigenous peoples of North America
• Category:Goddesses by culture
• Category:Gods by culture

And then all the sub-cats like

• Inuit goddesses‎

I've got some other stuff I need to attend to, but will come back later to see if anyone else has weighed in. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ayahuasca

Do we have a general Indigenous or other Wikiproject crew that has experts on South and Central American Indigenous issues? If not, this may be something we have to handle. There's been a tendency to make the article primarily about recreational drug use, and I just removed a template requesting help from that quarter, as well as a sidebar primarily classing it in with things like LSD. Ouch. - CorbieV^☊☼ 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but maybe ping Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America. It isn't a super-active project, but someone probably has it watchlisted. Perhaps also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias might be a good place to post. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama

Some edit-warring and misinformation being inserted by a SPA. Prob Clear COI issues, as well. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll watchlist. Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Poles in mythology

Could use some help with this, especially as the user in question doesn't seem to understand what a Totem pole is. See the edit history and talk page. The main user who is determined to fill this out is not sourcing most of the content they add, and does not appear to have a good grasp of the subject or language. Original title was "Pole worship." - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Groaannnn.... Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ou reau ha re

Can anyone add sources to this? I can't find anything online - but it could be a matter of alternative spelling? PamD 08:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find; alternative spelling is always a possibility; even alternative names. Montanabw^(talk) 22:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of merging recently created content fork

France in the American Revolutionary War has been the subject of two recent move requests (Requested move 29 January 2015, Requested move 20 August 2015), both of which have failed. Perhaps frustrated by the failure to move, but undeterred from purpose, new User:AdjectivesAreBad chose to build the created redirect into its own article. France in the ARW is a legitimate topic, has existed since 2005, and deserves improvement. Newly created Anglo-French War (1778–83) is a clear content fork, and should be deleted and redirected (or perhaps merged) to the France in the American Revolutionary War pagespace. I encourage interested editors to visit the merge discussion here. BusterD (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobacco

Could use some eyes, re- Native-related content. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And also at History of tobacco. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

oh great... the Jamestown stuff should be easy to source, maybe AGF and dig up verification on that on.e? Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Jasper Parrish. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pontiac move

At Talk:Pontiac I have made a move request suggesting that the car brand is not the primary topic of this name. Your input may be helpful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancestral Puebloan dwellings

The Ancestral Puebloan dwellings article and its subarticles include all precontact Southwestern and Fremont culture as being "Ancestral Puebloan." Should these articles be renamed to reflect their true scope or should all non-Ancestral Puebloan entries be removed??? Yuchitown (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Can you give us a bit more background on this dispute? Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no dispute. I stumbled upon a giant chunk of lesser edited articles about prehistoric cultures and sites in the American Southwest and Northern Mexico, in which someone lumped all sorts of cultures—the larger ones being Mogollon, Hohokam, and Patayan, which the Ancestral Puebloans clearly states are separate cultures. I poked around on scholar.google.com to see if there was a sudden trend to call every culture in the SW USA/NE Mexico "Pueblo," but no, that does not appear to be the case. 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuchitown (talk • contribs)

Apparently, as Talk:Ancestral Puebloan dwellings reveals, the base article was too long, so in 2011 User:Freechild split lists into five smaller articles, List of ancient dwellings of Pueblo peoples in Chihuahua, Mexico, et al.

Is there a mechanism for changing the name of multiple articles at once? "Ancient" is questionable since many were used until Spanish arrived and some are still used today (Taos, Acoma, etc.). "Dwellings" is less than ideal, since the structures also include ceremonial spaces and storage rooms. "Pueblo peoples" covers some but not all the of AZ, NM, and UT listings and none of the Chihuahua listings. I don't know if anyone here has a special interest in archaeological parlance, but it seems better to rename the articles than delete all the information that doesn't pertain to Pueblo/Ancestral Pueblo peoples. Yuchitown (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

• Yes, but if there are only a few, maybe just list them here and post merge tags where needed - or boldly move the worst offenders. I vaguely remember some edit dispute over the word Anasazi that was resolved by renaming everything Ancient Pueblo people or something...sounds like bad titles are the tip of the iceberg here... ? Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the Chihuahua list since none of those are considered to be Pueblo (the pre-Columbian cultures most likely have Pueblo descendants, but they also have non-Pueblo descendants). I'll wait awhile to see if anyone has a suggestions to the ideal name for the others. I noticed that Wikipedia has a mishmash of Mexican and American terms, since there aren't particularly good names for the region/collection of archaeological cultures in question. 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Remaining articles:

• Ancestral Puebloan dwellings—this needs an overhaul by someone who really knows the cultures
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Arizona
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Colorado—these appear to all be Ancestral Pueblo, so might not need a rename, except perhaps to be sync with the other lists
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in New Mexico—almost all Pueblo but not "Ancestral" Pueblo
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Utah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuchitown (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be best resolved by removing the word "Ancestral Puebloan" from the title and calling them all "ancient dwellings", since the sociological reference is a controversial factor, and the architectural title is not? I simply wanted to put all these similar types of dwellings into a list. Their cultural associations aren't relevant to that intention as far as I can see. • Freechild | talk to me 07:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Does 450 years ago constitute "ancient"? "Archaeological site" might be too broad since even structures from the 19th century (churches, etc.) can be archaeological. "Precontact" and "Prehistoric" don't fly because pueblos such as Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in Texas (est. 1682) and El Quartelejo Pueblo in Kansas (est. ca. 1696) are postcontact. Basically, there's not a good overarching term for the region, since Southwest cultures is Americentric and ignores Mexico. This encyclopedia is English-based but not US-based. I see "Oasisamerica" used in categories, which covers the region but is a Mexican term not widely embraced in the US—but it does imply Indigenous only. "Dwelling" is inadequate for reasons listed above.

Googling "Mogollon Sinagua Pueblo Hohokam" doesn't yield promising results for an overarching term. Perhaps List of Oasisamerica sites in Arizona, etc. is the best choice, with lots of redirects? Yuchitown (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

• Can't we just say "Precolumbian Southwest" or something simple? I had never heard the phrase "Oasisamerica" before. Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the challenge. Not all of these sites are pre-Columbian, and these cultures extend to Mexico, so "Southwest" doesn't cover Northwest Mexico. Basically we need a way to describe the cultural region or combined complex of Hohokam, Mogollon, Sinagua, Patayan, and Pueblo cultures (and other, lessser known ones). Yuchitown (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

This was my challenge in the original article, including your acknowledgment that these cultures extend to Mexico. For that reason List of ancient dwellings of Pueblo peoples in Chihuahua, Mexico should be added back to this conversation. Wherever term is chosen, I hope there is significant consideration given to the interrelatedness of these articles, not to their differences. If it's inappropriate to keep them together, that's find, but I think you see my intention. • Freechild | talk to me 16:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But none of the sites in Chihuahua were made by Ancient Pueblo peoples. "Pueblo" is not an umbrella term for the people of the region. So far, "Oasisamerica" is the only term that covers the region that takes both the US and Mexico into account. Yuchitown (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Koshare articles

After seeing a Facebook posting with photos of the Koshare Indian Dancers of the Koshare Indian Museum, I was shocked to find that such organizations exist, and surprised to find the WP articles based almost entirely on websites representing the Boy Scouts viewpoint. I have POV tagged both articles and would like to stimulate discussion.FriendlyFred (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Blue Star Kachina

If you didn't read the talk page you'd think this was something real. Not sure if this can be fixed - are there any actual reliable sources discussing it and its New Age adherents? Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ta'Kaiya Blaney

Could some kind editors please take a look at Ta'Kaiya Blaney? Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Needs expansion, big time, but might be able to pass GNG if someone does more work on it. Montanabw^(talk) 01:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

New book

Mining and Communities in Northern Canada: History, Politics, and Memory, edited by Arn Keeling and John Sandlos, 2016, University of Calgary Press. -- both historical and contemporary and new so I didn't want to include it in the Bibliography of Canadian history -- but might be useful for an existing article. Chronicle of Higher Education says "Combines archival and oral-historical approaches on the impact of mining on First Nations communities." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Manitonquat

Could use more eyes on this. Looking through the sources, I'm not sure Talbot is even notable. Unless something's been added since I went through this last, most of the sources are small, new age presses or small newspapers. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Article was AfD'ed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitonquat Now it's up again at deletion review. And... it's been recreated: Manitonquat (Medicine Story) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh...Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Manitonquat for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitonquat (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 16:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Mexica Movement

I don't think that this article ( Mexica Movement ) should be a part of this project. It is a group of people who self identify as Indigenous and promote self-identification based solely on likelihood of ancestry. Are there guidelines as to what makes an article eligible for this project? I am Indigenous Mexican (Yucatec Maya) and our community and National definition is that being Indigenous is based on recognition of and reciprocity with an Indigenous community. The Mexica Movement does not meet this definition as its membership includes mainly people without community ties and without necessitating confirmation of ancestry. Ampzima (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It clearly falls under the sphere of interest of the project, and including it in the project does in no way mean that the movements claim to being indigenous is endorsed or validated. The reason a page is included in a project, is not the same as a category which categorizes the topic, but is simply a way for members with interests in specific topics to maintain overview of articles that fall within their shared interests. It is in the interest of members of this project to monitor the article on the Mexica Movement, for example to avoid that their problematic claims are represented in non-neutral ways. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I didn't realize I was already contributing to this project by correcting their claims on the article.Ampzima (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, correct false claims! From poking around in some precontact West Mexican indigenous articles, I can see that Wikipedia desperately needs more Indigenous Mexican perspective! Yuchitown (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Yeah, I think it's within the scope. Teach the controversy at the article, remember AGF and NPOV. We're good here. Montanabw^(talk) 05:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Updates

I did some organizing on the Anishinaabe main page and added a considerable number of new links. A good share of the links I placed under the “General” heading though they may be better suited elsewhere. I created a “Tribes/Bands/First Nations -- Reservations” section’’. Information needed in the “Ojibwa”, “Oji-Cree” and “Saulteaux” subsections. I can only claim that the Odawa subsection is correct, but it still requires additional information. I changed the “Language” section to the “Anishinaabe Language” section with lotsa new links. Added an "External Links" section and put two links for seed. Did the same for "Further Reading". After much work I had a lightbulb moment that many of the links may be found in templates so I created a “Templates” section. Denise B-K (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Denisebk

• @Denisebk: can you wikilink the articles above so we can more easily see what you were doing? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In need of a new map of indian reservations in the United States

According to the BIA there are 326 indian reservation in the U.S. The map in the List of Indian reservations in the United States article includes only the 310 as of May 1996. Wonderful if a member of this WikiProject could either find or create a new up-to-date map. Denise B-K (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Denisebk

Wonder if the BIA website has anything... it would be PD-USGOV if they do... if anyone finds a URL, I can probably do the wikignoming to get it into commons. Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Landless Chippewas

Category:Landless Chippewas, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural appropriation#Issues around Warbonnet photo

Um, yeah. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:American Indian Movement has been nominated for discussion

Category:American Indian Movement, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Yuchitown (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks to be here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current nominations. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 02:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:American Indian Movement

I have no idea how to undo this, but Category:American Indian Movement, which was well populated with articles pertaining to the American Indian Movement, was "speedily merged" into Category:Native American movements. This happened in two days, so no time for discussion. Category:Native American rights organizations already exists, so Category:Native American movements is redundant. I'm guessing the user SMcCandlish doesn't what AIM is and thought "Oh, American Indian—we don't use that term anymore." Anyone know how to undo this or at least contest it? Yuchitown (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

It could also be part of the ongoing effort to marginalize coverage of non-mainstream American political topics, all the while bludgeoning us with officialdom at every turn. Agree that this is going the wrong way. An AIM category would be more appropriate in this case because Category:Native American movements is vague enough to be redundant to multiple parent categories. As the AIM category was well populated with biographical articles, I would suggest the subcategory Category:American Indian Movement people, splitting off Category:Native American activists from the other parent categories. I gave up before getting to the exact prodecure, but figured out that the category was changed through WP:CFDS despite obviously being controversial. I would assume there's a place at WP:CFD to deal with that, but didn't see it before giving up. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not involved with the topic whatsoever and have no personal stake in it at all, but I've actually heard that they prefer to be called American Indians, as Native American is in fact an offensive term to them. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my aching back. The American Indian Movement is a movement. There's no such thing as the Native American Movement. *We* are just fine with American Indian. Read Native American name controversy for further perspective. The category needs to be restored. I just don't know how to begin the procedure. Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown

But there are other Native American/American Indian movements than the AIM. But I agree that the AIM category should be restored and kept as a subcategory of Native American movements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Or be a subcat of the already existing Category:Native American rights organizations, which is a subcat of a subcat of Category:Indigenous rights. Between the pre-existing categories, everything should be covered. Yuchitown (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

No one mentioned anything about something with the exact name Native American Movement.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must have misread. I didn't realize AIM was specific to one group, not a general theme. My apologies. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Per Yuchitown, AIM (which is a specific organisation) is "a subcat of the already existing Category:Native American rights organizations, which is a subcat of a subcat of Category:Indigenous rights. Between the pre-existing categories, everything should be covered." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I would like to see the AIM category restored. How does one go about correcting this? Indigenous girl (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: has stated here:[10] that this was a mistake on his part. I have asked him to revert the changes he made. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Which changes would those be? I nominated a category for moving, CFD admins moved it, it was nominated for moving back to where it was, I supported that, and admins will move it back.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Restore the ENTIRE Category and all articles contained within it, and then fix the category' category to Category:Native American rights organizations. This group is the equivalent of the SNCC or a similar radicalized civil rights organization from the 1960s. This is UNBELIEVABLE that someone actually deleted this without discussing it with ANYONE. ARRGGHHHHH!!!!!! Montanabw^(talk) 00:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Douglas Spotted Eagle

Could use more eyes. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Gotta merge these

Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana and Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians. Preferably into the latter, simpler name, or perhaps a new title with both moved and redirects left behind. I'm kind of busy with other stuff, but will help if someone wants to do the heavy lifting... Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The articles indicate that these are separate things. One being only one of several descendant bands of the original. I think. 2602:304:B296:DBE0:CBA:90AE:9CE8:14F6 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

They really aren't. To the extent that not all Little Shell Chippewa are in the Montana group, it's de minimus. One article can incorporate the other. Montanabw^(talk) 00:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

From the articles, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians claim to be from the older Little Shell tribe and the newer Little Shell tribe has an independence from the 1890s. The articles may be written misleadingly though, as some lawsuits are said to have been involved. Rmhermen (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There are three loosely-related bands, if you also count Rocky Boy's people who have the eponymous reservation. The Little Shell band ended up landless, while Tuttle Mountain and Rocky Boy's became reservations. Basically, I'd have to delve into the history quite a bit to get it all straight, but my take is that this all could be handled with one article, IMHO. It's also all tangled up with Hill 57 [11] and termination policy also. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 07:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Tina Fontaine

I have started an article regarding her murder, and would like others to review and contribute to it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The article so far gives no indication that this person's death had a significant impact or that they were notable in life. I expect without those kinds of details it may soon be nominated for deletion. Rmhermen (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just lazy right now. The case is widely covered in Canada and has sparked renewed calls for an inquiry into aboriginal women's deaths. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd expand it, JMO. Lazy gets you to AfD...  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and get some work done expanding this article. Her death was responsible for finally bringing attention to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women issue and was one of the catalysts for the current inquiry process as well as the Drag the Red project. The page as it looks now is vague and there is so much more information available. Indigenous girl (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Name of templates

I recently move some templates from "American Indian" to "Indigenous peoples of North America" ....we should look an see if others are messedup in this fashion  Fixed..ALSO... seem to be having so transclution problems at Template:Indigenous music of North America any help pls!!!-- Moxy (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)-- Moxy (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

OH NOOOOOO! Did you see the discussion above? "American Indian" is a legal term of art in the United States... there are places where that IS the proper word! Which templates did you move? Montanabw^(talk) 06:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

All good now...just had to fix a few redirects. Was the main music templats for north america.Moxy (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Whw!

Need help cleaning up categories

Category talk:Deities of the indigenous peoples of North America#"Deities" is inaccurate. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Establishments in Shawnee Territory

Category:Establishments in Shawnee Territory has been requested to be deleted by someone -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Student projects

Recently a number of schools have added classes that involve their students editing the 'pedia for class credit. Some are focusing on Indigenous articles, such as, Gender roles among the indigenous peoples of North America and Medicine man (where thankfully changes have so far been limited to students' sandboxes). Unfortunately, a number of these new users are proposing inappropriate overhauls to articles. Looking over the attempted edits and sourcing, there have been a lot of issues with past-tensing of Natives and Native cultures, inappropriate sources being inserted, along with other inaccurate content and in many cases a refusal to engage with other editors. Please keep an eye out for this stuff. Right now there's a discussion on Indigenous girl's talk page about some of it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

List 'em here. I usually revert and if the content is REALLY bad, I post a note to the instructor's page, putting the blame whee it belongs. Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Witch (Navajo)‎‎, Skin-walker‎‎ and other Dineh-related articles

Could use more eyes. There is currently an AfD going on for the latter, as well. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Good, these need to go. They are filled with conjecture. Yuchitown (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Indigenous articles over-reliant on a single source

And in some cases, an outdated, non-Native anthro source. Some include huge swathes of text with either zero cites, or the same cite over and over again, which seems promotional for the one author cited. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weyekin - made massive cuts, see talk page for suggested merge. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Two-Spirit identity theory - after reviewing and summarizing on talk page, redirected to Two-Spirit. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This book is being relied on very heavily in the Native American religion article, and in some cases is the sole source for some dubious content: Waldman, Carl. (2009). Atlas of the North American Indian. Checkmark Books. New York. ISBN 978-0-8160-6859-3. Anyone familiar with it and is it WP:RS? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have this edition. A more recent edition is on google books. The copy I have is a decent general overview work for high school kids. It's not in-depth, and I'm sure there are errors, but the author does appear to be trying to avoid the usual bullshit. The article cites pp. 229-231 mostly, and though p. 229 isn't visible in the Google books version, 230 and 231 are, so you can check directly if the material is verified by the source. I mean, basically, they try to summarize peyote in three paragraphs, for example, so inevitably there is oversimplification. For what it is, it's not horrible, but it can't be used for sophisticated analysis, only for a real basic overview. Montanabw^(talk) 05:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Band government?

Please take a look at Talk:Mi'kmaq#Band government?. Are the Mi'kmaq a band government? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments on Project Proposal: Outreach to recruit more Native American editors

I have made an idea for a project with the aim engage with Native American tribal communities to attract more editors from those communities, in order to ensure better representation of Native American topics on wikipedia. I am requesting a Wikimedia grant to attend to events organized by The Language Conservancy this summer in order to reach out to activists and community organizers (particularly local tribal museums and libraries, as well as language teachers and activists), and assess if they are interested in a more sustained engagement with Wikipedia. Please feel free to comment at: [[12]].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea to go to the tribes. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Two Native Wikipedians that signed on recently include User talk:Chickasaw Steve and User:Ogahpah (Quapaw). They might be good people to give a template letting them know about this Wikipedia group or opportunities for Native Wikipedians. Yuchitown (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Compiling a list of indigenous authors

Greetings! First of all, full disclosure that I'm new to editing Wikipedia and contributing to a project. I am a librarian at the University of Saskatchewan currently undertaking a project to collect and organize a list of aboriginal authors and storytellers. I will likely be making regular contributions and edits to this page: List_of_writers_from_peoples_indigenous_to_the_Americas. Compiling this list is a difficult task as verifying ancestry is not always easy. I think a discussion may be warranted on the "best" method for verification and acceptance to the list, though I'd like to know what others involved in the project think. P.S. The end goal of this project is to publish a web page that includes the list along with pertinent links to our library's catalogue entries for the respective authors. This resource will aid teacher candidates in the ITEP program at U of S in their resource-finding for classroom instruction. As I work on my list I will do the best I can to keep the existing list (linked above) up to date, and vice versa. Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome. Klockwerk (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Start with people who are enrolled tribal members. Easiest to verify. Then expand from there. There are a lot of people who claim Native ancestry but it's a marketing ploy, IMHO (or a very distant relative and little actual culture carried through to the present). Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

There's already quite a bit of discussion about criteria for inclusion to List_of_writers_from_peoples_indigenous_to_the_Americas, as on well as most other lists of ingenious people on Wikipedia. Just check the archives on the talk page. If ancestry cannot be verified, then the person can't be added. One thing to bear in mind: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An individual has to be notable and preferably have an article to be added to a list on Wikipedia. So if you wish to compile a compendium of all Indigenous writers of the America, setting up a Wordpress or similar free site might be preferable and can still allow for other participants to contribute. Yuchitown (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Category:Religious figures of the indigenous peoples of North America

The articles in this cat could use going over by some more folks experienced with ceremonial/spiritual terminology and doing some cleanup. I'll try to get to some, but the more culturally-savvy eyes on these the better. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have moved "Shamanism among Eskimo peoples" to Alaskan Native religion, and done some minor cleanup. It needs a lot more. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Category:Shamanism of the Americas and Category:Inuit shamans. Help. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) ETA, tackled the latter. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Post links for faster service...  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Tried. It puts this page in the category and doesn't show the link. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Do it this way: Put a colon in front: Category:Shaminism of the Americas. Montanabw^(talk) 03:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd Northeastern Woodlands "tribe" articles

I poked around the Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands (and the corresponding Classification_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Northeastern_Woodlands). Several listings were repeated and miscategorized. It appears different authors pushed for the notion of Wappinger and Quinniac confederacies, but many of the same "tribes" were listed and Wappinger, a relatively obscure Munsee-speaking Lenni Lenape subgroup, was incorrectly categorized as "Mahican." I cited the new categorization. Stumbling around, I came across the worse collection of articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia—stubs with deadlinked Angelcities sites and genealogy forums—or no citations at all. Much of the information is questionable. I'm amazed that these articles lasted as long as they did, but maybe nobody looks at them? I nominated several for speedy deletion because I could find no solid evidence in published literature that these are actually tribes (some of villages, some are chief's names). The names are place names so are mentioned, but even as Indian tribes they only appear in lists of names with little-to-no solid information about them. I nominated Totoket, Mattabesset, and Hammonasset (people) for deletion. The Acquackanonk tribe and Massaco would be possible candidates for merging to Lenape.

Anyway, if anyone is more familiar with the region, could you look over Category:Native American tribes in New Jersey and Category:Native American tribes in Connecticut? Thank you, Yuchitown (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Mystery possibly solved. It seems like there's a bunch of bad information in The Encyclopedia Americana from 1920, which Access Genealogy and other forums have picked up since it's in public domain. Yuchitown (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Article: Plenty Coups (Crow)

Hello, I'm new to actually talking on Wikipedia and I am *petrified* of "editing" someone's article that they have worked really hard on. However, I am in the midst of writing a graduate paper on Indigenous Peoples Autobiography (course work not thesis) and I have just recently read Hertha Dawn Wong's "Sending My Heart Back Across the Years" Oxford University Press (US), 1992. ISSN/ISBN 9781601298164 (electronic format through ProQuest Ebrary).

In the article on Plenty Coups in Section 4 "Legacy" and under "Autobiography" Sentence 2 states: "Two Crow Indians, Coyote-runs and Braided-scalp-lock (aka Frank Shively), assisted Plenty Coups in recounting his life to Linderman." However, on page 93 of Wong's book she writes that "Relying on an interpreter, Braided-Scalp-Lock, ..." I believe (because I don't have the book in front of me, just my notes) that on page 92 (possibly) and/or page 93 that Plenty Coups was "attended" by Coyote Runs and Plain Bull. This was to help Plenty Coups "remember" and to validate/verify Plenty Coups' memories as being true.

I'm not sure how "important" this is on the scale of priority. But I thought I would mention it.

216.211.58.147 (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Charmaine Barton216.211.58.147 (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You should be be bold and make the appropriate edits to the article. Yuchitown (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Great Peace of Montreal signatures

I found on the French Wikipedia that the article for the Great Peace of Montreal had all the Tribe signatures digitized so I was able to move and translate them over to the English article. I went ahead and put a few of the images on specific articles where there were little or no images (like Piankeshaw), but I wanted to drop a note here in case anyone else knew of any articles that could benefit from them. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 19:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Question on that article: In the lead, "The French, allied to the Hurons and the Algonquians, provided 16 years of peaceful relations and trade before war started again." Our 1717 article doesn't mention any wars with the French and Native Americans. And the Fox War (the Fox are Algonquians) started in 1712. What 16 years are indicated and what war ended them? Rmhermen (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'm not familiar with the treaty and haven't done any research. The only editing I've done on the article is just adding the existing pictures from the French Wikipedia and put the infobox template on there. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 21:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)