Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

The template for “Anishinaabe Culture” divided into two templates: "Anishinaabe Culture" and "Anishinaabe Politics"

IMO, these are separate topics. For the former I edited the existing template including creating more groups. For the latter I just did a copy and paste onto a new template thus it needs much additional work. --Denise B-K (talk)

Inuktitut syllabics

Hello -- I'm working on contributing to the article Mitiarjuk Nappaaluk (an Inuk author), and I'm interested in adding Inuktitut syllabics for her name to the lead, but I don't have the language skills to do that myself. Can anyone offer advice or suggest a resource for this? Thank you, Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

A suggestion for an article clean up

Hey there folks, just wanted to call attention to the Treaty of Old Crossing page, which could do with a bit of a re-write. Seems much more in line with an original research paper then a wikipedia page. Although I think the subject itself is unquestionably notable I don't feel like it's getting the article it deserves and the one it has features quite a bit of OR and synthesis. Not that I disagree with the viewpoint really, but section headers such as "A legacy of incestuous connections and self-interest" aren't really how articles are organized. This seemed like an appropriate place to get some knowledgeable eyes, apologies if I was mistaken on that. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Several discussions at Everett, Washington, Seattle, and Stanwood, Washingon could use some eyes

Talk:Everett, Washington

Talk:Seattle

Talk:Stanwood, Washington

The discussions are about whether Indigenous history is relevant to the history of the cities. A user is claiming Indigenous people are irrelevant because all they did is migrate around with only few traces of their existence. PersusjCP (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@PersusjCP: The issue is about a translated word being added to the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEADLANG. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Great way of minimizing what you said PersusjCP (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I just came to this WikiProject to see about other folks' issues, and ironically saw this.

The same user has been attempting to remove the Navajo name for Aztec, NM; s/he keeps changing up different excuses and reverting every attempt to put it back in, even when I've included numerous sources. It's particularly offensive (and I'm not Navajo) since the communities around the reservation generally embrace the use of Navajo naming conventions, and their names are often used in conjunction with the English naming of the locations.

Also, if you want to add to the above list, a little research dealing with this led me to discover the person removed a huge swath of indigenous history for Grand Rapids, MI.

This seems to be less of a simple editing trend by this user and distinctively more... intentional. 4CornersGuy (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@4CornersGuy In the discussion at Seattle they made several remarks which clearly state their bias as well. They seem to think that a few Indigenous people wandered around the continent and have no real connection to anything. If it seems to be a more widespread issue than this one occurrence maybe something needs to be done. PersusjCP (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The Navajo Nation, by way of example, is a sovereign nation within the United States, approximately the size of West Virginia, with over 400,000 registered tribal members. Translation: this user does not appear to be operating with any 'facts' whatsoever. Does Wikipedia have a means to deal with this kind of <ahem> systematic 'cleansing' (as opposed to fighting removal issues one page at a time)? More pointedly, do the operators of Wikipedia care?

I found this from earlier this year, too (I've assumed someone on this WikiProject is the author): https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/wikipedia-native-american-history-settler-colonialism.html 4CornersGuy (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Primarily the way to deal with these things is through the article talk page. Whether your perception is that systematic cleansing is taking place or not we can not assume bad faith on the part of other editors. That does not mean they are right and that their removal of content is right. I'm having that discussion with them on Talk:Grand Rapids, Michigan right now. I believe they believe they are removing information not relevant to the specific articles and thus improving the article and while a birth year for a Native American chief may not be relevant to the article there was content that was removed that is relevant to Grand Rapids and its Native American history. Any improvement they might make is causing additional work for others to repair links to sources and provide additional context to repair the brokenness of the article. I think they should take equally as great care with deletions as should be done with additions to the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Given their widespread commitment to erasing specifically Indigenous history over long periods of time and over many Wikipedia articles, as well as their (at the very least) insensitive comments on Talk:Seattle, its hard for me to assume they are operating in good faith. PersusjCP (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

If their contributions were solely or mostly removal of Native American history I would be inclined to agree. But it doesn't reflect that. Some of their removals appear to be as the result of a fallacy in perspective and that leads to disruptive editing, damage to the encyclopedia and removal of valid content, in my opinion, but it alone does not denote bad faith editing. Even their comments, as insensitive as they are, do not automatically denote bad faith editing. I agree with addressing those areas we have issue with in a civil manner through discussion. Edit warring is not the answer. Writing long comments filled with accusations of deliberate bias will do nothing except maybe get users blocked for casting aspersions. No, we need to address the edits and give good and sound reasons. --ARoseWolf 20:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Bad faith implies deceit, dishonesty, or fraud, and I would agree that there is nothing to suggest any of these; it would actually be much easier to deal with if there was. But one can simultaneously have a fallacy of perspective AND then have intentional harmful objectives driven by the fallacy. It's even logical that A can readily lead to B. Perhaps you meant 'bad actor'?

I admit my use of 'cleansing' was a bit tongue-in-cheek considering the nature of the content we're discussing, but the pragmatic concern is the same... when there is no principled logic applied and a lackadaisical attitude that nothing was meaningful or relevant pre-European settlement, it's difficult to have an intelligent dialog. A quick pop into the Grand Rapids discussion suggests you are also getting the same straw man arguments combined with a slammed door.

Now multiply this kind of activity by potentially hundreds (thousands?) of pages, and it becomes an impossible effort. Some people seem to have countless hours at their disposal. There is little recourse for simple (and time-constrained) contributors just trying to keep a page meaningful and have lives outside of the encyclopedia. 4CornersGuy (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"Native American clothing" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Native American clothing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 19 § Native American clothing until a consensus is reached. As a result of seeing that discussion, I have noticed we do not have (or at least I have not been able to find) an overview article about the traditional clothing of Native American peoples generally, which I feel is a gap in our coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Bruchac

A likely WP:COI editor repeatedly makes unsourced changes to the Joseph Bruchac article. Warnings are accomplishing nothing. More eyes appreciated! Yuchitown (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Watchlisted --ARoseWolf 17:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf@Yuchitown see

Special:Contributions/CourseCorrection Are those deletions justified? Doug Weller talk 19:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No response. See WP:BLPN#Joseph Bruchac Doug Weller talk 12:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Assistance requested on new article

Members of this project may be interested in Jeff Fynn-Paul, a new article about a scholar whose work in the field of indigenous peoples' history appears to be controversial: [1]. I came across this at NPP, and this is not the area I work in, so more eyes would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Upon further review, I've moved it to draftspace at Draft:Jeff Fynn-Paul, but as the topic is likely notable my request for more eyes on this stands. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely controversial, and as is expected with a new work, there's not yet much for independent coverage. Do you have a specific concern you're looking to address? Crescent77 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A reader would not come away with the impression that the work is in any way controversial. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hyphens in names

I have occasionally wondered about how to treat hyphens in Native American names. My impression is that placing hyphens between syllables in Native American names was a convention used by some 19th and early 20th century white writers to alert readers that the names were Native American. When I see such names in Wikipedia, as in the caption for the top image in Kaw people, I wonder if it is necessary to continue to include the hyphens. As I recall, in at least some cases, Native American names have hyphens in some source, but not in others. I'm fuzzy on details, but I think in some cases I have removed the hyphens from Native American names I have used in articles. Donald Albury 13:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't use the hyphens, try not to, and believe it's outdated. Even translated versions of names seems outdated. It's not like Wikipedia translates Japanese names etc into English.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 13:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oncamera has it right. Hyphens are used today in educational lessons to teach the language to students. I know some sources include hyphens, perhaps in a misunderstanding, but I think we should try to avoid that. --ARoseWolf 13:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I felt they were outdated and somewhat disrespectful, but I wanted a second opinion. Donald Albury 20:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed move to lowercase Indigenous

It has been proposed in this section that Genocide of Indigenous peoples be renamed and moved to Genocide of indigenous peoples. Discussion at Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples. Would be great to have input from authors who contribute to Indigenous topics. Yuchitown (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Minnekhada_Regional_Park#Indigenous_involvement

Hi, I'm doing a copy edit on Minnekhada Regional Park and I'd like an experienced editor from this WikiProject to especially scrutinize the section Indigenous involvement and offer some feedback or make changes as needed. Thanks! Annwfwn (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about capitalization of Native

For those who are interested, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalisation of "native" in King Philip's War about the capitalization of Native in the article. --ARoseWolf 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Mount_Adams_(Washington)#Native_American_legends

Could use a rewrite or cleaning up, or at the very least, there's much usage of the word "squaw" that should probably be removed for something else? PersusjCP (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Those were completely unnecessary. Yuchitown (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Native American fashion

I proposed splitting Native American fashion into two articles, one with Native American content (based in the United States) and the other Indigenous fashion of the Americas for content about Indigenous peoples of the Americas beyond the US. Thoughts on the matter welcome at Talk:Native American fashion#Splitting proposal. Yuchitown (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

To-do list: Expand page for Big Warrior

Hello! I recently joined this WikiProject and have been working on one of the to-do list items, expanding the page for Big Warrior. I have already made some significant additions based on a few excellent sources I've found and have been reading through, but I know there's still plenty of research to do. If anyone is interested in working on this to-do item, the sources I've added to the citations have been a good starting point. Additionally, I'm a new editor still and so would appreciate if anyone has any interest in just reviewing the changes I've made so far.

I wanted to get some insight on a few questions as I go forward. Before I began editing it, the sole source cited in the article was a dictionary entry for a translation - useful info for that one reference, but absolutely no source for any of the biographical assertions. A few things have matched what I've found in the sources I've read so far, but without knowing the exact sources the original article writer used, I don't know where to fact-check them. For instance, one thing I had to outright change was the death date, as it was incorrectly listed as 1826 instead of the documented date in 1825. With that unverified information, I'm not sure what to do other than leave the citation needed note while I try to see what I can verify.

Another question is about sources I've found. One journal article cited a primary source about the Treaty of Fort Jackson from the National Archives with numerous quotes and information from minutes - I don't know how to access the Fort Jackson minutes myself to read more of the source than was quoted, but would that be considered OR, or use of primary sources? I know Wikipedia isn't the place for original research and primary sources should be used sparingly - but if I can find the primary source, it would be useful to see what other information about Big Warrior is recorded. For the direct quotes from the minutes that I pulled from the secondary source - should I reference the journal's cited source, the primary source? Both? Or just the secondary source?

Another source question - I saw on the guidelines about reliable sources, masters theses should be used judiciously as they might not be necessarily RS. I found a masters thesis that seems fairly academically rigorous to my novice-Wikipedian eye, but that would also be something I'd appreciate another perspective on to help assess.

And lastly, if there's any other feedback, please let me know! I don't know what I don't know yet about the intricacies of editing and WikiProjects. Elfangor9 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The relevant provision in Wikipedia:Reliable sources is, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I would avoid using a master's thesis or dissertation unless you can demonstrate that it has been cited a significant number of times in other scholarly works (see the Citation counts section in the reliable sources guideline, which says, One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often.) I know that dissertations often provide significantly more coverage on certain subjects than can be found in journals and books, and it can be tempting to use them when other reliable sources are scarce, but theses and dissertations, especially below the doctoral level, are generally not subject to the fact-checking and peer review that we look for in scholarly works. Personally, while I have used doctoral dissertations as sources, I never have used a master's or undergraduate thesis or dissertation as a source. Added note: What you can do is look at the sources cited in the thesis and dissertation, and, if they are reliable and available, use them as sources (i.e., look at such sources and put into your own words what those reliable sources say. Do not just lift a citation from the thesis or dissertation to support something you took from the thesis or dissertation.Donald Albury 15:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Edited 15:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Keewaydinoquay Peschel

Has anyone heard of this person? Theoretically a medicine woman from Michigan who lived from 1919 to 1999. There isn't much about her that she didn't write. Yuchitown (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Black Indians in the United States

The lead says "Black Indians are Native American people – defined as Native American due to being affiliated with Native American communities and being culturally Native American – who also have significant African American heritage."

The source says: "Katz, William Loren (3 January 2012). Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage. Simon and Schuster. p. 5. ISBN 9781442446373. Retrieved 31 May 2019. I have defined Black Indians as people who have a dual ancestry or black people who have lived for some time with Native Americans (e.g., lived on reservations)".

The lead was changed from:"Black Indians are those people of mixed African American and Native American heritage who have strong ties to and identify as Native Americans."

So, do we need a new source to match the current lead, or the old lead? Doug Weller talk 09:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If the person who changed the lead didn't provide a source or a rationale for the change, I think it's reasonable to change it back to the version that matches the source material. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to define. The attorney in me wants to say Black Indians are Native American people – defined as Native American due to holding tribal citizenship – who also have significant African American heritage. But, that definition is tailored to contemporary people and probably doesn't work historically. The Old definition I think fits both historical and contemporary Black indians.

I do not like the new version

who have strong ties to - not necessarily; What are strong ties? If they mean citizenship sure, but if they mean cultural participation that isn't a requirement of being a Black Indian. I think this is too vague and doesn't tell us anything about how they're connected to tribes.

and identify as Native Americans. - again probably, but this seems to center the self-identification which is much less important than things like citizenship or claims to citizenship in my opinion.

We usually use a "citizenship focus" for indigenous identity. It's probably worth keeping in mind though that here we have groups like the Freedmen of the 5 tribes that have claims to citizenship, but currently lack it. Freedmen are Black Indians, but lack citizenship (excluding Cherokee freedmen) which complicates the citizenship centric model.

All this to say: I think this is a hard concept to define that breaks some of the normal rules we use when writing about Indians and the old lede was better. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Carter Revard

I've been work on Osage biographies and stumble on Revard while research and writing about John Joseph Mathews. According to Osage historian Michael Snyder, Revard's the first Osage Rhodes Scholar and that he's of Osage descent, but his article lede clearly uses "self-identified" and has that category based on a cite that he was not enrolled from a 2023 book. It's a passing mention in a list of other authors on one page and I'm not sure its correct.

First, Snyder says he's Osage and Snyder is an Osage historian.

Second, the Osage Nation seems to call him Osage.

Finally, and this bit is some WP:OR so I apologize in advance, the Osage Nation required the ownership of Osage headrights for citizenship up until the 2000s in addition to descent. After that a constitutional change the Nation opened up membership to linear descent. Therefore it's possible that Revard could have not been enrolled for most of his career and then enrolled after the reforms toward the end of his life. However, I can't find any evidence for this, so I just have my best guess here.

Do other editors think we need any changes here or is the self-identified label the best one considering the sources? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on some sources I added to the article and after finding Revard's father on the Osage Rolls, I've moved him from Category:American people who self-identify as being of Osage descent to Category:American people of Osage descent.

If I'm missing some scholarship that justifies moving him back to the self-id category please let me know. I know there is a lot of scholarship on fake claims to indigeneity and I could just have missed the article that explains his claims. I'm posting here so if I'm wrong y'all can let me know. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Yavapai

Yavapai has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation on Hill Agency (game) page

Hey, I'm one of the devs for the game Hill Agency and there's a bit of misinformation on it's page.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Agency%3A_PURITYdecay)

• Tara Miller is not a director and left the project before development started in 2019. They were the original artist on the original 2D protype PURITYdecay, but had no part in the development of the game that launched in 2023.

• Meagan is the only director of the studio.

• Kanienʼkehá꞉ka (Mohawk) artist Sa'dekaronhes Esquivel has been Lead Artist and Co-Creative Lead on the game from the start of 3D pre-development in 2020 until it's completion and launch in 2023.

Sorry for asking this way, no one on the team uses/edits Wiki. Thanks for your help on this! The team is really stoked for Hill Agency to have it's own wiki page! 135.23.42.71 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Cusabo

As I just posted on Talk:Cusabo that typically acknowledging organizations that self-identify as descendants of historic tribes serves as a compromise, but the Cusabo#21st century just attracts POV deletions, so am wondering if the entire section should be removed? Yuchitown (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Does all the info in the section carry due weight? It seems only one organization has state recognition and the other has neither state nor federal. Like you have said, typically including those that self-identify is seen as a compromise but I do feel that whole section is not necessarily needed, especially the portion without a cited source. --ARoseWolf 17:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Look at their own website, the state-recognized tribe doesn't even mention Cusabo among the tribes they claim descent from. I'll move it to the talk page. Yuchitown (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Some articles that may fall under this project's purview

Hey! I'm new so I'm not sure what the process is like for suggesting that articles fall under this project's purview, if this is the wrong place please let me know.

Given this project's aim to "encompass all historic, ethnic, and cultural aspects of the many groups collectively described as Indigenous peoples of North America," and the historic and cultural significance of the site known as Machimoodus to the local Wangunk people, I think it may be reasonable to consider some or all of these articles part of the project:

Moodus, Connecticut Machimoodus State Park East Haddam, Connecticut

The site has been continuously inhabited for the last 10,000 years, has significant overlap with local post-contact history with the Wangunk, is specifically remarked on in numerous contemporary accounts and scholarly texts on Eastern Woodland spirituality and people, and is a focus of numerous local folk tales (Moodus noises) which may derive from, or in some cases demonize, Eastern Woodland spirituality.

If it would not be appropriate to put these articles under the project's purview in the interest of updating, expanding, and correcting the information pertaining to Indigenous peoples in them, would it be appropriate to create a new article, "Machimoodus" or similar, that details the immediate area's Indigenous history? Thanks! Babeswayscaptcha (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Some sources that support its significance to local Indigenous peoples' culture and history:

- Bragdon, Kathleen J. Native people of Southern New England, 1500-1650. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1999.

- Bragdon, Kathleen J. Native people of Southern New England, 1650-1775. University of Oklahoma Press, 2020.

- De Forest, John William. History of the Indians of Connecticut from the earliest known period to 1850. Conncecituct Historical Society, 1850.

- Field, David D. A history of the towns of Haddam and East Haddam. New York, New York: Loomis and Richards, 1814.

- Freedman, Samuel. “IN MOODUS, 3 CENTURIES OF SHAKE, RATTLE AND ROLL.” The New York Times, July 12, 1982, sec. B. [2]https://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/12/nyregion/in-moodus-3-centuries-of-shake-rattle-and-roll.html - Hancock, Elaina. “Caribou and Coffee.” UConn Magazine, December 1, 2022. https://magazine.uconn.edu/2022/10/18/caribou-and-coffee/.

- Lavin, Lucianne. “Pre-Colonial History of the Wangunk - The Institute for American Indian ...” Institute for American Indian Studies, December 5, 2015. [3]https://www.iaismuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Pre-colonial_History_of_the_Wangunk-1.pdf. Simmons, William Scranton. Spirit of the New England tribes: History and folklore, 1620-1984. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1986.

- Testa, Candyce. Reclaiming Indigenous Landscapes, May 24, 2018. [4]https://doi.org/http://hdl.handle.net/11603/11004. Trumbull, J. Hammond. Indian names of places, etc., in and on the borders of Connecticut: With interpretations of some of them. Hartford, Connecticut: Lockwood and Brainard, 1881.

Babeswayscaptcha (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Duwamish people and other Washington tribes

I tried working on Duwamish people and created Duwamish Tribe to separate the broader ethnic group from the specific unrecognized tribe. The references in Duwamish people are especially challenging. But I found that many of the Category:Native American tribes in Washington (state) are in pretty rough shape, if anyone wants a project. Oddly, the reservation articles are separate while articles encompassing an entire tribe are often missing.

User:PersusjCP is very knowledgeable about the local Indigenous languages and culture. I don't know if they are part of this WikiProject yet; if not, I enourage you to join! Yuchitown (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Yeah, many of the articles about the Indigenous peoples in WA state are pretty bad. I have done work in this field irl and have been slowly combing through articles bringing them up to speed, but its a lot of work and I am busy a lot of the time. There are many missing articles, and often, articles don't differentiate between the people, tribes associated with them, and reservations. I very much appreciate the help, and I encourage others interested in the subject matter to help as well!

On this WikiProject, I've lurked for a long time and contributed here and there, but I haven't officially added myself to the list, I don't think. I'm away from my computer but I will definitely add myself when I get back :) PersusjCP (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! No hurry, of course, since everyone is here as a volunteer. But since you are more familiar with the region and its articles, perhaps you might have suggestions for top priorities or a way forward? Yuchitown (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown