Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

"America"

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

Dead God in heaven, how much dramahz can teh wiki" hold? Montanabw(talk) 17:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:) -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi
I don't suppose there's a barnstar or wiki-medal for drama queen, is there?Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
You haven't read the recent move discussions for "Li (surname)", "The Dark Knight" and "Deadmau5", have you? (very long and very drama) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey! Deadmau5 has a number in it! Skookum! It isn't a word, is it??!!! Hah! Montanabw(talk) 01:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If you've followed that at all, you'll see I pointed out U-J3RK5....(the five is silent). No quibbles on the hyphen so far....Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Or Kiix?in.Skookum1 (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Rock bands are your ace in the hole. ?uestlove. Montanabw(talk) 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Most definitely. Several music acts have come up for renaming in the wake of 'deadmau5', to add ASCII art and L33T-speak spelling to their article names. (meanwhile, at WT:AT, there's a debate going on on why Chinese isn't acceptable (I guess, unless a rock band uses it?) ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

anglo-chauvinism is rife in Wikipedia....but you still see RMs and category moves, such as a current bulk RM for Vietnamese language titles, where non-English names and non-"English" spellings are used; at least The artist formerly known as Prince has gone back to just Prince, though.....his "name" for a while was just a logo, remember?Skookum1 (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You can point to Sunn O))), an ASCII art title, for another supporting point. (or the raftload of non-English letters at various Germanic and Nordic articles (eth, eszett, thorn; are not English letters, not even with accents) so adding digits shouldn't be a problem. (unless we really are ruled by the Teufel)-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
There are thousands. I found this yesterday, Sheet'ká Ḵwáan Naa Kahídi, which is in Tlingit; underscore-k, just like was in Skwxwu7mesh in its original form; IMO not suitable for categories but as titles hard to get away from in Amerind institution titles e.g. Xa:ytem and Kiix?in archaeological sites.Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Archaeological confirmation of long residency

So... [1] where should we note this? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

on the Tsimshian page (prob Tsimshian people) and Metlakatla pages for starters, there's an archaeology of British Columbia category somewhere where other suitable pages might present themselves; there is no List of archaeological sites in British Columbia that I'm aware of; if that's a bluelink and not red there is one. Might be a suitable spot on History of British Columbia also.Skookum1 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
And on Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and British Columbia Coast (if there's any pre-history on that one I'm not sure). A general Archaeology of British Columbia may exist, dunno if that's a bluelink; prob not.Skookum1 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems with various articles on 'little people' in Native American mythology

I've been looking at some related articles for a while, and when San Pedro Mountains Mummy took another look. I then found Nimerigar which, presumably through a casual use of sources, has hit upon perhaps the least used name for the Shoshone little people. I've added a number of sources at [{Talk:Nimerigar]] and removed some from other articles, eg Little People of the Pryor Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( a pretty detailed article - I'm still not sure about Daniels, Cora Linn and Stevens, C.M. Encyclopaedia of Superstitions, Folklore, and the Occult Sciences of the World. Milwaukee, Wisc.: J. H. Tewdai & Sons, 1903.) and Little people (mythology). If anyone finds they've got time, some of these articles and related ones in 'little people' could use some better sources and expansion. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I forgot. There are two templates Nimerigar, one for the Paranormal working party and another for WikiProject Cryptozoology. None for this working party yet. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This is one of those articles where the more someone knows about the subject, the less likely they are going to share anything online about them. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Yes, I'm aware of that and respect it, but is there an objection to at least reporting but the non-Native Americans say? Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
No objections here. If it's published, it's published. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands

In an attempt to correct a mistake, I made it worse. An editor unilaterately decided to move Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands to Indigenous peoples of the Eastern Woodlands, despite that fact that cultural regions templates and articles are already in place and Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands is fairly well-developed. In testing to see if I could move it back I accidentally moved it to Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Eastern Woodlands (yes, foolish!), so I've put in an official request to move the page back to an administrator. If you have thoughts on the matter, please feel free to share them at Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Eastern Woodlands. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Starblanket

I just discovered that Ahtahkakoop, the chief who the IR and FN of the same name were named for, known as Starblanket, is a redirect simply to Cree and that Starblanket goes to Noel Starblanket, who is a modern chief by that name. Is there anyone here who could write a bio on the historical Starblanket?Skookum1 (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. A stub article Ahtahkakoop was created and Starblanket was made into a disambiguation page. CJLippert (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Is Ahchacoosacootacoopits on the one link the same guy? In the notable leaders section. Starblanket First Nation would seem to be Star Blanket Cree Nation in SK here. Ahtahkakoop First Nation has a different INAC listing.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, Ahchacoosacootacoopits was 1845-1918 so not the same guy, hm...Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
they were both Cree, I'm wondering if there's a proper "modern" way to spell Ahchacoosacootacoopits.Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
There is. I have provided that as Acāhkosa kā-otakohpit, "[One who has] Star[s for a ]blanket". The less awkward translation may be "One who has blanket of stars" but as he was known as "Starblanket", I had to fit the translation (with the missing parts) to that formula. CJLippert (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I created Star Blanket Cree Nation, which I suppose is where Starblanket First Nation should redirect to, though Atahkakoop FN technically is the same name. Also wound up creating the multi-band reserve Treaty Four Reserve Grounds Indian Reserve No. 77.Skookum1 (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

table/list sandbox for comparison of indigenous articles/categories/templates status re guidelines

It's going to be a lot of work, too much for me alone, but needed to serve as a resource for dicussions towards a draft guideline for indigenous content naming and language/content concerns. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Table of articles, categories and templates. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Draft guidelines for indigenous content is next up.Skookum1 (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's guidelines that were once hashed out for the naming of ethnic groups on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). One major hurdle for formulating MOS for naming Indigenous articles is that *we* don't agree. Any given group has innumerable names that members of that group use and tend to feel quite strongly about.
And spelling systems. One reason the endonym for Musqueam wasn't used is, other than that there's not enough for them to have a category, there seem to be different transliteration systems for Hulquminum (Downriver Halkomelem) and there was an ongoing battle about that (all unsourced as I recall, but that's often the case with indigenous languages, not much stuff published by them is available). Also the diacriticals on Sto:lo are used (even in English) by one of the tribal councils, but not the other. At least with most of the others there's some consistency. Some, that is e.g. the Southern Kwakiutl use that term ("Kwakiutl") but most other Kwakwakaw'wawk do not and don't like it.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Ethnic groups have several acceptable naming conventions, with "Foo people" being preferred as a neutral and unambiguous term. "Ethnic Foos" and "Foos" are also acceptable. In articles describing multiple ethnic groups, "peoples" is pluralized, for example, Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Generally speaking, the article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group. How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided. Disputes over how to refer to a group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Article titles, and English. Undiscussed, unilateral moves of widely edited articles are discouraged.Uyvsdi (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Verifiability in some cases will always be hard because of the aforementioned lack of publications available. Re WP:English, in the RMs it was established that between press style guidelines and government practices and that one essay (which I'll find and link on the guidelines) that the endonyms are in regular use in English - in Canada. Largely not in the US, it seems. But also as I pointed out on the RMs, most natives are native English speakers (99%) and they and their non-native neighbours all do use the terms, so doesn't it count when natives speak English? Is that not English? etc...Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem with "Foo people" for ethnic articles is it creates namespace collision with categories such as Category:Algerian people, which presumably means "People from Algeria" - and not "People who are Algerian" - now in many cases, this is more or less the same thing, but every once in a while, it is not. We also have many categories which are "People from _town_", which somewhat avoids this problem. The Squamish mess (and several others) was partially due to name collisions causing confusion. I don't have an answer yet, just bringing up a problem. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
yes, that's one of the core problems that's come about. I'm not gonna do that whole ponderous table, but will assemble all those "FOO people" changes (nearly all by the same editor during my absence, OldManRivers of course was also offline. About the anglicisms, at one time I advocated them, as can be seen on what is now the Talk:Squamish people page but I see the wisdom and practicality of them now. RE WP:Wisdom, seems like that needs an essay someday. i.e. when guidelines should be balanced by WP:Common sense. I will once again bemoan the loss of User:Phaedriel who was good in that regard, very good. I remember that, during those old discussions, it was felt that "FOO people" was often redundant and should only be used when necessary, not as a hard-and-fast rule. and yes, per Uysvidi's comment, "Peoples" plural is often preferable. e.g. in the case of the Sto:lo and Kwakwaka'wakw and Cowichan, they're not "one people" but several peoples. Not just because of different tribal councils; really they're in each case a group of peoples speaking the same language, and not a monolithic "people".Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
A current example: Kikuyu people and Category:Kikuyu people - but there is also Kikuyu, Kenya, a town, so it's possible there are people from the town of Kikuyu who *aren't* a member of the Kikuyu tribe, so Category:Kikuyu people is ambiguous as a result, and it would probably be even more confusing to create Category:People from Kikuyu, but perhaps not. I'm also not sure we should treat a tribal affiliation all that differently than an ethno-linguistic identity (like Gujarati) or a national identity like Indian people or Finnish people or Chinese people. At the end of the day, these are different, nested levels of identity, with differing group sizes, but they aren't necessarily so different as to merit different treatment in terms of article titling for example, so whatever we develop should be able to deal with most groupings of people. We have to find a generic solution, in other words.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason I suggested somewhere WP:Naming guidelines (indigenous peoples) or WP:Naming guidelines (indigenous peoples of North America) is because it strikes me that the situation is different on different continents and re different cultures. And that guidelines and situation for macro-groups such as Chinese people and Indian people or Finnish people (which could be titled Finns the way Norwegians is title) is very different than for indigenous peoples. They are more equivalent to First Nations people or Native American people (though both of those really are "peoples" of course, ie.. should be in the plural as there's not one monolithic people or, as in the case of India or China or Finland, a national identity/state.Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a response to Skookum1's statement a bit above, "the endonyms are in regular use in English - in Canada"—that may be true in BC and some other parts of Canada, but there are some obvious major exceptions, it seems to me, like the Mohawks and the rest of the Six Nations. The Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation themselves say [2] they are the Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, Onondaga, and Tuscarora, as does the Canadian/Ontario government [3]. Yet our Mohawk people page says "They call themselves Kanien'gehaga", our Seneca people page says "The Seneca nation's own name (autonym) is Onöndowága", Onondaga people says "Known as Gana’dagwëni:io’geh to the other Iroquois tribe...", and so on. The Mohawks of Canada are fairly famous for various reasons, and I've never heard Canadians call them anything but "Mohawk". In contrast, the term Iroquois seems to be increasingly replaced by "Haudenosaunee" in many sources, both in Canada and the US. Elsewhere in Ontatio there is the Munsee-Delaware First Nation, called that by the First Nation itself [4] and the Ontatio government [5]. Munsee is one thing, but Delaware? They are Lenape! Even more than "Iroquois" becoming replaced by "Haudenosaunee", "Lenape" has replaced "Delaware" in many, maybe most ways (except of course in the names of reservations, both in Canada and the US). Anyway, just felt obliged to point out endonyms/autonyms have not been wholly adopted by Canadian First Nations. In short, the whole topic is a case of "it's complicated". Pfly (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Cree also is not an endonym, it's an exonym, I believe. The others I was thinking of are the Mi'kamaq and various others, and Ojibwe and such of course. Mohawk's a bit of a special case and it's not one where the endonym forms have become current, though anyone following FN politics since the Oka Crisis is well aware of the term haudenosaunee.....Blackfoot is also of course not an endonym, but it's an alliance, like Nicola is....it's BC and the NT/YT and in the Anishinaabe world where the endonyms have taken strong hold; not sure what the situation with the Denesuline is exactly.......The "FOO people" thing extends beyond BC though, e.g. what is now Tlingit people was originally just Tlingit (there was even a name-war there over the pure Tlinkit form i.e. Lingit.Skookum1 (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The above section on naming conventions was for articles not categories. Typically when a category is "Category: Foo people" it refers individual people belong to Foo ethnic group (clarified by the descriptions of the categories). Usually the categories have been simply "Category: Foo." Naming articles as "Foo people" came from disambiguating ethnic group articles from language articles. In categories that's easily achieved by "Category: Foo language." Regarding the comment, "Verifiability in some cases will always be hard because of the aforementioned lack of publications available" — if it's not published, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. End of story. Over the years I've read many complaints by editors that most Indigenous peoples of the Americas didn't have written languages, so there's a lack of published materials; however, when I take the time, I have no problem finding published, secondary source material on any tribe I'm looking for. And often by Native authors. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

there's a lot in publication, just only available locally or academically, not on-line. As for disambiguating langauge articles from people articles, I don't see why e.g. Mi'kmaq (disambiguation) isn't where Mi'kmaq is now, as the people is the primary usage....unless you're a linguist who regards them as museum pieces. Same with Tsimshian (where Tsimshian is the convention for the people, Coast Tsimshian the convention for the language, which is properly called Smalgyax), or with Gitxsan, none of those need "people" added, but you-know-who did anyway. I could come up with a list of such examples where the primary name has been made an unnecessary disambiguation instead of being let serve as t he stand-alone primary article for the people(s).Skookum1 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree with you on Mi'kmaq — just changed it so now it reaches the primary topic, Mi'kmaq people. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Hm I meant that Mi'kmaq should be the people article; i.e. Mi'kmaq people should be moved back to Mi'kmaq which is where it was before Kwami started screwing around.Skookum1 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tsimshian he redirected to Tsimshian people even though there was no need to at all; as the language page has been at Coast Tsimshian for quite a while. At the very least Tsimshian could be a dab page because of the Nisga'a and Gitxsan, who were known as Interior Tsimshian but that's now outdated. The category is still, so far, at Category:Tsimshian.Skookum1 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Out of respect for User:Billposer who is the head of the Yinka Dene Language Institute and who created the Dakelh and Category:Dakelh in the first place (apparently Kwami knows better or something than the most reputable linguist in that field....), could someone here who can move Carrier people back to Dakelh please? The category has stayed the same as Bill Poser created it; suffice to say it's in danger of being speedied into Category:Carrier.Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify that "Carrier" is a translation of the Sekani word for these people, it derives from an exonym, and is not a translation of the endonym.Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
All the "Git" names on Tsimshian are now +people e.g. Gitga'ata people which is totally unnecessary as (a) "Git"=people and (b) they are totally unique and in need of no qualification.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I just simplified the table sandbox away from its too-big concept to just Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Name issues. I'll use it to place categories/articles/template names for comparison and discussion, as a centralized locale for items that come up.Skookum1 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

cleanup of government/reserve titles and re infobox

In addition to creating some IR redirects for various bands today, I found many had "reserves" categories when they were written as government/band articles. When changing the categories I went the extra mile and created the aforesaid redirects, in some cases not so straightforward because some IRs are shared between bands. Only done SK and Manitoba so far, this is a widespread "blurring" and needs to be straightened out. Also on some government articles they're using {{Infobox settlement}} and there should really be a proper band government infobox, as there's a difference - very often - between a band government and even its primary reserve, never mind all those attached to it.Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Be careful. Some Reserves have several Settlements. Other Settlements are Reserves. Other Settlements are independent of Reserves. Some Settlements are coterminous with Communities. Some Settlements are contained within a Community. Some Settlements only partially share jurisdiction with a Community. Some Settlements only share a name with a Community, but do not share the same geographical space, either partially or fully. CJLippert (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I note you're using capital-S Settlements and I'm aware of that. And many IRs in BC have no residents at all; and then there's capital-V Village also. This is where the perils of lower-caseism get dicey......as with municipal status where the terms village, town, district etc have specific meanings when capitalized and yet in the generic lower-case they can cause confusion (e.g. Squamish is a District Municipality, it is rarely referred to as a "district" unless referring to the municipal government as such, in common parlance it is a "town" - but not a "Town". One of those I commented on your wall - Winneway I think it was, was in the reserves category, it's a Settlement. The capitalization issue for such terms, which like "Aboriginal" when capitalized has a specific legal/constitutional meaning, is why I originally proposed the current CfR on Category:First Nations reserves -> "Indian Reserve" with a capital-R, but I've backed off on that for now as I'm aware of the implacability of people using MOS as a Bible and demanding things conform to Wiki "levelling" of such terms; as with "Cree nations" there's a big difference between capital-N "Nation" and lower-case "n", the same is true of all of these terms....eg. Category:Metis settlements in Manitoba is misleading, Category:Metis Settlements in Manitoba would specify legally-designated Metis Settlements, not settlements where Metis live in general (in which case Winnipeg would certainly qualify though it's not a Metis Settlement).Skookum1 (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

CfR on First Nations reserves categories -. "Indian Reserves"

I forgot to put CfD in the main category but have done so on all the others. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_19#First_Nations_reserves_-_Indian_Reserves.Skookum1 (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Onyotaa:ka First Nation = ??

I can't find this in INAC, maybe it's here as Onondaga Clear Sky First Nation? Just tidying up reserves/government categories and found it.Skookum1 (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Because of its title I changed it to a government category from reserves; upon finding no band listing, I just checked the list of reserves at INAC; this and the previous page are the "O" section, it's not there.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that they're the Oneidas, but let me check it out. CJLippert (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Typo, but yes, Onyota'a:ka are the Oneida. Oneida Nation of the Thames is an Onyota'a:ka First Nation but not THE Onyota'a:ka First Nation. Also, there is an Onyota'a:ka First Nation component in the Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation, but they too are not THE Onyota'a:ka First Nation. So where should the redirect go? I don't know unless we develop a section within the Oneida people article specifically addressing the condition of the Onyota'a:ka in Canada, and then have the redirect point to that section. If we do that, it also means we need to develop a section in that article to address the state of the Onyota'a:ka in the United States. CJLippert (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC) (Additional edits to comments made. CJLippert (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC) )
Well, in INAC there's "Oneida", with that only as the name, presumably Oneida First Nation, here though it shows no reserves at the location on that article, which is just SW of London - IRs are Glebe Farm 40B and the Six Nations 40, both reserves shared with many other bands. Unless that is Glebe Farm?Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
NB Oneida First Nation would seem to need to be a disambiguation between that one and the "of the Thames" one. All this a good case in point why people and band and reserve articles/categories need to be different and kept separately, even if IRs are only redirects to bands in many cases (the redirects go in the IR categories...currently the "FNR" categories (you've seen the CfR right?).Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hm, pretty sure now that must be Oneida Nation of the Thames, INAC listing gives an address in Southwold, which is where the latlong on Onyotaa:ka First Nation goes to....mystery solved. Question is now which name to use, as unless we can find a band website with "Onyotaa:ka" we have no cite for that....Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in Google; the Facebook page that comes up is just a "lift" from Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've placed mergeto/mergegrom tags on them; there's been few others like this I've found, i.e. two articles on the same band. Also on all I see that say "such-and-so is a First Nation in" I've expanded and specified "First Nations band government" because of the plethora of possible meanings with the usage of "First Nation" without qualification. Among many other things, this needs to be in the guideline/IPNASTYLE that, hm, I have to start working on, but.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm, there's some POV/OR stuff on that page, about how they don't like calling it a reserve and prefer the term settlement......and about their position on that; I'm too busy today to look into it more. POV stuff on native pages is nothing new, of course...Skookum1 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)!

name issue: "First Nations government" vs "band government"

I was about to make a redirect from a redlink on the Oneida Nation of the Thames article for Indian Act Governments, which is a pov-type phrase in reference to band governments, then reconsidered given what I knew the redirected title to be. Reading the lede and the text of that article, however, it continues to use "band government" and that is by far the COMMONNAME of such governments. I'm fielding this for discussion right now rather than proposing an RM....my plate is full at the moment, but as with "First Nations reserves" -> "Indian reserves" this is an instance of replacement of a usual/common term with a p.c.-ified title, without even the article's content being changed. And "First Nations government" could also include such topics as tribal councils and fisheries management organizations (such as the Nuu-chah-nulth have) and also traditional governance (for which there isn't yet an article, and really is band/people-specific). Myself I'd prefer to see Band government as the target title. the only move in the history is my own, from capital-G Government to lower-case government; it was started under the "First Nations Government (Canada)" title by User:Billposer of the Yinka Dene Language Institute.`Skookum1 (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

the band government redirect was created by myself in 2008.Skookum1 (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Beware. If a Tribal group have smaller divisions that govern themselves, then "Band government" would be appropriate. But if there is only one Tribal group government, they would not be a Band, so a "Band government" would not be appropriate. In Canada, Indian tribes and those that are large enough to have Bands, Metis, and Inuit are collectively called "First Nation" so at least in Canada, "First Nation government" would work. Structurally and legally, yes, "Indian reserve" is the correct terminology, though some IRs do have "First Nation" in their title. CJLippert (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
As I noted, "First Nations government" as a title isn't specific about band governments (though the article is specifically about band governments) and can include tribal councils. "Tribal groups" is misleading also, partly because that's not at all synonymous with tribal councils, and tribal councils often don't include all of the "tribal group", as in the case of the Sto:lo, St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc and Kwakwaka'wakw and various others. All Okanagan peoples are in the Okanagan Nation Alliance; but among the Nlaka'pamux there are four tribal councils, and as with the St'at'imc and Sto:lo there are many bands that do not belong to any tribal council, though there is a St'at'imc Chiefs Council which is a sort of treaty group, but not a government. The usage "FOO Nation", in BC anyway, tends to be for tribal councils, "First Nation" is never used that way; e.g. Haida Nation, St'at'imc Nation, though some bands across Canada do use simply "Nation" instead of "First Nation", when not still using "Indian Band" which many still do; and I gather you understand that tribal councils are not governments, but alliances of governments. The Squamish Nation is a band government comprised of four or so formerly separate groups of Skwxw7mesh whom the Dept of Indian Affairs assembled as one band; compared to other agglomerations of reserves it's really more of a tribal council. Cowichan Tribes (and that's its name as a band government) is an assemblage of several different formerly separate Hulquminum-speaking groups where the Indian Act took away their individual sovereignties (for more on that look at Talk:Somena, which is probably Talk:Somena people by now. In any case, my core point here is that the term "band government" FOR Band governments is the MOSTCOMMON and in use by themselves, the media, and the government to mean specifically that type of government, whereas the term "First Nations government" and/or "First Nations governance" can include things like Tribal Councils and other non-band bodies e.g. look in Category:Nuu-chah-nulth for the "departments" of the Nuu-chah-Nulth alliance; and once again not all belong to the tribal council and the Pacheedaht expressly do not (not sure about the Ditidaht at the moment). When I'm going through the various articles I've been tidying lately, when I see the phrase "Such and so is a First Nation in wherever" I amend it to "First Nations band government" because of the extremely variable nature of the term "First Nation". Yes, it was me who redirected band government there, back in 2008, but I didn't fully understand the implications or the Wikipedia guidelines on naming, or that I could have myself simply moved it to band government. When people click on First Nation in "Such and so is a First Nation wherever" it won't go to band government but to somewhere that talks about natives in general; "First Nation" if not already a dab page, however, should probably be so, but coming up with the definitions and variable usages in specific terms ain't straightforward.Skookum1 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Saddle Lake, Alberta

I don't have time until next week, but if someone would be willing to split this article into 2 or 3 stubs would be appreciated: a new stubbier Saddle Lake, Alberta, new stub Saddle Lake Cree Nation, and possibly Saddle Lake 125 Indian Reserve, Alberta (or a redirect to the Saddle Lake Cree Nation, with information on that IR, along with Blue Quills First Nation Reserve, Alberta and White Fish Lake 128 Indian Reserve, Alberta). CJLippert (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I finally had the chance to split the article. Would someone go in and make additional edits as needed? Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Another unwarranted/undiscusssed speedy by Kwami.....

Wow, it's like he can't get enough even after his other changes were RMd back to where they should be. See [[6]]. First he put it from Wuikinuxv to "Wuikinuxv people" (which in normal English means "people who are Wuikinuxv") now he pulls out an old and very archaic spelling no longer in use (except in his linguistics textbooks) and imposes, as always without any discussion: "Oowekeeno people" claiming it is "common name".....no it's not, not any more; I'm surprised in his ongoing chauvinism about native people not having the right to choose their own names, he will for them, he hasn't rolled it all the way back to the more common (historically) name Rivers Inlet people. Will someone here who has admin powers please roll this back to Wuikinuxv (http://www.wuikinuxv.net) where it belongs. And also do the same for Carrier people, which should go back to its original title Dakelh, which was established by a much more notable linguist than Kwami ever will be, User:Billposer. Kwami's obsession with obsolete usages that the peoples themselves have chosen, and which their governments and their neighbours readily use and have adopted out of respect for them and in the current cultural political milieu. Modern MOSTCOMMON names are what applies, not century-old mis-anglicizations. Has Kwami ever been to British Columbia? Has he ever done anything with these articles other than screw around with naming them to fit his dusty linguistics texts?Skookum1 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

He quotes a 1978 publication for the IPA /əˈwiːkənoʊ/ but, um, is that first vowel really a schwa??? "Wui" totally conveys the proper name better then "Owee/əˈwiː" and t hat's why they changed it, partly, also because native-style orthography is now the new standard and the accepted norm with governments and cultural institutions on-the-ground. This was proven in the Nlaka'pamux, St'at'imc, Secwepemc, Ktunaxa and Tsilhqot'in RMs and he doesn't care, in fact I'd say he's trying to pick a fight, or it sure seems like it.Skookum1 (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

List of categories

As I was mopping up after category changes, I found aproject subpage with an out-of-date list of categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Working categories. As it appeared to be obsolete, I WP:BOLDly blanked it to save checking backlinks after category changes. If you reinstate the list, please also revert my changes to the project templates nav and header.

I likewise blanked Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Canada/Categories and stated in the page history that I was removing a link to it. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"First Nation" vs "Indian Band"

Often in INAC neither is used, just e.g. "Shackan"....but if the band websites or googles are conducted for directory listings (when there is not band website) many are "still" "Indian Band". I've just changed/corrected a bunch on {{Nlaka'pamux First Nations}} but there's scads of them out there. Anyone working or checking any of these articles, please check it out and fix 'em......"Indian Band" is not outmoded or incorrect; my bad years ago starting many of these supposing that it was mandatory in Wikipedia to use the "PC" term.....it's not, the name-in-use is what applies...and puts the lie to the certain editor's claim re a now-deleted category that "nations" is the plural of "First Nation", meaning band government. Language in many articles should be attentive of this, likewise in templates....and I see from glancing at Skuppah Indian Band that the language of the text needs adjusting...it's been a long day, later.Skookum1 (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that the distinction is actually between "legal" words - official government terms - and ethnic identity. I would say that where an official government name is not at issue, then respect for the people so named should be primary (and if there is a dispute internally amongst them, "tech the controversy" and explain it, with redirects from whichever form does not prevail by standard WIki MOS naming and dab guidelines). (Putting on personal opinion hat now...) IMHO, "PC" is a rude thing to say when you are talking about people's names for themselves - one person's "PC" is another person's "please respect who I am" (just saying...) Seems to be that there is no need to use one in favor of the other, it all depends on context. Probably should see if WikiProject Canada can offer some cleanup help. Montanabw(talk) 17:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's just it; "First Nations" in reference to a government name is one thing, but in its general use as a "replacement" for "Indian" it has been over-used and over-applied. As I've noted elsewhere, also, when someone is a status-card-carrying native the new usage is "first nations person", i.e. in adjectival form the lower case is used (that can be cited but would take all day finding examples LOL), but the emerging proper usage is to not use that, as the view is that it is a racial term for a people who do not see themselves as all one group, only sharing the same status and experiences; the preferred usage now is to refer to someone as Sto:lo or Nlaka'pamux or Cree or Mi'kmaq when that is known. But in the case of governments vs peoples, the government root-name is often different, or a different form of the same, than that of the proper self-identification used by the people, e.g. Shackan is an adaptation of something like Sx'ex'nx I think (though hm that's a placename actually).....there's a pending merge, maybe, between Scwexmx and Nicola people I'm considering, though the latter term/article includes the Spaxomin/Spa7omin/Spahomin Okanagan group that's part of that alliance. Re the corrections I did last night to the Nlaka'pamux governments pages, one of those tribal councils' names I bring up in FN=Indian complaints all the time, i.e. the Fraser Canyon Indian Administration, there's other similar examples. Each local group, e.g. Boothroyd, Kanaka, Skuppah etc, no doubt have a name in Nlakapamuxtsin that may or may not be in use in English; even Lytton Nation members in common speech will probably not use Camchin for the town/locality name (which came into English as Kumsheen and was fairly well-known by non-natives), but "Lytton" or even say "I'm a Lytton"; but all are Nlaka'pamux. The term I've been using is "culturally correct" rather than "politically correct"...note that re the Olympics deal the host nations were named in a mix of cultural correct and anglicized names, ie.. the facility in Whistler is shared by the "Squamish" and the Lil'wat, though on the displays there they do probably use "Skwxwu7mesh"......and it's two bands there, not two tribal councils (the Squamish Nation is really a multi-community tribal council constituted as a single band government). Re the FN/Indian thing, note the recent (successful) multi-CfD re Category:First Nations reserves to the proper and "normal" Category:Indian reserves (though to me that should be capital-R); this was fought off in WP:CANADA a few years ago, it succeeded this time; and a case where media usage was overcome by official citations and usages; journalist style guides have long sought to completely replace the use of "Indian" in that context but the people they're writing about don't even use it that way. Anyway, just some waking-up thoughts.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
And re WPCanada cleanup, I'm the main guy already LOL.Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tunica-Biloxi name conflict

I've presented a naming conflict at Talk:Tunica-Biloxi § Name. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

sorting/subcatting Category:Native American leaders

Just visited this category, there's no TOC for it i.e. alphabetical TOC, but wondering if a subsort of it by people or era is worth doing, e.g. Cherokee leaders, Apache leaders, Wampanaog leaders...in the equivalent Canadian FN category and in Native Alaskan categories there are some chiefly names which are hereditary e.g. Maquinna and Chief Shakes....there's so many Native American leaders listed it kinda behooves some subsort is needed. By era may not be workable, but by people/group would seem to make sense.Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And just noticed Category:Titles and offices of Native American leaders and Chief Shakes being in it; that's not an office or a title, and in his case he's Native Alaskan, which is not the same usage as Native American....not sure how many other Alaskan leaders we have articles on, seems to behoove a Category:Native Alaskan leaders (or is that Category:Alaskan Native leaders, I'm not sure just at the moment. Maybe re his name not being a title or office but a hereditary name, another category for "hereditary chieftainces" or something might apply; Kahtsahlano and Capilano in BC would apply if the category-name isn't Native American-specific (the links there are to the original name-holder not to the herditary name itself, though Maquinna is written that way (I think).`Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Tyee redirects to Tribal chief but I don't feel comfortable putting the latter in the Titles and offices category, as it's not really a title or an office....though it is there.....Tyee kind of needs its own article IMO but that's for another day.Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Lol Si:yam goes to another-language wiki.. (looks like Lao or Khmer, not sure what "si:" wiki is...).that's the Coast Salish term for members and elders of the noble class, often Siam or Siem or Siyam etc in English transliteration (SHAI-yam or SHAI-yEm E=schwa is how it's pronounced).Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I may have been involved with that category at some point, the main goal I had was to get rid of the overuse and misuse of the word "Chief" which was all over the place and misused in some very racist and condescending ways ("chief" being a very problematic title with many tribes in the US, some may use the title, others do not, and many feel it is inappropriately applied to many historical figures...). Basically, I see no reason not to add additional appropriate categories, and you might as well be bold and do so. Montanabw(talk) 18:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's also very complicated in BC; many people nowadays presume that there were paramount chiefs in villages or nations, there were none; in cases like Cumshewa, he was only one of a few "chiefs" at Cumshewa, British Columbia; it became known as Cumshewa's Harbour because he was the one of them most willing to deal with white traders...same as Masset and so on; Some became "paramount" because of their stature and dealings, like August Jack Kahstahlano and Joe Capilano; in St'at'imc culture there were different kinds of leaders, one for hunting, one for fishing, one for medicine/magic etc...only in some cases like Nicola (who was Grand Chief of all the Okanagan until his death, those in Canada anyway, as I think Tonasket emerged once the border was drawn...) was there a single prominent figure "ruling".....Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

American Indian Wars]

I have tagged the article for POV concerns, yur input and help in straightening it up with a more contemporary perspective would be appreciated.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wuikinuxv -> Oowekeeno people - Oweekeno or back to Wuikinuxv

See Talk:Oowekeeno_people#tribal_council_usage_is_.22Oweekeno.22. I don't think an bulk RM should be necessary for all these undiscussed speedies......I'll get to listing the remaining ones, that weren't subject to the previous group of RMs, but given that the moves have throughout their course have ignored the peoples' preferred usages and all (other than Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish) were undiscussed, IMO a conscientious admin should intervene and revert them all. In this case the variant name exists, but not by the spelling in a certain person's linguistics manual. Canadian usages applies, not what is interpreted OR-style as "common" when it no longer is. The ones that come to mind in addition to this, not all involving endonyms or anglicizations, are:

Note that in many cases, there are subcategories of them in the "FOO people" meaning "people of/from the FOO".....e.g. Category:Haisla people, Category:Haida people....so far there's been no attempt to speedy categories to match the changed main article titles; the parent categories, other than the Skwxu7mesh one, haven't been touched. Once these are all reverted to their proper, modern, common-name-now forms, they should be "locked down"......and I think given conduct by a certain editor in the last round of RMs over this, he most of all should not be allowed to fuss with them; I haven't bothered trying to change the matching language articles, which were all changed too, to archaic forms only used by linguists and older books, but they will remain an issue as NOTMODERN.Skookum1 (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Houma Nation

Hi all! I'd like to help expand the Houma people article, adding more about their history and culture, including their language. Any advice would be much appreciated! Razlem (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "Native American" being contested

I thought the *one* single thing we could all agree on is that for Wikipedia's purposes "Native American" means "Indigenous peoples of what is now the United States." I noticed that the century-based subcats of Category talk:Indigenous painters of the Americas were nested under Category:Native American painters of such and such century. I attempted to correct this twice, but another editor wants to try to undue use of the word "Indigenous" and use "Native American" for all Indigenous peoples of the Americas, despite the YEARS of endless of discussion on this topic and the relative consistency we have all collectively established throughout Wikipedia, from articles, Wikipedia projects, done to categories. Almost all of the categories are organizated with "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" being top cat ala Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas > Category:Indigenous people of the Americas > Category:Native American people.

If anyone out there has the stamina, energy, patience left to contribute to this discussion, please comment at Category talk:Indigenous painters of the Americas. >sigh< —Uyvsdi (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

LOL I'm not sure that I have the patience but re other discussions with yourself and CJLippert, I've wondered about that terminology a lot; encountering "Native American" in not just FN categories and content but also re Alaskan Natives. Also re people/tribe/"nation" there are cases where a people is not a federally recognized tribe (capital-T) though maybe part of one (Entiat tribe for example, who are part of the Colville. and was (ahem) wondering if e.g. Category:Native American tribes in Washington (state) should be retitled, as not all its contents are Category:Federally recognized tribes in the United States, either because of subsumation into a federally-recognized tribe, as with the Entiat, or the Duwamish who are recognized as what we in Canada call "status natives" but are not a federally-recognized tribe as such. Not sure which of the Washington peoples are extinct, like Pentlatch and Stuwix are in BC, and in BC of course there's the Sinixt who do not have band government status ("First Nation") in Canada, and cross-border peoples/ territories like the Klallam and Nlaka'pamux who show up in respectively BC and Washington categories because their historical territories bridge the border, but current settlement/populations do not. I'd wondered about under the rubric of "indigenous peoples" re US state categories for that purpose, but given your concerns here not a good idea I guess.....terminology is everything here and consistency ain't easy.....I'll keep my pointy nose out of this for now ;-)Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I also thought "for Wikipedia purposes" this was true. But some are very opposed to the Indigenous. Rmhermen (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
That is true, but we can all find individuals who hate and individuals who actively promote the terms Natives, Native American, Aboriginal, American Indian, even Autochthonic (okay, I've never heard anyone outside of eastern Canada use the last one!). Without citations, "I've got a friend who..." stories aren't particularly compelling. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
On some Canadian talkpage somewhere someone is doing the Native=anyone born somewhere....when the context is clearly aboriginal....curiously it wasn't a Canadian redneck type but someone from the UK who's also contesting Canadian census tables with "Indian" vs "East Indian" (the latter is what's actually used in the census data) and "North American Indian" (a category which exists because some Canadians are not of First Nations origin, and it's in the ancestry tables also because not all such people are First Nations (a term which is only properly used for "Status Indian").Skookum1 (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
There's something in the water recently then. Truthfully Wikipedia has proven indispensable in honing precise language IRL. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Wikipedia has a strong influence on English usage far outside of it; all the more reason for us to work towards usefully-clear language......both in term of North American usages/definitions/conventions and also in global terms, as the Indian/East Indian etc issue demonstrates.Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The objections to "indigenous" are cited on the page Native American name controversy to good historical reasons. The objections to "Native", if there really are any, seem to fall in the "I've got a friend who" category. Big difference there. "Native" is the way to go, and "indigenous" should be dropped as a term for the same thing, in my opinion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of having all information in one place, here's the objections:

Arguments against the use of the term "Indigenous Peoples" are that it does not refer specifically to peoples affected by European colonization during the 17th and 18th centuries, that it lumps all indigenous world groups into a single "other," and that it fails to recognize migratory groups who do not technically meet the definition of "indigenous."[citation needed] The term is also less favored among some Canadian Indians; the French equivalent indigène has historically been used in a derogatory sense toward them.[1]

  1. ^ John Abbink, 2011, Land Law and Politics p. 92
The first ascertation has a citation needed tag, and the objection that "indigenous" can refer to people globally is solved by adding the region afterwards, e.g. Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, etc. Regarding European colonization during the 17th and 18th centuries—many California, Great Basin, and Colorado River Tribes did not have sustained European contact until the 19th century, so that point is moot. Regarding the objection that indigène has been derogatory, in the English-language Wikipedia we are not going to use the French term.
In the civil rights sphere, "Indigenous peoples" has positive legal connotations (Das 296), as in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The solidarity with other indigenous groups with the world is positive, for example, in its use by the Eastern Canadian organization Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement Ottawa. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
You left out a paragraph: "The term indien or indienne is used in the legislation, although the preferred term is now amérindien. The term indigène is not used as it is seen as having negative connotations because of its similarity to the French equivalent of indigent ("poor"). It has also acquired further negative associations in French, due to the indigénat code enforced in French colonial Africa, 1887-1947. The old French term sauvage ("wild") is no longer used either, as it is considered racist." "Indigenous" is also avoided in Canada in English for the same reason, especially the Eastern half of Canada - in favor of Native or Aboriginal, both being seen as more neutral terms in Canada. This is similar to the United States going with Native American and one rarely hears "Indigenous American" except perhaps through Archie Bunker's clenched teeth grin... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No one is advocating for the use of the terms indien, indienne, or indigène. I just linked to a group in Ottawa named Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement Ottawa, so yes, "Indigenous" is used in Eastern Canada. "Indigenous" is used by Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, Quebec, for more examples.
Actually "Indigenous American" is a term used by many Native scholars, for instance Choctaw author Devon Abbott Mihesuah in her book Indigenous American Women: Decolonization, Empowerment, Activism and Chickasaw-Choctaw author heather ahtone uses the term as well, for example throughout her essay "Designed to Last: Striving toward an Indigenous American Aesthetic." -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh crap, not this AGAIN???? Uyvsdi nails it with "...individuals who hate and individuals who actively promote the terms..." There is absolutely nothing wrong with "Indigenous" There can be issues with French root words, there can be varying legal terms (hence, "Native American," for all the reasons above, is problematic when used outside of the Lower 48 United States) but "indigenous" is not a problematic word for Native Americans in general; it's even embraced but folks like and these guys and gals ("Indigenous" the ethnic Lakota rock band) and this guy, the "indiginerd." How about just asking for a WP:SNOW close. How many times do we have to revisit this??? (grumbling) Montanabw(talk) 20:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Native American name controversy has loads of it, as does the article itself, which also is mistitled as including Inuit, First Nations, Metis etc...."Name controversies for terms for indigenous peoples" is a bit longish and awkward. Also btw indigenes in French (missing an accent there) is I think more like "indigent" as opposed to "indigenous"; one reason maybe why Canadian French uses "autochthones". The terminology discussions - also part of the "old consensus" or set of conventions from quite a few years ago now had addressed this; it was indigenous editors who preferred that term, including User:OldManRivers and User:Phaedriel and it's why the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast is titled like it is. "Aboriginal" in Canada is now a constitutional term for all three groups, as far as Canadian aboriginal peoples go, can't remember the reasons why "indigenous" is preferred over that, though on Aboriginal peoples in Canada it's specifically only about Canadian peoples; on cross-border articles like Coast Salish and others the term "indigenous" was for whatever reason the more "comfortable" of those terms; yes they have POV/COI contexts because OMR and Phaedriel and other indigenous editors are of that opinion/interpretation....wherever those discussions are, and despite both of those prolific editors being now gone from Wikipedia (though OMR still monitors articles and such he created, he's not totally gone), their input should not be tossed aside (as it was in the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish RM) simply because they're gone.Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I suspect the aborginal/indigenous thing is a US/Canadian "thing." Also a possible concern with being confused with Australian Aboriginal people. Dunno. Just know I don't hear people call themselves "aboriginal" in the western USA, but "Native people" is pretty common and "indigenous" is OK. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It is partly the Australian associations of the term, but also in Canada "Aboriginal" is a constitutional term....there was a discussion long ago, one of so many lost in archives now, about why "indigenous" was preferable to "aboriginal"....came down to the etymology, as I recall.....and the complications of the legal/constitutional usage in Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nuxalk art website - legitimate ext link or not?

See Talk:Nuxalk_Nation#Nuxalk_art_site_ref.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Americas

FYI, there's a proposal to create a western hemisphere coordinating project above NA/SA/etc. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Americas -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Americas - really?

see my comments on the linked talkpage.....this extension of a term with provenance only in the 1990s into a broadbrush stroke of the past doesn't strike me as approrpiate and comes off POV.Skookum1 (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have commented there. :) Montanabw(talk) 04:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a live one

Cherokee Nation of Mexico -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'm tired of getting dablink notices when I use a link that I know was - and should have remained - as-is, but a certain someone who thinks only as a linguist has overridden primary usages and made dab pages that just shouldn't be. Temper temper, Skookum1, but Skookum1 is getting !@%#$^ p'd off at having to go and clean up things that shouldn't need cleaning up. Dozens of these speedy changes, as with the endonym problems created by the same editor, need rolling back. The one that made me just lose it right now was using Haisla and getting a dab link notice to have to go fix it, as the context is Haisla people, which originally was "Haisla" only. Iv'e moved the disambiguation that you-know-who concocted, which includes the language and the Indian Act government i.e. Haisla language and Haisla Nation to Haisla (disambiguation) and will add Haisla to Mi'kmaq and the dozens of other primary-usage topics that need moving back to their "non-FOO people" format. This is an ongoing issue because of all of these, making work for people working on topic areas by someone who doesn't even work with these topics areas......all these names are people topics, the languages and governments are entirely secondary. Not being an admin I can't roll all these back, but I'm getting tired of being confronted with all the needless work/time created by "this person" who doesnt' give a f*g about how much work he doesn't clean up and expects others to fix even though he doesn't work in the topic area (other than tweaking IPA and thte occasional bit of cite-formatting). GRRRRRRR I'm going to dinner, just venting, and as you'll see also on the edit comments in Haisla's history. wp:civil is irrelevant when someone has been garbaging other's work on a regular basis, with no remorse and if anything a smug and conflicting/contrarian attitude as we all saw in those RMs. FOO people when FOO was just fine was "somebody's agenda" just like supplanting anachronistic anglicisms over modern usages and preferences. I know I'm wasting my breath here, nobody ever lifts a finger to discipline him; instead I'll get some people lecturing me about my "tone", rather than caring about all the unnecessary extra work shoved at me and others by such nonsense. And it's not just that, Iv'e found more and more instances of the lower-case obsession used on proper names, because MOS-ites are trying to reinvent thte English language in their own image. Time for dinner, and maybe a wikibreak.Skookum1 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Issue warnings for bad redirects on their talk page. I do. I'm sick of it as well and try to clean things up whenever I encounter disambiguation pages with only two links or bad redirects. I try to remain as neutral as possible and leave dab pages when there actually *is* a question of primary topics. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

This one's so bad it should just be PROD'd

this board has been notified, discussion can continue at the relevant talk page. closing this before it gets worse.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

See Talk:Salish_mythology#So_bad_it_should_just_be_deleted.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Maunus insists it should remain and made some edits which confused the matter even further; I've changed its name because of that content and still aver that it's a catch-all article for peoples and mythologies that need their own article, not an omnibus catch-all like this one, with its overtones of SYNTH and bad ethnography, as is/was the case. See [7] and Maunus' attempts to validate it, and to claim thta "Salish" is an actual useful and valid term instead of vague and conjectural as is the case with this article and its origins. Skwxwu7mesh and Nlaka'pamux and Kalispel and Duwamish and Cowichan and T'Zouke etc mythologies are not the same and should not be luymped together like this based on someone's reading of a couple of storybooks.Skookum1 (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC
Salish is a linguistic group and is not "vague" or "confused", but based on a shared cultural and linguistic history.Linguistic groups always almost have a shared body of narratives that are tied together by historical roots - for example we have an article on Indo-European mythology although of course there is no single mythology of all of the indo-european linguistic groups. You clearly havent even looked the sources that you are criticizing which are based on decades of collaborative scholarship with the groups in question. I know that you have a the idea that you are for some reason the only white person who has the right to speak on behalf of Indians and that everyone else doing research or collaborations is a scientifically suspect oppressor (probably tories), but you can take that piece of conceited crap and stuff it - no one is buying it. In Wikipedia we use published sources, preferably academic ones, and yes that does give an unfair bias against oral history but that is how the game is - and in fact these kinds of sources that you are denouncing are exactly the only kind of sources that could be used to account for that bias. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
THERE IS NO UNIFORM BODY OF MYTHOLOGY FOR THESE PEOPLES. Drawing them together based on a collection of Kalispel stories plus one group of Skwxwu7mesh stories IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Even the use of the term "mythology" is disputable on cultural grounds; especially since these peoples don't use that term themselves. This article should be twenty or more articles, not pastiched together as you are insistint is OK..... IT"S NOT.Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
COntradiction is not a valid argument, and abusing caps lock doesn't make it so either. You have not read the book or understood any of the argument and frankly you are looking more and more stupid as you keep arguing without having looked at it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Your smugness in response to my 'ANGER' is the passive-aggressive arrogance that I was talking about in my kissing off this place once and for all. I'm FROM St'at'imc/Lil'wat, Nlaka'pamux, Sto:lo and Skwxwu7mesh territory and have read more about them and know more about thempersonally than you in your smug and distant arrogance WILL EVER KNOW. You're a turkey, and a snotty one at that, and can be proud and have bragging rights to driving Skookum1 from Wikipedia once and for all.. Enjoy the rest of your adolescence. Your sophomoric justification for this article's blatant OR and SYNTH is just puerile snottery and typical admin-ignorance. 223.206.149.14 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't give a rat's ass about your anger or about where you're form or about how much you know from personal experience. None of that is relevant here. Your editing style is perpetually arrogant, self-aggrandizing and confrontational and bullying. And at the same time you are too much of a frail daisy to be able to take what you give without exploding into selfrightous rage. The "sophomoric explanation" is called policy, and unless you are willing to understand and follow that you have nothing of value to contribute to the project. If you were to stick around you could start by reading up on OR and SYNTH neither of which you seem to know what means. The topic is established as existant by the literature - which means that it is not SYNTH or OR. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok knock it off you two. Please continue the discussion in a civil manner at the talk page in question. This board has been duly notified, so no need to snipe further here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

too late for that Obiwan, I'm DONE with having to wrestle with ignorance defending itself by pointing at specious connections bewteen citations or just being contrarian from scratch; and constantly being confronted by the wreckage and cleanup caused by Kwami's one-man wrecking crew across so many articles, and nothing done to stop him or reverse his damage. In this case it's so wildly SYNTH in terms of regional ethnography it's not funny - not not funny at all. And aggravating in the extreme when somebody with admin powers defends clear violations of policy by defending SYNTH and OR as if they're just fine and dandy if two books are tied together by someone who wants to advance a view completely unrepresented in the wider field. It's like saying "Siwash Indians" is a tribe......and the pretense in the article here is that there's a unanimity and homogeneity which doesn't exist. And Iv'e heard Maunus' snotty tone before, it reminds me way too much of Kwami's in those RMs that were such a waste of time and energy. Between this and having dablink notifications telling me I have to fix dabs that Kwami caused, and finding articles with completely WRONG citations (Sts'Ailes people, see its history) and more, I'm realizing that Wikipedia is being filling by garbage and the adminship, or some of those who have "earned" adminship, are busy defending the indefensible and, frankly, being contrarian d*******ds. Good night and good bye I stopped by I don't know why; I may wipe my userpage and talkpage yet, I don't know, what I do know is that approaching 58 years old and having wet-behind-the-ears snotheads ignore informed opinion and input on the basis of some specious citations linked together by speciouis logic....this is not an encylopedia anymore, it's a playpen. I have better ways to waste the rest of my life.`223.206.149.14 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forgot about the Turtle Mountains

Do not forget about the Turtle Mountain Indian reservation in Belcourt ND.

Here is a link someone please update:

http://tmbci.kkbold.com/tribalstats/

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.223.224.7 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We already have the Mikinaakwajiwing Ishkonigan and the Mikinaakwajiw-ininiwag articles out there. Please feel free to contribute to them. CJLippert (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
ANd more to the point: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation which is the federal government's designated name.

Discussion about possible eurocentric and colonialist mentality in indigenous peoples of North America articles

I'm not sure if I should move the discussion at Talk:Cahokia here - but I don't think it belongs at the Cahokia article. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be moved here. GregJackP Boomer! 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Moved it here, will hat old discussion and link it here

POV issues

Time and Time again I come across an Indigenous American related article (and similar articles) only to find articles that are extremely skewed toward European world views and completely ignoring Indigenous world views. This is NOT making articles with NEUTRAL Points of View! When an Indigenous person chimes in to point out the euro-western lens that the article is presented in, nothing is done or the point is discredited, usually followed by citing a book written by.... you guessed it a european, completing the circle of the euro-western lens. This has been my and my colleagues' experience anyway.

There are plenty of Indigenous Nations and Indigenous organizations to contact as well as books and documentaries made by Indigenous people. It is NOT necessary to exclusively site non-Indigenous texts, web sites, etc..

This article's perpetuation of "human sacrifice" among Indigenous cultures is extremely defamatory and dangerous to today's Indigenous people. This also goes for the linked article "Mound 72". Wikipedia has become a household name and people take it very seriously whether they should or not. They believe what they read here for the most part and the beliefs they get from this site extends to the racism towards Indigenous peoples and it contributes to the defamation towards Indigenous peoples. I am an Anishinaabe and Tsalagi Indigenous person, I have been a member of a very well known Indigenous rights organization for well over two decades. I know many Traditional people and no where ever at any time have I EVER heard of any of us in north OR south america practicing human sacrifice or ritual torture. I have however heard this from genocidal european colonists who were trying to give a reason or excuse for the holocaust they were/are inflicting upon our people but never NEVER have I heard of such things in our Traditional stories and knowledge, which by the way not only includes oral tradition but our own forms of writing, book making and record keeping.

You can believe Indigenous people or the people that committed the largest holocaust ever and killed 98 percent of North and South Indigenous Americans. Since you supposedly have a policy of keeping a "Neutral POV" you should at the very least let us have our say.

Myself and others have tried to contribute, following your rules and everything but still our contributions are deleted or edited beyond recognition by overzealous editors. Wiki is an Indigenous word, it is Hawaiin - how ironic that you insist on casting us in untrue and defamatory ways.

Please just try to think about this with an open mind and heart. I am not interested in back-and-forthing with anyone, just remember We Indigenous People Are Still Here and we read and sometimes contribute to Wiki. Chi Miigwech and thank you. Zoongitozi (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but I'd also like to note a few other things. First, the holocaust you speak of can't be blamed on the current generation of non-Native Americans, so please don't suggest that we are responsible. There are no genocidal European colonists in the Americas. Some are descendants of such many generations back, but this sort of accusation is the sort of attack that I would think you'd reject if it was the other way. Secondly, I would find it very strange if all human sacrifices (and there were many) were done by only Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc, and none in the Americas. Whether you know of them or not, and I doubt that your knowledge extends to every Native American culture. And thirdly, what's your explanation for Mound 72? Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is a point to be made that it does continue today. You still have reservations, you still have Native American children being taken from tribes and adopted by European-Americans, and a multitude of other issues. That's not to say that you or anyone you know are intentionally pursuing such policies, but the issues still exist. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please try to hear me with an open mind at least. By continuing to occupy the lands of Indigenous people and continuing the cultural genocidal activities and the literal genocidal activities that colonists have been doing for the past 500 years or so is continuing the holocaust. Just because you may not have literally murdered an Indigenous person does not mean you are not participating in the continual colonization and holocaust in the americas (or any other colonized place a colonist may be occupying). You have a eurocentric view and a colonist view. You were born into it and what happened in the past is not your fault but what you do NOW is. My main point is that most Indigenous american articles on Wiki are not of a NEUTRAL point of view. TRY to open your mind and heart and make an attempt at least to understand the Indigenous point of view. We are still here, not all of us are gone and that means that there are full blooded traditionalists you could talk to, to try to understand a particular culture and their are many many books written by Indigenous people. I know Wiki requires very particular types of sources to support any information and that makes it even harder for Indigenous people to have a fair say in Wiki articles since it seems that non-Native sources from people with non-Native education and culture are preferred. I would not even care but it is a problem because Wikipedia is a household word now, nearly everyone reads it and it's one of the first things to come up in a search engine. So what is said here, especially about people is very very important. I mostly replied to this hoping someone else with an open mind may come across this and try to understand us through OUR words, not the words of the colonists or anyone else other than the people you are trying to understand. Watch some talks by John Trudell, that is a very good starting point in understanding the Indigenous point of view. Chi Miigwech and thank you for hearing me out with an open mind and heart. Zoongitozi (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least you understand that there is a sourcing problem. If you don't actually have any sourced changes you want to make, this is in danger of becoming a WP:FORUM type of discussion and inappropriate. It certainly isn't appropriate to accuse me of having a Eurocentrist or colonialist point of view, see WP:AGF (and I'd love to know how I can be a colonist as presumably colonists have some place to go back to - over the centuries my family have lived in America I suspect my ancestry is extremely mixed, with possibly even indigenous American blood). You might want to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right - what should we do to move the discussion there? Sourcing is also a problem, like you stated. GregJackP Boomer! 17:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that there has been a pretty good presentation of some of the philosophical issues involved, but what I feel we need to do now is look at some specifics. Zoongitozi (if you put something, anything on your user page your user name will appear as a blue link rather than a red one, making you appear as not just some new editor arriving with an agenda) please point out some specific sentences that you feel are incorrect and I, and probably others here, will be glad to look at them. That native peoples have no passed on tradition suggesting that native groups engaged in human sacrifice is not, to me, a very compelling argument. My family tree can be traced back to 600 or 700 AD and we have a rich oral and written traditions and nowhere in them is mention made of my ancestors engaging in genocidal practices, for example. Yet I believe that they did these and other terrible things. So, what passages in this article would you like to examine? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, a statement such as, "no where ever at any time have I EVER heard of any of us in north OR south america practicing human sacrifice or ritual torture." pretty much cries out for a rather long list of very documented cases of both. You might be surprised at how open the minds of many wikipedia editors are, but please be careful about making statements such as the one above. That you never heard of them does not mean that these things did not happen and you only (in my opinion) weaken your own point. Carptrash (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Zoongitozi, you said to try "to understand [you] through [YOUR] words", I think the best way for that would be to write a Wikipedia in your language(s) and your words, not in English which is the colonialist language after all and its (forced) use by the Indigenous people is an important part of why the Native cultures are still regressing today (which is indeed considered as a cultural genocide by many), if you need help in creating a Wikipedia project in any Indigenous languages please contact me and I can assist with that. I'm not saying the English (and other main languages) Wikipedia shouldn't be neutral and that you should stop to try to bring the Native side of things on it, I'm just saying having a Wikipedia in your own language(s) is also a very important thing in my opinion. Thanks, merci, gracias, we'lalin, meegwich, Amqui (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's some of the Indigenous American language Wikipedias and Wikipedia Incubators. All of them could use more participants:

American Indigenous language Wikipedias

Languages of the First Nations of Canada

Indigenous languages of Latin America

Native American languages of the US in Wikimedia Incubator

The human sacrifice at Cahokia is very documented. Osage and Pawnee people have historical ceremonies that involved human sacrifice (the Morning and the Morning Star Ceremonies, respectively). The way to combat Eurocentric bias in Wikipedia is to actively encourage more Native people to participate and to use more sources written and published by Indigenous peoples. Indian Country Today is a fantastic online resources. More and more tribal newspapers are up online, such as the Osage News, there's a growing number of tribal publishing companies, and there's a wealth of books published by Native peoples. As Gloria Bird suggests in Reinventing the Enemy's Language, that forcing all Native American tribes to speak English might have given us a powerful tool for communicating with each other. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Thanks for this list, please also see Wikimedia Indigenous Languages which is more international, but if anybody needs support for a small Wikipedia, one in the Incubator or even one that doesn't exist yet in any indigenous, aboriginal or minority languages, that's the best place to find it. Speaking English (or Spanish or even French depending on where you are) is important for the Native peoples to survive in today's world, but preserving the dying ancestral languages is even more important. Amqui (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. I think we should copy this discussion to the main project talk page.
There used to be the Northwestern Ojibwe Wikipedia in the incubator that is no longer there. The primary problem was the lack of agreement on script. A solution I had proposed was an automatic script converter (like what is available on zh.wikipedia and iu.wikipedia). cr.wikipedia can also benefit from the iu.wikipedia like converter, just as Ojibwe can. But unlike Cree, the Ojibwe would need many more orthographic converter options, possibly a double or triple choices (Latin v. Syllabaries [CAS and GLAS], Full/Pointed v. Syncoped/Unpointed, and specific style based on first two choices): Anihšināpemowin , Anihshinaapemowin , Anishinaabemowin , Nishnaabemowin , Anishinàpemowin , Anichinàpemoȣin , Anicinàpemowin , Eneshenabémowen , Neshnabémwen , anisHinalemowin , a.ni.sHi.naH.le.mo.win , ᐊᓂᓯᓇᐯᒧᐏᐣ , ᐊᓂᐦᓯᓈᐯᒧᐏᓐ , ᐊᓂᔑᓇᐯᐎᐣ , ᐊᓂᐦᔑᓈᐯᒧᐎᐣ , ᐊᓂᔑᓇᐯᒧᐎᓐ , ᐊᓂᐦᔑᓈᐯᒧᐎᓐ , and a dozen more. The base article would have to have to be fully annotated in order for the automatic script converter to function properly, which may be difficult for western speakers that do not differentiate s and sh, or northern speakers lacking syllable-terminal n, or eastern speakers with vowel syncopes. But just as en.wikipedia shifts spelling and style from the various Englishes, Ojibwe Wikipedia can also easily shift spellings and styles from various Anishinaabemowinan, so that is not really an issue. But the script is. CJLippert (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The situation on the Cree Wikipedia is more complex than the Inuktitut and similar to the Ojibwe one in some aspects. The issue is that even if there are only two scripts used, there are many different Cree dialects that are different enough to get a reader confuse or not understanding at all. That being said, we need not to let those "technical" issues refrain us from developing the Wikipedias in Indigenous languages. The approach I encourage is to let every contributors contribute in the script and the dialect he wants, and we really shouldn't bring those technical problems to the Native people, we should take care of them ourselves and let them focus on contributing. The Wikipedias are small enough right now that we don't need general and severe policies on scripts or dialects like we do on bigger Wikipedias. Those debates and discussions on scripts deter us from the main goal, which is to write articles in the Indigenous languages and help share the knowledge of those languages themselves. We don't need automatic scripts converter or any special tools like that before starting to write articles. Another project I'm involved with is Wikilang, which is where Native speakers can write in English (if this is their main language of course, Native peoples from México would write in Spanish for example) and in their Native language of course to teach the language itself, you can see it on Meta if you are interested: m:WikiLang/Main Page, or you can see an example of a started project in there for the Mi'kmaq language: m:WikiLang/Mi'kmaq Portal. Again, don't let the "technical" difficulties refrain people from writing content and let the actual speakers communities make the choices themselves. If you need help getting a Wikipedia started in the Incubator, or how to make different scripts/dialects work on the same Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to contact me. Amqui (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk: Genocide of indigenous peoples

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

Manus, WP:CANVASS says you aren't supposed to be offering your own view ("commonsense") here. (I should know, I was slapped for doing so a few months back). Just saying... Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not what "common sense definition" means in this case it means "ordinary everyday usage" as opposed to specialized usage. And in this case if it meant what you think it means I would be canvassing against the view I myself favor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Then you could have been more specific. Montanabw(talk) 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's canvasing in this case. The RfC actually uses the terms "broad" and "narrow definition" in the question presented. GregJackP Boomer! 00:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Undiscussed, unilateral moves of ethnic group articles

Kwamikagami is curious to know "where are the ones who are actually upset by the move?" @User talk:Kwamikagami. What's up with Wikipedia this week? -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Given that Skookum1 just got run off by all this, sigh... drama abounds... about the last month or so, actually. Montanabw(talk) 18:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, this has been a crazy week. Time for a wee wikibreak :) -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Archive_13&oldid=1137379572"