This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
There has been a massive dust-up (well, for wiki standards) about the proper name for the article currently at Bradley Manning - one of the big claims is, this person will be harmed if we have the article at their old name, therefore it must move to their new name - and sources don't really matter that much it seems (although in the Manning case, sources have moved). My question for this board is, if this is indeed a principle which is being espoused by a large number of editors, how could that sentiment impact the names of articles for indigenous peoples, like Squamish or others. Can we put together a list of names for indigenous groups that those groups themselves consider "harmful" or "offensive" or "irritating", even if they are "more common"? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any pressing problems with current articles' names but for general writing, some examples I can think of for preferred names, that have actually been an issue in the past, are:
Most of these are solved problems, which exception of Kwakiutl that I just stumbled upon. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 02:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I would appreciate more eyes on this situation. 88.104.219.76 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) User has been hitting many articles that deal with genocide against Indigenous peoples, removing sourced content that documents genocide, and removing examples of genocide, usually saying "it's not important enough" to mention. Editor is tendentious, prone to edit-warring, and has been warned for disruptive editing by multiple editors. Though you have to look at users talk page history to see this, as s/he has been removing the warnings. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 01:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Your addition of a couple sources came along with your persistent degradation of the text and deletion of examples of genocide, something you've been doing as you've POV-pushed on many articles, and been warned about by many editors. I support neutral editors checking the added sources and seeing if they are suitable to re-add, without the POV alterations. As it is, I reverted back to the stable version from before you began your edit-warring. I suggest rather than attempting more sweeping changes against consensus, you engage on the talk pages as multiple editors have asked of you. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 02:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with the sources I added which you removed? The sources added were not controversial. As it reads it is pure POV becuase it factually states there are ongoing genocides in Brazil and that there was genocide in Myanmar and Guatemala. Though this may be true, these are claims and should be stated as such on wikepedia. Factually calling everything genocide is POV. There was nothing remotely POV about the edits of mine you reverted in your last edit of the page. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 02:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You were advised numerous times to take the issue(s) to the talk page, actually pages of the multiple articles. In this one article, you are well past WP:3RR. You need to stop as multiple editors have advised you to do. GregJackP Boomer! 03:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You reverted me three times on that page and therefore violated the rule your self: [2] [3] [4]. I made three reverts on the page, as many as you. In my last revision, the only thing change to the page was addition of well sourced information and more neutral language. How can it possibly be justified to remove those sources added and to factually call Myanmar, Guatemala and current Brazil genocide. Even if true, these are claims and it is NPOV to call them fact. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 09:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I am a student working on an assignment to improve an article and I hope to improve this article by adding sections about reservation healthcare and education. Healthcare and education are important topics that I think fit well into the topic and would enhance the subject matter of this article. I also will try to improve and add to the historical background in the introduction and Historical section. I plan to use sources such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs website, National Library of Medicine, The National Indian Education Association website, and scholarly articles from databases. If anyone has any feedback or suggestions for what I am trying to do they would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
Cnicholson12 ( talk) 23:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities, Section 2 (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
image:Burrard Inlet Canoe.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 05:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
image:Anahareo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 06:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
There was recently a move proposal to move Native American boarding schools to Indian boarding schools. The logic presented was that we should not use the current common name, rather we should use what was the common name 100-150 years ago. This idea was defeated with 6 oppose votes to 4 support votes. However, someone mentioned that "American Indian" would at least have been more accurate a proposal than "Indian", and several of the oppose votes agreed (I also would agree that "American Indian" is a slight improvement over "Indian", but not over "Native American")
The closer interpreted this as a "consensus" to move the page from Native American boarding schools to American Indian boarding schools which was not formally even under consideration in the move request. I boldly reverted this move as unprocedural and it is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_October#Native_American_boarding_schools by editors who [...redacted] are suggesting that I am seriously out of line for opposing the antiquated title "American Indian boarding schools" and moving it back to "Native American boarding schools". [Non-neutral sentence deleted 17:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)] Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 11:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The nice thing about this project is that we're almost all grownups here and perfectly capable of assessing Til's actions on their merits. We all know Til. We can decide how to evalate the situation independently and I for one am not going to slap him for canvassing. Montanabw (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Dougweller ( talk) 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Menominee Tribe v. United States is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Menominee Tribe v. United States/archive3. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
If anyone else is interested in this article they definitely need to comment at Talk:Stereotypes of indigenous people in North America as it looks as though major changes are planned. Dougweller ( talk) 10:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is a mess! It's so verbose and redundant, it's now difficult to read. It has been rewritten in such glowing, peacocky language that it reads like a recruiting flier. Much material is simply factually incorrect. Anyone who wants to cull or summarize sections, it would be greatly appreciated. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
This article has been submitted for a peer review in preparation for a run at Featured Article. Any assistance would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive1. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Contributors to this project may be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native. Cnilep ( talk) 04:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Category:First Nations women is being considered for deletion. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 04:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
You say you see a need for "women of X" but not as a subcat, but that's exactly what "First Nations women" is - a subcat of "First Nations people", and there is no "men" equivalent. it's a classic setup for ghettoization.
Also, no, I would not suggest merging
Category:First Nations people with Aboriginal people, but ... you have
you have
You have
You have
and so on. You're making it seem like First nations are getting a raw deal, or that this "First Nations women" category, which was created about 2 weeks ago, is some sort of unassailable and essential heart of your category system, but it's simply not true. In fact, First Nations have a more developed category structure, and more filled out, than either Inuit or Metis. Yes, I KNOW FN/I/M are not the same, and I'm sorry there are difficulties right now, but that has nothing to do with category maintenance here. Nothing. The fact that you bring this stuff in makes me think you need to take a break, as you're not coming at this from a NPOV. As you can see from the examples above, the tree is RIFE with inconsistencies - some things are detailed at a 'first nations' level, some only exist at an aboriginal level, some only exist at a 'canadian people' level, some only exist at a tribe/band level. This is emergence, and the point of CFD, the point of all such discussions, in my mind, is to bring greater consistency. Editors, working of their own accord, have decided that not every category needs to be replicated across Aboriginal, first nations, metis, inuit. The fact that you may disagree with this one proposed merge does not mean that any such proposed merge is a pile of stinking racist/sexist shit, nor is it a sign of systemic bias. I am looking at this from the other side, which is I see tons of categories get created, and then not populated, and they are crap, and they make our category system look like crap, so yes, sometimes I swoop in and try to kill or merge some categories that simply are hard to maintain without ghettoizing. Do you realize that by having a "women" category in the middle of the tree, like you're doing here, in order to correctly de-ghettoize these women, it will end up being rather complex? In order to comply with the rules of WP:EGRS, they also need to be in Category:Canadian women, or a diffusing sub-category thereof, and they also need to be in Category:Canadian people by occupation - not in indigenous specific categories, but also in neutral categories. Any person who is placed in "First Nations women" will need to be in at least 4-5 other specific categories to not be ghettoized; what do you think the chances are that Joe Blow will do this right? As I look at the tree right now, there is rampant ghettoization, but no-one is going to write New York Times articles about it b/c these are brown people from Canada and not white novelists from America. If you want systemic bias, that's where it's at - the fact that people make a massive brouhaha over Amanda Filipachi not being in the "American novelist" category, or what Bradley/Chelsea Manning's page should be titled, but Lillian_Dyck remains ghettoized, and Wikipedia's history of aboriginal Americans is still, as pointed out above, told from the story of the conquerors.... Even bigger ghettoization here - she is ghettoized in at least 6 ways I think: Dana Claxton. If you want more systemic bias, study how the head of the wikimedia foundation wrote a huge blog post about how we screwed up by not immediately renaming Chelsea Manning's article, and then see how long of a blog post she wrote about us calling it Kiev instead of Kyev or Squamish instead of Sḵwx̱wú7mesh - oh, wait, she didn't, and no bloggers complained, and no-one tweeted, and the Guardian didn't carry the story. The systemic bias isn't just with our walls... -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 05:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
So much for retirement, and in fact my health isn't doing so well right now, but when I saw this I had to come back. Can't believe that this isn't protected in some way to keep from further uninformed/rash fiddling. See here and on BDD's talkpage. Skookum1 ( talk) 20:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, though I really didn't want to get involved again for health reasons, I think this is very important so assembled my points and tried to post it as technically as possible. See Talk:First_Nations_reserve#Requested_move_2_-_back_to_Indian_reserve. Skookum1 ( talk) 01:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Eskimo.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
(Reposted from WP Indigenous Peoples of the Americas:) I'm about to create a new page for the Yuki people of central Bolivia. However, Yuki people already exists, describing an unrelated ethnic group in California. Does anyone have strong preferences about the disambiguating phrase: country, state/department, or broader ethnic category. That is, should there be Yuki people (United States) or Yuki people (California) on the one hand, and Yuki people (Bolivia) or Yuki people (Cochabamba) or Yuki people (Tupi-Guarani) on the other. I'm leaning towards Yuki people (California) and Yuki people (Bolivia) since these are recognizable geographic divisions with the necessary specificity (the Yuki of Bolivia previously lived in Santa Cruz as well as Cochabamba departments).-- Carwil ( talk) 05:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Because of the importance of the Indian reserves/ First Nations reserves RM, I've come out of self-forced retirement; my health can't take a lot of editing like I used to, nor taking up inanities with the spear of truth too much; but there's a few terminological and contextual issues with various indigenous articles and categories I've always found troubling; one is referring to spirits as "deities" and "gods", as with Talk:Winalagalis where the spirit is referred to as a "war god", and the term "Kwakiutl" rather than Kwakwaka'wakw. A guideline called WP:Authenticity should be established IMO, to govern problems like this one, which concerns the imposition of "external" paradigms on indigenous realities/beliefs. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Two immediate ones that come to mind which are about particular places or peoples are Coast Salish defensive sites, which is about one location in the lower Fraser Canyon and is about only one group of the Sto:lo, and Salishan oral literature which if that title were to remain, shoudl be a survey or omnibus account of all Salishan groups, any commonalities etc, not just about the Montana/Flathead Salish and the Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh (it was frustration with the insults fielded at me in the discussion on that article's talkpage that led me to walk out of Wikipedia a few months ago). The defender of that article, which I'd prodded as just a pastiche of two widely disparate stories based on just a pair of papers, just as the defensive sites is built on just one academic paper......using "pan-ethnic" titles like that, without any work whatsoever towards making the content match the sweep of the title, is just irresponsible. "Reliable sources" or not.....yes, that IS my opinion....which raises once again the idea of there being " WP:DOYEN" or some kind of resident authority/arbiter status in various fields and on various topics; so we don't have to keep on re-arguing things like Indian Reserve/First Nations reserve over and over again with people not as familiar with all the realities and sensitivities involved....did I just say "we"? Groan, swallowed again.... Skookum1 ( talk) 07:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
For better or worse, every single federally recognized Indian tribe in the lower 48 has its own Wikipedia article! - Uyvsdi ( talk) 03:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Would anyone care to share their views on this? In the WikiProject's archives I found two discussions ( June 2007 and July 2013) in which a few people expressed the view that Template:Infobox settlement, Template:Infobox ethnic group, and Template:Infobox country are insufficient for articles about tribal sovereignties. Indeed, a reserve isn't a country, and it might comprise multiple settlements with multiple ethnic groups. Although the ethnic group infobox does a decent job for some articles about reserves and tribal sovereignties, it has only basic geographical data, and no details about jurisdiction, governance, etc.
Examples of how infoboxes are used now:
How might new infoboxes work? I think it might make sense to build one infobox specifically for federally-recognized tribes in the US, and another for First Nations governments? What data do you think we should include in these infoboxes?
Does Template:Infobox settlement meet the needs of articles about Canadian Indian reserves? User:CJLippert (from the US) wrote that although a reserve is sometimes also a settlement, it might encompass multiple settlements. Is this the case for some reserves within Canada? He also mentioned that there are cases where jurisdictional responsibilities are divided between a community and its constituent settlements. With some specific examples it might become clear whether this sort of thing should also be summarized in an infobox.
At present, I envision the new infoboxes as something like the ethnic-group infobox, but with more stuff. :) Thoughts? – Ringbang ( talk) 22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, so I'm not Black Elk, and I'm not aboriginal, not on this continent anyway. I'm going to try and ration my work here so I don't blow a fuse at $%@#$% n******lls or have another almost-stroke. As many here know I've spent a lot of energy for many years trying to coalesce some kind of organization on this body of articles, which were sorely in need of it and needs both creative and broad-minded and accurate organization. Developing standards and guidelines I've proposed repeatedly, only to find the absence of them has resulted in repair jobs being endlessly necessary, such as at the IR/FNR RM right now and on the RMs that were such a pain several months ago. Those complaints aren't relevant here, I'm just explaining where I'm coming from. That being said, the word "sovereign" here attracted my attention in the watchlist, and there's a few observations on the above items I think need to be made:
So, where to start? Do we all just piecemeal try to work on various articles or do we first try to get the project structure into some kind of order and create a set of project guidelines that we can have all editors tap as we improve articles? What are our priorities? Thoughts? I have one: Stay away from all drama boards unless someone else drags you there! Then only go there kicking and screaming! Montanabw (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Re separating tribal government from tribal landbase often already exists, as with Crow Indian Reservation and Crow Nation.....and there's a case where a split between the ethno content of what would be Crow people vs Crow Tribe of Indians is fairly easy to do; and note that Crow Tribal Administration exists, which apparently should be retitled Crow Tribal General Council. Much the same applies with Warm Springs and Colville and Grand Ronde and others. in re the Crow see Category:Crow tribe....where we're faced with that conundrum caused by lower-casing "Tribe" (i.e. federally recognized tribe) and the dual meaning about people/tribe...and the "FOO people" problem..... Skookum1 ( talk) 19:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I just became "interested" in the topic because of the apposition to the Navajo Nation article raised initially. If they use the term "Crow Nation" to mean the land, the government and the people/ethnography all at the same time, of course I'm fine with that; but the lede needs to be explicit about that, IMO. Unlike Colville and Yakima reservations/governments, it's just one "ethnic" group also. There are some "FOO Tribe of Indians" in Washington, I think in some cases their own websites do use that phrasing. Re the Crow, the lede might say something like "the Crow Nation, known to the federal and Montana governments as The Crow Tribe of Indians...." but in that phrasing that would refer to the government; so if "Crow Nation" also means the Crow Indian Reservation as such, another bit of phrasing is needed. Just being picky, I know, Crow Agency I guess I just remember from driving through there (and I remember being surprised at the gentle terrain at Little Bighorn...one too many movie sets with hilly ground I guess). To me, there is a distinction between the government/land/people as with Norway/ Norwegians, Japan, Japanese people and NB with France/ French people the latter being different from French citizens, just as German people is not just about citizens of Germany. With Canadian indigenous equivalents, e.g. when I was trying to straighten out Quebec and Ontario and Alberta etc listings, I would source the band's own website for the preferred usage; of course the same should apply here.....but all alt-names still need to be covered....and care taken to have section-targeted redirects in the correct categories, so the "wrong" kind of article doesn't wind up in in the "wrong" category.` Skookum1 ( talk) 04:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the Montana government (or any state) has all-but-zero authority over naming tribes. Recognition is at the federal level, and goes back to the US Supreme Court decisions of John Marshall. Tribes in the USA are "dependent sovereign nations" and as such, individual U.S. States have very limited authority over tribal nations and tribal members on the reservations, generally only when the state and the tribe have worked out an agreement. (Of the rez, it's a different issue). So here, the BIA would have some authority, though their web site is pretty iffy: article about Crow Agency, this one says "Crow Tribe", this is a work using "Apsáalooke Indian Nation" and "Crow Indian Reservation", and another pitch, with some history. and a searchArguably, the "people" article should be titled "Apsáalooke", the political land that is the reservation Crow Indian Reservation, and I suppose one also has to research "Crow Nation" to see if there is a political split internally (Crow Tribe politics are particularly active, it's a real hotbed there...) over naming issues. Colloquially, people out here tend to say "Crow Tribe" (versus Flathead Rez catchall is sometimes "CSKT" and Blackfeet Reservation is just "Blackfeet"). Ideally, you look for the Tribal Constitution for the "official legal" names. Montanabw (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
To try and bring this long digression around to homebase, if the Crow Nation article is going to combine Crow Indian Reservation with the tribal government/administration, then it would seem to be mandated to use infobox country. If not, then infobox government and infobox [territory] would be the pair, and infobox settlement used for settlements within the 'territory', whatever term would be best there; can't use "reservation" because of the Cdn "reserve"...though I do note that many USian-based infoboxes of various kinds do get used on CAnadian articles; sooner or later WPCANADA folks get around to making Canadianized versions; and in some cases e.g. infobox county, were it to exist, does have uses in some provinces. in the case of the Okanagan Nation Alliance, there is not one reserve in Canada but a few dozen, as well as the Colville Reservation. There is a Ktunaxa cross-border organization, its name escapes me at the moment...I'm not sure if the Blackfoot/Blackfeet have a joint organization. Not sure how the Mohawk "partition" works. Alaskan Haida and Tsimshian are not organized with their BC counterparts, likewise the Inland Tlinkit are not co-organized with their Alaskan counterparts. Not that I know of, that is. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Better to do rather than to explain; I just went through Category:American Indian reservations in Washington (state) and transferred the category to the reservation redirects; this category had had only one italicized category/redirect in it so far, the idea is to make the categories coherent; NB in the case of the Swinomish there is no actual information on their current reservation other than it exists; most of them have a lat-long included in the article, so {{ GeoGroup}} ({{ GeoGroupTemplate}}?) could be used to generate a map. Some of these articles will have one kind of infobox. Of the tribe articles, the italicized items, that is, their "reservation" sections are bare-bones one-liners= proto-stubs so far. But like reserves in CAnada, some of these have complicated landhistories or may have some notability in their own right, or there's enough out there on them in some way to warrant a separate article some day. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
@Montanabw, agreed about fussing with merge tags. As with the dross on Indian reserve that has nothing directly to do with Indian reserves, I'm just gonna move it, same as I removed the long bit of SYNTH from the lede justifying the name-change that is now having to be RM'd back to where it belongs...... lots of article "bloat". Articles overlap all the time, and sometimes what a title is and what hte content is don't match all that well; to me there's a clear delineation in topic matter between history and culture on the one hand and post-Contact government/organization on the other. This is why each of the "ethnic" groups on the Colville Reservation have their own ethno articles, and there are separate language articles. In some cases the separate tribe/government/reserv(e/ation) titles already exist, often enough they're not in the right category. AS you know I've done a large amount of work trying to straighten out lots of these, there's large areas that it's not done yet, partly due to lack of time...and sometimes hard to sort out, for one reason or another. I agree that templates cause too much drama; I try to stay within "procedure" but often "procedure" becomes "quagmire" all too quickly and things get lost in the shuffle and people burn out...as I indeed did, and don't want to again. This convo started about which infobox to use on which article, and in that regard taht's why I brought up categories......same kind of idea, because there's articles in some categories that should be in other categories, and sometimes infoboxes are misapplied...making the topics clear and separate/defined when possible is why I suggest what I'm suggesting.....and have continued to work on, like I did with the Washington State reservation category the other night. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
So let's treat each other with respect and go forward. Montanabw (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There are *so* many things that actually need doing. So many stubs, so many redlinks, for instance here: List of First Nations governments. Lenape still needs cleaning up, and Native Americans in the United States stills needs to be broken into readable articles. There are real contributions of information useful to the public to be made. -05:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I do believe you want me to quit again, perhaps? Because I'm trying to make sense out of disorder, and am being fed nonsense and obstructive counter-edits in return. Saying "restoring article" as though I had vandalized it or wiped it or destroyed it is not WP:AGF nor is it either respectful of another's work nor of common sense. Are you going to wipe all my reservation/tribe separations in Washington and Oregon too? And on what basis? I did not harm the articles, and in fact brought them into line with the protocol that you yourself invoked, without apparently understanding. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The articles have remained untouched all that has changed is the way they and redirects leading to them have been categorized. All the redirects already existed, but top repeat an organization is not a geographic object for purposes of categorization. Nowhere near, not even close. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
There has been a massive dust-up (well, for wiki standards) about the proper name for the article currently at Bradley Manning - one of the big claims is, this person will be harmed if we have the article at their old name, therefore it must move to their new name - and sources don't really matter that much it seems (although in the Manning case, sources have moved). My question for this board is, if this is indeed a principle which is being espoused by a large number of editors, how could that sentiment impact the names of articles for indigenous peoples, like Squamish or others. Can we put together a list of names for indigenous groups that those groups themselves consider "harmful" or "offensive" or "irritating", even if they are "more common"? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any pressing problems with current articles' names but for general writing, some examples I can think of for preferred names, that have actually been an issue in the past, are:
Most of these are solved problems, which exception of Kwakiutl that I just stumbled upon. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 02:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I would appreciate more eyes on this situation. 88.104.219.76 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) User has been hitting many articles that deal with genocide against Indigenous peoples, removing sourced content that documents genocide, and removing examples of genocide, usually saying "it's not important enough" to mention. Editor is tendentious, prone to edit-warring, and has been warned for disruptive editing by multiple editors. Though you have to look at users talk page history to see this, as s/he has been removing the warnings. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 01:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Your addition of a couple sources came along with your persistent degradation of the text and deletion of examples of genocide, something you've been doing as you've POV-pushed on many articles, and been warned about by many editors. I support neutral editors checking the added sources and seeing if they are suitable to re-add, without the POV alterations. As it is, I reverted back to the stable version from before you began your edit-warring. I suggest rather than attempting more sweeping changes against consensus, you engage on the talk pages as multiple editors have asked of you. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 02:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with the sources I added which you removed? The sources added were not controversial. As it reads it is pure POV becuase it factually states there are ongoing genocides in Brazil and that there was genocide in Myanmar and Guatemala. Though this may be true, these are claims and should be stated as such on wikepedia. Factually calling everything genocide is POV. There was nothing remotely POV about the edits of mine you reverted in your last edit of the page. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 02:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You were advised numerous times to take the issue(s) to the talk page, actually pages of the multiple articles. In this one article, you are well past WP:3RR. You need to stop as multiple editors have advised you to do. GregJackP Boomer! 03:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You reverted me three times on that page and therefore violated the rule your self: [2] [3] [4]. I made three reverts on the page, as many as you. In my last revision, the only thing change to the page was addition of well sourced information and more neutral language. How can it possibly be justified to remove those sources added and to factually call Myanmar, Guatemala and current Brazil genocide. Even if true, these are claims and it is NPOV to call them fact. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 09:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I am a student working on an assignment to improve an article and I hope to improve this article by adding sections about reservation healthcare and education. Healthcare and education are important topics that I think fit well into the topic and would enhance the subject matter of this article. I also will try to improve and add to the historical background in the introduction and Historical section. I plan to use sources such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs website, National Library of Medicine, The National Indian Education Association website, and scholarly articles from databases. If anyone has any feedback or suggestions for what I am trying to do they would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
Cnicholson12 ( talk) 23:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities, Section 2 (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
image:Burrard Inlet Canoe.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 05:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
image:Anahareo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 06:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
There was recently a move proposal to move Native American boarding schools to Indian boarding schools. The logic presented was that we should not use the current common name, rather we should use what was the common name 100-150 years ago. This idea was defeated with 6 oppose votes to 4 support votes. However, someone mentioned that "American Indian" would at least have been more accurate a proposal than "Indian", and several of the oppose votes agreed (I also would agree that "American Indian" is a slight improvement over "Indian", but not over "Native American")
The closer interpreted this as a "consensus" to move the page from Native American boarding schools to American Indian boarding schools which was not formally even under consideration in the move request. I boldly reverted this move as unprocedural and it is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_October#Native_American_boarding_schools by editors who [...redacted] are suggesting that I am seriously out of line for opposing the antiquated title "American Indian boarding schools" and moving it back to "Native American boarding schools". [Non-neutral sentence deleted 17:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)] Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 11:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The nice thing about this project is that we're almost all grownups here and perfectly capable of assessing Til's actions on their merits. We all know Til. We can decide how to evalate the situation independently and I for one am not going to slap him for canvassing. Montanabw (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Dougweller ( talk) 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Menominee Tribe v. United States is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Menominee Tribe v. United States/archive3. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
If anyone else is interested in this article they definitely need to comment at Talk:Stereotypes of indigenous people in North America as it looks as though major changes are planned. Dougweller ( talk) 10:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is a mess! It's so verbose and redundant, it's now difficult to read. It has been rewritten in such glowing, peacocky language that it reads like a recruiting flier. Much material is simply factually incorrect. Anyone who wants to cull or summarize sections, it would be greatly appreciated. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
This article has been submitted for a peer review in preparation for a run at Featured Article. Any assistance would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive1. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Contributors to this project may be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native. Cnilep ( talk) 04:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Category:First Nations women is being considered for deletion. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 04:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
You say you see a need for "women of X" but not as a subcat, but that's exactly what "First Nations women" is - a subcat of "First Nations people", and there is no "men" equivalent. it's a classic setup for ghettoization.
Also, no, I would not suggest merging
Category:First Nations people with Aboriginal people, but ... you have
you have
You have
You have
and so on. You're making it seem like First nations are getting a raw deal, or that this "First Nations women" category, which was created about 2 weeks ago, is some sort of unassailable and essential heart of your category system, but it's simply not true. In fact, First Nations have a more developed category structure, and more filled out, than either Inuit or Metis. Yes, I KNOW FN/I/M are not the same, and I'm sorry there are difficulties right now, but that has nothing to do with category maintenance here. Nothing. The fact that you bring this stuff in makes me think you need to take a break, as you're not coming at this from a NPOV. As you can see from the examples above, the tree is RIFE with inconsistencies - some things are detailed at a 'first nations' level, some only exist at an aboriginal level, some only exist at a 'canadian people' level, some only exist at a tribe/band level. This is emergence, and the point of CFD, the point of all such discussions, in my mind, is to bring greater consistency. Editors, working of their own accord, have decided that not every category needs to be replicated across Aboriginal, first nations, metis, inuit. The fact that you may disagree with this one proposed merge does not mean that any such proposed merge is a pile of stinking racist/sexist shit, nor is it a sign of systemic bias. I am looking at this from the other side, which is I see tons of categories get created, and then not populated, and they are crap, and they make our category system look like crap, so yes, sometimes I swoop in and try to kill or merge some categories that simply are hard to maintain without ghettoizing. Do you realize that by having a "women" category in the middle of the tree, like you're doing here, in order to correctly de-ghettoize these women, it will end up being rather complex? In order to comply with the rules of WP:EGRS, they also need to be in Category:Canadian women, or a diffusing sub-category thereof, and they also need to be in Category:Canadian people by occupation - not in indigenous specific categories, but also in neutral categories. Any person who is placed in "First Nations women" will need to be in at least 4-5 other specific categories to not be ghettoized; what do you think the chances are that Joe Blow will do this right? As I look at the tree right now, there is rampant ghettoization, but no-one is going to write New York Times articles about it b/c these are brown people from Canada and not white novelists from America. If you want systemic bias, that's where it's at - the fact that people make a massive brouhaha over Amanda Filipachi not being in the "American novelist" category, or what Bradley/Chelsea Manning's page should be titled, but Lillian_Dyck remains ghettoized, and Wikipedia's history of aboriginal Americans is still, as pointed out above, told from the story of the conquerors.... Even bigger ghettoization here - she is ghettoized in at least 6 ways I think: Dana Claxton. If you want more systemic bias, study how the head of the wikimedia foundation wrote a huge blog post about how we screwed up by not immediately renaming Chelsea Manning's article, and then see how long of a blog post she wrote about us calling it Kiev instead of Kyev or Squamish instead of Sḵwx̱wú7mesh - oh, wait, she didn't, and no bloggers complained, and no-one tweeted, and the Guardian didn't carry the story. The systemic bias isn't just with our walls... -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 05:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
So much for retirement, and in fact my health isn't doing so well right now, but when I saw this I had to come back. Can't believe that this isn't protected in some way to keep from further uninformed/rash fiddling. See here and on BDD's talkpage. Skookum1 ( talk) 20:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, though I really didn't want to get involved again for health reasons, I think this is very important so assembled my points and tried to post it as technically as possible. See Talk:First_Nations_reserve#Requested_move_2_-_back_to_Indian_reserve. Skookum1 ( talk) 01:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Eskimo.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
(Reposted from WP Indigenous Peoples of the Americas:) I'm about to create a new page for the Yuki people of central Bolivia. However, Yuki people already exists, describing an unrelated ethnic group in California. Does anyone have strong preferences about the disambiguating phrase: country, state/department, or broader ethnic category. That is, should there be Yuki people (United States) or Yuki people (California) on the one hand, and Yuki people (Bolivia) or Yuki people (Cochabamba) or Yuki people (Tupi-Guarani) on the other. I'm leaning towards Yuki people (California) and Yuki people (Bolivia) since these are recognizable geographic divisions with the necessary specificity (the Yuki of Bolivia previously lived in Santa Cruz as well as Cochabamba departments).-- Carwil ( talk) 05:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Because of the importance of the Indian reserves/ First Nations reserves RM, I've come out of self-forced retirement; my health can't take a lot of editing like I used to, nor taking up inanities with the spear of truth too much; but there's a few terminological and contextual issues with various indigenous articles and categories I've always found troubling; one is referring to spirits as "deities" and "gods", as with Talk:Winalagalis where the spirit is referred to as a "war god", and the term "Kwakiutl" rather than Kwakwaka'wakw. A guideline called WP:Authenticity should be established IMO, to govern problems like this one, which concerns the imposition of "external" paradigms on indigenous realities/beliefs. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Two immediate ones that come to mind which are about particular places or peoples are Coast Salish defensive sites, which is about one location in the lower Fraser Canyon and is about only one group of the Sto:lo, and Salishan oral literature which if that title were to remain, shoudl be a survey or omnibus account of all Salishan groups, any commonalities etc, not just about the Montana/Flathead Salish and the Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh (it was frustration with the insults fielded at me in the discussion on that article's talkpage that led me to walk out of Wikipedia a few months ago). The defender of that article, which I'd prodded as just a pastiche of two widely disparate stories based on just a pair of papers, just as the defensive sites is built on just one academic paper......using "pan-ethnic" titles like that, without any work whatsoever towards making the content match the sweep of the title, is just irresponsible. "Reliable sources" or not.....yes, that IS my opinion....which raises once again the idea of there being " WP:DOYEN" or some kind of resident authority/arbiter status in various fields and on various topics; so we don't have to keep on re-arguing things like Indian Reserve/First Nations reserve over and over again with people not as familiar with all the realities and sensitivities involved....did I just say "we"? Groan, swallowed again.... Skookum1 ( talk) 07:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
For better or worse, every single federally recognized Indian tribe in the lower 48 has its own Wikipedia article! - Uyvsdi ( talk) 03:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Would anyone care to share their views on this? In the WikiProject's archives I found two discussions ( June 2007 and July 2013) in which a few people expressed the view that Template:Infobox settlement, Template:Infobox ethnic group, and Template:Infobox country are insufficient for articles about tribal sovereignties. Indeed, a reserve isn't a country, and it might comprise multiple settlements with multiple ethnic groups. Although the ethnic group infobox does a decent job for some articles about reserves and tribal sovereignties, it has only basic geographical data, and no details about jurisdiction, governance, etc.
Examples of how infoboxes are used now:
How might new infoboxes work? I think it might make sense to build one infobox specifically for federally-recognized tribes in the US, and another for First Nations governments? What data do you think we should include in these infoboxes?
Does Template:Infobox settlement meet the needs of articles about Canadian Indian reserves? User:CJLippert (from the US) wrote that although a reserve is sometimes also a settlement, it might encompass multiple settlements. Is this the case for some reserves within Canada? He also mentioned that there are cases where jurisdictional responsibilities are divided between a community and its constituent settlements. With some specific examples it might become clear whether this sort of thing should also be summarized in an infobox.
At present, I envision the new infoboxes as something like the ethnic-group infobox, but with more stuff. :) Thoughts? – Ringbang ( talk) 22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, so I'm not Black Elk, and I'm not aboriginal, not on this continent anyway. I'm going to try and ration my work here so I don't blow a fuse at $%@#$% n******lls or have another almost-stroke. As many here know I've spent a lot of energy for many years trying to coalesce some kind of organization on this body of articles, which were sorely in need of it and needs both creative and broad-minded and accurate organization. Developing standards and guidelines I've proposed repeatedly, only to find the absence of them has resulted in repair jobs being endlessly necessary, such as at the IR/FNR RM right now and on the RMs that were such a pain several months ago. Those complaints aren't relevant here, I'm just explaining where I'm coming from. That being said, the word "sovereign" here attracted my attention in the watchlist, and there's a few observations on the above items I think need to be made:
So, where to start? Do we all just piecemeal try to work on various articles or do we first try to get the project structure into some kind of order and create a set of project guidelines that we can have all editors tap as we improve articles? What are our priorities? Thoughts? I have one: Stay away from all drama boards unless someone else drags you there! Then only go there kicking and screaming! Montanabw (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Re separating tribal government from tribal landbase often already exists, as with Crow Indian Reservation and Crow Nation.....and there's a case where a split between the ethno content of what would be Crow people vs Crow Tribe of Indians is fairly easy to do; and note that Crow Tribal Administration exists, which apparently should be retitled Crow Tribal General Council. Much the same applies with Warm Springs and Colville and Grand Ronde and others. in re the Crow see Category:Crow tribe....where we're faced with that conundrum caused by lower-casing "Tribe" (i.e. federally recognized tribe) and the dual meaning about people/tribe...and the "FOO people" problem..... Skookum1 ( talk) 19:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I just became "interested" in the topic because of the apposition to the Navajo Nation article raised initially. If they use the term "Crow Nation" to mean the land, the government and the people/ethnography all at the same time, of course I'm fine with that; but the lede needs to be explicit about that, IMO. Unlike Colville and Yakima reservations/governments, it's just one "ethnic" group also. There are some "FOO Tribe of Indians" in Washington, I think in some cases their own websites do use that phrasing. Re the Crow, the lede might say something like "the Crow Nation, known to the federal and Montana governments as The Crow Tribe of Indians...." but in that phrasing that would refer to the government; so if "Crow Nation" also means the Crow Indian Reservation as such, another bit of phrasing is needed. Just being picky, I know, Crow Agency I guess I just remember from driving through there (and I remember being surprised at the gentle terrain at Little Bighorn...one too many movie sets with hilly ground I guess). To me, there is a distinction between the government/land/people as with Norway/ Norwegians, Japan, Japanese people and NB with France/ French people the latter being different from French citizens, just as German people is not just about citizens of Germany. With Canadian indigenous equivalents, e.g. when I was trying to straighten out Quebec and Ontario and Alberta etc listings, I would source the band's own website for the preferred usage; of course the same should apply here.....but all alt-names still need to be covered....and care taken to have section-targeted redirects in the correct categories, so the "wrong" kind of article doesn't wind up in in the "wrong" category.` Skookum1 ( talk) 04:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the Montana government (or any state) has all-but-zero authority over naming tribes. Recognition is at the federal level, and goes back to the US Supreme Court decisions of John Marshall. Tribes in the USA are "dependent sovereign nations" and as such, individual U.S. States have very limited authority over tribal nations and tribal members on the reservations, generally only when the state and the tribe have worked out an agreement. (Of the rez, it's a different issue). So here, the BIA would have some authority, though their web site is pretty iffy: article about Crow Agency, this one says "Crow Tribe", this is a work using "Apsáalooke Indian Nation" and "Crow Indian Reservation", and another pitch, with some history. and a searchArguably, the "people" article should be titled "Apsáalooke", the political land that is the reservation Crow Indian Reservation, and I suppose one also has to research "Crow Nation" to see if there is a political split internally (Crow Tribe politics are particularly active, it's a real hotbed there...) over naming issues. Colloquially, people out here tend to say "Crow Tribe" (versus Flathead Rez catchall is sometimes "CSKT" and Blackfeet Reservation is just "Blackfeet"). Ideally, you look for the Tribal Constitution for the "official legal" names. Montanabw (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
To try and bring this long digression around to homebase, if the Crow Nation article is going to combine Crow Indian Reservation with the tribal government/administration, then it would seem to be mandated to use infobox country. If not, then infobox government and infobox [territory] would be the pair, and infobox settlement used for settlements within the 'territory', whatever term would be best there; can't use "reservation" because of the Cdn "reserve"...though I do note that many USian-based infoboxes of various kinds do get used on CAnadian articles; sooner or later WPCANADA folks get around to making Canadianized versions; and in some cases e.g. infobox county, were it to exist, does have uses in some provinces. in the case of the Okanagan Nation Alliance, there is not one reserve in Canada but a few dozen, as well as the Colville Reservation. There is a Ktunaxa cross-border organization, its name escapes me at the moment...I'm not sure if the Blackfoot/Blackfeet have a joint organization. Not sure how the Mohawk "partition" works. Alaskan Haida and Tsimshian are not organized with their BC counterparts, likewise the Inland Tlinkit are not co-organized with their Alaskan counterparts. Not that I know of, that is. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Better to do rather than to explain; I just went through Category:American Indian reservations in Washington (state) and transferred the category to the reservation redirects; this category had had only one italicized category/redirect in it so far, the idea is to make the categories coherent; NB in the case of the Swinomish there is no actual information on their current reservation other than it exists; most of them have a lat-long included in the article, so {{ GeoGroup}} ({{ GeoGroupTemplate}}?) could be used to generate a map. Some of these articles will have one kind of infobox. Of the tribe articles, the italicized items, that is, their "reservation" sections are bare-bones one-liners= proto-stubs so far. But like reserves in CAnada, some of these have complicated landhistories or may have some notability in their own right, or there's enough out there on them in some way to warrant a separate article some day. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
@Montanabw, agreed about fussing with merge tags. As with the dross on Indian reserve that has nothing directly to do with Indian reserves, I'm just gonna move it, same as I removed the long bit of SYNTH from the lede justifying the name-change that is now having to be RM'd back to where it belongs...... lots of article "bloat". Articles overlap all the time, and sometimes what a title is and what hte content is don't match all that well; to me there's a clear delineation in topic matter between history and culture on the one hand and post-Contact government/organization on the other. This is why each of the "ethnic" groups on the Colville Reservation have their own ethno articles, and there are separate language articles. In some cases the separate tribe/government/reserv(e/ation) titles already exist, often enough they're not in the right category. AS you know I've done a large amount of work trying to straighten out lots of these, there's large areas that it's not done yet, partly due to lack of time...and sometimes hard to sort out, for one reason or another. I agree that templates cause too much drama; I try to stay within "procedure" but often "procedure" becomes "quagmire" all too quickly and things get lost in the shuffle and people burn out...as I indeed did, and don't want to again. This convo started about which infobox to use on which article, and in that regard taht's why I brought up categories......same kind of idea, because there's articles in some categories that should be in other categories, and sometimes infoboxes are misapplied...making the topics clear and separate/defined when possible is why I suggest what I'm suggesting.....and have continued to work on, like I did with the Washington State reservation category the other night. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
So let's treat each other with respect and go forward. Montanabw (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There are *so* many things that actually need doing. So many stubs, so many redlinks, for instance here: List of First Nations governments. Lenape still needs cleaning up, and Native Americans in the United States stills needs to be broken into readable articles. There are real contributions of information useful to the public to be made. -05:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I do believe you want me to quit again, perhaps? Because I'm trying to make sense out of disorder, and am being fed nonsense and obstructive counter-edits in return. Saying "restoring article" as though I had vandalized it or wiped it or destroyed it is not WP:AGF nor is it either respectful of another's work nor of common sense. Are you going to wipe all my reservation/tribe separations in Washington and Oregon too? And on what basis? I did not harm the articles, and in fact brought them into line with the protocol that you yourself invoked, without apparently understanding. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The articles have remained untouched all that has changed is the way they and redirects leading to them have been categorized. All the redirects already existed, but top repeat an organization is not a geographic object for purposes of categorization. Nowhere near, not even close. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)