Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Seven Nations of Canada

User:Peterseji I will be making some changes to the "Seven Nations of Canada" stub and would appreciate some feedback.User_talk:Peterseji —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

And whereabouts would this be? Seven Nations of Canada stub?Skookum1 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk question

Someone has asked a question on the Humanities Reference Desk about Indian names, to wit, why are they routinely translated into English, like "Crazy Horse", while many other non-English names could be but are not? I hope someone from this project will know the answer and either respond to me on my talk page or answer directly at the link above. Thanks. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ojibwe language and dialect articles

I have put this note on this Talk Page - if it can go in a better place, please let me know.

I have recently undertaken some work on the Ottawa language article, which has resulted in a Good Article categorization. This endeavour entailed spending a lot of time consulting the other articles on Ojibwe.

There are a LOT of articles relating to Ojibwe language and dialects. I think that the organization of these articles warrants some changes. There are three 'main' Ojibwe language pages:

Ojibwa-Ottawa language (oji)
Ojibwa language (oji)
Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa language no Ethnologue code

A few observations, based on the published literature on Ojibwe and its dialects:

There is a single Ojibwe language with multiple dialects.
There is not support for 'Ojibwa-Ottawa' as one language and 'Ojibwa' as another.
The contents of the first two pages above overlap significantly AND they have the same Ethnologue code.
There is no "Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa" group that I'm aware of. There is no Ethnologue code for this would-be amalgam. The content of this article overlaps significantly with parts of the previous two.
While there is clearly a close relation of some sort between Ojibwe and Potawatomi, the linguistic spadework to determine whether the relationship between the two results from descent from an intermediate genetic subgroup ("Common Ojibwe-Potawatomi" if you like), OR from linguistic diffusion (of a type known to be common among the Central Algonquian languages) has yet to be undertaken. Hence an article on such a grouping is not warranted by Wikipedia's criteria (Reliable sources, verifiable, no original research).
There is a separate article Potawatomi language, which is distinct from the Ojibwe articles.
There is also an article Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa language dialects, which presents an overview of Ojibwe dialects.
There is also a series of separate pages on individual dialects, most of which are greatly neglected.

Sooooo, what appears to be justified is the following:

A single page entitled "Ojibwe language" This page would be a general overview of the Ojibwe language, combining the material in Ojibwa-Ottawa language (oji) and Ojibwa language (oji), much of which overlaps in any event.
Another page entitled "Ojibwe dialects" based on a revised and improved Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa language dialects.
The page Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa language (which overlaps with the others anyways) would be incorporated into the new and improved "Ojibwe language", as a trimmed and condensed section concentrating on what sources meeting the criteria in Wikipedia:Reliable Sources tell us about any possible relationship.

The articles above have I am sure grown up incrementally over the years. There is relatively little activity on them. This could be the time to undertake some work on improving this corner of Wikipedia. I am willing to take a whack at this, but if there is no agreement as to it being a good idea then I am fine with that as well.

Here is a list of all the Ojibwe language articles that I am aware of.

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Please post any responses here and I will Watch this page.

Thanks. John. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Native American art

For a long time this has been a rather jarring omission... I've slapped something together; User talk:Uyvsdi and User talk:Madman2001 have already agreed to contribute to it.. Is anyone here interested? I will be contacting other relevant wikiprojects as well. Thanks, Lithoderm 04:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone care to work on the Ceramics and Jewelry sections for Native American art#Modern and contemporary. I started rough drafts but haven't gotten very far on these two media. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving Maliseet to Wolastoqiyik

Following quite a bit of discussion on the Wolastoqiyik talk page I have proposed this move as a way forward as at the moment the Wolastoqiyik just repeats some of the information in the Maliseet article. Disucssion of the move is here. Dpmuk (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812 Work Group

May God Bless You Always!

I am looking to form a work group to focused on the War of 1812. A lot of the articles dealing with the War of 1812 are lack citations and references, some need some serious editing, and many need to be expanded. I would like for the articles dealing with the War of 1812 to be "A"-Level or better. The War of 1812 is one of the most neglected American wars, but this need not be the case here. I have been working HLGallon on the Battle of Chippawa, but much work is left to do. I was told to place this work group under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force, but the Native Americans have a big stake in these articles as well. Anyone interested in helping? (Steve (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

I am. I wrote an article already. My book is called, "Flames Across the Border: 1813-1814". InternetHero (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Zuni fetishes

I would like a review of this article, perhaps a grade. Amerindianarts (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:16, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Move Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition → Klappan coalbed methane proposal

Please see Talk:Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition and pleaes note Klappan Coalbed Methane Project exists as a redirect to one of the named articles.Skookum1 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chief Chicagou? Chicago named after him?

Was this chief named after Chicago or Chicago named after him?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chief Chicagou, also known as Agapit Chicagou, was an 18th century Native American leader of the Mitchigamea. He visited Paris and participated in the Chickasaw Wars. 76.247.164.91 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the city was not named after the chief. See this. CJLippert (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiawatha

A question on the historicity of Hiawatha - and the poor state of our article - is occurring at the Reference Desk. Is anyone here able to assist? Rmhermen (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why the term "historicity" is being applied to this figure, he's definitely pre-contact and thus non-"historical". A brief mention of that fact near the beginning of the article should suffice, shouldn't it? Bearing in mind that this is a religious figure we're talking about I'm wondering if the same status, in the form of "mythological" qualifiers, are going to be added to the beginning of other articles of much better known religious figures like Jesus as well? Let me know if you actually decide to do that, I'd kind of like to monitor the initial reaction when something like "semi-mythological" gets added to the first paragraph of that one. :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The point of the reference desk question is that the article does not make clear if Hiawatha was a real person. The article's talk page is equally confused. (In fact, two writers note that the article isn't clear on whether Hiawatha is male or female!) Clearly the article needs improvement. Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Article needing attention: Squanto

The Squanto article could really use a once-over from an expert. It has only one section, is poorly referenced, reads rather like a school report. Additionally, the article doesn't even refer to him as "Squanto" as it uses "Tisquantum " throughout. Any expansion would be greatly appreciated, any takers? --64.85.221.31 (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

God, that is pretty terrible. I'll see if I can work on it a bit in the future--I have Philbrick's book "The Mayflower", which has a lot on Squanto. --Miskwito (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Any editors willing to cull the List of Native American artists?

This list is a mess. I've been trying to fill in some glaring gaps by writing articles about notable contemporary artists (e.g. James Luna, Marcus Amerman, Terrol Dew Johnson) and historical artists (currently working by way through the Kiowa Five with Spencer Asah and Jack Hokeah). Unfortunately most of the artists on this list do not have Wikipedia articles, and I question if many of them ever will, since their notability is debatable. Does anyone else want to take a look at this and be brave enough to cull some of the more obscure artists? (If they are that important, some one will write an article about them and add them back). Thanks for any help or input! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Looking at the list, I see that Category:Native American artists and Category:First Nations artists are separate categories, but the artists listed in the article in question jumbles them together. If the categories could be better refined, maybe we could get rid of the list article. CJLippert (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The categories don't duplicate the list because categories don't reveal information about tribe, media, or time period. Dividing a line between "Native American" and "First Nation" is a little problematic because "Native American" is an inclusive term (in real life, if not Wikipedia), many tribes (cultural, not political) span both sides of the Canadian-US border, and artists descended from Canadian tribes can be born, live, and/or exhibit in the US. But removing all the Canadian artists would one way to shrink the list... -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I strongly disagree with your comment " "Native American" is an inclusive term (in real life, if not Wikipedia), many tribes (cultural, not political) span both sides of the Canadian-US border" as it's only in American real life that it's an inclusive term, it's NOT inclusive in Canada or to FN people still living there. The solution is to use "indigenous people" somehow in the title, though "North American indigenous peoples' artists" is a bit unwieldy. Either the Canadian artists are put in the category where they belong and the Native American ones categorized separately; and those on both sides of the border get both cats; or a compromise cat-title like the one suggested below re mythology be come up with. It's time Americans stopped assuming that "Native American" is inclusive; in fact, it's often taken as offensive or, at best, jejune.....yes, it's commonly used, like Kwakiutl is for Kwakwaka'wakw, but that doesn't make it rightSkookum1 (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

and re "obscure" vs "obscure but notable", remember that notability, not obscurity relative to the "main art world" is what counts; there are prominent Haida and Tsimshian artists who are also prominent politicians etc. (e.g. Guujaaw) and also others who are locally prominent and certainly notable among their own people (and citable as such according to Wikiepdia notability rules). So don't use a continent-wide measure of "obscuriity"....Skookum1 (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to include First Nations artists with Indigenous artists of the United States together - as well as indigenous artists from Mexico/Central America/South American/Carribbean, since they exhibit together and influence each other heavily --> if you can suggest a good term, please feel free to rename the article. Otherwise, if it stays "List of Native American artists" and only includes US artists, that's a possibility too. I just wanted some fresh eyes to examine the list and make suggestions/edits on the actual artists. I definitely don't judge Native artists by mainstream art world standards (by those, only Rebecca Belmore, Edgar Heap of Birds, James Luna, and a handful of others would even register) nor do I use a continent-wide measure of "obscurity". Trust me, I know that artists might not be known outside their village but have made major artistic contributions (creating new styles, reviving older artistic traditions, etc.) Some artists are simply not particularly accomplished; not very well known, even by their own tribe or locality; haven't made major contributions to their medium; are just beginning their career; etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

As the scope of WP:IPNA says: "This project aims to encompass all historical, ethnical, and cultural aspects of the many groups collectively described as Indigenous peoples of North America, including First Nations in Canada, Native Americans in the United States, and indigenous peoples of Mexico (parts of Mexico within the Mesoamerican culture area(s) are often excluded from North America)." if the article was re-named as something like "List of indigenous artists of North America" and then we do a major cat-sorting to better define by media and by ethnic groups rather than by country (as there are several groups that straddle Canada and US or US and Mexico), I would support such move. Would anybody like to suggest other article titles and a hierarchy for categories? Also, are there similar articles called "List of indigenous artists of Meso-america" or "List of indigenous artists of South America"? If not, we might want to contact our sister-projects to see if we can do a coordinated revamp across Wikipedia. CJLippert (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's only lists of artists by country (Ecuador, Canada, and so on)... and a List of Latin American artists, which does not distinguish who's Native or not. There's a List of Inuit that includes many artists. It's interesting since countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, etc. are a majority Native/Mestizo. But I'd be happy to start a new list, List of indigenous artists of the Americas, which would presumably include Métis/Mestizo artists. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I worry that "List of indigenous artists of the Americas" would be too broad and there may be a call to split the list/article into a set of smaller units. CJLippert (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider List of waterfalls, List of mountain passes, List of mountain ranges, all of which are global in scope....my main concern with wording is that "indigenous artists" may be interpreted in a non-aboriginal sense, though that would simply mean regular culling, i.e. "indigenous art of the Americas" could include Georgia O'Keefe, for instance, in the same way that jazz is a form of music indigenous to North America. This is why I was trying to find a way to incorporate "indigenous peoples" into the title/concept so as to be totally clear; "aboriginal artists of North America" might be fine, though a departure from other possible titles using "indigenous" (as below re mythologies). "List of artists of the indigenous peoples of North America" might be unwieldy-sounding, but at least has some in-built precision; the use of "indigenous" by itself seems to invite mis-attribution.Skookum1 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

links archive.org searches I have done

here are archive.org links to searches I have done on there relating to north american tribesMatsuiny2004 (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Part 2 of archive.org search links

These search link are usually updated with more sources overtime as wellMatsuiny2004 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Native American mythology and others need re-naming BIG TIME

Please see Category_talk:Native_American_mythology#Rename. This and other Native American-named categories which include Canadian First Nations and other non-US groups need renaming BIG-TIME. I don't want to make a POV-fork Category:First Nations mythology because many peoples span the border and there shouldn't have to be two categories; what there should be are category names which reflect the proper terms and prevailing sensitivite4s.Skookum1 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

less professional links from matsuiny 2004 (mostly mythologies)

more to comeMatsuiny2004 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Arvol Looking Horse

native languages archived version

native links sources

native wiki

unarchived versions

Native American Indian: Art, Culture, Education, History, Science

Arvol looking horse

native languages.org

photo of einstein with the hopi tribe

einstein with the hopi tribe

list of ojibwe terms

list of ojibwe terms

Matsuiny2004 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

if you find good sources

if you find good sources for any articles relating to this topic I reccomend contributing to archive.org sicne in my case they seem hard to come by and at least it would seem adding them to archive.org would make them somewaht more sustainable unless there are already people archiving said material for example a museum, good luck

here is site link

archive.org

Matsuiny2004 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Celan-up at Sioux language

I just happened to visit the Sioux language and noticed considerable additions made. However, there are serious formatting problems. Would someone change all the in-text citations to in-line citations, convert the clumped information into series of tables (that's what I'm assuming the clumped text is supposed to be representing), and just give a general look-over for readability? Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added some more comments on how to go about fixing the article here. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated! --Miskwito (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Barabara

found a book that explains what a barabara is. This includes architecture from other native americn tribe as wellMatsuiny2004 (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bd2L9xc_D9AC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=barabara+aleut&source=bl&ots=2jrmyjOlSY&sig=5I_TjDL100gG0i7KMq0ESAvXwwQ&hl=en&ei=Ejj9SZ7OIsnktgejreCiDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#PPA206,M1

here is anotherMatsuiny2004 (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=33hayxkqNYgC&pg=RA1-PA35&dq=barabara+aleut

Unangandan(Aleut)

has information I have not seen in other places about the UnangandanMatsuiny2004 (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=QNqtYsH4EScC&pg=PA12&dq=barabara+aleut

Protest over mentioning of "Chicken Clan" at the doodem article

We have had multiple round-abouts with this issue over the past year and a half. The issue is in Oklahoma, the Eagle Clan was dubbed the Chicken Clan due to several reasons (from what I have been told) including the US not holding up to its treaty obligations that lead the communities there to disassociate the Eagle closely tied in with the US, and pejoratively calling those Eagle Clan members as Chicken Clan. Another version of the story I heard was that the Eagle is too respected so after the betrayal by the US, tribes disassociated the daily reality to the eagle in order to maintain reverence towards the eagle. However, this "Chicken Clan" situation appears to be something specific to Oklahoma and not anywhere else. I tried to look for textually-based documentation and found only one, and it is not substantial. Vast majority of Ojibwe-Odawa-Potawatomi peoples looking at the article are repeatedly mortified at what is written due to the Oklahoma experience and have edited the statement out. Repeatedly, the statement was restored. Over the past year and half, other Tribes in Oklahoma were slandered to their "ignorance" regarding the respect towards the eagle. The latest protest in the article language was provided in Odaawaamowin (edited: spelling errors fixed; words were forced to unsyncoped forms):

"Chicken Clan" gaa debwemigaadisiinoon. Mii sa maanda naabese-moowich, mii sa dash gii aanjitooyaanh maanda aabadeg sa igo. Aanii dash Chimookomaaniwag apane nendamowaad debwewaad?
Translation: There is no such thing called the "Chicken Clan." This is just cock-shit; you're just contorting this. Why this Yankeeness instead of the truth?

Any suggestions on how to proceed as the issue of the "Chicken Clan" statement as it is real in Oklahoma but not anywhere else? Are there more substantial citation(s) out there? Would someone be willing to edit the article to a more respectful tone? CJLippert (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not just leave it out? If Odawa people themselves find it offensive and insulting, then surely there are many other things to write about instead? Best of luck! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Isaac Seneca

The above article on Isaac Seneca is set to go on the main page tomorrow as a DYK hook. If any of the members of this project have resources that could enhance the article, further contributions would be appreciated. The proposed DYK hook is:

... that in 1899 Isaac Seneca became the first Native American to be named as an All-American football player while playing halfback for the Carlisle Indian School? Cbl62 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone lend a hand at Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory?

I'm posting here following a suggestion at WP:EAR that I do so. The gist is this (cribbed largely from the entry I just linked):

This article was nominated for deletion a couple of weeks ago. The lengthy and enlightening discussion can be found here. Over the vigorous protests of the nominator, it was determined that the article described a sufficiently notable subject, and should not be deleted. It was also generally acknowledged that the article contained a lot of puffery, undocumented claims, links to unreliable sources, etc., and could do with a cleanup. The nominator undertook this task, ultimately removing about 95% of the article’s content. See a before-and-after with this diff.

I claim no subject area expertise and have been keeping an eye on things simply to ensure that the article is not pushed too far in the other direction; so I’ve commented on original research, POV statements and the like where I see them crop up. See the Talk page beginning about here. Over time the main response to my comments, by the nominator / principal editor, has been largely to whittle the article down further still.

Although I know very little about this area, I now know enough to appreciate that emotions can run high on all sides of an article like this and for that reason I'm worried that some good information has been lost in the course of these edits. I originally went to WP:EAR with a concern about POV and other content issues but upon reflection my greater concern is that the article has been whittled and shaved to the point at which it is nothing more than a stub - a de facto deletion, almost. If I knew about more about the subject area, or had time to bone up on it, I might tackle the thing myself; but I don't, and so I'm coming here, to where people surely have the background knowledge to do a good job of assessment. I should add, in closing, that I really don't care much one way or the other how the article winds up looking; I'm here because the edits seem extreme to me, the editor is not altogether receptive to suggestions that perhaps too much is being cut, and I'm not in a position to evaluate matters.

I hope I'm not stirring up a hornet's nest. Thanks for any and all help. (*Wikipedia* thanks you for any and all help.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation: delete the NCNOLT article, but keep them listed in the List of unrecognized tribes in the United States article... unless they demonstrate notability, other than being one of the loudest opponents to the Cherokee Nation's and Eastern Cherokees' position. In addition, if there is an article addressing issues surrounding Cherokee heritage groups, as that topic is notable, there can instead be a section on NCNOLT within that article. CJLippert (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem right to have an article bullied out of existence by essentially one editor with a very large axe to grind. (It's not like any representative from the Eastern Band or Cherokee Nation is coming down against the article.) The longer article clearly states that the organization isn't a recognized tribe. A little more tweaking perhaps would have removed POV statements, but it looked as if a balance was being struck. Perhaps instead of hotly contested links to the past, the people contributing to the article could provide examples of why the group is notable based on current actions - i.e. do they organize charitable, educational, or cultural events? Who is the community they serve? -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Obviously the NCNOLT are not the most important group in Native America, and I understand the concerns felt by federally recognized tribes, but I think that there is a growing interest in the 200+ "Cherokee" groups and why they exist. I would like to get a page going that discusses "Cherokee" groups specifically because it is by far the most common name among recognition petitioners. Having only begun my research a few years ago I have found the NCNOLT to be the easiest to trace and so I started with a page on them. I don't want the federally recognized tribes to be offended, I actually think getting information out into the open is positive for all parties involved. However I'm not very strong with Wikipedia standards and there is someone erasing and editing valuable information (NCNOLT and gambling, why do the NCNOLT exist independent of CNO, Keetoowah and Eastern Cherokee, where do they claim to have come from, etc.) I know, again, that these are not the most pressing issues in Native America. However, the article was voted on and it was decided to keep the article. Since it's here I think that origins presented as "NCNOLT claim to have arrived in MO, AR, OK, etc, at this time due to this event" and their stance on gambling is .... are elements that any wikipedia article would feature. Judeo/Christianity without Adam and Eve and the 10 commandments or mention of oral traditions of any Indigenous group seems one dimensional and lacking obvious defining traits. I think that the notability of the subject has already been established, I just want more opinions on what can and what cannot be said in its regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.30.178 (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Coast Salish defensive sites - to delete or not?

This article has had tags on it for a while, and has also a WP:COI issue. WP:Undue also applies, as this particular group of rock walls are not unique in either coastal or Interior regions (see Kitwanga Fort National Historic Site; I haven't yet made Okanaqen, which was a rock fortress mentioned by Teit at hte confluence of the Similkameen and Okanagan rivers. If this article can be broadened and made less of a hype for one or two particular papers it could stay; as it is I think it's worth of deletion; a plug for this is also on Coast Salish. There are hundreds of academic papers which also could warrant similar one-topic articles, and a lot of them are much more notable (e.g. Brian Hayden's work re Keatley Creek north of Lillooet).Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can this be consolidated with some other article? CJLippert (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

American Indian Genocide

I was wondering why there is no wiki article on the genocide of the American Indian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.16.11 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation

The article for this tribe has been moved back to Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. A discussion about moving the article back to Cherokee Nation has been opened at Talk:Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Any informed individuals care to weigh in? Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Talk:Modoc#Looking For Modoc Scroll Of Indians

This isn't a Wikipedia-related question, but I said I would try to help out, if anyone has advice for this person. Katr67 (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline of the American Indian Wars

The Outline of Knowledge has proposed the creation of an outline pertaining to the American Indian Wars. I've added a few rudimentary links into the draft, but the outline really requires someone with an extensive knowledge of the topic. If anyone here is able and willing to do it, feel free to expand the draft and move it to article space when nearing completion. For more information outlines and their use see here, or feel free to contact myself. Cheers Minnecologies (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Any tips on getting someone to help give Inuit spellings for articles?

There are a goodly number of Inuit-culture articles (most articles in Category:Inuit cuisine) which don't show the title term's spelling in the Inuit syllabic alphabet, like so: ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ? Any idea where to find a Wikipedian who knows how to write in that alphabet, and knows which articles should be rendered in that alphabet and which (due to belonging to an Arctic culture which does not use that alphabet) should be left in Latin script? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)