Talk:Saugeen First Nation

Tough article!

Other than the NPOV issues in this article (which it is still way too first-person... more of a narrative than an encyclopedia article), there seems to be a whole lot of other problems, including the title. Is this article supposed to be for the Saugeen First Nation or some other non-status Anishinaabe Nation occupying the traditional Saugeen territory? The Ojibwa article is becoming more full; is there a way this article could compliment the other and the other compliment this article? An example would be the doodem information; a whole series of Ojibwa doodem are now listed in the Ojibwa article while this article say six odoodemag are found, without citing which six. Also, the treaties named in this article are done by treaty register number, which isn't the way you refer to a treaty, instead of by the more common treaty name or the legal/rule annotation. Moreover, some treaty register number cited are non-Anishinaabe Treaty agreements, which this article fails to make a clear connection to its importance to this topic, though coming off sounding like they have a direct impact. CJLippert 05:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the work! I'm glad to see someone knowledgable of both Wikipedia and this topic taking an interest... Valrith 20:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference in American and Canadian Treaties and how they are referenced. In Aboriginal culture, there are differences in dialect and there are differences in clans found in the many different Ojibway communities. Ask the Chief and Council of Nawash or Saugeen to support your claim the treaties cited in the article don't have an impact. No legal expert on treaties would verify your opinions that you inserted while editing the article to suit your personal opinion.

+

+ Wrong information in the form of your editorial work on the article only reflects your attitude and personal opinion.

+

+ From: A published author and historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.22.77 (talk • contribs) 07:33, November 14, 2006

Wow, how insulting. Anyone can be a "published author" these days, but it takes a real special one to throw it in your face anonymously. --Dalar (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Constructive suggestions to 137.186.22.XXX

Anonymous user with IP address of 137.186.22.XXX. I see you are very passionate about the Chippewas of Saugeen Ojibway Territory; however, from your addition, it is clear you are speaking specifically about the Saugeen First Nation. Please keep this article to the that of the Anishinaabeg who lived in the Bruce Peninsula and the Saugeen River watershed and their shared history, and develop the article to the point of the establishment of the European-styled constitutional government. In addition, please develop an introduction to the Saugeen First Nation in this article that would joint the peoples discussed in this article with the peoples of the Saugeen First Nation of today. Using the link provided for the Saugeen First Nation, please start and fully develop an article specific to the Nation of your passion. In addition, please uphold wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. CJLippert 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The suggestions are noted but Saugeen is not as you state- a Nation. The people of Saugeen are of the Ojibway Nation.

Chippewa's of Saugeen is still the legal name for the people of Saugeen First Nation. They never ceded or signed treaties or agreed to move from their territory. That is the history of other people.

The Ojibway of Southern Ontario-including Saugeen and Nawash is best explained in the book of the same name by Dr. Peter Schmalz. That book has been deleted from the cited sources for the article yet it compliments the oral history of the people from Saugeen. So NPOV is obviously a problem for those who want to censor the truth by deleting critically important sources of information.

Also with respect to NPOV the most glaring problem is that the oral tradition of the Anishnabeg has been violated by those who changed the original version of the Chippewa of Saugeen Ojibway Territory—which was not about a "collective" history of two distinct communities.

137.186.22.6 01:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As for your objections to the narrative style of the article- there are people who respect and understand the importance of narration in the "storytelling" traditions of the people of Saugeen.

From: A Saugeen Band Member (137.186.22.6) 02:25, 14 November 2006

Thank you, but the Saugeen First Nation's and The Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation's websites do not quite say that... both say that "Chippewas of Saugeen Ojibway Territory" is a collective name while "Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation" is the primary successor and an individual nation apart from the Nawash. In addition, Nawash is also of the Ojibway Nation, just as every other First Nation community of the Ojibweg are each an Ojibway Nation. Some Nations come together to form a centralised government (as with the case of the the Saugeen First Nation and its 5 communities), while others do not (as with The Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and its Cape Croker community). If citations got deleted when the "I" and "We" statements were removed, please add the citations back in... that is easy enough to do, since this is Wikipedia. However, "I" and "We" statements do not belong in the article. Though a narration in the storytelling tradition has its place, Wikipedia is not one of them. In addition, though in many respects Wikipedia is a wonderful medium, since only written documented sources can be used, any oral information, no matter how great it is, unless you or someone else have published it, it does not count. (I personally have a problem with this, too, but those are the Wikipedia rules.) In some sense, this protects the Anishinaabe communities from the anthropoligical raping, but in other sense if the written documents do not accurately reflect the community, correcting those documents become extremely difficult—which unfortunately is more of the norm rather than an exception. Also, Wikipedia is not a soap box so please do not use it as such. With that, please use your passion to build a meaningful article. CJLippert 02:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When did Saugeen centralize their government? You've made history with that statement. I see that you have at least learned from the discussion page that Saugeen and Nawash are separate communities with distinct histories and note that you vandalized the article. There's nothing wrong with improving an article by correcting first or second person POV, in fact it's appreciated- if it is needed. But your opinion isn't needed. It must be difficult to preach from your soapbox that Wikipedia has too much information about the Ojibway.

From: A Saugeen Band Member (137.186.22.2) 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You do know that you have just contradicted yourself. ;) Anyway, please read neutral point of view policy and go from there. If you have any questions, gripes, or just wanting assurance regarding the Wiki process, please visit the Village pump. CJLippert 05:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, any other specific comments and questions for this specific article would still be appropriate to be place here at this talk page. CJLippert 22:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

The original document was published and available in Canada. The author notes that (user CJLippert) has vandalized the article with wrong information. This article has been corrected to reflect some of the copy right work of the author.

End to hostilities

User:137.186.XXX, it's clear you have much knowledge to contribute, and I strongly recommend you register a user name and help out improving the coverage of the Ojibwe on wikipedia. I don't think there are any problems here that can't be resolved. Like other encyclopedias, wikipedia tends to have a very Western-oriented (White) tone to its articles. Other policies (oral history, etc.) inhibit the ability to present the Ojibwe accurately, but users including yourself have found ways to negotiate this. Ultimately, I think you can do more to promote the Saugeen cause by working within the system imperfect as it may be. It seems to me the argument over Saugeen vs. Nawash can be resolved by creating more articles. Leo1410 17:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to affirm this too. Wikipedia is very Western-based in it's NPOV and style, which is a very different way than oral tradition. The neutrality needed does strip the voice of a storyteller, which is bound to include non-neutral interpretations. That said, there are many ways to take advantage of this and the openness of the web in general. My suggestion might be to the keepers of this article to retain texts here for another site (perhaps set up a wiki that is more friendly to oral tradition), rewrite this in the Western tone, and somehow link in the new wiki as either reference (not sure if this is "legit" in WP's eyes) or as an External link. As someone who originates from Saugeen/Bruce Peninsula, I know the lack of knowledge about Saugeen First Nations, and it would probably do the nation a world of good to have articles that are written in a way those raised in Western culture can clearly understand, because they are not likely getting good education in this in school (or anywhere else for that matter). Please keep adding information on Saugeen First Nation to wikipedia, and to the greater web. It's great to see! --Dalar (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

LEO:Thanks for your comments! This article has very long roots in the culture of the community. It is borne from oral tradition . The only problem was somone tried to change the stories to suit his limited knowledge of the history, geography, sociology, culture and relations of Saugeen. That is a violation of oral tradition and literature.

The Elders say it is better to have no information rather than wrong information. So, it is important to keep correcting the vandalism or false statements made against the Chippewa of Saugeen - or wrong information is made public information.

This article is only about the Chippewa's of Saugeen.It is not the story of Nawash any more than the story of Goderich is the same as Orangeville or Washita River the same as the Black Hills. Nawash has very capable authors and know their history. They can tell their story without someone else's personal opinion or revision of their truth.

Throughout history many people have made great sacrifices so the truth could be told. ALso, I am not just a contributor. I am the original author of the material and it is published and available in Canada, in book form. It was hoped that knowledgable people would have added more truths to the article rather then vandalize it with wrong information. You seem to have a good understanding of the difference between the Chippewa's of Saugeen-Saugeen First Nation and Nawash.

For example,in recnt years Saugeen First Nation declared ownership of the resources in the lakes, rivers and waterways, by the Duluth Declaration and it did not include Cape Croker.

Signed: The author

In fact, I know almost nothing about these two bands and am hoping you will help improve Wikipedia's coverage of this region. What I can find on the internet suggests that we should have at least three articles: Chippewas of Saugeen Ojibway Territory, Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, and Saugeen Chippewa Band or Saugeen First Nation. This is not a big deal, as part or all of this article can be moved to an article on specifically the Saugeen people. However, it is clear that some form of recognized grouping of Ojibwe peoples on the peninsula exists under the name of Chippewas of Saugeen Ojibway Territory that includes Nawash. It is our goal at this wikiproject to someday have an article for every current and historical Anishinaabe community as well as any current or historical intertribal councils, alliances, organizations etc. If you think it's appropriate to have the information on Saugeen and Nawash be considered separately, I would suggest moving this article to one with a title that refers to only the Saugeen people. I think this is what User:CJLippert was getting at. There really doesn't need to be a conflict here or accusations of vandalism. There are only misunderstandings.

As for worrying about other editors, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. The nature of wikipedia is that if you want to submit something, don't be surprised or offended if someone edits it. If this is unacceptable to you, wikipedia might not be the best outlet for your writings. I can tell you straight out that this article will be edited by people who are not Saugeen community members just as articles on every nation in the world are edited by people from other nations. Right now, in large part due to the efforts of people like CJLippert, wikipedia has far better coverage of the Ojibwe than any other encyclopedia or similar kind of publication. However, if allowing non-Ojibwes to edit Ojibwe-related articles violates the integrity of those stories in your mind, I won't try to convince you otherwise other than by saying Wikipedia, by its very nature, will never have an article on the Saugeen Ojibwe that is fully satisfactory to you. If you learn to follow the established conventions, though, people will leave the article content to experts such as yourself.

Leo1410 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Due to a dispute regarding the appropriateness of a DX media list, I have submitted this matter for an RfC. My position remains that proper Wikipedia format does not include a random list of media from other communities that happen to be receivable in an area; we are only supposed to list media that originate in a given community. Miishgoos, on the other hand, maintains that since Saugeen First Nation is a small community with very little else to do, the hobby of DXing is a significant part of the area's culture and therefore needs to be reflected here. Comments? Bearcat 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. If a community does not have media outlet within the community but is served extensively by that media, it should be listed, along with the media's locations. Typically, this is the local newspaper or the local radio station in near-by communities. Instead of listing all the available regional radio and TV stations and all the newspaper the community can get, instead mention where other available media originate. To that fashion, maybe DXing should stay, but instead of listing each and every stations that can be received, instead list the typical locations of stations that comes in from time to time. CJLippert 00:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bearcat - any list should be limited to media that originate in the community. If the hobby of DXing is a significant part of the area's culture, and that fact can be sourced, then it certainly can be mentioned in the article, without any need to list any or all of the distant signals that might be picked up. Skeezix1000 11:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, media outlets that are located in a community and represent the identity and voice of the community are worthy to include in an article about a community. But media outlets located far away, which do not reflect the voice of the community, do not seem very relevant to me in the context of this article. Brianlucas 13:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If DXing is a notable activity of the community, please find a reliable source that states this. A list of all received stations would be completely inappropriate, however. The article needs sources generally, and commercial advertisements are inappropriate (I have removed several of these). Hgilbert 14:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need a source for this? it's not like your gonna find it in a magazine or periodical.

And how would a list of received stations be inapropriate? it's done on many other pages and I dont hear you people nitpicking about that now!

Commercial advertisements holy!!! whatever you say bud there was commercial advertisements all over the page eh!!! they were telling people to shop there and all that, it's not just like it was a list of businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miishgoos (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Citations

This article has multiple entire sections without any citations. Jackson Hamilton (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)