Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

Progress report on assessment

Click on [show] for progress bar for the Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles
99.2% complete Backlog: Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles Goal: 0 articles Current: 15 articles Initial: 1,880 articles

Consolidated "massacre" discussion here

Maybe instead of having this scatter all over several articles and categories, we can centralize the discussion here. I'll lay out my concerns, and everyone else can lay out theirs for more discussion. I am not particularly concerned about where these categories and articles are merged to, I threw in the ones I used as a quick and simple solution (geez, but this is WP, nothing is ever quick and simple), what I really take issue with is using inflammatory language where it is not needed - and inaccurate or incomplete descriptions. So that's where I am going. Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A massacre is a massacre and it would be wrong to call it anything else. Whether something is a massacre is determined by whether that is how it is described in reliable sources. The term "Indian Massacre" has historical baggage that I agree is undesirable and it is also imprecise in that it describes very different kinds of scenarios. The solution is to have different kinds of massacres involving Native Americans in different lists.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Problem 1: The phrase "Indian massacres" is overbroad and holds the potential to perpetuate the "bloodthirsty savage" stereotype. Also, to the casual reader, it grammatically implies acts committed BY native people against white people; no amount of explanatory text can fix that problem. Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Problem 2: Both Category:Indian massacres and the article Indian massacres are crappy lists, including a lot of incidents that were actually battles that may have been one-sided, but scarcely a genocidal attack on unarmed noncombatants. Conversely, both also EXCLUDE several notable events where unarmed noncombatants WERE, basically, murdered. Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Problem 3: While I agree that many individual events have been labeled this-or-that "Massacre" by history (take, e.g. Boston Massacre, for example), sometimes for political reasons, that doesn't mean that an overview category or wikipedia list article should do the same. Overview titles should be neutrally phrased. Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually your problem 1 has a reverse side as well. It can also perpetuate the myth that all encounters were between those bloodthirsty soldiers and innocent villages. We need to balance both those perceptions with the reality, and using inaccurate language doesn't do that. Intothatdarkness 18:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This was the problem I ran into when first looking at these cats - as they had this notion of "by" and "of" - but if for example a bunch of white (english) soldiers went in a massacred a bunch of french (white) settlers, that wouldn't fit in any of the categories, unless they happened to bring along a few Indians, in which case it now becomes a Massacre by Native Americans. There is also, as I noted above, a continuum between a bald massacre of unarmed women and children by whichever side, and an authentic battle in which one side just smashes the other - and the reality is many situations were somewhere between - belligerents attack a village, the men (and women) raise arms to defend, some attackers are killed, the remaining villagers are massacred. These events happened, and they were (rightly) called massacres, so we need to group them somehow - and calling them "wars" or "rebellions" doesn't cut it. But I don't know the best name.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of issues surrounding some of this, and it partly comes down to how Frontier history is approached here. You have articles like Comanche Campaign that refer to things that didn't exist in the sense (or even under the name) that the article claims. The coverage is, on the whole, slim and biased by large events (anything relating to Custer will wrack up tons of stuff). Sorry for the side rant, but I think some of that does play into how these things are grouped and then discussed. Intothatdarkness 19:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

re: Indian massacres list, look at the a version from say 2008, which contains the following lede: "In the history of the European colonization of North America, the term "Indian massacre" was often used to describe either mass killings of Europeans by indigenous people of the North American continent ("Indians") or mass killings of indigenous peoples by Europeans (or occasionally mass killings between different groups of indigenous peoples, as in the Cutthroat Gap Massacre). In theory, massacre applied to the killing of civilian noncombatants or to the summary execution of prisoners-of-war. In practice, the label was often haphazardly applied, rarely without bias, and was sometimes used to describe an overwhelming (though lawful) military defeat. Similarly, massacres were sometimes mislabeled "battles" in an attempt to give legitimacy to what would today be considered a war crime. Some incidents remain disputed as to whether they were massacres or battles." This seems like a bit of nuance that is now left out. I also note that, in spite of it's problems, the Indian massacres article has been around since 2001! - I didn't know of many articles that are that old, so please keep that in mind as you launch critiques against it - of course it's not perfect, etc, but it has survived the test of time somehow... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

re: problem #2 - the answer there is easy - WP:SOFIXIT. I don't think anyone is fighting to say certain incidents where say civilians - either native americans or europeans - were killed - by native americans or europeans - should be left out of these lists. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The mess of an article I linked above has been around since at least 2005...and it's based on a term that the Army cooked up to award streamers to unit flags for lineage purposes. The article may have survived because it's good and even-handed, or it may have survived because it happened to fit the preconceptions of people, or maybe it survived because no one really looked at it in a serious way. It's hard to say. Intothatdarkness 19:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll copy-paste my comments from the other discussion verbatim here, though the opening concerns a matter which needs its own section, and maybe a group sandbox to begin work/discussion towards; the rest is a loose list of native-against-native massacres (and they were) and a few native-against-whites ones, too (mostly marine fur trade items) :::WP:IPNA needs to be more pro-active about a series of guidelines for MOS and also a set of "indigenous sensitivity/authenticity" guidelines within the project and a template like the {{Canadian English}} one, I think it is, that can be placed on Canada-topic articles about Canadian English overriding "global" standards. About this "massacres" business, it's always been a loaded word on both sides; there's a Category:Mass murders in Canada that was added to the Klatassine or Chilcotin War articles recently, and that was about the group execution of the natives, not about the slaughter (and it was) of the white road crew that launched things off. Applying that was POV in nature, from the native view that judicial murder is still murder etc. (retroactive apology/pardons have been made in recent years). As for natives killing natives, there's a BC Names item on an island in Owikeno Lake that's, um, disturbing, as also the slaughter of the Comox by the Haida recounted in the Adam Grant Horne article, I think it is; the Tonquin incident, the Susan Sturgis incident in what is now officially Haida Gwaii, the rapine of the Straits and Puget Sound Salish, every four years or so like the "wraith" in Stargate: Atlantis (scary masks and all), by the certain Haida, Tlingit and Tsimshian in a regular raiding/killing alliance (see Puget Sound War and the USS Massachusetts (1845) article, the Tsilhqot'in attacks on Chinlac and also on the St'at'imc (no article or section on that yet, it's hard to cite but common knowledge in local history), the genocide against the Lakes Lillooet (Seton and D'Arcy bands) that was part of Nicola's War and lots more....the extermination of the Stuwix by Secwepemc raids, and so on..... I suggest "conflicts" vs "massacres" for any of these categories/articles as being "safer" and more NPOV. Skookum1 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's tricky, and a fuzzy continuum. But when one group camps outside a village, sneaks in during the night, slaughters the men and walks off with the women and children, it's kind of hard to call that a 'conflict'. I'm all for removing any perceived bias against or for native americans in the category names, and clearly people on all sides committed atrocities - but conflicts just seems weak as a grouping name.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion of "indigenous sensitivity/authenticity" guidelines, I doubt very much that will fly with mainstream editors. Non-Native online seem to go ballistic when asked to be culturally sensitive to Indigenous peoples, so I usually argue for factual accuracy. List of events named massacres uses Oxford's definition of massacre, "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers," so that's a starting place. Meanwhile battle requires "two or more armed forces, so when there is only one armed force, and the victims are largely unarmed, that suggests a "massacre." Since the First Nations and Native Americans have been distinguished as "by" and "of," Category:Indian massacres can be used as an umbrella category and for all Indian people not from Canada or the United States, for instance, Selknam Genocide. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

indigenous sensitivity over the use of their endonyms vs what a certain pack of WP:Languages editors want/have decided (without cites or facts) has already been ignored/dismissed on the RMs underway at the moment, and no doubt of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights were cited re this matter, it would be dumped on too. Wikipedia's brat-in-a-bubble tendencies are an obstacle to fair and just coverage of FN/NA content..."only English names are allowed in Wikipedia" is pretty out of left field when Kauxuma Nupika, Maquinna, Wickaninnish to say nothing of a good few hundred placenames in BC alone.......some kind of MOS guideline governing FN/NA categories and articles is needed in relation to such loudly-thumped absurdities.Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Brat in a bubble!" OMG, LOL, ROFLMAO! Love it! But seriously, "Non-Native online seem to go ballistic when asked to be culturally sensitive to Indigenous peoples" is a real problem I have run across in places other than wikipedia, and it seems to stem from ignorance that Native/indigenous people are REAL LIVE people now, not some quaint historical anachronism studied by teams from National Geographic. However, more to the point, can't we find SOMETHING better to name this than "Indian massacres" for a parent category? I say this in part because more than half the stuff in it ARE just articles about those kinds of battles where the "waah mommy, the mean Indians beat us up for being idiots" thing happened. And I didn't see any actual "massacres" of unarmed civilians in there at all, though I could have overlooked something. Montanabw^(talk) 17:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the key issue before us - but the name can come later. First,

1. How do we want them grouped together- e.g. do we divide by time? By location? by belligerent/victim?
2. How do we distinguish between massacre of civilians, and a battle/ambush/rebellion/war? Can we find a neutral definition of "massacre", and then only group those which fit that definition within? Then, we can create other cats for battles/ambushes/rebellions/wars
3. What is the topic here? - the most broad topic would be IMO "groups of people that massacred other groups of people, somewhere in North America, in the past 500 years" - but it seems there is in the sources a desire to talk about this in terms of native americans, so perhaps if a bunch of british massacred a bunch of white colonists, we don't put it in the same cat. So, the next level of specificity is "groups of people that massacred other groups of people, where native americans/metis/inuit/first nations were involved on one side or the other, and where it was not a regular battle between two sets of armed forces" Then, you have to decide, ok do we group by location? by current day boundaries (US/Canada)? by time period (e.g. 1400-1830, 1831-1900, etc)? Put them all together? I do think the current "by" and "of" categorization is somewhat flawed, and won't work that well - I think the list can capture better the nuance of who did what to who - but we do need a container of some sorts, and I think it shoudl be possibel to have a container that is not just one big bucket but that has some smaller buckets underneath. Again, let's worry less about what we *call* it, and what we *call* the head cat for now, let's talk about how from a taxonomy perspective this info should be organized - once we have agreement on the scope of the categories, the names can be more easily decided.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good discussion. My own view is that A) Historically, "massacre" was used too often when Indians killed white people and not often enough when white people killed Indians, but at the moment may be overused in general. B) Thus, we should start with a narrow and clearly defined neutral definition of "massacre", noting that even at massacre they seem to be having trouble defining it. I would say that the word in general refers to (mostly) single events, whereas genocide refers to more of a pattern of multiple incidents. However, there will be relatively few massacres, which I think of as things like Wounded Knee massacre or Sand Creek massacre, wherein you pretty much have a military force killing a bunch of mostly unarmed civilian noncombatants. Where we have two essentially military forces, however one-sided the outcome, I'd say we have a "battle" or "ambush" or "conflict" or "war" (or something like that). THOUGHT: AHA! Perhaps this could be a question to pose to WP MILHIST; what is the standard used in other conflicts? IS there a standard? Where does military history in general draw the line when white people killed other white people? (other than, of course, the winners get to write the history books...) History clearly distinguishes a one-sided tragic battle like the Charge of the Light Brigade from, for example, recently, the Srebrenica massacre, but is there an example of a "close case" where we are shown where the line (or fuzzy gray area) is? Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you'll get a different view at MILHIST than what you just posted, MT (in fact, they might complicate it more in some ways). "Massacre" might simply (even though I hate to use that word, since this isn't simple) come down to numbers of non-combatants killed. The list as it exists now contains nothing about the conflicts on the southern Plains...the series of bloody raids and skirmishes that led to a number of settler deaths. And calling the Big Hole a massacre seems to stretch the point just a bit. In you're getting into specific military history terms, "massacre" tends to come up primarily when a force of combatants (uniformed or otherwise) kill a number of non-combatants in what might be considered cold blood (with some element of pre-meditation). It has also been assigned to one-sided victories, but that's really fallen out of use/favor in the last 40 years or so (at least in serious military history). Intothatdarkness 22:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a workable path here. I completely agree that whatever we choose, it should not reinforce notions that either white people or native americans were more prone to do this sort of thing - let historians battle that one out - for our cats, we should be as neutral as possible. I also agree that, even though something *may* have been called a massacre in the past, if it was primarily armed, military-age combatants vs armed military-aged combatants, it's best to call that a battle or ambush - that way we aren't prepetrating prejudice in the sources. So now the question is, we could make a big bucket and put all of them in it - from all of north america, or even all of the americas. The question now is, do we want to subdivide further, and if so, how? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, here are some more of my thoughts:

1. Let's at least go through all the "massacre" categories and toss all essentially military fights (battles/skirmishes/what-have-you), no matter how one-sided, as well as military conflicts where civilians may also have died, but there were military forces sufficient to make it more of a battle. (For example, Battle of the Big Hole and Battle of the Little Bighorn both being, in my view, "not massacres")
2. Let's create some sort of appropriate category (if there isn't one already??) for said "not massacre" fights.
3. Start a conversation at the various category talk (and ping us here) as to what articles SHOULD be added; for example if Wounded Knee massacre and Sand Creek massacre are NOT included, are they not classic examples of what SHOULD be included?
4. Then, the tricky part; is there a clear line, or at least a fuzzy line and thus, what is in a gray area? Shall we create a "gray area" category, or agree that some things could be diffused into both " gray area" categories?

OK, more thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see how the Tonquin incident fits into this...and the flip side the Susan Sturgis (that may need a dab) and various other "ship slaughters" in that region, either giving or getting.....also the incident which saw John Jewitt captured and enslaved with the the only other survivor of that vessel by Maquinna.Skookum1 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look, and it's got major problems now...including a POV fork kind of article which I've never heard the name of the Battle of Woody Point before, which is odd given how much I've read on the early history of the region; the title itself seems OR....more to the point it's got sloppy/fuzzy ethnography in it, including the out-of-date and wholly incorrect use of "Nootka" instead of Nuu-chah-nulth and both it and the Tonquin's article have Tla-o-qui-aht as the name of the Aht group in question; but that name was not devised until the 1980s or so; it's not the same as Clayoquot, which is from "people of Clayoqua", which was a community at the mouth of the Clayoquot River. They're extinct, along with a half dozen other Aht groups in the Tofino-Ucluelet area, the particular subgroup that the Tonquin incident was about I'm not sure which of the three "Aht" groups comprising the Tla-o-qui-aht Nations band government it was....point is sloppy ethnography and history/geography is all over the map with many articles and seems to get added regularly, as does the perpetuation of the misnomer "Nootka" (which refers only to the Mowahchaht of Friendly Cove. This relates to the whole "most common name" being thrust to the forefront without any concern for modern reform of such usages and the new common names, but I'll leave that here, it's just what I found is emblematic of that "from-outside" way of thinking/describing local history/geography/ethnography....Skookum1 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are good ideas, but think we should try to come to consensus on a new structure and the criteria for inclusion in that structure - if we start editing the current status quo we may lose information that has accrued over time for whatever reason - we shouldn't toss battles out unless we have a good place for them for example - and we have confirmed that we don't want them under massacres anymore. Once we have consensus here it will be easy to go and move things around, and we can then bring any categories needed to CFD for renaming/etc - and hopefully all who agreed here will weigh in at CFD. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

On the general topics of the pre-Contact inter-native wars and the coverage of FN/NA peoples in general this bit of satire is worth a read and has some points about what could be included in ethno articles and FN/NA history articles....some do, most are of the "they were advanced hunter gatherers and used canoes/bows whatever". I've tried to add some of the pre-Contact history that we know of to various PacNW articles, though haven't added all that I know of; on the overall topic of Indigenous peoples of North America, the kind of summary that's in that satire is very pointedly on-mark and has details worth including in macro-articles about NA/FN cultures/civilizations ("civilization" being a word not generally used for their societies, but many were indeed just that).Skookum1 (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, once you start looking at the articles themselves, it's a life's work to fix more than the most racist and appalling -- I just did a run-through trying to remove the overuse of the word "chief: in titles (it's an honorific, not used by all groups, and never someone's name) and found myself going down an endless rabbit hole (though I succeeded in renaming "infobox Indian Chief" at least...) But to the point here, as originally stated, I'd personally like to see the "Indian massacres" category eliminated entirely and all articles diffused into either a parent cat or a new and more appropriate new cat. So, what, in sentence form, are we classifying, and then what is a simple way to define these?

1. we are looking at situations where a bunch of people died and Native people are involved, somehow. So...
2. What EXISTING categories, particularly for battles, do we have that we can use?
3. Next, we are looking at the type of incident: was it a conflict between two armed groups, was it an attack by an armed group against an unarmed group, or what?
4. Maybe we are looking at when
5. Maybe we need to look within the context of a series of Indian Wars, or in unprovoked attacks on settlements of either white or native people

So that's where we are going. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your point on looking at a series of Indian Wars is well-taken, but wikipedia's articles on these have some major issues of their own. Comanche Campaign, to go back to my original example, only exists here and on unit campaign participation streamers. It's military shorthand, not a term or concept used elsewhere (and is grotesquely inaccurate). SmallChief has done some nice work on some of these, but there's much more yet to be done. I'm not a fan of the broad cat "Indian massacres" as it's just flawed. If you take it based on time frame you could use "Frontier massacres" or "Old West massacres." Not sure, since I'm not crazy about either of those. But if there's a way to base the initial definition on time frame or geography that might be a better starting point. Intothatdarkness 18:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree on trying to divide between battles and massacres. Do we *always* want to *only* include massacres that included native americans? What if a bunch of english soldiers murdered a bunch of white colonists? Should that be categorized in a separate tree?

If not, one neutral way of doing this would be something like Category:Massacres in North America, and then sub-cat by century, e.g. 14thc, 15thc, 16thc, and so on. We use north america so as to not worry so much about boundaries that didn't exist. Or, one could use the existing Category:Massacres in the United States and Category:Massacres in Canada, and subdivide those by century. It's neutral, and it's also quite typical to have anachronisms in the category tree (e.g. categorizing things that happened even if the country didn't exist at the time). If people are really uncomfortable with that, we could create a parent cat Category:Massacres in North America, and then have century cats for 9th-21st century, and then by-century sub-cats for US and Canada starting when those countries came into being. We would lose the specificity of saying that native americans were involved, but that may actually be more neutral - we're just talking about bad things that happened in a defined geographic area during a certain time - so the "indian" massacres would be mixed up with white-on-white massacres. This doesn't really bother me, but we also have to see if there are RS that categorize the indian massacres differently - and the problem is, they do call out these european-native american encounters differently than european-on-european ones.

The Category:Battles by country tree is quite complex and informative - they seem to use the idea of "Battles involving", so we could use Category:Battles involving Native Americans and Category:Battles involving the United States for some of the battles themselves. Not sure if we need to categorize massacres in the same way however - I kind of prefer by location (whether continent or current country) and century.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

One more thing - there may be articles which, by their nature, cover both military action, battles, and outright massacres; in this case, the article should be classified in both the "battles" tree and the "massacres" tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the direction we are heading, but I'd very much like to hear Uyvsdi's views on this. We don't want to erase Native people, and the "involving" might be one solution, for at least some things. Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, please be careful in naming things "Native American" if the subject matter includes Canadian or Mexican indigenous peoples; this project for example is titled a certain way for good reason; the USian usage is not "global", though it's assumed by USians that it is. I always come across categories applied to Canadian subjects or find articles with that usage in it; just as in some cases First Nations has been put in when not appropriate as American-side peoples are included; it's especially weird to see South American indigenous peoples described as "Native American"....Skookum1 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

They're Native to the Americas. Wikipedia has its MOS; the outside world doesn't necessarily follow it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Canada certainly doesn't. i.e. follow the USian usage, native peoples themselves especially don't.Skookum1 (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Noogies to Skookum, aw shuck, you Canadians are always throwing a monkey wrench into things! "Centre" "Colour" "aboot" where will it end, eh? LOL! (said in good humor). Montanabw^(talk) 22:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Blame it on the FN peoples themselves, they were the ones who didn't want to be called "Native Americans"....it was a decidedly p.c. term at first but quickly took hold (First Nations as both noun and adjective to replace "Indian") and is now the accepted, and also constitutional, standard. "Native Canadians" wasn't good enough, and raised the issue of "I was born here too" with many non-natives, and the "First Nations" thing was also a response to the shibboleth of the deux nations concept of the origin of Canadian culture/identity, with the new term being a reminder there were nations here before the famous/archetypal founding two Euro-colonies.....it emerged during the time the constitutional squabbling between Quebec and the RoC ('rest of Canada') was at fever pitch and natives wanted "in" on constitutional debates. "Native American" is simply not used in Canada, and is rejected by the peoples themselves; and IMO it's not a New World standard...only to Americans it is.....the "global standard" I keep on hearing from Brits and others is "Red Indian"....Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And "red Indian" is unbelievably racist... always love how Europeans in particular love to claim that they aren't as racist as Americans, yet go to a soccer match... sheesh! Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

They're unaware of the racial context of the term, and also of course they have "Indian" in a totally different context, and "West Indian" also. I've told my Brit friend here, he understands; but he still has to use the term to explain to other Brits that it's North American indigenous people we are mentioning....BTW from my understanding of the history of the term, it was first applied to the Beothuk, who painted themselves red, not sure with ochre or what.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hi - just a thought - can we *not* get caught up in the naming issues, quite just yet? IMHO, we need to determine scope FIRST - per the proposal I put above, at least for the massacres, the word "native american" would never really come into it at all. In any case, let's first agree on the scope - are all massacres in the 17th century in what is now US/Canada/Mexico grouped together? If we subdivide further, based on what? Names will then flow naturally from how we decide to split. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm maybe by ethnographic area, but that doesn't necessarily work either; I'd say it just has to be chronological, as if there's any connections/continuity it comes from there....as far as the 17th C in my part of Canada (BC) that's a non sequitur, unless it's only native vs native war we're talking about....Contact in BC didn't start until the 1780s, on the coast, and not really until the '10s (1810s) despite Thompson and Fraser before that; but I'd think each of the colonial presences had their own timelines for such interactions; ethnographic divisions I don't think would work....regional maybe, but even that's fluid.....in the 18th C "the West" was Ohio and Indiana....Skookum1 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we stick with Chronological for the main framework. Intothatdarkness 15:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, and what about geography? All of north america? Start using US/Canada cats? Do we accept anachronism, and have things like 14th-c massacres in the United States (that would be bizarre). Also, are people ok with *not* having a special cat for these involving indigenous americans, vs european-on-european violence (which will, likely, be less covered in any case) - and noting that for battles, we do already have such a divide. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be ok with a geographic anachronism, simply because I suspect most people using the cat for research would be doing it along those lines in any case. I also wouldn't have an issue if consensus goes to a more general North/South America model. Not sure that we need the special cat you mentioned, either. Intothatdarkness 16:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I"m afraid that we can't duck that either. I think geography is a start, but we don't want to erase native people from history, either. Possibly a way to incorporate both. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember, this all started b/c you didn't like the category Indian massacres! In any case, no-one is talking about removing anyone from history - I'm leaning more and more towards a neutral intersection of geography + century. Something like this:

• Massacres in North America
  • Massacres in Canada
  • Massacres in Mexico
  • Massacres in the United States
  • Massacres in North America by century
    • 15th-century massacres in North America
    • 16th-century massacres in North America
    • 17th-century massacres in North America
      • 17th-century massacres in the United States
      • 17th-century massacres in Canada
      • 17th-century massacres in Mexico
    • 18th-century massacres in North America
      • 18th-century massacres in the United States
      • 18th-century massacres in Canada
      • 18th-century massacres in Mexico

(and so on)

If you *really* wanted a special cat for the indigenous ppl, then you could have an additional child of Category:Massacres in North America which would be Category:Massacres involving indigenous peoples of North America - and then everything involving NA+FN/etc would go into that as well as the by-century cats, which provide a more neutral grouping, while still allowing other types of massacres such as european-on-european to be side-by-side the "indian" massacres that occured in the same century and same geographic region....--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like either concept, all that much but your breakdown is perhaps a bit too detailed, IMHO. We do somehow need to classify stuff specifically linked to various Indian Was, though my goal is basically to separate military conflicts from civilian attacks, with an eye to avoiding terminology that could be viewed as inflammatory. But I am curious: What other cats that do NOT involve indigenous people are titled "massacre"? Can you point me to them? I'd like to see what they do for, say, the Irish or Armenians, or perhaps, Srebrenica massacre... which is categorized under "crimes against humanity" but not a "massacre" category. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Follow up: So I did find, for example, Category:Massacres in Israel during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Hmmm... maybe the idea of having the historical period or war and then the "massacres" subcat... the American Indian Wars encompassing a specific time period, for example...perhaps we have similar main articles on Canadian and Mexican conflicts? Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

[ec]I actually like Obi's start on this. Given the nature of most of the Frontier conflicts, you're going to have a hell of a time linking stuff to specific Indian Wars (unless you overlay yet another wikipedia fictional process to things). Many of the Mexican conflicts get wrapped up in the various tribal articles or some of the general mishmash (Texas-Indian Wars is one example, Apache-Mexico Wars another). Intothatdarkness 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Massacres - The Srebrenica massacre is indeed in a massacre category, under the Category:Massacres by country tree. I also agree, let's separate out battles, and there is a pretty good tree setup for these battles already. The idea of separating the massacres by campaign, etc, may be workable, but I'm not sure if all of these fit - sometimes they just happened, and weren't part of any well-identified war or whatever. The advantage of the century-cats is they will still tend to group together things that happened more or less closely in time, without worrying about deciding which particular "campaign" this massacre occurred during (which may have very different descriptions if you're telling history from a NA vs. European POV for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what Skookum1 and Uyvsdi think before I comment further, they are closer to the issues. I can see both ways, my goal is to be as respectful to the actual people and avoiding of stereotyping as possible. So if this gets us there... Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

in certain cases, indigenous vs "settler" wars/conflicts were part of the "American Indian Wars", as has been observed by various historians about the Fraser Canyon War and the conflicts along the Okanagan Trail, which are seen as a northward extension of the Cayuse War/Yakima War. Terminology is a big issue; the Haida/Tlingit/Tsimshian raids of Puget Sound that led to the USS Massachussetts's response in 1854 (56?) were contemporaneous with the Battle of Seattle, which was part of the Yakima War, or is said to have been, but the naval interaction was with what historians called "Russian Indians", though part of the alliance was coming from British territory (the Charlottes/Haida Gwaii and I'm not sure which Tsimshian group, Lax Kw'alaams maybe, not sure. Tlingit are not "Native Americans", they're Native Alaskans, as are some Haida and Tsimshian; the bulk of Haida and Tsimshian now are "First Nations".....so while that happened during an Indian War and happened in US waters and on US islands, the term "indigenous" is required, or the by-tribe-name as I recall doing in the related articles on that matter. So the proposed list or whatever will be for indigenous vs. settler wars ("settler" is the "new term" for "us") or will indigenous-indigenous massacres like Chinlac be included? Also, the Metis conflicts, some of which can be construed as massacres, definitely are neither "Native American" nor "First Nations"....the term "aboriginal" in Canada is now constitutional for all indigenous groups in Canada btw....First Nations, Metis and Inuit.Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, events in Russian America might fall under this rubric, I'd have to remember which incidents, the first Battle of Sitka might qualify (a massacre of Russians by Tlingit I think), also various repressions against the Koniag (Kodiak) and Aleuts.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My head just exploded, but yes, the Russian America stuff WOULD count. Probably the Metis stuff too. BTW, I think the legal term is Alaska Native. We have a US/Canada split with preference for "aboriginal" and "indigenous." Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"indigenous" is apparently preferable from the FN-side, nor sure about NA preferences; OMR and others came up with that; because "aboriginal" has a legal/constitutional context in Canada it tends to get wiki-used when in that context, and "indigenous" in specific FN usages...I'd tend to not use it for the Metis, whose roots are also European. "Alaska Native" I guess is the legal term; that used to be, I thought "Category:Native Alaskans" but I see no sign of that in the edit history at Category:Alaska Native people, which is one of those confusing "FOO people" constructions that to me are awkward and confusing; that cat should be, under that construction, and like others, Category:Alaska Native peoples with an 's'; I see the Tlingit and Tsimshian and Haida titles are now "Tlingit people", "Tsimshian people" and "Haida people", I gather all changed by speedy.......this flies in the face of the old conventions we came up with a few years ago, where it was decided that "FOO people" would not be the standard; the indigenous-editor point of view was that it's redundant in many cases, though that's been dissed in the CfDs/RMs related to all this; but it was also because "FOO people" has that dual meaning....especially in category usage; upon looking at the catname Category:Alaska Native people *I* would expect it to be "people who are Native Alaskan"....there is not one people, there are peoples. And yes, not only the Russian America stuff and Metis stuff but also New Spain, as that originally extended to the 141st meridian i.e. Mt St Elias/Cook Inlet was the northward limit of Spanish claims until the Florida Treaty (Adams-Onis Treaty in USian); Pfly observed there were conflicts on the BC/WA coast with indigenous peoples, notably at Cape Flattery, I think. BTW about the Metis these two pages are an excellent read, and have other works cited....wish I knew who that author was, he should do a book - http://www.dickshovel.com/two.html and http://www.dickshovel.com/two2.html. Skookum1 (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, could we please focus on agreed-upon scope FIRST, and then choose names later? It will get way to muddled otherwise. Let's start by deciding how we will categorize the massacres - there seems to be rough consensus around by-century categories, and now the question is, will we subdivide North America further, and if so, on what grounds. Can we please focus on that, and then once we've agreed on what grounds, then we can have a big discussion on what to name the categories? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the tangent about "FOO people", the main point there about Alaska Natives is why "Native American" is not acceptable, even when concerning the United States.Skookum1 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

When I tried the rename of the "Chief" infobox, we had conflict because my all-encompassing proposal was "Indigenous." As that word has no special legal meaning AND encompasses the whole landmass, I thought it useful, just as it is the WikiProject name here. As for the Metis, it was their Indian-ness, not their white-ness that got them into such hot water; and a lot of Native people have had some white or African-American blood admixture, FWIW. As for Obiwan's concern, where ARE we now with scope, anyway? Is the current discussion a question of chronological time versus grouping by conflict, or...? Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Long story about the Metis, it's not just their Indian-ness, but their French-ness as well; and the dynamism and independent spirit that they had developed in their isolation; Riel was "subdued" as much for promoting a francophone state, whether as a province or independent, as much as for being "half-breed". Re "Chief" that gets used in BC a lot for some individuals when it's not what the native terms/roles were.....more of a social class, and not an autocratic or chairman-of-the-board role as often portrayed; there is no solution, only in individual ethno and personal articles can it be addressed.....e.g. the Coast Salish si:yem (shayAM) is more of a noble class, rather than any kind of chieftaincy; same with chiefly classes/castes among the Kwakwaka'wakw and Nuu-chah-nulth and UpCoast peoples; that is a discussion for another day at Talk:Chief, wherever that would be, or on individual articles' talkpages of course....Skookum1 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My gut is, let's give it a shot to just categorize by century, in Canada, US, Mexico. (using current borders, whenever the incident happened). This is neutral, and geographically based. Then, for all massacres in which indians were involved, we just add Category:Massacres involving indigenous peoples of North America as an additional top-level category (so many massacre articles would be in two places). Then we purge the tree of all soldier-on-soldier battles - and to boot we avoid naming issues, mostly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

makes sense; some other subcats of the super-parent may present themselves; e.g. Massacres by Aztecs .... e.g. of the Tlaxcalans for one case; Mexican revolutionary and also modern Drug War massacres, or the Tlatelolco massacre mostly fall under the state-vs-indigenous classification.Skookum1 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to start doing this unless there are further comments. Division by North America, by century, with an additional (non-diffusing) category to capture all incidents involving indigenous peoples - Category:Massacres involving indigenous peoples of North America--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

individual articles re this topic

Further to this see my comment at Talk:Battle_of_Woody_Point#to_delete.2C_or_not_to_delete.3F_POV_issues, which is one of those written in "massacre language". And with a title that's quite foreign to me, unless it's standard in US history of the Pacific Northwest; this is re the Tonquin article. If there's a list/discussion somewhere, it should be on it; the Fort Defiance article was similarly biased though it's been gone over since for NPOV.Skookum1 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

possible subject expansion needed

The Reference desk is currently answering a question related to native culture groups, pointing out that our coverage may be incomplete. (Possibly our articles are too inconsistently named.) See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Native American cultures. Rmhermen (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point, but that particular question is straight from someone's American History textbook and they want us to do their homework for them! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from that referencedesk question, there are a lot of gaps in our coverage of "culture" articles...at the moment culture/ethno information is often on reserve or reservation articles, or on government pages; I was cruising around some of the Category:First Nations reserves in Ontario and related cats last night....; trying to untangle them is a big job, as some writeups are done as reserve titles, others as band-government titles (or reserve-government, when more than one people are part of the government), or as placename articles.....and also in some cases culture/ethno articles. And there's probably more to be done on "macro culture" articles, i.e. the ethnocultural region articles and people-as-language group articles; see Talk:Dene about Denendeh and the issues of that name for example. The reserve/place/government/culture/language article separation "ideal" isn't across the board yet, and there's lots of "tangle"...that Ontario category has subcats that are parent cats of others, and so on....Skookum1 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And we have a WP:OR/SYNTH issue as well, in that, for example, almost every US history book out there uses the basic culture groups bunching in teaching pre-Columbian culture, yet that is a bit overbroad - yet, to do otherwise is to go off on tangents that probably exceed the scope of wikipedia. And naming, oh man... Montanabw^(talk) 16:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

yeah those divisions have their issues; the Tsilhqot'in and Dakelh I'd consider "Plateau" rather than "Subarctic", and the Wet'su-we'ten have close ties to the Gitxsan; who are part of the coastal culture/civilization but not actually on the Coast...."Plains" is kinda amorphous in Canada and peoples bridge into the Subarctic...but like you say, those classifications come from the ethnology folks, and everyone knows native people can't be trusted to classify themselves, white people have to do that for them, huh? Joke. And re naming, all I fundamentally understand is Wikipedia shouldnt' retrench names come up with by the Catholic Encyclopedia and Boas/Teit and others from over a hundred years ago, when clearer and more authentic and also culturally/politically-acceptable terms are now just not the norm; but the media/government standard.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Fallen Leaf

List of women warriors in folklore refers to a woman called Fallen Leaf, a Crow warrior who was Gros Ventre by birth. There is currently no Wikipedia article on any person named Fallen Leaf, but the article on Spotted Tail notes that he had a daughter called Ah-ho-appa (Fallen Leaf). Spotted Tail was Brulé Lakhota. The list of warriors doesn't include a date of birth or anything. Does anyone know if these are the same person? Is there some published source that might identify her (them)? Cnilep (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV and the word redskin

A few days ago an anonymous (IP) user tagged the article Redskin (slang) for POV. Two issues were cited: 1) whether the current meaning of the term is pejorative 2) the validity of polls reflecting a majority opinion regarding the use of the term as the name of the Washington NFL team.

As the major contributor to the article I see no reason for the tag; there may be issues in the content but POV is not one of them. Given the wide range of opinion, all points of view are given equal treatment in the current article. The use of Red and even Red-Skin may have originated in the late 17th to early 18th centuries as a neutral designator of race as were black and white. However, according to the OED the term became pejorative with time, and is now defined variously as insulting, demeaning, disparaging, or taboo in five American English dictionaries. It is also usually defined as archaic given that it has fallen out of general usage due to its connotations. The only remaining usage is in the names of sports teams. Only the owners and fans of these teams continue to maintain the neutrality of the term, or claim that they are "honoring" Native Americans in this usage, both of which are nonsense in the face of protests to the contrary. The fans continue to point to the two polls done, now many years ago, that a majority of Native American responding take no offense at the team names; thus labeling the individuals who protest as a minority of activists with a personal agenda. It was not difficult for me to find academic rebuttals to the validity of polls where Native Americans are self-identified, but my addition of these citations is seen as "slanted" by the anonymous editor.

There has been no other activity in the discussion, so I would likely remove the POV tag after a week; or does an Admin need to do so? FigureArtist (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The tag can be removed if the editor placing it doesn't justify it at Talk:Redskin (slang). That would be the best place to discuss how to discuss this specific debate neutrally. It seems the vast majority of the Native community is not offended by "Washington Redskins" and the ones who say they are offended by it, are indeed very few in number, so perhaps unsurprisingly someone would challenge their credentials to speak for others. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I posted here to stimulate a discussion on the article's talk page; given the extremes of opinion I am bending over backward to deal with the POV tag fairly in spite of my first impulse to simply remove it as unjustified. I attended the recent symposium on the issue at the National Museum of the American Indian, and can assure anyone that the majority of Native Americans are offended by the name of the Washington team based upon scholarly research and true representatives of Native American opinion, such as the NCAI.

It's racist, flat-out, end of story. But in the cosmic scheme of "which battle do we want to fight against ignorant assholes this week," it's down there quite a ways. There is a fairly major move to eliminate all mascot names that reference Native Americans, (save for a very few exceptions, such as FSU where the tribal people themselves specifically approve) and I suspect in 20 years they will be gone. Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What's a "fairly major move?" It's the same extremely vocal minority who make a noise level several times larger than their number. I've never met any actual Native people who get offended by this. All I ever hear is that it's someone else's battle for people in Washington DC, being foisted onto them like it's a major issue. There are several reasons why naming a sports team would not be defined as racist, inimical, or disrespectful to any race. It's just not a real issue for most Native people so be aware that just because you claim it is one, not everyone will automatically agree with you or therefore allow you to become a spokesman for their own opinions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess the civil rights movement was by the same "extremely vocal minority." I'm part Menominee and I'm offended by it. So was my cousins wife (Lenape) and a host of other Indians I could list. As far as not being an issue, I would suggest you talk to the University of North Dakota - who had to change their name from the "Fighting Sioux" because the Lakota and Dakota people voted against the use of the name as demeaning to the tribe. Montanabw is dead on right. GregJackP Boomer! 00:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong, the African American civil rights movement was supported by a significant majority in the US. What is your point or are you implying some other analogy? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Only at the end was it supported by a majority. The movement went on for decades with almost no support, especially from the Anglo-European Americans, who overwhelmingly supported the status quo. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, GregJackP. Til, you mean well, but lack a complete grasp of US History on this one; the majority backs the status quo until they are beaten over the head with a need to change. And as for the African-American community, the outrage over the election and re-election of our current President (going beyond mere ideological differences of opinion) is proof positive that even that issue is far from resolved. Further, where the "vocal minority" happen to be comprised mostly of people actually affected, that is well worth noting. Not only the "n-word," but also slurs like "retard" and "cripple" are in the process of being eliminated from our vocabularies for reasons of basic human decency; likewise, "redskin" needs to go. Montanabw^(talk) 17:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think I do lack a grasp of US History in the least, but thanks for sharing your assessment of my knowledge. Most of what I'm seeing here is strictly your own opinions, and hardly "proof positive" of everything, and there seems to be a kind of expectation for everyone else to automatically view the debate from your vantagepoint, but reality is what it is, it doesn't have to be invented, and if outrage is being pushed onto most people, "affected" or not, don't expect very genuine outrage. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of the content on Redskin (slang) should be merged to Washington Redskins mascot controversy with a See link. Moving that three-ring-circus elsewhere will greatly enable a neutral POV to be maintained. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I recognize that there is an issue regarding a balance of the two articles, however the linguistic history and current meaning of the word as pejorative intersects with the team name controversy. There are no references to the word as neutral that are not biased justifications for keeping the team name. Ironically, fans continue to talk out of both sides of their mouth by saying that the word now only means football, not Indians; and they are honoring Native Americans by putting on feathers and war paint for the games. (And yes, this is important to me because I am a native of Washington, DC, and cannot get away from hearing this racial slur in the media constantly, even in the off-season). I think everything I have contributed is carefully sourced to remove these personal feelings, included the part I wrote debunking the redskin = scalp story for lack of documentation that it is fact rather than legend. The actual use of the word as a slur is bad enough without clouding the issue with unsupported arguments. FigureArtist (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a fair bit of what's here on the team mascot issue COULD be moved to the other article so long as the POV-pushers there don't engage in troll-like behavior to keep it out; but I'd do it with a section link rather than a see also so that it is more visible. I do think it wise to avoid unneeded duplication. What's the editing climate like over at the other article? Could a move stick? Montanabw^(talk) 17:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There is little activity on any of these related articles. I account for almost half of it, but am mainly interested in the main article Native American mascot controversy. There was push-back there when I began major changes, but not recently, mainly wordsmiths/grammar not content. FigureArtist (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Walkara.jpg

image:Walkara.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Update to WikiProject main page

I've gone and updated our WikiProject main page to make it a little more current, and see if a revised layout can improve our participation rate. Someone with a better grasp of layout could no doubt improve it further ... Djembayz (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Six articles about Native American women leaders up for deletion

Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/the remaining members of the council of grandmothers if you have an opinion on this. (Naturally, comments based on Wikipedia:Notability (people) ) are most effective. Djembayz (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case that WP is plagued by white male bias. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

TfD

I nominated Template:Five Civilized Tribes for deletion, since it's arbitrary, obsolete term, and the template itself is pretty useless. The discussion is here. I created Template:Choctaw and Template:Seminole, which hopefully do provide useful navigation for Wikipedia users. Ideally every major tribe with a sizable number of articles could have its own navigational template. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

On any of those of the five, are there any community articles, either in the SE or west of the Mississippi, that could be a separate section? I'm thinking of the broad ones in t he Pacific Northest, e.g {{Coast Salish}} and {{Kwakwaka'wakw}} and {{Squamish}} and the like.....including persons and band goverment and tribal councils and such....i.e. could that template have any more utility if it weren't so stark? the Coast Salish one is unwieldy to me, but the by-people ones work fairly well e.g. {{Sto:lo}} and {{tl}Nlaka'pamux}}.Skookum1 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there's Template:Choctaw and Template:Seminole, and there's also Template:Cherokee. My argument is the grouping is arbritary, and while it certainly merits an article (which is has), it doesn't merit a template. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

There's templates for Sto:lo and "Squamish" as I mentioned, who are part of the Coast Salish. The grouping is a historical name and very common, I don't see the need for deletion, only for improving the template.Skookum1 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The term is incredibly Eurocentric and offensive, since it implies other tribes aren't "civilized" (for instance, the still very-much-existent Iroquois Confederacy that helped inspire the US constitution) or that these people have assimilated to European-American culture. I dare you to go tell a Mississippi Choctaw that they are assimilated. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

"Squamish" template was wrongly speedied

Re above, {{Squamish}} oh no, not another speedy based on an ill-advised RM of the main article.....gree. I'll take this elsewhere......the imposition of non-indigenous names on indigenous items by non-indigenous editors with no respect for indigenous identity and heedless of why such things were created as they were, and by who, has got to STOP. More wrecking-crew damage by the unknowing and arrogabnt and ill=informed....grrrr time for f'in' bed. My proposal to set guidelines for indigenous articles, categories et al and indigenously-correct language I hope you all are giving serious thought to. That one's got to be versed.....people applying guidelines as rules without any consideration for the content and meaning has got to STOP!!Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that one was probably the diacritical structure, people couldn't get past seeing a "number 7" in the middle of a word. Not sure how to get around that. I'd say see how many other articles you can get to the names preferred by the actual people and once you have 90%+ that way, come back to this one. The case will be stronger for getting something that "looks weird" to be accecpted. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well we know what happened to Deadmau5 and I shudder to think about what will happen to UJ3RK5 and Esla7an; I brought up Brother XII.........wikipedia should not MAKE reality, or edit it, that's not its place. But tell that to people armed with WP:MOS like it's Holy Writ and out to slay the infidel....no doubt we'll see "consensus" move Sto:lo to Stolo next then insist it should be Stohlo until someone points out that it's pronouncedStaulo oh no wait, Stowlo until some insists that hte "English name" be used ("Fraser River Indians".....next up {Deadmaus]] => Deadmouse.` Everybody playing at being editor, nobody taking time to be a writer....and people making the Deadmau5 "decision" admitted to never having heard of him......Skookum1 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a special character, like the colon in Sto:lo (which in Halqemeylem text, isn't a colon either, it's little triangle thingies, the top one pointing down) (diacriticals are accents, underscores etc), which the original title did have, and lots of....as also with St'at'imc and its just-changed category which is now without them). The 7 and the colon are conventions used in English media and publications, same as with St'at'imc which in St'at'imcets (their language) even the [t'] is not just t-apostrophe, it's a diacritical-special character combination.......the main argument in the RM, I think the clincher used by the closer, I'll look again, was that "Squamish" was adjudged to be "MOSTCOMMON"....but it's also much more common as the name of the town....which is the big problem with that category, and why neither the main article nor the category for the people were named that way by the article's creator (User:OldManRivers, who himself is Skwxwu7mesh and Kwakwaka'wakw/'Namgis). The unworkability of the plain-jane "Squamish" title for the category/template is obvious enough to nearly any British Columbian, same as with why "Shuswap", "Lillooet", "Chilcotin" and "Kootenay/Kutenai" were unsuitable and confusing and those we had recourse to media and government style guides to get them RMd back to where they belong Secwepemc, St'at'imc, Tsilhqot'in and Ktunaxa); also because they were wrongly speedied by a certain kwamster without discussion; the weight of the RM on Talk:Squamish people, which IMO was a faulty decision made by people not familiar either with the town or the people or the context of such terms in modern Canadian English (where Sto:lo, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc, Nuxalk and the like are now standard and also official, as well as the preference of the peoples themselves), and whaever happened to, as I said on Good OlFactory's page, WP:NORULES. People using guidelines as MANDATORY rules is b.s. complete and entire, and with indigenous articles the lack of consideration given to modern and historical contexts and identities has to be part of any discussion on those titles; some said, even (including the k-man) that such points are not valid in Wikipedia, that their own feelings and preferences are irrelevant, what Wikipedia mandates is what is going to go down. Which is why I'm thinking that rather a passel of RMs and more CfDs and TfDs, and considering the credentials and identity of those who created certain articles (Dakelh now Carrier people and Category:Dakelh were created by User:Billposer, who is the pre-eminent scholar in that field today), that should be taken into account far more than the guideline-imposing/jugggling of the half-informed in other countries.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

and 90% of people are wrong; sheer numbers of the ignorant and not-educated-as-to-the-on-the-ground-reality-and-in-use-modern-terminology does not make anything "right"....or we wouldn't be using "First Nations" or "indigenous" or "Native American", we'd be using "Indian"....90% of people abroad, including Thai in translation as I found out last night, use "Red Indian".Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I moved this template in December 2011. As far as I know, no one has taken exception to the move until now. The tribal government uses "Squamish Nation" all over their website, including the copyright notice on the bottom. Squamish nation site:www.vancouversun.com gives you 11,500 hits, Skwxwu7mesh site:www.vancouversun.com one. Kauffner (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

that's because I had no idea the template had been changed as well as the category, and had I know of the RM I would have strongly opposed it for all of the above reason. The BAND government (tribal governance more refers to traditional governance, not Indian Act-mandated band governments, which are entirely different and mandated by the federal government, though it will change a band's name if requested, as in many cases such as among the Tsilhqot'in and others. The Squamish Nation website if you read more than just the copyright notice, uses Skwxwu7mesh throughout its pages. The whole idea, and then-existing consensus among those who built the indigenous category structure, of using the endonyms instead of the "common" and/or legal band government names, was to avoid confusion, and to avoid confusing with primary usages of their "common" names which would cause exactly the kind of name confusion that has resulted from with the names or this template and the category, and "FOO people" as a construction is in error, across Wikipedia, because of its other meaning of "people from or belonging to FOO"; a "namespace collision" as Obiwankenobi referred to it. It's not viable, i.e. using "Squamish" as a title for either the category or the template. User:OldManRivers who with me and others derived this system, which unfortunately we did not see fit to publish as a convention or consensus, but which was very real AND practical, fought long and hard for the use of the diacritical forms but has since shrugged at this, not because he doesn't care but he knows it's futile arguing with "settlers" about what they want to call native peoples. Especially if they're not from BC and don't understand the contexts and recent history involved, including the marked distinction between "FOO (people" and "[anglicization] (First) Nation", and how distinct the people calling themselves (and they do, in English) the Skwxwu7mesh are not the same thing as their government, which is a departure from their traditional society and, like all governments, is held in some disregard by those who dislike their policies and practices; This is one case where there is one government for one people, although different communities of them in North Vancouver and in Squamish itself. The reason that the endonyms were made a standard vs the band-names and tribal council names is because in many cases, there are many separate band councils and tribal councils of the same people; I've listed them in various places; the place that comes immediately to mind where I did that is on User talk:Salix Alba but also in the various RMs and CfDs of late concerning St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc, and Tsilhqot'in, also on Ktunaxa (see the RMs on their talkpages). In the first three cases - no, four - there are independent bands, two or more tribal councils, and some bands that belong to two different peoples, and tribal councils and treaty groups that span multiple peoples and regions. That standard is workable; imposing outside definitions without considering the overall context or even the local context, in Skwxwu7mesh's/Squamish's case is not workable. The primary use of "Squamish" is for Squamish, British Columbia, same problem with Lillooet, Shuswap, Chilcotin and Kootenay; "we" have let the Okanagan case slide because "Syilx" which is their proper name has different spellings stateside and because it's not really in use - though Skwxwu7mesh is. In fact, when you turn off the Lions Gate Bridge east along Marine Drive, around the intersection of Capilano Road, the Squamish Nation has as sign up for a preschool and uses the term Skxwu7mesh. The expert on these matters is User:OldManRivers who I have notified via FB and I hope he comes by....he's an activist, yes, but also the person leading the Skwxu7mesh snichim revival (that's their language, as it's called in their language). Similarly Category:Dakelh and Dakelh, which was the original name of the article now called Carrier people, their "old" name, was launched by User:Billposer, who is the head of the Yinka Dene Language Institute in Vanderhoof and is the leading modern authority on those people. That article and category were one of the ones pre-existing at the time OMR and I and several others worked out the consensus that has been ignored, quite summarily IMO, and which I'm constantly aggrieved at the equation of "band=people" for name justifications, such as you have just done. Not all of the division/separation of language/government/reserve or reservation/people etc articles and categories has been done continent wide; in a few cases such as with Musqueam, who are also in the Vancouver area, it wasn't done because there is no standard accepted spelling for the Hulquminum (Downriver Halkomelem) name, which is something like Hwmethwyem.....note Sts'Ailes vs Chehalis First Nation, Tscwayalc'mc vs Pavilion Indian Band, Lil'wat if it exists yet with Mount Currie Indian Band. There's good reason for these distinctions, reasons that only a few people around here "get"; I'm not native myself but have lived alongside them and have many friends and have learned a lot about them, and worked with them on cultural matters here and elsewhere. The rashness of the moves and the lack of information (or false information) fielded in all cases is staggering sometimes; one person (Obiwan?) even though the Skwxwu7mesh were in Washington state; in fact, they did used to be spelled as "Sko-ko-mish" but that was too similar to Skokomish, i.e the Twana, as they are already known, and that's one reason the second 'k' was dropped; they still get confused with the Suguamish. Strict adherence to supposed "rules" which are in fact only guidelines has caused a lot of wreckage to what has been a very workable system until the fox was set among the pigeons, and IMO chaos has resulted in all the cases I've mentioned. Instead of researching and improving articles, people have been playing name-games without knowing what they're talking about or looking into why and by whom the categories and articles and templates were named and created in the first place. Instead of doing constructive things about these subjects, the many speedies and the TFDS and CFDS that have occurred - and thankfully in teh above-namned cases has now been prevented.....I hope - has taken up huge amounts of energy....and you know what? Those who speedied them and in this case RMd them didn't even take time to work on the articles themselves. Even the ledes remained the same, instead of being reworked to the new (if wrong) titles. Not just speedy, but sloppy and reckless. One editor in particular, those here know exactly who I'm talking about I'm sure...See also on User talk:Good Olfactory towards the bottom; sorry I may have spouted off about you, I'm just completely exhausted and frustrated at the number of times I've had to explain and re-explain this and how many articles, categories, and templates have been affected; there's clearly a need for an indigenous-content guideline, like how ENGVAR and CANMOS exist for Canadian English (of which these names are a part). A bulk RM will not suffice, it's clear that more than article names are affected and will continue to be so if other "rules" are imposed without reference to context or current usage or an understanding of the many distinctions and terminologies at play in these matters. And it was pointed out by Lili Charlie, I think the user name is, that a main article title does not have to require a name change to cats or templates, and that there are many exceptions to that, especially where there are good grounds for same. That's why my comment "knee-jerk" and so on- acting without thinking or presuming that a guideline is a rule, It's not, especially given the Fifth Pillar (NORULES). These all need to be rolled back, RMd or not; Salix Alba is apparently reconsidering his "no consensus" ruling on Category:Cree nations which is different in nature but involves similar issues. Biggest among them, to me, is lack of knowledge of the subject matter by participants and by closers.....so much time spent fixing what has been broken that was working just fine.....all because people who didn't know, and didn't take time to learn and comprehend, "voted", and made erroneous arguments, often very strange and sometimes "colonialist" to boot. I've proposed a set of guidelines and explained the old consensus time and time again; it's when there's a "geonamespace collision" as in the Squamish case, the need is clear. And urgent.Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

HERE is another example of why people such as yourself, Kauffner, should not' be moving and changing materials you don't know anything about...."part of a series on Squamish" in British Columbia means the town/district of Squamish. All of these speedies that happened while OMR and I were away are not just suspect and ill-informed, they were unwise and erroneous. And without context or thoughtful inquiry as to why those things were titled the way they were by the creators....and the "Nation" link goes to the band government, though in Canada that has overtones of nationality and ethnic identity also, which is distinct from band government, and not in subtle ways. And I even heard in the RM, which I found out about after coming back in from the cold, as it wer, people sayhing "well those editors aren't around anymore so it doesn't matter what they think", which is just asinine, given that nobody in that group was FROM either Squamish, or were Skwxwu7mesh themselves. I know CJLippert and Uysvidi get what I'm saying...I have too book off for a few days because my feet are swollen, my blood pressure is through the roof (I'm 57) and I'm tired of having to explain to myself to people who point out about "policy" that's only loose guidelines to justify their mistakes. When I come back, I'm gonna start a sandbox off this WikiProject to address all the issues I know "we" came to a workable, if not fully applied, consensus a few years ago; and which make sense far beyond anything I'm seeing/hearing now. The template should be reverted, the RM overturned, this side bar also, and so on; you were all ignorant (and yes, I'll use that word) of t he causes, teh rationale, the context, "you" are all just applyling gidelines with no regard for content or context, especially the wording and titles resulting from your changes, but also how articles will read once links and pipes are changed willy-nilly......CHAOS. Rewriting and renaming thoughtfully-arrived at content on the basis of a pack of conflicting and ill-conceived "rules and policies" (guidelines) is more than unworkable, it's destructive.Skookum1 (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have more to say, though more constructive for me when the time comes, since my time is short (and I don't mean just limited) is to start the guidelines and hope the informed take part. Wikipedia' credibility is low enough as it is in the real world....you're not who this is about but another editor liked a quip I made about the endonym RMs he drafted a draft comment page about it WP:Brat in a bubble. All the construtive work I put in here for a number of years has been overturned, I'm not talking about WP:OWN but there should be a WP:RESPECT piece on respecting the work of those who came before you, instead of saying "oh they're not here any longer, we don't have to pay attention to anything they said/did", which was the gist of those comments in teh Squamish RM. One of the people who helped "us" construct all these systems of organization and naming, by the way, is User:Phadriel, may Great Coyote bless her soul, I hope she is well. If only there were those of her sagacity and deep knowledge and spirit still around to keep the white wolves at bay. Quite literally.Skookum1 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just found another "k-speedy" from the same time period, and also with complications, especially now as Sechelt, British Columbia is now Sechelt. See here. All such speedies by that editor should be reverted as being undiscussed; I have yet to get on about the parallel changes to the language pages, the peoples articles were enough strain to "win" (overturn). As mentioned, I have health problems and other work to do, but encountering these moves all the time and sometimes when they affect language in other articles, or in articles planned, is a real pain in the a##.Skookum1 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

{{Five Civilized Tribes}}

template:Five Civilized Tribes has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

See two discussions above this. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

So based on recommendations on the discussion of this template, it's now {{Indian Removal}}. The scope of template is the question, since almost every tribe in the US has been removed, if even just to a portion of their original homeland. This would refer to "Indian Removal" as a US federal policy in the 19th century. Typically it refers to Eastern tribes removed to Indian Territory and surrounding areas; however, I wonder if the western tribes should be included as well? And this template will have to be distinguished from {{Aboriginal title in the United States}}. Any improvements on the template would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

So it went from bad to worse? Can you give URL /wikilink to actual discussion??

Didn't "we" go through a long discussion about something very much like this re Indian Wars, which I think now is title American Indian Wars, and is somehow distinguished from the "massacres" topic/category, since renamed...to something? Most people think of the Indian Wars as those on the Great Plains, and maybe the Southwest; those in the Pacific Northwest are kind of separate but not unconnected (i.e. the Yakima, Cayuse, Nez Perce, Rogue River, Puget Sound etc....). Five Civilized Tribes, at least to me speaking as someone from "outside and far away", is an identifiable group of tribes and a certain period, and about their local civilization; "Indian Removal" means the physical act of forced relocation......reductio in absurdum is going on all over the place in Wikipedia, the levelling and merging of terms and such......not just in IPNA material I mean......so much energy with so little mental fertilizer yielding stale fruit that all tastes the same, with the same label.Skookum1 (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, to quote my mother quoting Bridwell, "What you mean 'we', white man?" All Native American studies programs go through the basic steps of US federal Indian policy, and "Indian Removal" is Native American history 101. The primary article is Indian Removal, which is reflected in the published literature. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I agree Indian removal is a policy characterizing a specific historic period of US-Native relations. I think it should include any Western tribes as for which we have a source stating that they were affected by the Indian removal act. Presumably this would include the tribes inhabiting those areas where the relocated Eastern tribes arrived. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So if the scope included all tribes removed during the 19th century, probably linking to individual tribes would not be feasible, and instead the template should stick to the articles that are overviews of removal? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yeah, if we want a template on Indian removals and we don't want it to just be a list of most US tribes we would somehow have to have a somewhat stricter criterion for inclusion. I think articles that specifically are about removal events would be a good way to restrict it. But how many articles do we have about such events?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your practical suggestions, User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·. I'll initiate discussion of the scope of the template on the Template talk:Indian Removal. Cheers, 16:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Believe me, I know I'm a sama7 all too well (St'at'imcets for "whitey", more like "honky" with a dark edge on it, almost the equivalent of the n-word). My point is that the subject of the Five Civilized Tribes per se is somewhat different than the subject of the Indian Removal. That term was also not used as part of the wars in the Pacific Northwest, or in California. To me, speaking as someone external to the US who nonetheless, like other Canadians and other non-USians, it speaks to that policy, not to the era when the Five Civilized Tribes were still on their home turf; as different as the article on the Sioux and the Indian Wars or the Cayuse people and the Cayuse War. Up here, we don't merge the Metis with the Riel Rebellions, even though the latter is about what happened to the former....Skookum1 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I confess I'm fascinated by the complete lack of communication that is transpiring during this entire procedure. Regarding "the era when the Five Civilized Tribes were still on their home turf" — the Mississippi Choctaw, the Eastern Band Cherokee, the Poarch Creeks, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida are still in their traditional homelands today. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Well, if they're still there, then why talk about their removal? Just a rhetorical question; I'm referring to their state before the removals, when all of their bands were still in their homelands. My point remains the same; there's a distinction between peoples and events and policies affecting them.Skookum1 (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The trail of tears, Skookum, one of the more public genocidal actions of the US Government. That's why this is a big deal. A few bands managed to evade removal, mostly by disappearing into remote areas. Most of their fellow tribal members got ousted. Nasty stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The merge has already happened.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So all this is a moot point.....to me though unfamiliar with all the material in these cases, it sounds like a merge between potlatch and potlatch ban.Skookum1 (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And as usual, Native people's views about themselves are again ignored. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Except it was Uyvsdi who nominated it for deletion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not the original, the solution that made the problem worse. I have too many pots to stir to tackle this one too... Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"America"

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

Dead God in heaven, how much dramahz can teh wiki" hold? Montanabw^(talk) 17:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

:) -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi

I don't suppose there's a barnstar or wiki-medal for drama queen, is there?Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You haven't read the recent move discussions for "Li (surname)", "The Dark Knight" and "Deadmau5", have you? (very long and very drama) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Deadmau5 has a number in it! Skookum! It isn't a word, is it??!!! Hah! Montanabw^(talk) 01:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If you've followed that at all, you'll see I pointed out U-J3RK5....(the five is silent). No quibbles on the hyphen so far....Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Or Kiix?in.Skookum1 (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Rock bands are your ace in the hole. ?uestlove. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Most definitely. Several music acts have come up for renaming in the wake of 'deadmau5', to add ASCII art and L33T-speak spelling to their article names. (meanwhile, at WT:AT, there's a debate going on on why Chinese isn't acceptable (I guess, unless a rock band uses it?) ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

You can point to Sunn O))), an ASCII art title, for another supporting point. (or the raftload of non-English letters at various Germanic and Nordic articles (eth, eszett, thorn; are not English letters, not even with accents) so adding digits shouldn't be a problem. (unless we really are ruled by the Teufel)-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There are thousands. I found this yesterday, Sheet'ká Ḵwáan Naa Kahídi, which is in Tlingit; underscore-k, just like was in Skwxwu7mesh in its original form; IMO not suitable for categories but as titles hard to get away from in Amerind institution titles e.g. Xa:ytem and Kiix?in archaeological sites.Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Archaeological confirmation of long residency

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

on the Tsimshian page (prob Tsimshian people) and Metlakatla pages for starters, there's an archaeology of British Columbia category somewhere where other suitable pages might present themselves; there is no List of archaeological sites in British Columbia that I'm aware of; if that's a bluelink and not red there is one. Might be a suitable spot on History of British Columbia also.Skookum1 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And on Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and British Columbia Coast (if there's any pre-history on that one I'm not sure). A general Archaeology of British Columbia may exist, dunno if that's a bluelink; prob not.Skookum1 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I forgot. There are two templates Nimerigar, one for the Paranormal working party and another for WikiProject Cryptozoology. None for this working party yet. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those articles where the more someone knows about the subject, the less likely they are going to share anything online about them. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yes, I'm aware of that and respect it, but is there an objection to at least reporting but the non-Native Americans say? Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No objections here. If it's published, it's published. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands

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

Starblanket

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

Done. A stub article Ahtahkakoop was created and Starblanket was made into a disambiguation page. CJLippert (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Ahchacoosacootacoopits on the one link the same guy? In the notable leaders section. Starblanket First Nation would seem to be Star Blanket Cree Nation in SK here. Ahtahkakoop First Nation has a different INAC listing.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Ahchacoosacootacoopits was 1845-1918 so not the same guy, hm...Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

they were both Cree, I'm wondering if there's a proper "modern" way to spell Ahchacoosacootacoopits.Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There is. I have provided that as Acāhkosa kā-otakohpit, "[One who has] Star[s for a ]blanket". The less awkward translation may be "One who has blanket of stars" but as he was known as "Starblanket", I had to fit the translation (with the missing parts) to that formula. CJLippert (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I created Star Blanket Cree Nation, which I suppose is where Starblanket First Nation should redirect to, though Atahkakoop FN technically is the same name. Also wound up creating the multi-band reserve Treaty Four Reserve Grounds Indian Reserve No. 77.Skookum1 (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Here's guidelines that were once hashed out for the naming of ethnic groups on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). One major hurdle for formulating MOS for naming Indigenous articles is that *we* don't agree. Any given group has innumerable names that members of that group use and tend to feel quite strongly about.

And spelling systems. One reason the endonym for Musqueam wasn't used is, other than that there's not enough for them to have a category, there seem to be different transliteration systems for Hulquminum (Downriver Halkomelem) and there was an ongoing battle about that (all unsourced as I recall, but that's often the case with indigenous languages, not much stuff published by them is available). Also the diacriticals on Sto:lo are used (even in English) by one of the tribal councils, but not the other. At least with most of the others there's some consistency. Some, that is e.g. the Southern Kwakiutl use that term ("Kwakiutl") but most other Kwakwakaw'wawk do not and don't like it.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic groups have several acceptable naming conventions, with "Foo people" being preferred as a neutral and unambiguous term. "Ethnic Foos" and "Foos" are also acceptable. In articles describing multiple ethnic groups, "peoples" is pluralized, for example, Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Generally speaking, the article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group. How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided. Disputes over how to refer to a group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Article titles, and English. Undiscussed, unilateral moves of widely edited articles are discouraged.Uyvsdi (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Verifiability in some cases will always be hard because of the aforementioned lack of publications available. Re WP:English, in the RMs it was established that between press style guidelines and government practices and that one essay (which I'll find and link on the guidelines) that the endonyms are in regular use in English - in Canada. Largely not in the US, it seems. But also as I pointed out on the RMs, most natives are native English speakers (99%) and they and their non-native neighbours all do use the terms, so doesn't it count when natives speak English? Is that not English? etc...Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "Foo people" for ethnic articles is it creates namespace collision with categories such as Category:Algerian people, which presumably means "People from Algeria" - and not "People who are Algerian" - now in many cases, this is more or less the same thing, but every once in a while, it is not. We also have many categories which are "People from _town_", which somewhat avoids this problem. The Squamish mess (and several others) was partially due to name collisions causing confusion. I don't have an answer yet, just bringing up a problem. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

yes, that's one of the core problems that's come about. I'm not gonna do that whole ponderous table, but will assemble all those "FOO people" changes (nearly all by the same editor during my absence, OldManRivers of course was also offline. About the anglicisms, at one time I advocated them, as can be seen on what is now the Talk:Squamish people page but I see the wisdom and practicality of them now. RE WP:Wisdom, seems like that needs an essay someday. i.e. when guidelines should be balanced by WP:Common sense. I will once again bemoan the loss of User:Phaedriel who was good in that regard, very good. I remember that, during those old discussions, it was felt that "FOO people" was often redundant and should only be used when necessary, not as a hard-and-fast rule. and yes, per Uysvidi's comment, "Peoples" plural is often preferable. e.g. in the case of the Sto:lo and Kwakwaka'wakw and Cowichan, they're not "one people" but several peoples. Not just because of different tribal councils; really they're in each case a group of peoples speaking the same language, and not a monolithic "people".Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A current example: Kikuyu people and Category:Kikuyu people - but there is also Kikuyu, Kenya, a town, so it's possible there are people from the town of Kikuyu who *aren't* a member of the Kikuyu tribe, so Category:Kikuyu people is ambiguous as a result, and it would probably be even more confusing to create Category:People from Kikuyu, but perhaps not. I'm also not sure we should treat a tribal affiliation all that differently than an ethno-linguistic identity (like Gujarati) or a national identity like Indian people or Finnish people or Chinese people. At the end of the day, these are different, nested levels of identity, with differing group sizes, but they aren't necessarily so different as to merit different treatment in terms of article titling for example, so whatever we develop should be able to deal with most groupings of people. We have to find a generic solution, in other words.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I suggested somewhere WP:Naming guidelines (indigenous peoples) or WP:Naming guidelines (indigenous peoples of North America) is because it strikes me that the situation is different on different continents and re different cultures. And that guidelines and situation for macro-groups such as Chinese people and Indian people or Finnish people (which could be titled Finns the way Norwegians is title) is very different than for indigenous peoples. They are more equivalent to First Nations people or Native American people (though both of those really are "peoples" of course, ie.. should be in the plural as there's not one monolithic people or, as in the case of India or China or Finland, a national identity/state.Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a response to Skookum1's statement a bit above, "the endonyms are in regular use in English - in Canada"—that may be true in BC and some other parts of Canada, but there are some obvious major exceptions, it seems to me, like the Mohawks and the rest of the Six Nations. The Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation themselves say [2] they are the Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, Onondaga, and Tuscarora, as does the Canadian/Ontario government [3]. Yet our Mohawk people page says "They call themselves Kanien'gehaga", our Seneca people page says "The Seneca nation's own name (autonym) is Onöndowága", Onondaga people says "Known as Gana’dagwëni:io’geh to the other Iroquois tribe...", and so on. The Mohawks of Canada are fairly famous for various reasons, and I've never heard Canadians call them anything but "Mohawk". In contrast, the term Iroquois seems to be increasingly replaced by "Haudenosaunee" in many sources, both in Canada and the US. Elsewhere in Ontatio there is the Munsee-Delaware First Nation, called that by the First Nation itself [4] and the Ontatio government [5]. Munsee is one thing, but Delaware? They are Lenape! Even more than "Iroquois" becoming replaced by "Haudenosaunee", "Lenape" has replaced "Delaware" in many, maybe most ways (except of course in the names of reservations, both in Canada and the US). Anyway, just felt obliged to point out endonyms/autonyms have not been wholly adopted by Canadian First Nations. In short, the whole topic is a case of "it's complicated". Pfly (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

there's a lot in publication, just only available locally or academically, not on-line. As for disambiguating langauge articles from people articles, I don't see why e.g. Mi'kmaq (disambiguation) isn't where Mi'kmaq is now, as the people is the primary usage....unless you're a linguist who regards them as museum pieces. Same with Tsimshian (where Tsimshian is the convention for the people, Coast Tsimshian the convention for the language, which is properly called Smalgyax), or with Gitxsan, none of those need "people" added, but you-know-who did anyway. I could come up with a list of such examples where the primary name has been made an unnecessary disambiguation instead of being let serve as t he stand-alone primary article for the people(s).Skookum1 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with you on Mi'kmaq — just changed it so now it reaches the primary topic, Mi'kmaq people. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hm I meant that Mi'kmaq should be the people article; i.e. Mi'kmaq people should be moved back to Mi'kmaq which is where it was before Kwami started screwing around.Skookum1 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Out of respect for User:Billposer who is the head of the Yinka Dene Language Institute and who created the Dakelh and Category:Dakelh in the first place (apparently Kwami knows better or something than the most reputable linguist in that field....), could someone here who can move Carrier people back to Dakelh please? The category has stayed the same as Bill Poser created it; suffice to say it's in danger of being speedied into Category:Carrier.Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify that "Carrier" is a translation of the Sekani word for these people, it derives from an exonym, and is not a translation of the endonym.Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

All the "Git" names on Tsimshian are now +people e.g. Gitga'ata people which is totally unnecessary as (a) "Git"=people and (b) they are totally unique and in need of no qualification.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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

cleanup of government/reserve titles and re infobox

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

Be careful. Some Reserves have several Settlements. Other Settlements are Reserves. Other Settlements are independent of Reserves. Some Settlements are coterminous with Communities. Some Settlements are contained within a Community. Some Settlements only partially share jurisdiction with a Community. Some Settlements only share a name with a Community, but do not share the same geographical space, either partially or fully. CJLippert (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Onyotaa:ka First Nation = ??

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

Because of its title I changed it to a government category from reserves; upon finding no band listing, I just checked the list of reserves at INAC; this and the previous page are the "O" section, it's not there.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that they're the Oneidas, but let me check it out. CJLippert (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Typo, but yes, Onyota'a:ka are the Oneida. Oneida Nation of the Thames is an Onyota'a:ka First Nation but not THE Onyota'a:ka First Nation. Also, there is an Onyota'a:ka First Nation component in the Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation, but they too are not THE Onyota'a:ka First Nation. So where should the redirect go? I don't know unless we develop a section within the Oneida people article specifically addressing the condition of the Onyota'a:ka in Canada, and then have the redirect point to that section. If we do that, it also means we need to develop a section in that article to address the state of the Onyota'a:ka in the United States. CJLippert (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC) (Additional edits to comments made. CJLippert (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC) )

Well, in INAC there's "Oneida", with that only as the name, presumably Oneida First Nation, here though it shows no reserves at the location on that article, which is just SW of London - IRs are Glebe Farm 40B and the Six Nations 40, both reserves shared with many other bands. Unless that is Glebe Farm?Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

NB Oneida First Nation would seem to need to be a disambiguation between that one and the "of the Thames" one. All this a good case in point why people and band and reserve articles/categories need to be different and kept separately, even if IRs are only redirects to bands in many cases (the redirects go in the IR categories...currently the "FNR" categories (you've seen the CfR right?).Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm, pretty sure now that must be Oneida Nation of the Thames, INAC listing gives an address in Southwold, which is where the latlong on Onyotaa:ka First Nation goes to....mystery solved. Question is now which name to use, as unless we can find a band website with "Onyotaa:ka" we have no cite for that....Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in Google; the Facebook page that comes up is just a "lift" from Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

the band government redirect was created by myself in 2008.Skookum1 (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Beware. If a Tribal group have smaller divisions that govern themselves, then "Band government" would be appropriate. But if there is only one Tribal group government, they would not be a Band, so a "Band government" would not be appropriate. In Canada, Indian tribes and those that are large enough to have Bands, Metis, and Inuit are collectively called "First Nation" so at least in Canada, "First Nation government" would work. Structurally and legally, yes, "Indian reserve" is the correct terminology, though some IRs do have "First Nation" in their title. CJLippert (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Saddle Lake, Alberta

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

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

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

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

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

List of categories

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

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

"First Nation" vs "Indian Band"

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

Seems to me that the distinction is actually between "legal" words - official government terms - and ethnic identity. I would say that where an official government name is not at issue, then respect for the people so named should be primary (and if there is a dispute internally amongst them, "tech the controversy" and explain it, with redirects from whichever form does not prevail by standard WIki MOS naming and dab guidelines). (Putting on personal opinion hat now...) IMHO, "PC" is a rude thing to say when you are talking about people's names for themselves - one person's "PC" is another person's "please respect who I am" (just saying...) Seems to be that there is no need to use one in favor of the other, it all depends on context. Probably should see if WikiProject Canada can offer some cleanup help. Montanabw^(talk) 17:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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

And re WPCanada cleanup, I'm the main guy already LOL.Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

sorting/subcatting Category:Native American leaders

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

And just noticed Category:Titles and offices of Native American leaders and Chief Shakes being in it; that's not an office or a title, and in his case he's Native Alaskan, which is not the same usage as Native American....not sure how many other Alaskan leaders we have articles on, seems to behoove a Category:Native Alaskan leaders (or is that Category:Alaskan Native leaders, I'm not sure just at the moment. Maybe re his name not being a title or office but a hereditary name, another category for "hereditary chieftainces" or something might apply; Kahtsahlano and Capilano in BC would apply if the category-name isn't Native American-specific (the links there are to the original name-holder not to the herditary name itself, though Maquinna is written that way (I think).`Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tyee redirects to Tribal chief but I don't feel comfortable putting the latter in the Titles and offices category, as it's not really a title or an office....though it is there.....Tyee kind of needs its own article IMO but that's for another day.Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol Si:yam goes to another-language wiki.. (looks like Lao or Khmer, not sure what "si:" wiki is...).that's the Coast Salish term for members and elders of the noble class, often Siam or Siem or Siyam etc in English transliteration (SHAI-yam or SHAI-yEm E=schwa is how it's pronounced).Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Tunica-Biloxi name conflict

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

American Indian Wars]

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

Wuikinuxv -> Oowekeeno people - Oweekeno or back to Wuikinuxv

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

• Tsimshian people was Tsimshian (matches Category:Tsimshian)
• Mi'kmaq people was Mi'kmaq (matches Category:Mi'kmaq)
• Haida people was Haida (matches Category:Haida)
• Nuu-chah-nulth people was Nuu-chah-nulth (matches Category:Nuu-chah-nulth)
• Carrier people was Dakelh (matches Category:Dakelh)
• Tlingit people was Tlingit (matches Category:Tlingit)
• Haisla people was Haisla (matches Category:Haisla)
• Heiltsuk people was Heiltsuk (matches Category:Heiltsuk
• Gitxsan people was Gitxsan (matches (Category:Gitxsan)
• Nisga'a people was Nisga'a (matches Category:Nisga'a)
• Tahltan people was Tahltan (matches Category:Tahltan)

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

Houma Nation

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

Definition of "Native American" being contested

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

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

LOL I'm not sure that I have the patience but re other discussions with yourself and CJLippert, I've wondered about that terminology a lot; encountering "Native American" in not just FN categories and content but also re Alaskan Natives. Also re people/tribe/"nation" there are cases where a people is not a federally recognized tribe (capital-T) though maybe part of one (Entiat tribe for example, who are part of the Colville. and was (ahem) wondering if e.g. Category:Native American tribes in Washington (state) should be retitled, as not all its contents are Category:Federally recognized tribes in the United States, either because of subsumation into a federally-recognized tribe, as with the Entiat, or the Duwamish who are recognized as what we in Canada call "status natives" but are not a federally-recognized tribe as such. Not sure which of the Washington peoples are extinct, like Pentlatch and Stuwix are in BC, and in BC of course there's the Sinixt who do not have band government status ("First Nation") in Canada, and cross-border peoples/ territories like the Klallam and Nlaka'pamux who show up in respectively BC and Washington categories because their historical territories bridge the border, but current settlement/populations do not. I'd wondered about under the rubric of "indigenous peoples" re US state categories for that purpose, but given your concerns here not a good idea I guess.....terminology is everything here and consistency ain't easy.....I'll keep my pointy nose out of this for now ;-)Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I also thought "for Wikipedia purposes" this was true. But some are very opposed to the Indigenous. Rmhermen (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but we can all find individuals who hate and individuals who actively promote the terms Natives, Native American, Aboriginal, American Indian, even Autochthonic (okay, I've never heard anyone outside of eastern Canada use the last one!). Without citations, "I've got a friend who..." stories aren't particularly compelling. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

On some Canadian talkpage somewhere someone is doing the Native=anyone born somewhere....when the context is clearly aboriginal....curiously it wasn't a Canadian redneck type but someone from the UK who's also contesting Canadian census tables with "Indian" vs "East Indian" (the latter is what's actually used in the census data) and "North American Indian" (a category which exists because some Canadians are not of First Nations origin, and it's in the ancestry tables also because not all such people are First Nations (a term which is only properly used for "Status Indian").Skookum1 (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There's something in the water recently then. Truthfully Wikipedia has proven indispensable in honing precise language IRL. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Wikipedia has a strong influence on English usage far outside of it; all the more reason for us to work towards usefully-clear language......both in term of North American usages/definitions/conventions and also in global terms, as the Indian/East Indian etc issue demonstrates.Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• The objections to "indigenous" are cited on the page Native American name controversy to good historical reasons. The objections to "Native", if there really are any, seem to fall in the "I've got a friend who" category. Big difference there. "Native" is the way to go, and "indigenous" should be dropped as a term for the same thing, in my opinion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of having all information in one place, here's the objections:

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

The first ascertation has a citation needed tag, and the objection that "indigenous" can refer to people globally is solved by adding the region afterwards, e.g. Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, etc. Regarding European colonization during the 17th and 18th centuries—many California, Great Basin, and Colorado River Tribes did not have sustained European contact until the 19th century, so that point is moot. Regarding the objection that indigène has been derogatory, in the English-language Wikipedia we are not going to use the French term.

In the civil rights sphere, "Indigenous peoples" has positive legal connotations (Das 296), as in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The solidarity with other indigenous groups with the world is positive, for example, in its use by the Eastern Canadian organization Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement Ottawa. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You left out a paragraph: "The term indien or indienne is used in the legislation, although the preferred term is now amérindien. The term indigène is not used as it is seen as having negative connotations because of its similarity to the French equivalent of indigent ("poor"). It has also acquired further negative associations in French, due to the indigénat code enforced in French colonial Africa, 1887-1947. The old French term sauvage ("wild") is no longer used either, as it is considered racist." "Indigenous" is also avoided in Canada in English for the same reason, especially the Eastern half of Canada - in favor of Native or Aboriginal, both being seen as more neutral terms in Canada. This is similar to the United States going with Native American and one rarely hears "Indigenous American" except perhaps through Archie Bunker's clenched teeth grin... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is advocating for the use of the terms indien, indienne, or indigène. I just linked to a group in Ottawa named Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement Ottawa, so yes, "Indigenous" is used in Eastern Canada. "Indigenous" is used by Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, Quebec, for more examples.

Actually "Indigenous American" is a term used by many Native scholars, for instance Choctaw author Devon Abbott Mihesuah in her book Indigenous American Women: Decolonization, Empowerment, Activism and Chickasaw-Choctaw author heather ahtone uses the term as well, for example throughout her essay "Designed to Last: Striving toward an Indigenous American Aesthetic." -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

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

Talk:Native American name controversy has loads of it, as does the article itself, which also is mistitled as including Inuit, First Nations, Metis etc...."Name controversies for terms for indigenous peoples" is a bit longish and awkward. Also btw indigenes in French (missing an accent there) is I think more like "indigent" as opposed to "indigenous"; one reason maybe why Canadian French uses "autochthones". The terminology discussions - also part of the "old consensus" or set of conventions from quite a few years ago now had addressed this; it was indigenous editors who preferred that term, including User:OldManRivers and User:Phaedriel and it's why the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast is titled like it is. "Aboriginal" in Canada is now a constitutional term for all three groups, as far as Canadian aboriginal peoples go, can't remember the reasons why "indigenous" is preferred over that, though on Aboriginal peoples in Canada it's specifically only about Canadian peoples; on cross-border articles like Coast Salish and others the term "indigenous" was for whatever reason the more "comfortable" of those terms; yes they have POV/COI contexts because OMR and Phaedriel and other indigenous editors are of that opinion/interpretation....wherever those discussions are, and despite both of those prolific editors being now gone from Wikipedia (though OMR still monitors articles and such he created, he's not totally gone), their input should not be tossed aside (as it was in the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish RM) simply because they're gone.Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the aborginal/indigenous thing is a US/Canadian "thing." Also a possible concern with being confused with Australian Aboriginal people. Dunno. Just know I don't hear people call themselves "aboriginal" in the western USA, but "Native people" is pretty common and "indigenous" is OK. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is partly the Australian associations of the term, but also in Canada "Aboriginal" is a constitutional term....there was a discussion long ago, one of so many lost in archives now, about why "indigenous" was preferable to "aboriginal"....came down to the etymology, as I recall.....and the complications of the legal/constitutional usage in Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nuxalk art website - legitimate ext link or not?

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

WikiProject Americas

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

Category talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Americas - really?

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

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

Here's a live one

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

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

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

I think it should be moved here. GregJackP Boomer! 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved it here, will hat old discussion and link it here

POV issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

I take your point, but I'd also like to note a few other things. First, the holocaust you speak of can't be blamed on the current generation of non-Native Americans, so please don't suggest that we are responsible. There are no genocidal European colonists in the Americas. Some are descendants of such many generations back, but this sort of accusation is the sort of attack that I would think you'd reject if it was the other way. Secondly, I would find it very strange if all human sacrifices (and there were many) were done by only Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc, and none in the Americas. Whether you know of them or not, and I doubt that your knowledge extends to every Native American culture. And thirdly, what's your explanation for Mound 72? Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is a point to be made that it does continue today. You still have reservations, you still have Native American children being taken from tribes and adopted by European-Americans, and a multitude of other issues. That's not to say that you or anyone you know are intentionally pursuing such policies, but the issues still exist. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Well, at least you understand that there is a sourcing problem. If you don't actually have any sourced changes you want to make, this is in danger of becoming a WP:FORUM type of discussion and inappropriate. It certainly isn't appropriate to accuse me of having a Eurocentrist or colonialist point of view, see WP:AGF (and I'd love to know how I can be a colonist as presumably colonists have some place to go back to - over the centuries my family have lived in America I suspect my ancestry is extremely mixed, with possibly even indigenous American blood). You might want to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right - what should we do to move the discussion there? Sourcing is also a problem, like you stated. GregJackP Boomer! 17:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that there has been a pretty good presentation of some of the philosophical issues involved, but what I feel we need to do now is look at some specifics. Zoongitozi (if you put something, anything on your user page your user name will appear as a blue link rather than a red one, making you appear as not just some new editor arriving with an agenda) please point out some specific sentences that you feel are incorrect and I, and probably others here, will be glad to look at them. That native peoples have no passed on tradition suggesting that native groups engaged in human sacrifice is not, to me, a very compelling argument. My family tree can be traced back to 600 or 700 AD and we have a rich oral and written traditions and nowhere in them is mention made of my ancestors engaging in genocidal practices, for example. Yet I believe that they did these and other terrible things. So, what passages in this article would you like to examine? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, a statement such as, "no where ever at any time have I EVER heard of any of us in north OR south america practicing human sacrifice or ritual torture." pretty much cries out for a rather long list of very documented cases of both. You might be surprised at how open the minds of many wikipedia editors are, but please be careful about making statements such as the one above. That you never heard of them does not mean that these things did not happen and you only (in my opinion) weaken your own point. Carptrash (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

American Indigenous language Wikipedias

• Avañe'ẽ (Warani)
• Aymar aru (Aymara)
• ᏣᎳᎩ (Cherokee)
• Chahta (Choctaw)
• ᐃᔨᔫ (Cree)
• Diné bizaad (Navajo)
• ᐃᓄᒃ (Inuktitut)
• Iñupiak
• Kalaallisut (Greenlandic Inuit)
• Mvskoke (Muscogee)
• Nahuatlahtolli (Nahautl)
• Qhichwa Simi (Quechua)
• Shoshoni
• Tsêhesenêstsestôtse (Cheyenne)
• Wüne pakina (Mapudungun)
• Yucatec Maya

Languages of the First Nations of Canada

• Canadian Aboriginal Languages Wikipedia Coordination

Indigenous languages of Latin America

• Wikiproyecto:Lenguas indígenas de América

Native American languages of the US in Wikimedia Incubator

• Alabama
• Blackfoot
• Chinook Jargon
• Choctaw
• Lakota
• Mi'kmaq
• Mohawk
• Northwestern Ojibwa
• O'odham
• Shoshoni
• Unami-Lenape
• Central Alaskan Yup'ik
• Zuni

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

Thanks for this list, please also see Wikimedia Indigenous Languages which is more international, but if anybody needs support for a small Wikipedia, one in the Incubator or even one that doesn't exist yet in any indigenous, aboriginal or minority languages, that's the best place to find it. Speaking English (or Spanish or even French depending on where you are) is important for the Native peoples to survive in today's world, but preserving the dying ancestral languages is even more important. Amqui (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. I think we should copy this discussion to the main project talk page.

There used to be the Northwestern Ojibwe Wikipedia in the incubator that is no longer there. The primary problem was the lack of agreement on script. A solution I had proposed was an automatic script converter (like what is available on zh.wikipedia and iu.wikipedia). cr.wikipedia can also benefit from the iu.wikipedia like converter, just as Ojibwe can. But unlike Cree, the Ojibwe would need many more orthographic converter options, possibly a double or triple choices (Latin v. Syllabaries [CAS and GLAS], Full/Pointed v. Syncoped/Unpointed, and specific style based on first two choices): Anihšināpemowin , Anihshinaapemowin , Anishinaabemowin , Nishnaabemowin , Anishinàpemowin , Anichinàpemoȣin , Anicinàpemowin , Eneshenabémowen , Neshnabémwen , anisHinalemowin , a.ni.sHi.naH.le.mo.win , ᐊᓂᓯᓇᐯᒧᐏᐣ , ᐊᓂᐦᓯᓈᐯᒧᐏᓐ , ᐊᓂᔑᓇᐯᐎᐣ , ᐊᓂᐦᔑᓈᐯᒧᐎᐣ , ᐊᓂᔑᓇᐯᒧᐎᓐ , ᐊᓂᐦᔑᓈᐯᒧᐎᓐ , and a dozen more. The base article would have to have to be fully annotated in order for the automatic script converter to function properly, which may be difficult for western speakers that do not differentiate s and sh, or northern speakers lacking syllable-terminal n, or eastern speakers with vowel syncopes. But just as en.wikipedia shifts spelling and style from the various Englishes, Ojibwe Wikipedia can also easily shift spellings and styles from various Anishinaabemowinan, so that is not really an issue. But the script is. CJLippert (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

tired of getting dablink notifications, this has to STOP

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

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

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

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

Maunus insists it should remain and made some edits which confused the matter even further; I've changed its name because of that content and still aver that it's a catch-all article for peoples and mythologies that need their own article, not an omnibus catch-all like this one, with its overtones of SYNTH and bad ethnography, as is/was the case. See [7] and Maunus' attempts to validate it, and to claim thta "Salish" is an actual useful and valid term instead of vague and conjectural as is the case with this article and its origins. Skwxwu7mesh and Nlaka'pamux and Kalispel and Duwamish and Cowichan and T'Zouke etc mythologies are not the same and should not be luymped together like this based on someone's reading of a couple of storybooks.Skookum1 (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC

Salish is a linguistic group and is not "vague" or "confused", but based on a shared cultural and linguistic history.Linguistic groups always almost have a shared body of narratives that are tied together by historical roots - for example we have an article on Indo-European mythology although of course there is no single mythology of all of the indo-european linguistic groups. You clearly havent even looked the sources that you are criticizing which are based on decades of collaborative scholarship with the groups in question. I know that you have a the idea that you are for some reason the only white person who has the right to speak on behalf of Indians and that everyone else doing research or collaborations is a scientifically suspect oppressor (probably tories), but you can take that piece of conceited crap and stuff it - no one is buying it. In Wikipedia we use published sources, preferably academic ones, and yes that does give an unfair bias against oral history but that is how the game is - and in fact these kinds of sources that you are denouncing are exactly the only kind of sources that could be used to account for that bias. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

THERE IS NO UNIFORM BODY OF MYTHOLOGY FOR THESE PEOPLES. Drawing them together based on a collection of Kalispel stories plus one group of Skwxwu7mesh stories IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Even the use of the term "mythology" is disputable on cultural grounds; especially since these peoples don't use that term themselves. This article should be twenty or more articles, not pastiched together as you are insistint is OK..... IT"S NOT.Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

COntradiction is not a valid argument, and abusing caps lock doesn't make it so either. You have not read the book or understood any of the argument and frankly you are looking more and more stupid as you keep arguing without having looked at it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your smugness in response to my 'ANGER' is the passive-aggressive arrogance that I was talking about in my kissing off this place once and for all. I'm FROM St'at'imc/Lil'wat, Nlaka'pamux, Sto:lo and Skwxwu7mesh territory and have read more about them and know more about thempersonally than you in your smug and distant arrogance WILL EVER KNOW. You're a turkey, and a snotty one at that, and can be proud and have bragging rights to driving Skookum1 from Wikipedia once and for all.. Enjoy the rest of your adolescence. Your sophomoric justification for this article's blatant OR and SYNTH is just puerile snottery and typical admin-ignorance. 223.206.149.14 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's ass about your anger or about where you're form or about how much you know from personal experience. None of that is relevant here. Your editing style is perpetually arrogant, self-aggrandizing and confrontational and bullying. And at the same time you are too much of a frail daisy to be able to take what you give without exploding into selfrightous rage. The "sophomoric explanation" is called policy, and unless you are willing to understand and follow that you have nothing of value to contribute to the project. If you were to stick around you could start by reading up on OR and SYNTH neither of which you seem to know what means. The topic is established as existant by the literature - which means that it is not SYNTH or OR. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

too late for that Obiwan, I'm DONE with having to wrestle with ignorance defending itself by pointing at specious connections bewteen citations or just being contrarian from scratch; and constantly being confronted by the wreckage and cleanup caused by Kwami's one-man wrecking crew across so many articles, and nothing done to stop him or reverse his damage. In this case it's so wildly SYNTH in terms of regional ethnography it's not funny - not not funny at all. And aggravating in the extreme when somebody with admin powers defends clear violations of policy by defending SYNTH and OR as if they're just fine and dandy if two books are tied together by someone who wants to advance a view completely unrepresented in the wider field. It's like saying "Siwash Indians" is a tribe......and the pretense in the article here is that there's a unanimity and homogeneity which doesn't exist. And Iv'e heard Maunus' snotty tone before, it reminds me way too much of Kwami's in those RMs that were such a waste of time and energy. Between this and having dablink notifications telling me I have to fix dabs that Kwami caused, and finding articles with completely WRONG citations (Sts'Ailes people, see its history) and more, I'm realizing that Wikipedia is being filling by garbage and the adminship, or some of those who have "earned" adminship, are busy defending the indefensible and, frankly, being contrarian d*******ds. Good night and good bye I stopped by I don't know why; I may wipe my userpage and talkpage yet, I don't know, what I do know is that approaching 58 years old and having wet-behind-the-ears snotheads ignore informed opinion and input on the basis of some specious citations linked together by speciouis logic....this is not an encylopedia anymore, it's a playpen. I have better ways to waste the rest of my life.`223.206.149.14 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgot about the Turtle Mountains

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

Here is a link someone please update:

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

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