Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Battle of Washita River

I'm putting a general call out here for anyone who knows about this battle, in which Custer's forces attacked the camp of Black Kettle at the Washita River near present day Cheyenne, Oklahoma. There has been edit warring over there for the past couple of days resulting from an editor, Custerwest (talk · contribs) almost completely rewriting the article, apparently against consensus. I'm not involved directly in the article as I have insufficient knowledge of it to really judge facts & sources, but it seems to me that more eyes of knowledgeable people are needed there. My involvement is more simply to try to stop the edit warring & try to get the parties to discuss on the talk pages without personal attacks in order to achieve consensus. In that regard, yesterday I filed a report at ANI -- see WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest -- but nothing is resolved yet; I've just asked an admin I somewhat know for intervention. But for the sake of actual article accuracy, that's why I'm asking for your help here. --Yksin 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We could really use some help with this if people have the time. Murderbike 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

American Indian identity article (Who is Indian?)

After a recent ado at Cherokee, I decided to pull my notes together (and add more) to make an article on Cherokee identity. I wasn't happy with the article, however, and expanded the scope, which I've collected as some notes at User:Smmurphy/American Indian identity. I'd like it if anyone has any comments on the project. Right now the article is long (but not longer than many other articles), and I'm not sure if many sections can be spun off, although much could be cut, and much of it probably already exists elsewhere (such as in blood quantum). Also, articles like this usually are tough to title (see Who is black, Who is a Jew?), does anyone have an idea or preference about the title? Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice research! I would agree that American Indian Identity is a good title for the article as it stands on your talk page, as it's not a world-wide view. Although we could also stub out sections to challenge other editors to fill in the blanks. (eg: Métis people has very little about identity presently) Vagary 06:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective primarily seen in the US, yes, this is an excellent article; however, this isn't quite how it works in Canada, and for Indigenous peoples cut in half by the international boundary, the issue becomes even more complex, mainly due to differing policies between Canada and the United States, though differing from each other, they both go against the very notion of "peoplehood". To this mix, if we then throw in treatment of indigenous peoples in Mexico and their Mestizos, the results of past French, British and Spanish colonial policies to which Canada, United States and Mexico inherited, the issue becomes extremely complex. However, the article proto-type you have started is segmented in a way to allow the reader to explore key topics in detail, which is very good... but more of these key topics with links to each of their "Main Article" are needed. I think if we have a further developed topic intros with these key handle-bar links to articles to bring light more on these issues, the article will be one of the strongest out there. It already is well on its way there. Good job. CJLippert 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. Most of the material is based on US authors, who cite and are cited by mostly other US authors, which furthers the bias. [Even the material that isn't specific to the US government is (mostly?) based on researchers working with US Indians.] I hadn't thought about like that, but you are right that things become very complex if you try to broaden the scope more so that issues in many different countries are included. I still feel the article is hardly more than a collection of notes, and I'm humbled that you appreciate the work. I do think it would be ok to de-userfy it. Based on CJLippert's comment, and after removing the feminist criticism of Canada's Indian Act, I think the most correct title might be "American Indian identity in the United States," unless American and US are somehow redundant. What do you (anybody) think about the title and readiness for article space? And as always, feel free to make edits there if you like. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of keeping this US-centric and spinning off full articles as data from Canada and Mexico becomes available. (For example, the Indian Act feminist critique can either be put into Indian Act or an article about Native American gender issues.)

I don't think "American Indian" gets used very often in Canada, so to a Canadian American Indian identity is unambiguous, but to an American it probably is? Native American identity in the United States would follow the precedent set by Native American name controversy. Vagary 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it might be more encyclopedic to use "Native American" rather than "American Indian,' although "American Indian" is used more by the sources I've seen (for whatever reason). Convention sounds like the best reason to go with any particular name, though. Although, "Native American identity in the United States" is a bit long, it seems to satisfy both political correctness and universal understandability. If there isn't any reason not to, we can probably move it to article space (and this discussion can go to the articles talk page, especially so that "not-quite-as-major" content issues are discussed there rather than here).

BTW, I'm sorry that the sources, my time, and my experiences didn't let me bring Canadian and Mexican indigenous identity into the article. I know there are plenty of other sources for Canadian identity issues (much of the Indian power movements came out of Toronto, and their literature might be a good starting place), but I don't know much about the Mexican side at all. Even so, I'd be happy to help get a stub started on both, but I'm just as unsure about what the titles would be as I am about the content. Would it be "First Nations identity in Canada," and "??? in Mexico"? Do you (anybody) think a stub there would be a good idea?

Thanks a lot for your advice. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, the page is now live at Native American identity in the United States. I've pasted this conversation to that talk page, so feel free to bring any issues you have their. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I just forked some of the content from this page to [[Native American recognition in the United States. There is also talk of the use for a "representation" page or something to discuss how Indians are represented in cultural artifacts (think the Boston Tea Party), which is also mentioned at the identity page's talk page. Feel free to comment on any of this stuff. And as an article on stereotypes and representations of Native Americans would be a nice link for the identity article, please let me know if one exists already, so if I can link to it instead of trying to create an article on something I'm not to knowledgeable about. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did write the correction of the spanish term "Amerindio", cause any term related to the word "Indian" and to the people born in the american continent, must be used just for the sons of Indians born in America. Just like we say Afroamericans.

The terms "American Indians" or "AmerIndians" is a Christopher Columbus historical mistake and must be stoped. From now, every person born in the american continent must be called just "American" if this term is related by continent. Lopez

NativeWiki

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article NativeWiki, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

--DieWeisseRose 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article NativeWiki stub is even worth mentioning here at Wikipedia. However, it might be a good idea for us here at the WP:IPNA have the NativeWiki site link be made available as an External link. But, where on our project pages would such an external link be appropriate? If we have such an external link, would we want to also add the site link to that German Wiki page devoted to all things Indian? And the CadanaWiki? I think there is a Wiki out there in Spanish similar to that German Wiki... would we also want a link to that be placed at such External link section as well? CJLippert 22:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We certainly should refer to it on the project page: since it's GFDL I believe Wikipedia is free to copy&paste text directly. (With the language sites translation is necessary, and Wikimedia projects are already well interlinked.) Vagary 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, NativeWiki is listed in the "List of wikis". --DieWeisseRose 20:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Treaties signed between US and Tribal individuals v. Treaties signed between US and Tribal governmental representatives

Please see the discussion starting up at Talk:List of United States treaties#Treaties with Native American entities. CJLippert 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for help with Brocket 99

Hello. I've been helping out a user who is protecting Brocket 99 from repeated vandalism and spamming by a couple of users. The article was listed as belonging to this project by User:The Halo who has now left Wikipedia. If any project members could help police and improve the article, it would be appreciated. If it is not patrolled, offensive stereotypes about the Peighan First Nations will be continued. Canuckle 13:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You can list any repeating-vandals at WP:AIV to curb that, and request for page protection, as well. Good luck, oncamera^(t) 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting help needed for the TOC at List of Indian reservations in the United States

I just went through and tied the listings found on List of Indian reservations in the United States to the list the U.S. Census Bureau has. In the process, many links that were there got broken. In the coming days, I will be placing re-directs to re-link the ones that were there that got broken. Meanwhile, in addition to the Federally established Indian Reservations -- which includes Rancherias, Colonies, Communities, Pueblos and Trusts -- I have added in everything the Census Bureau has, including OTSAs, SDTSAs, etc. The compact TOC works great for the "Reservation" section, as it is indexed, but I can't figure out how to put an upper-level TOC in place so that folks accessing the page could easily go to other sections other than the "Reservation" section. If you know how to format TOCs, please help. Thanks. CJLippert 15:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Figured it out! I suppose Alaskan Villages and Corporation Areas could be added in as well. Also, the Chapters, Reservations and Off-Reservation areas of the Navajo Nation is being added in. Now, here is a question. I have noticed there are some State and Tribally designated areas and reservations that were on the list before the update but the Census didn't list. How should we add them to the list? CJLippert 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Map needed

Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas has a nice map of North America and the cultural regions. What it needs is a map of Central and South America. Do we have one around or could someone create one? Rmhermen 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No article on art

I don't know if this has been said before, but there is a glaring lack of an article on Native American art. Even a stub that linked to the various articles in Category:Native American art would clear various redlinks in global overview articles. Johnbod 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre

I have requested a peer review for the MMM article. I am placing this here in hopes editors can take a look at the article's treatment of Paiute participation in the event. Sources I have used (yes, many of them are Mormon apologists) vary wildly in the number of native participants in the massacre. I am going through the testimonies of admitted Mormon participants to narrow down more exact numbers. Many of the larger claims come from third or fourth hand retellings based on rumors put forth by people involved in covering up white participation. (My opinion, although I am trying to remain as neutral as possible.) Any feedback is appreciated. You can comment to me directly if you prefer. --Robbie Giles 13:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What about books?

Two books immediately come to mind: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, and an article I just started about a second book: Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World. Is there a list of books that deal with topics like this? Or is this just general history? I put the NorthAmNative tag on the new article's discussion page, but I also wonder if there is any project for the South American Indians. Does anyone know? Hires an editor 02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any South American Native Wikiproject. None listed at Wikiproject:Ethnic Groups. I can't think of any literature lists about Indians (excepting the strange List of bibliographical materials on the potlatch which I am surprised hasn't been deleted.) Rmhermen 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reservation(s) of the Moapa Paiutes?

Do any one know what the deal is here? The US Census Bureau lists only one reservation for the Moapa Paiutes, but we have two in Wikipedia: Moapa River Indian Reservation and the Moapa Indian Reservation. Looking at literature, it seems the two are used interchangably. Opinions please. (I came across this/these in the process of re-establishing links on the Rez list.) CJLippert 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this map shows the Moapa River Indian Reservation and this list of tribes has "Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada", but no "Moapa Indian Reservation" (this was the same for three other lists I checked. Hope that helps. Murderbike 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I have consolidated the two and added a bit more on the Moapa River Indian Reservation article as well as tagging it as stub. CJLippert 14:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Comment re: Battle of Washita River

Requests for Comments have been filed regarding two users who have been seriously disrupting the Battle of Washita River (now blocked from editting), and it's talk page. If folks could weigh in, that would be great. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori. Murderbike 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. This article is about Custer's November 27, 2007 attack on the Washita River camp of Cheyenne chief Black Kettle -- a major event in the Indian Wars that played a major role in pushing Southern Plains tribes, esp. Southern Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apache, onto reservations. The article has been under full protection since 1 July 2007 -- over a month now -- in a heavily POV & mainly anti-Indian form, and we are having a great deal of difficulty in getting any movement to make it possible to improve the article. We could really really use some help in the way of comments, statements, etc. from people outside the dispute. Please help! Thanks. --Yksin 02:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Mandan article

Mandan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yavapai people

Would someone care to assess the quality of this article? I don't really know how to do that, and would feel weird anyway, having written it. Murderbike 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Rita Coolidge

I'm having trouble with an anon editor who keeps adding unsourced info into the Rita Coolidge article that her Cherokee heritage is disputed. I'm not sure what to do, but maybe if someone else talks to him/her it would help. I've warned the editor that these kinds of edits need to be backed up with reliable sources. The only sources I've been able to find are speculation on blogs and bulletin boards. I'm not in a position to say whether or not she's Cherokee, and I realize many people claim Native heritage and can't back up those claims, but maybe someone can find a way to word this information about her heritage without resorting to personal opinion. If anyone wants to take a look, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Katr67 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A controversial claim like that ABSOLUTELY has to be backed up by a reliable source. Have you posted this at WikiProject Biography? Murderbike 22:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Murderbike has a good point: since Rita Coolidge is alive, her article falls under Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons guidelines, and any unsourced claims must be removed immediately. --Miskwito 22:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed someone re-inserted the claim into this article, as well as a similar one into Douglas Blue Feather. But I have no idea what to think about this. To me (anglo-american) it seems kind of ridiculous to have to prove your heritage against someone's statement that you're not a "member" of their culture. But I don't really have any first-hand experience with being on the other side of this. Thoughts from anyone? Murderbike 04:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now Douglas Blue Feather has been removed from Native American flute, but I don't know how to justify reinserting him. How do you cite someones heritage? Murderbike 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the changes to the biographies. Unless the editor can provide a citation to the Cherokee tribe's statement that these folks aren't enrolled members, we can only go with what the musicians have said about themselves. This is more about Wikipedia policy than about the controversy about people claiming to be Native American, which is a sensitive issue and not one I'm qualified to comment on. As far as Native American flute, well Nakai is far more notable than Blue Feather, but Nakai was already mentioned above, so I reverted that article too. I can justify reinserting him there because the article is about the Native American flute, not about Native American flute players who are Native American. Katr67 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Earth lodge

Because of the problems with (and brevity of) the earth house article, I've created an earth lodge article. I'm no architecture expert, and there is a lot I don't know about the distribution and use of earth lodges among Indigenous people. Anyone want to check it out? TriNotch 01:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Plenty Coups

Plenty Coups has the potential to be an interesting entry (if the bulk of the information is correct of course), however I would hesitate to call it neutral in tone and there are virtually no sources/citations throughout the text. Only one source is listed (I suspect material may well have come from the further reading list) and 3 cites - numbered 1,2 and 3 but references only lists 1. Where do 2 and 3 come from? I know very little about this subject but this appears to be an important man in the history of the Crow Nation and seems to be ill-served by current lack of verification. I ask that someone with the right knowledge check/help this article out.Naughtyhippo 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

State recognized tribes and Unrecognized tribes lists updated

Please check-over the lists carefully. There are some tribes where I couldn't find citation, so if you know of a citation, please add the citation in. If you know of any other State recognized tribes or Unrecognized tribes, please add to the appropriate list AND CITE. Thanks. CJLippert 01:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a slight problem over Cherokees of Southeast Alabama. At the NEAR Small Business Development Center's website, the Cherokees of SEAL is listed as "unrecognized" and not even listed at the Alabama Indian Affairs Commission's website, but National Council of State Legislatures lists the Cherokees of SEAL as "State-recognized." All three are pretty authorative, so in this case, do we go with Alabama Indian Affairs Commission and list the Cherokees of SEAL as "unrecognized"? CJLippert 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, nevermind. I'm going with the Alabama Indian Affiars Commission's list on who they recognize. CJLippert 14:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

An RfC has been posted at Talk:Legal status of Hawaii regarding WP:WEIGHT issues. If folks could take a look and throw in their two cents, it'd be great. Murderbike 05:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Louis Riel

Louis Riel has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Potential Collaboration: Indian Slavery

I've nominated the very short article on Indian Slavery for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. The article covers two continents and some 420 years of history, but lacks basic organization and a lot of relevant information. It deserves to be brought up to the caliber of other articles on Slavery, Slavery in the United States, and so on. You can vote for it at the improvement drive page. --Carwil 14:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Potlatch

I'm putting a call out to wikiepedia contributors to convene on this article. Although the WikiProjects Indigenous peoples of North America is lacking in indigenous contributors from the Pacific Northwest Coast, (Actually, 'wikipedia' in general is lacking in indigenous contributors from the Pacific Northwest Coast.) I figured you fine writers and wikipedians could help out a brother trying to do justice to a very important subject for indigenous people. It could use a lot of work, but we have to start somewhere. I've started a discussion here on improving the article. Suggestions and advice would be greatly appreciated, or even full blown collaboration. Thanks! OldManRivers 07:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just the Pacific Northwest Coast needing attention. I have no access to information (other than what is on the web) for the Pacific Northwest Coast. Skookum1 have been working on this project, focusing in the region of the Pacific Northwest Coast and adjacent regions, covering southern Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Start by prodding Skookum1 and see where that prodding leads you. CJLippert 22:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Kelsey A. Begaye (via WP:PROD on 30 September 2007) Kept
• Milton Bluehouse Sr. (via WP:PROD on 1 October 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kelsey A. Begaye is now a stub article and not just a bio infobox CJLippert 22:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Milton Bluehouse Sr. is now a stub article and not just a bio infobox. CJLippert 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job CJL! Murderbike 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks should also go to Canuckle for the Kelsey A. Begaye article. CJLippert 11:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Working on Indian Reservation articles

I don't know anything about these reservations, but I can make maps and fill out infoboxes from what is already written in the articles. Most of, if not all, of the articles on reservations need to be expanded. If you can add any information, please do. Tea and crumpets 15:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this as an idea. Create a Reservation article does not yet exist, create a stub article that says "The XXX Indian Reservation of the YYY Tribe is located in ZZZ State(s)" and provide a map, categories, stub-template, etc. Sometime, that is all that is needed to encourage people to create/develop an article... to give people a stub and let the public expand upon it. Some of the few existing Reservation articles do have have maps, many do not. But at least this way we will have even a stub article for each and every Reservation. If you're going to make maps using an ESRI GIS mapping product, keep in mind that though the shapefile is not accurate, the na99_d00 available through the US Census Bureau is pretty good and will give the public the general idea of the location and relative size of the reservation, community, colony, pueblo, and other Tribal homelands/landbases, which at 100k scale, its problems don't really matter at all, but will be tragic at finer resolution scale. If you want to be industrious and also make maps for the Canadian Indian Reserves, the CLAB-YYYY-MM-DD.shp (with YYYY-MM-DD being the most recent version's date) is very good, but it also contains other Canada Lands Administrative Boundary (CLAB) Data besides the Indian Reserves. Unlike the US Census Bureau, Natural Resources Canada do update their files on a regular basis in order to maintain higher degree of transparency... when it comes to mapping, that is. CJLippert 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm slowly working on the lower 48. Could someone work on Alaska and on Hawaii? Also, would someone else start on the the OTSAs, and yet a different someone else on the rest (TDSA, SDAIR and SDAISA)? After Indian Country in the US have at least a stub article, next on the task are all the Indian Reserves and communities in Canada. Also, do we have any information to even begin a similar list for Mexico on southward for the rest of Central America? BTW, Do WP:IPNA have a sister project covering just the Indigenous peoples of South America? Also, we need to do a major cleanup of the List of Aboriginal communities in Canada because the listing is by Reserves or by First Nation (and they're all jumbled up without consistency from province to province) and not by Community — although for many folks the First Nation, the First Nation's community and the First Nation's reserve are often used interchangably. CJLippert 21:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We have the following request posted at the Talk:List of Indian reservations in the United States:

Request for Sortable List—This list would be more useful if it were sortable by at least reservation and state and if possible by tribe. Americasroof 02:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that some reservations have reservations within their reservations and some tribes have a separate reservation within another tribe's reservation, and other reservations that are shared by several tribes, how should we go about reformatting this rather lengthy list so that it could be sortable?. Any suggestions on how we could acheive this such that any updates in the future can be done with relative ease? CJLippert 15:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

US/Can flags on Okanagan people?

Rearing my head from my erstwhile wikibreak (broken a few times already) to alert this group's attention to an issue I just posted at Inclusion of flags an issue on the talkpage at Okanagan people. I don't have time to check about this but hoping that Phaedriel, OldManRivers and others take note and address it, perhaps come up with a guideline if there isn't one already.Skookum1 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW afterthought on that, as Okanagan Nation is a redlink, it made me wonder about a disambiguation page for the distinction between Okanagan people and Okanagan Nation Alliance, which is the governing body (traditional and "now-legal" AFAIK. But are two uses enough to warrant a disambiguation page, or should there be a phrase in each article simply stating "the term 'Okanagan Nation' may refer to the people in an ethnographic sense, or alternately to its government in a political and organizational sense". Just pondering this as a standard/regular concept across the board within the project. Not that I have time to work on it ;-) Skookum1 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, there are several places called Okanogan, like the county, that could warrant a DAB. Murderbike 14:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge stub tags?

Currently we have two similar stub tags: {{NorthAm-native-stub}} used in our project here and {{FirstNations-stub}}. Do we want to merge the second stub tag into the first or do we want to something else with them? Do anyone else know of other similar stub tags that should be included in this discussion? CJLippert 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. See the stub guidelines on the undesirability of excesssively large stub types. If anything, we need to be looking at additional sub-types of the former. Alai 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Probably, yes. It doesn't make sense to divide up indigenous groups by country, particularly when so many cross national boundaries. First Nations is a country specific term, but it doesn't refer to anything country specific. Alai is right though, we should be looking at additional sub-types of Template:NorthAm-native-stub, but I don't think national lines is the way to go. A NorthAm-native-bio-stub would be an obvious first choice, I think. - TheMightyQuill 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that there are permanent categories with national scope in this area, so it's not exactly a huge additional level of artifice to use the same organisation for stubs. Topics that cross present-day boundaries can be left in the parent. But if people want to do-over, I have no profound objections, just so long as the replacement have sensible scopes, and are at least vaguely in line with the size guidelines. I suggest mentioning any re-org at WP:WSS/P, either after or in parellel with this discussion. Alai 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe a "tribe" sub along with the bio? Murderbike 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• I'm sort of in the same line of thinking as TheMightyQuill and Murderbike. Dividing the peoples up along current international boundaries pose quite a bit of problem when talking about an ethnic group. The current international and sub-national boundaries are perfectly fine for individual communities or confederation of those communities, but not at higher groupings. However, there ought to be a distinction made between ethnicity, geography, government, biography and culture/art. The way I have been going about this was to to add the IPNA stub tag along with another stub tag or two (usually with biography, art or geography). However, I haven't done that with governments because I haven't found one that seems to work well in combination. CJLippert 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's clear that it's not a completely clean split, but the acid test is more whether it's a useful one. Splitting by present-day country is a pretty standard tactic, partly due to being relatively crisply defined, and partly because it's often of value to editors who're more knowledgeable about 'local' instances of a topic than the more general case. If there are different axes of split that have more utility in terms of differential editing, that's great... Alai 18:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's totally valid, but how do we measure utility? Historically, it's been very easy and therefor useful (for categorization) to group people by language group, but in terms of understanding differences and connections, it may have been counter productive. I'm worried the same kind of utility is being used when dividing up cultures by country. Is anyone specifically determined to divide nationally? Is anyone specifically opposed to the creation of a NorthAm-native-bio-stub? - TheMightyQuill 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As I say, "utility" in this context is essentially how much more likely articles are to get expanded after a given split, than before. Not that that's easy to measure, but it's worth bearing in mind. That's what people stub-tag for, and it's what stub-sorting (and re-sorting, and re-re-sorting...) is intended to enhance. If Canadian (or US) editors edit the "Canadian" (or "US") articles more, than that's useful, to precisely that degree. It's not fundamentally a "content" question (unless the stub tag themselves are going to cause offence, or edit wars), but a "means to an end" one. If you don't think "categorization" by modern state is appropriate, then you should surely be much more concerned with the permcats (Category:First Nations, Category:Native American, etc), which are intended as organisation of finished, encyclopaedic content.

Before declaring a local consensus not to have nation-based articles then you should at least have a plan to replace them something that's in at least some sense better, fits with the stub guidelines (on size and otherwise) and, as I mentioned before, bring it up at the stub-sorting pages. On the -bio- type, I have the particular concerns that it'd have little "differential" value (does anyone here specialiize in biographies?), and that it'd be very easily misapplied as an "ethnicity" tag, as against a "notability in relation to" one. (The existing tags could also be used in that manner too, but I think it's less likely.) Alai 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're right, and I am concerned about the "permcats" and discussions have already taken place here on that issue, with the suggestion of possibly dividing groups based on physical geography. That issue hasn't been solved yet, part of the reason I don't want to further entrench the current situation with stub tags. I didn't mean to declare consensus not to have nation-based articles, only to point out the obvious, that there isn't a consensus to go ahead with it. I then asked for any good reason not to go ahead with biography stubs. You have just given a totally legitimate reason not to move ahead with a biographies tag, though I don't totally understand your second point. So at this point, we've come up with few ideas that don't work. Any other suggestions from anyone? - TheMightyQuill 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have overdone the "defensive" there, sorry; I just had the impression you might have been "moving to sum up". Just to clarify my position in relation to your original question: I'm neither unutterably opposed to a -bio- cat, nor insistent on Canada/US subcats, but it would be fair to say I was at present still skeptical on the merits of the case for change in that direction. If the permcats are 'realigned' it would certainly be a further argument against this as an axis-of-split for the stubcats I'll grant, and as that's at present under discussion, it does at least argue against any further implementation of that split. On the "ethnicity" point, what I'm saying is that the current stub tags are applied at present (quite properly) to biographical articles of people whose notability is in scope of the IPNA tag; a possible hazard of an IPNA -bio-stub tag would be that it's applied to people whose notability is not, but who're of indiginous ethnicity. For my money, that's potentially the thin end of a very thick wedge (not that WP isn't replete with ethnic categorisation, but so far not in the stub types domain to any real degree.) Alai 02:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's another concern I hadn't thought of. How is that distinction made now? I mean, are there people of indigenous ethnicity who are considered out of the IPNA scope? Where is the line drawn? - TheMightyQuill 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of the WP:IPNA, but specifically at WP:IPNA/Nish, we have chosen to examine bios of non-indigenous folks who worked closely, were married to, or were in some fashion greatly influenced indigenous peoples. However, though they're in the WP:IPNA/Nish scope and in the talk pages bear the project box, as for the main article we have not added the IPNA stub tag, just a stub tag that was the most appropriate. Also, we have the cases of those individuals who were not ethically indigenous, but culturally were (either through adoption or through personal choice). How do we handle these cases? -- Adopted, "yes"; Choice alone, "no"? -- not ethnically indigenous so both cases "no"? CJLippert 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to tell this WPJ what its scope ought to be, but bear in mind this is the scope of the stub types we're discussing. As these are transcluded into the articles in question, if the stub type were to be scoped in that manner, it'd be the equivalent of slapping a large banner across same "flagging" their ethnicity. Given the mania Wikipedia seems to have for that particular topic, I foresee that rapidly degenerating into an orgy of tags to prominently declare that such-and-such a person is 1/4 Hispanic and 5/32 Irish-American, bearing no relationship to the actual content of the article. Alai 21:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Columbia River nominated as Good Article; input, anyone?

Hello folks! I recently nominated Columbia River as a Good Article. Although I see it isn't tagged part of this WikiProject, it has so many time with natives of the Pacific Northwest, that I'm sure some of you have knowledge or perspectives, that might not be adequately represented there. (The article is currently on a seven-day hold; although the reviewer did not specifically mention N.A. issues, I personally would love to see some fresh input from that perspective.) I know Skookum has worked on that article in the past, but not sure if anybody here has looked at it recently. Anyway, any input is heartily welcomed! -Pete 01:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

Some extra hands would be useful at this troubled article. Rmhermen 21:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Table Rock Reservation

I recently started an article on Table Rock Reservation. I made it to reduce redlinks in Cave Junction, Oregon, so it's kind of out of my field of knowledge. Anyways, you may want to check it out and improve it or just make suggestions on the talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have swapped the contents between Table Rock Reservation and Table Rock Indian Reservation, and added the IR onto a list I have started called List of Historical Indian reservations in the United States. CJLippert (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Needing help with Teiaiagon article

We have an edit war of sorts happening at the Teiaiagon article. We have users who are making uncited claims throughout the article and then other users then reverting all of them. This back and forth "tug of war" has been going on since 16 November 2007. We now have a request posted on the article's talk page:

I've again reverted a large amount of material that consists of what appears to me to be very dubious and highly personal interpretations of the history of various native groups in the areas surrounding Lakes Erie and Ontario. A lot of this material seems to me to be so far out of mainstream thought on the subjects involved that I feel that unless proper citations from reliable sources are provided to support what's being contended that it has no place in Wikipedia. Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that absolutely everything, on a point by point basis, that was posted was totally *wrong*, the problem with the material, in my opinion is that the editor involved is mixing his own idiosyncratic "theories" in with potentially interesting historical materials to such an extent, that it would be difficult for an average reader to differentiate between the wheat and the chaff. Without proper citations, it is my opinion that the material in its original form is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I would appreciate input on these matters from knowledgeable people involved in the several native history projects here on Wiki. Thanks. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So, could we get some assistance in finding appropriate in-line citations and other references for this article in order to reduce this edit war of sorts? Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would also like to invite any editors who have knowledge and interest in historic and pre-historic Iroquoian cultures to take a look at the recent edit history of Erie (tribe), as well as the current version of Neutral Nation. Thank You Deconstructhis (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Important! Columbia naming

This page on Columbia (name)[1] includes this text:
A feminine form derived from Christopher Columbus, who is generally considered to have discovered the New World upon first visiting the Americas in 1492, the moniker dates from before the American Revolution in 1776 but fell out of use in the early 20th Century.
Is there any precedent for just changing this so that it says something like "Christopher Columbus, who is generally considered to have discovered the New World for Europeans upon..."? My opinion is that statements like these are ignorant to everyone who had already lived in America, therefore already having discovered it. I know this may not be directly related to this wikiproject, but I feel like letting it read like that any longer is an injustice. If anyone can help, I would greatly appreciate it.--DerRichter (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like its been solved now. Thanks--DerRichter (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Vine Deloria, Jr.

I would like to point out the pejorative nature of the article on Wiki page. First on the table of contents is Criticism. When I try to add a bit about how he is by many a respected elder in the native community, it is unceremoniously erased. Making my point but lets get beyond that. Let's start out what is good about Deloria before we bash him. You dont like it, change it or discuss it, dont just erase it.
Role as Native Leader
Viewed by many as one to emulate, Deloria "offered an intellectual doorway through which young native people could pass and find their own way and be taken seriously."
Unsigned comments by 4.243.28.115 on 03:20, 5 December 2007
Moved comment from top of page to here CJLippert (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the summary gives why the "Role as Native Leader" section keeps on being reversed. It seems reasonable. However, I do agree this section should exist but not this sentence the way it is... especially by itself.

Comments also copied at the article's talk pageCJLippert (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of Navajo rug

Greetings from WikiProject Textile Arts! I've been growing this article from stub form over the last two days and nominated it for Template:Did you know. Since the subject really covers both of our projects, let's work together. I'm taking the liberty of adding your project template to the article talk page.

So far it's gone from a three paragraph stub to respectable B-class size with 28 line citations. With a couple more editors chipping in this could become a successful GA drive. It could use a color photograph of a Navajo textile and some help covering the gaps in my sources, particularly on the period 1940-present. Best wishes and happy holidays, Durova^Charge! 11:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)