![]() | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Hello, does anyone here have a special interest with the Unami, Delaware, or Algonquian articles? I've had a headache over the last few weeks dealing with an editor who has his own orthographic system that he's determined to interject into Lenape-related articles, despite the fact that they aren't published anywhere. He's not a linguist or affiliated with the Delaware Tribe of Indian's Lenape Language Preservation Project (or any federally or state-recognized tribe). I'm not getting through with warnings against original research. He's mainly been working on Lenape, Susquehannock, Lenapehoking, and many geographical articles around Pennsylvania. This is the kind of material I've had to remove:
Almost every historian has misinterpreted the simple meaning of “Lenape.” According to interviews with those who have some familiarity of the ancient language, Doris Riverbird of Quitapahilla, Pennsylvania, and Gary "Deer Standing Schreckengost" (Ah-too Nee-poo We-po-schwa-gen She-pong of Neshaminy, Mahantango, Tionesta, and Cocalico, Pennsylvania...
Any assistance or advice how to stem the tide of original research and original orthographies would be greatly appreciated. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 21:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I reverted most of their additions and dropped a UW-1 on their talkpage about SPS and print-on-demand books as sources. GregJackP Boomer! 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Has there ever been a welcome template inviting new editors to join WP:INPA that we could add to their talk pages? There actually are a steady stream of Native editors that show up just to write information about themselves. For instance, I made a page for Alfred Young Man, and he's added quite a bit it (maybe too much, but inexperienced editors don't immediately follow Wiki protocol). Has anyone had any luck convincing people in that position to make more widespread contributors to Wikipedia? Perhaps we could start suggesting articles they might like to contribute to. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 20:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
The discussion is here, if anyone has any interest at all.... Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_16#Category:Native_American_languages_with_mobile_apps
__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on the recent signpost article, Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia, and on the difficulties Uyvsdi is having as he/she attempts to explain Wikipedia policies to a knowledgeable new contributor, I've added a new box to our WikiProject page.
Please feel free to modify my initial attempt at a user message as you see fit. Any discussion or ideas on how to modify our policies? Any thoughts on how to alert new contributors as to how things work here? Djembayz ( talk) 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"According to interviews with those who have at least some familiarity of the ancient language, Doris Riverbird of Quitapahilla, Pennsylvania, and Gary "Deer Standing Schreckengost" (Nee-poo Ah-too We-po-schwa-gen She-pong) of Cocalico, Pennsylvania, the Lenape term for “river” is Hanna."
The early history of the Somena article is another case in point about that. On the other hand, though taking are not to cite himself, User:OldManRivers did sterling work on Kwakwaka'wakw and Squamish people articles and related materials; but in some cases like Nuxalk people/ Nuxalk Nation the only available materials about what is there (at least the materials that are on-line) are by the peoples themselves. Infratribal and intertribal politics often collide with Wiki principles guidelines, as with a series of edit wars by a Sinixt user vs Ktunaxa mentions on articles such as Nakusp, British Columbia and others in that region. Also on St Mary's Indian Residential School in Mission, British Columbia, a Student User (as the SPA name went) introduced a lot of badly-written and possibly copyvio material on that article (which is about the school/residence that is now the multi-band Peckquaylis reserve, which is home to educational and business enterprises. So while AUTO and COI contributions are needed, especially on remote or obscure bands like Xeni Gwet'in or articles like Caribou Hide ( Metsantan), such articles need to be watched and guided in regards to neutrality and so on..... but when an old source such as the Catholic Encyclopedia is used in RMs or its errors can be included because it seemingly is a "reliable" source (when often it's not), and local, modern sources are disputed as not being "peer reviewed"...or the mainstream media's biases are similarly presented as if factual..... yes, it's complicated..... but can't be thrown out entirely. what I think would be a better course of action is an outreach program about wikipedia in native schools and educational institutions like the St'at'imc and Secewpemc Language Education and Culture Societies so that people know the ropes...and they're the ones who would have on their shelves the necessary verifiable sources that may be out of print, for example, but are still citable as RS. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
“ | Into each life, it is said, some rain must fall. Some people have bad horoscopes, others take tips on the stock market. McNamara created TFX and the Edsel. Churches possess the real world. But Indians have been cursed above all other people in history. Indians have anthropologists. | ” |
— Vine Deloria, Jr., Custer Died for Your Sins |
An editor on the Reference Desk wanted to reference Native American (North American) face/body painting but found no article at war paint. There are two sentences about South American natives in the article on body painting and two pictures in Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas, again South American. Nothing at all in First Nation, Native Americans in the United States or Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America. Is there no article covering this subject better? Did I forget to look some other title? Rmhermen ( talk) 15:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Need more eyes on Tom Brown, Jr.. Brown has built a career on false claims to be teaching Apache traditions. It's common knowledge among Native communities that what Brown teaches bears no resemblance to anything Apache, and that his "Apache Teacher," "Grandfather Stalking Wolf," either never existed or wasn't who or what Brown claims he was. A user removed all the criticism of Brown from the article, attempting to justify it on BLP reasons. I haven't had a chance to review it all, but the criticism should be re-added, with additional sourcing if needed. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 19:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Fringe. He started studying to become a Mayan shaman when he was one, links Mayan and English, "says ancient Maya thought suggested their ancestors came from space." although Atlantis and Lemuria come in somewhere as well. There's more just as loony. Dougweller ( talk) 09:42, 18 December 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/archive2. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I've known about the need for such an article on an important Northwest Coast topic for a long time, but been stymied by not knowing what to call him/them. Turned up on Category:Native American mythology without any other category thanks to the WP:Mythology people, based on a Lummi version of the story but unreferenced because an ANI had removed Encyclopedia Mythica from use as a ref (presumably as non-RS). See Talk:Xelas for more. It would help if OldManRivers and Murderbike and other users who are indigenous from the region where this story is known were around to help; I"m thinking rather than argue over which version of the native name to use (with or without diacriticals/special characters also an issue) the usual English usage/s are what should be used; singular as he most often is, though in many stories there are three or four of him, before he was combined into one being. I've also asked the WPMythology people to add NorthAmNative and tribal categories to such articles so that they can be found and developed monitored.... Skookum1 ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter is listed for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/archive1. I would appreciate it if any of you would take a look at it and comment (if you have the time). Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
An IP is removing material they don't like at Legend of Rainbow Warriors ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), first claiming they removed it "New age group trying to edit their way into native history, removing link as they are seperate entities from William Willoyas work" and then as racism. I don't see either of them as valid reasons to remove the material (I added the quote from Niman about the book, which " purveying "a covert anti-Semitism throughout, while evangelizing against traditional Native American spirituality." This article was a fringe mess before. Dougweller ( talk) 14:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty humorous how one person will blow through an article insisting everything be changed from one term because it's offensive, then another person will swing by demanding, equally passionately, everything be changed to the other term. Usually the pendulum swings between "Native American" and "American Indian," and if it's a small mention in an article and either term is accurate, I've started letting people do what they want. Right now that's going on with Eskimo, which does need to be improved, but not necessarily in the midst of edit-warring by sockpuppets.
So, how do we collectively deal with terms that are still very viable, but less than ideal? " Sioux" is still very much in use. Marty Two Bull Sr. usually writes, "I am Oglala Lakota, which my enemies call Sioux." Over the months, I've been disambiguating between Lakota, Dakota, Nakota, and Nakoda/Assiniboine, where it's appropriate, to link other articles to the tribe in question. I've started doing this with Eskimo, trying to determine if linked articles are discussing Yup'ik or Inuit peoples (while many articles are linking to the term "Eskimo" as opposed to specific ethnic groups). So far I haven't gotten any push back, which I'm surprised by, but am curious to know other's opinions. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Has anyone noticed that the dab page for Metis#Culture_groups lists three nearly identical articles? I wonder if these are sort of content forks and could be merged - I understand that there are US and Canadian groups, but seems like one comprehensive article beats three weak articles with a lot of duplication, particularly Métis, which is basically a list and Métis people (Canada) doesn't even cross-ref it. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:The potlatch among Athabaskan peoples, which has been the Athabaskan Potlatch which struck me as a misnomer, and there are other cultures/peoples who also need coverage; the main Potlatch article is for now almost entirely about the Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch. See my various comments. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I just ascertained, after countless maintenance edits since this was first approved and made its appearance (including edits from me) that the sources given are two curriculum pages - "not reliable sources".... never mind that mergeto Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast is the obvious thing to do. Seems to me these were a class project - ?? I'll get to it in the morning, unless someone else would care to launch the merge discussion in the meantime. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to work on this right now, was just cruising some minor edits and noticed the absence of any discussion of the Royal Proc on this page, and that only AADNC is used as a source for background etc., which is more than somewhat POV in flavour. See Talk:Douglas_Treaties#no_mention_of_Royal_Proc.3F.3F. Maybe in a month or two, if I'm still around, but this is a glaring omission...and there's digression about Blanshard in the article, who really had nothing to do with them. Skookum1 ( talk) 22:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Gingolx,_British_Columbia#addition_of_pronunciation_tag. I know I've made this comment before, maybe not here in IPNA though. And it's not just about native articles, it's across the board. Why demand someone else do something that it only takes a few minutes to do yourself, if you weren't just spending your time dropping templates like bird-poo? And don't anybody WP:AGF on me about this, I see more template-dropping than I do article expansion, 95% of the time. Skookum1 ( talk) 23:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
Several users have been trying to remove the New Age Frauds & Plastic Shamans website from such articles as Plastic shaman and Chuluaqui-Quodoushka, for some time. Personally, I see them as the best source of information about faux medicine people on the web, but of course such discussion is very contentious and the people mentioned on the site understandably decry it on blogs throughout the interwebs. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" is listed under [WP:ELMAYBE "Links to be considered"]. The site explains its organization, explains the issues, links to other resources, and has a forum for discussion, so in my mind, that makes it a valid external link; however, what do other people think? - Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Comment below is reposted. Djembayz ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This submission is relevant to the Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Plastic shaman was nominated for deletion. The article has been around for six years and is well cited, but if any of you care to comment, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic shaman. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
See the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Template:Paganism. It's inclusion in Template:Paganism has been challenged at Template talk:Paganism but hasn't been removed. Dougweller ( talk) 16:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Indian Scout ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Indian Scout (motorcycle) -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 08:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Indigenous peoples of North America topics has been nominated for possible merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. The nominator is comparing the category tree to that of Category:France. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I believe I have found an artifact belonging to the Clovis culture. It is n arrowhead measuring 3 inches high and 1 1/2 inches wide in the middle. My question is how an I find out if it is authentic Clovis and has there ever been Clovis artifacts found in NJ? Thank you. 2601:C:5900:539:B10C:E966:D5FD:FB9A ( talk) 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Tsuu_T'ina_Nation#proposed_split. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Faced with recalcitrant responses from the re-creator of the unworkable category name Category:Squamish I have had to start a CfD on this again. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19#Squamish. Given the new item in MOS about respecting the original creator's wishes, I'm pondering also doing another RM for Squamish people to move it back to where OldManRivers created it, because of [ "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor" now in MOS, i.e. Sḵwx̱wú7mesh or adopting a simplified Skwxwu7mesh and let the categories fall into line appropriately, though whether the use of Skwxwu7mesh language script for a title is part of "style" we'll see.. Guidelines applied in isolation from realities and the need for informed exceptions in this case and others suggest that all such titles should be WP:SALTed so that things cannot be so arbitrarily upset again in future. Ignoring CfD outcomes is "not on"...or should I just ignore the CfD, the old one of the new one, and just start the category title *I* think should be used (and I'm from BC, not from Nevada, and know the subject matter in question first-hand). Skookum1 ( talk) 07:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a move discussion at Talk:The Red Road. Also may need to be some repair work at the red road, article is poorly sourced and a bit OR-ish. Thanks. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There are various open RMs addressing reverting native-name titles from "FOO people" forms where FOO="anglicism" ; all but one were changed by speedy renaming alleging 'common name' and 'English' but that argument was fallacious when it was made. Some of these - all but one here are main ethno articles - if not changed may result in "uncomfortable" and geographically-ambiguous/archaic category names in Category:First Nations in British Columbia:
I speedy moved Comox people to K'omoks and created Category:K'omoks due to (a) geographic name confusion with the Town of Comox and (b) to match the other main-ethno article titling convention; it may need adjusting as the K'omoks name may not apply to the Sliammon (Tla'amin) and Homalco, they may require separate categories in the long run. In some cases this is not possible as there is no standard native-name romanization of e.g. Musqueam people (Hwmethkwyem is what's on their current band site (when romanized, it includes a theta, for example, in the orthodox Hulquminum, but as I recall there another somewhat different version that perhaps was favoured by a different band government; still worth considering Hwmethkwyem though, relative to consistency with other ethno article. Sts'Ailes has been around for a while, as Chehalis people is far and away more likely to be taken for the group in Washington. I also successfully to the category for Danezaa to match that title, it was at "Dunneza" which is an Albertan spelling but not the most common form; Category:Beaver people would invite too many jokes and has that "FOO people" problem too. Category:Saanich is not viable for the Saanich people (WSANEC) for the same reason that Category:Squamish cannot be for the Skwxwu7mesh; major geographic name collision; which is why T'zouke was coined for Sooke, Tz'uminus for Chemainus, and so on; for Semiahmoo the native form is SEMYOME but there are only three articles there so far (band, people, reserve) and unlikely to be subcategories. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Closed RMs
I'm of the opinion that the needless addition of "people" to Tsimshian people, Haida people, Gitxsan people, Tahltan people, Nisga'a people and more should be taken off; the FOO people problem is why someone, who didn't know about the town (and didn't care, as it turns out) re-created Category:Squamish after that was nixed by a CfD and Category:Squamish people hijacked (temporarily) for "people who are Squamish"; clarity, conciseness and consistency, three of the five characteristics in WP:UCN about titles, are not well-served; nor is brevity, as the addition of "people" was completely pointless; various mini-disambiguation pages were created by one of the resident amateur linguists on the premise that the languages were equally primarytopic to the people, which is not demonstrably the case. Another of these, outside BC, is Mi'kmaq which was turned into a disambiguation page by that same editor and the main article is now at Mi'kmaq people though the category remains at Category:Mi'kmaq (and where there is a Category:Mi'kmaq people for "people who are Mi'kmaq").
Trying to correct the item-by-item one-by-one attack on native names on these articles has proven to be exhaustive and I have been made the butt of attacks because of my writing/information style, and the RMs invariably draw in people who don't know the subject matter and only field their pet guidelines (even when they're wrong about them) and also who have no appreciation, even an antipathy, for indigenous languages and indigenous preferences. The lack of guidelines in this area, which I tried to propose here but was shot down, remains a big hole in IPNA and without them, more wrecking-crew changes by those wanting to "anglicize" names unfamiliar to them will continue. The nominator of the first RM on Talk:Squamish people even used a pejorative, derisive tone about the name Skwxwu7mesh - that it was "gibberish" - and there was at least one person in that RM didn't even know who the Skwxwu7mesh were, he thought the RM was about the Suguamish and had no clue about the town of Squamish at first.
I've done what I can to preserve the integrity of the naming convention evolved at the time these articles/categories were created with native names, but have found myself the target of hostility and rejection for no reason related at all to the subject matter; "TLDR" is used as an excuse to not read or respond to the response I make to simplistic points which, being simplistic, gloss over complexities and persistently ignore the established support for native names not just in the old consensus, but in the results of last year's RMs on St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc and Ktunaxa all of which were successsful. The "working/talking in a bubble" aspect of one-by-one CfDs and RMs done in isolation from the precedent-setting ones listed fails to address the full context of such articles/categories and exemplifies narrow-view decision-making at its worst; not having any regard for consequences....or conventions/consistency. Skookum1 ( talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Two Four other related RMs, where the town is the PRIMARYTOPIC so should have the undisambiguated title currently occupied by a dab page;
Lillooet I may file a similar RM for; these are the current RMs to strip unneeded, against-convention comma-province dabs from unique town names and all are rooted in anglicized versions of the local band/people name:
More may come. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm tired of it all, and aghast at the way I've been treated and my ideas not just ignored but insulted. "Get a life" was taunted at me about the whole schlemozzle about Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh, and my invitation to the above-listed RMs at that editor's page (which she deleted with the "get a life" comment, even though being the one who set the cat among the pigeons by barging into BC FN categories by ignoring consensus and creating Category:Squamish), but does anyone reprimand them for NPA or AGF or CIVIL? Trying to talk common sense and being responded with by ignorance and insults is needless to say very grating, and the obstructionist nature of wikipedia bureacracy and the contrarian, hidebound narrow-minded cabals that hang around the various procedures pages is becoming more and more clear to me. All very disappointing....and tiresome. Why do people have to vote on things they don't want to learn about (TLDR, y'know), and scream "personal attack" when someone points out that they're wrong about what they're saying, yet engage in personal attacks in the course of doing that??? Skookum1 ( talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
RMs to try to deal with the "FOO people" problem underway; only 120 so far, probably about the same yet to go. Some "FOO tribe" ones were not for federally-recognized tribes e.g. Nespelem tribe and Sanpoil tribe which are part of the Colville Confederacy. Others never were federally-recognized tribes at all, and the names are so unique no disambigution with "tribe" was ever needed. Here are the four talkpages with 30 RMs each:
In those cases where the move target is a dab page I have added an RM to move that to "FOO (disambiguation)". In many cases the target is already a redirect to the current article, an indication of how unnecessary all these moves were; and adding "people" fails "Concisness" as per WP:UCN. The "FOO people" paradigm is for "individuals who are FOO", as noted by a certain editor re a certain botched category move now at CfD. Skookum1 ( talk) 10:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The red road ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could use a review. I've raised some issues at Talk:The red road. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, seems like targeting me and being insecure about long passages of responses detailing why bad ideas are bad ideas is a successful tactic, and we still have this problem category that was moved/changed by people who aren't even from the area or know anything about the topics at hand. The "Squamish" and "Squamish (disambiguation) RMs were non-admin closed despite other similar RMs on primarytopic=town have gone through, in many cases items of the very same kind. See Category_talk:Squamish_people#Re_the_2nd_CfD for other comments. Rather than complain about me writing in paragraphs instead of bullet points, I really think a lot of people in Wikipedia should start taking remedial reading..... and that they shouldn't "vote" on CfDs and RMs until they're knowledgeable about the subject at hand. "Waaah he uses big words and long sentences" is not an adequate excuse for not educating themselves as they should instead of complaining "I don't have time, but I want to make a vote based on a guideline I think is mandatory". This was wiki-lawyering of the worst kind but typical of the legal world also; don't examine the evidence, attack the proponent. Content and titles are suffering. What's up next? A MoveReview on all three of Squamish people, Squamish and Squamish, British Columbia at the same time to get them jointly relisted so a long hard look at the primarytopic nature of the town and the pattern of endonym titles that was SO OBVIOUS......ah, well, this'll be snitted at as another "wall of text" and it's a tiresome thing to be around people writing an encyclopedia that don't have the attention span to be able to read your average articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I doubt any of these people could handle reading a 19th Century novel or a philosophical treatise.... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Could use more eyes on James Arthur Ray. I have attempted to clarify that what Ray led was not an actual Native American ceremony. Putting the same name on it doesn't make it the same: what Ray led was a heat endurance event by non-Natives, for non-Natives, that violated all sweatlodge protocols. This is supported in the WP:RS and WP:V sources where Natives wrote or were interviewed. But as there are also WP:V sources, often more mainstream ones, that didn't bother to talk to Natives, in some places the article has been based more on Ray's self-reporting than on reliable sources on the topic. As often seen in articles in this area, what may be WP:RS for non-Native issues may not be a reliable source on Native cultures. - CorbieV ☊ 19:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I started four articles a couple of weeks ago, which have received repeated tagging. I don't have enough time right now to give them the attention as they deserve. If anyone has the time or knowledge to help out, it would be appreciated. Thanks, ~
E.N.Stanway (
talk)
04:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Kwamikagami User:Skookum1 has noted to me your edit "this title is part of existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" can you please link here to previous discussion, or preferably RfC. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Kwami, here you removed the db template Skookum put on K'omoks, with "remove db notice; this title is part of existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" as the reason. Please link to existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and demonstrate that it is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I linked to the wrong section. Finish. No further questions. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I know User:Kmoksy has taken my lead and added "Expand [other-language)" to various articles, and like me has been creating stubs for this purpose; turns out that they don't do a lot of name-disputes and don't focus primarily on languages for said groups, as is too often the case in Wikipedia IMO. Largely I'm targeting those expand-from templates towards ethnographic titles, though the German articles for example mostly address language as well, as do Turkish and Croatian ones; the depth of coverage is very interesting, and in some cases there are articles for peoples whose names/existence have never appeared on Wikipedia to date; until now.
The ones I remember starting, at this point, are
There's more, none I can recall at the moment. Looking through the German categories for adjoining states and provinces, there's other titles/subjects we don't have, some with great coverage.....not sure which User:Kmoksy has started, but perhaps if he reads this he may list his; I'll look around our "to do" lists and see how to add a continent-wide project on this; the European Wikipedias are a goldmine IMO, and can help cover and flesh out the host of "people" stubs out there. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The pages that very large information for native peoples and languages of Americas on Turkish Wikipedia (I wrote):
-- Kmoksy ( talk) 14:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you for compiling that list; had I not been busy elsewhere with "certain matters" I would have compiled one for German Wikipedia as well. In re some of these e.g. tr:İç Tlingitleri I note there is no interwiki to the English version; there is a title at Inland Tlingit or Inland Tlinkit already though; the "people" dab in your redlink is unnecessary as this is more than one people it also implies a "peoples" dab, if anything. That the phrase "the Inland Tlingit" needs no clarification when said in English means that no such dab is required at all. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see and comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#What the guidelines say. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 04:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! Could we get a hand at determining if this article should be accepted? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chaveyo. Thanks for the help, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
At this year's Native American Literature Symposium, there was a presentation panel called "Wikindigenous: Creating Space For Native American Writing". There was tremendous interest with this panel, and hopefully we have convinced enough people to join WP:IPNA and begin writing and expanding on topics that we cover. Additionally, a wonderful suggestion was made that in the future NALS venues, there ought to be a Wikipedia Editathon activity hosted. I have great hopes. Are there any other venues you can think of that may bring in more IPNA-topic experts to join and contribute to our efforts here? CJLippert ( talk) 20:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Two-Spirit could use more Native eyes on it, and Two-Spirit identity theory probably needs to be massively cut down, any relevant content left merged into the main article, then the latter turned into a redirect. See talk pages of both articles. Thanks. - CorbieV ☊ 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Aboriginal Will-Making. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Currently with have the Anishinaabe project, which is a daughter project of IPNA, thus its shortcut is WP:IPNA/Nish. In the past, we have also talked about having other daughter projects. But as it seems no body is volunteering, I wonder if we can scope and identify potential participants by surveying the topical articles and sending a note to the editors of those articles. One such daughter project that was suggested in the past was one that covers the Eskimoan peoples: Aleut, Yupik, Iñupiat, Inuvialuit, Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Kalaallit. Should I try this scoping process going and see if we can get dedicated people who are knowledgeable in that topic area to systematically evaluate and identify articles relating to these arctic peoples? CJLippert ( talk) 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
See [6] and [7]. North American Na-Dene family (traditionally spoken in Alaska, Canada and parts of the present-day U.S.) and the Asian Yeneseian family are said to "both appear to descend from an ancestral language that can be traced to the Beringia region. Both Siberia and North America, it seems, were settled by the descendants of a community that lived in Beringia for some time. In other words, Sicoli says, "this makes it look like Beringia wasn't simply a bridge, but actually a homeland—a refuge, where people could build a life." Which links to other recently reported research. Dougweller ( talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
First, they say "Our goal here is not to address the validity of the Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis nor the type of linguistic data used to support it. Rather, we address the questions of what it means for migration theories if the DY connection is true and how we can rigorously test hypotheses relating linguistic dispersals with population migrations." They say "in Beringia" and "While we propose the first linguistically grounded argument for radiation out of Beringia, Tamm et al. [38] have proposed a strikingly parallel set of claims using mtDNA markers to argue for a “Beringian Standstill” before both a rapid early coastal migration into North America and back-migrations from Beringia into Asia." There's also a map with arrows which start within the Beringian refuge. Dougweller ( talk) 05:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
THE ORIGIN OF THE SPIRIT (SOUL)
Before written history, man, trying to explain the world around them, relied on story telling, song, dance and poems. Man tried to make sense of its environment. In terms of evolution the "caveman" was as intelligent as we are, but did not have the knowledge, about nature, that we have now
Walking past the "Spirit Catcher", a sculpture on the shores of Kempenfelt Bay in Barrie, Ontario, Canada, I pondered over its name, it was a "wind" catcher. It looks like a stylized bird with "feathers" which move in the wind. It occurred to me that in native folklore, the wind was considered a spirit. This started a train of thought that intrigued me ever since.
The wind was a force one could feel, but not see, one could see what the wind did. It was an invisible force that could not be controlled and was a very mighty force, or spirit ruling the earth. When a baby was born, a small part of that spirit "breath" would enter the body and gave the baby life. God breathes life into Adam’s nostrils (Genesis 2#7). When some one died this small spirit or soul would leave the body and rejoined the Big Spirit. A baby was therefore not considered to be a separate human being until it had taken its first breath. This is still considered to be the case in some cultures. In Denmark some will still open the window when someone dies to let the “spirit” out. Some religions have now changed this concept quite recently and consider that a human embryo is the start of an independent life. Keep in mind that the opposition to birth control and abortion has little to do with a "moral" principle but rather with a method to create as many followers in the tribe as possible and thus making it stronger. To infer that "breath" was the soul was a very logical explanation. The word “spirit” is derived from latin “spiritus” meaning “breath” and “spirare” meaning “breathe”. Consider the fact that breath, spirit, soul and ghost are words essentially meaning the same thing throughout history. It is still with us. Ghosts, spirits are still associated with chilly, drafty air flows.
Ben Andrews, benjaminandrews@mac.com April 24, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.9.8 ( talk) 14:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Has a virtually empty section saying the main article is Medicine Societies - have we actually got a relevant article? Dougweller ( talk) 17:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently one of the most populous in the US, but the box give one third the population that the text does, supposedly from the same census. Needs to be updated and footnoted anyway. — kwami ( talk) 23:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List_of_people_of_African-American_and_Native_American_admixture#Requested_move. Thanks.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons has a number of newly uploaded old images related to the subject of this project at [8]. Many are uncategorized and might find a use in various articles. Rmhermen ( talk) 03:43, 10 May 2014 (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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Hello, does anyone here have a special interest with the Unami, Delaware, or Algonquian articles? I've had a headache over the last few weeks dealing with an editor who has his own orthographic system that he's determined to interject into Lenape-related articles, despite the fact that they aren't published anywhere. He's not a linguist or affiliated with the Delaware Tribe of Indian's Lenape Language Preservation Project (or any federally or state-recognized tribe). I'm not getting through with warnings against original research. He's mainly been working on Lenape, Susquehannock, Lenapehoking, and many geographical articles around Pennsylvania. This is the kind of material I've had to remove:
Almost every historian has misinterpreted the simple meaning of “Lenape.” According to interviews with those who have some familiarity of the ancient language, Doris Riverbird of Quitapahilla, Pennsylvania, and Gary "Deer Standing Schreckengost" (Ah-too Nee-poo We-po-schwa-gen She-pong of Neshaminy, Mahantango, Tionesta, and Cocalico, Pennsylvania...
Any assistance or advice how to stem the tide of original research and original orthographies would be greatly appreciated. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 21:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I reverted most of their additions and dropped a UW-1 on their talkpage about SPS and print-on-demand books as sources. GregJackP Boomer! 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Has there ever been a welcome template inviting new editors to join WP:INPA that we could add to their talk pages? There actually are a steady stream of Native editors that show up just to write information about themselves. For instance, I made a page for Alfred Young Man, and he's added quite a bit it (maybe too much, but inexperienced editors don't immediately follow Wiki protocol). Has anyone had any luck convincing people in that position to make more widespread contributors to Wikipedia? Perhaps we could start suggesting articles they might like to contribute to. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 20:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
The discussion is here, if anyone has any interest at all.... Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_16#Category:Native_American_languages_with_mobile_apps
__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on the recent signpost article, Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia, and on the difficulties Uyvsdi is having as he/she attempts to explain Wikipedia policies to a knowledgeable new contributor, I've added a new box to our WikiProject page.
Please feel free to modify my initial attempt at a user message as you see fit. Any discussion or ideas on how to modify our policies? Any thoughts on how to alert new contributors as to how things work here? Djembayz ( talk) 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"According to interviews with those who have at least some familiarity of the ancient language, Doris Riverbird of Quitapahilla, Pennsylvania, and Gary "Deer Standing Schreckengost" (Nee-poo Ah-too We-po-schwa-gen She-pong) of Cocalico, Pennsylvania, the Lenape term for “river” is Hanna."
The early history of the Somena article is another case in point about that. On the other hand, though taking are not to cite himself, User:OldManRivers did sterling work on Kwakwaka'wakw and Squamish people articles and related materials; but in some cases like Nuxalk people/ Nuxalk Nation the only available materials about what is there (at least the materials that are on-line) are by the peoples themselves. Infratribal and intertribal politics often collide with Wiki principles guidelines, as with a series of edit wars by a Sinixt user vs Ktunaxa mentions on articles such as Nakusp, British Columbia and others in that region. Also on St Mary's Indian Residential School in Mission, British Columbia, a Student User (as the SPA name went) introduced a lot of badly-written and possibly copyvio material on that article (which is about the school/residence that is now the multi-band Peckquaylis reserve, which is home to educational and business enterprises. So while AUTO and COI contributions are needed, especially on remote or obscure bands like Xeni Gwet'in or articles like Caribou Hide ( Metsantan), such articles need to be watched and guided in regards to neutrality and so on..... but when an old source such as the Catholic Encyclopedia is used in RMs or its errors can be included because it seemingly is a "reliable" source (when often it's not), and local, modern sources are disputed as not being "peer reviewed"...or the mainstream media's biases are similarly presented as if factual..... yes, it's complicated..... but can't be thrown out entirely. what I think would be a better course of action is an outreach program about wikipedia in native schools and educational institutions like the St'at'imc and Secewpemc Language Education and Culture Societies so that people know the ropes...and they're the ones who would have on their shelves the necessary verifiable sources that may be out of print, for example, but are still citable as RS. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
“ | Into each life, it is said, some rain must fall. Some people have bad horoscopes, others take tips on the stock market. McNamara created TFX and the Edsel. Churches possess the real world. But Indians have been cursed above all other people in history. Indians have anthropologists. | ” |
— Vine Deloria, Jr., Custer Died for Your Sins |
An editor on the Reference Desk wanted to reference Native American (North American) face/body painting but found no article at war paint. There are two sentences about South American natives in the article on body painting and two pictures in Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas, again South American. Nothing at all in First Nation, Native Americans in the United States or Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America. Is there no article covering this subject better? Did I forget to look some other title? Rmhermen ( talk) 15:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Need more eyes on Tom Brown, Jr.. Brown has built a career on false claims to be teaching Apache traditions. It's common knowledge among Native communities that what Brown teaches bears no resemblance to anything Apache, and that his "Apache Teacher," "Grandfather Stalking Wolf," either never existed or wasn't who or what Brown claims he was. A user removed all the criticism of Brown from the article, attempting to justify it on BLP reasons. I haven't had a chance to review it all, but the criticism should be re-added, with additional sourcing if needed. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 19:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Fringe. He started studying to become a Mayan shaman when he was one, links Mayan and English, "says ancient Maya thought suggested their ancestors came from space." although Atlantis and Lemuria come in somewhere as well. There's more just as loony. Dougweller ( talk) 09:42, 18 December 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/archive2. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I've known about the need for such an article on an important Northwest Coast topic for a long time, but been stymied by not knowing what to call him/them. Turned up on Category:Native American mythology without any other category thanks to the WP:Mythology people, based on a Lummi version of the story but unreferenced because an ANI had removed Encyclopedia Mythica from use as a ref (presumably as non-RS). See Talk:Xelas for more. It would help if OldManRivers and Murderbike and other users who are indigenous from the region where this story is known were around to help; I"m thinking rather than argue over which version of the native name to use (with or without diacriticals/special characters also an issue) the usual English usage/s are what should be used; singular as he most often is, though in many stories there are three or four of him, before he was combined into one being. I've also asked the WPMythology people to add NorthAmNative and tribal categories to such articles so that they can be found and developed monitored.... Skookum1 ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter is listed for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/archive1. I would appreciate it if any of you would take a look at it and comment (if you have the time). Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
An IP is removing material they don't like at Legend of Rainbow Warriors ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), first claiming they removed it "New age group trying to edit their way into native history, removing link as they are seperate entities from William Willoyas work" and then as racism. I don't see either of them as valid reasons to remove the material (I added the quote from Niman about the book, which " purveying "a covert anti-Semitism throughout, while evangelizing against traditional Native American spirituality." This article was a fringe mess before. Dougweller ( talk) 14:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty humorous how one person will blow through an article insisting everything be changed from one term because it's offensive, then another person will swing by demanding, equally passionately, everything be changed to the other term. Usually the pendulum swings between "Native American" and "American Indian," and if it's a small mention in an article and either term is accurate, I've started letting people do what they want. Right now that's going on with Eskimo, which does need to be improved, but not necessarily in the midst of edit-warring by sockpuppets.
So, how do we collectively deal with terms that are still very viable, but less than ideal? " Sioux" is still very much in use. Marty Two Bull Sr. usually writes, "I am Oglala Lakota, which my enemies call Sioux." Over the months, I've been disambiguating between Lakota, Dakota, Nakota, and Nakoda/Assiniboine, where it's appropriate, to link other articles to the tribe in question. I've started doing this with Eskimo, trying to determine if linked articles are discussing Yup'ik or Inuit peoples (while many articles are linking to the term "Eskimo" as opposed to specific ethnic groups). So far I haven't gotten any push back, which I'm surprised by, but am curious to know other's opinions. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Has anyone noticed that the dab page for Metis#Culture_groups lists three nearly identical articles? I wonder if these are sort of content forks and could be merged - I understand that there are US and Canadian groups, but seems like one comprehensive article beats three weak articles with a lot of duplication, particularly Métis, which is basically a list and Métis people (Canada) doesn't even cross-ref it. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:The potlatch among Athabaskan peoples, which has been the Athabaskan Potlatch which struck me as a misnomer, and there are other cultures/peoples who also need coverage; the main Potlatch article is for now almost entirely about the Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch. See my various comments. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I just ascertained, after countless maintenance edits since this was first approved and made its appearance (including edits from me) that the sources given are two curriculum pages - "not reliable sources".... never mind that mergeto Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast is the obvious thing to do. Seems to me these were a class project - ?? I'll get to it in the morning, unless someone else would care to launch the merge discussion in the meantime. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to work on this right now, was just cruising some minor edits and noticed the absence of any discussion of the Royal Proc on this page, and that only AADNC is used as a source for background etc., which is more than somewhat POV in flavour. See Talk:Douglas_Treaties#no_mention_of_Royal_Proc.3F.3F. Maybe in a month or two, if I'm still around, but this is a glaring omission...and there's digression about Blanshard in the article, who really had nothing to do with them. Skookum1 ( talk) 22:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Gingolx,_British_Columbia#addition_of_pronunciation_tag. I know I've made this comment before, maybe not here in IPNA though. And it's not just about native articles, it's across the board. Why demand someone else do something that it only takes a few minutes to do yourself, if you weren't just spending your time dropping templates like bird-poo? And don't anybody WP:AGF on me about this, I see more template-dropping than I do article expansion, 95% of the time. Skookum1 ( talk) 23:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
Several users have been trying to remove the New Age Frauds & Plastic Shamans website from such articles as Plastic shaman and Chuluaqui-Quodoushka, for some time. Personally, I see them as the best source of information about faux medicine people on the web, but of course such discussion is very contentious and the people mentioned on the site understandably decry it on blogs throughout the interwebs. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" is listed under [WP:ELMAYBE "Links to be considered"]. The site explains its organization, explains the issues, links to other resources, and has a forum for discussion, so in my mind, that makes it a valid external link; however, what do other people think? - Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Comment below is reposted. Djembayz ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This submission is relevant to the Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Plastic shaman was nominated for deletion. The article has been around for six years and is well cited, but if any of you care to comment, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic shaman. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
See the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Template:Paganism. It's inclusion in Template:Paganism has been challenged at Template talk:Paganism but hasn't been removed. Dougweller ( talk) 16:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Indian Scout ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Indian Scout (motorcycle) -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 08:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Indigenous peoples of North America topics has been nominated for possible merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. The nominator is comparing the category tree to that of Category:France. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I believe I have found an artifact belonging to the Clovis culture. It is n arrowhead measuring 3 inches high and 1 1/2 inches wide in the middle. My question is how an I find out if it is authentic Clovis and has there ever been Clovis artifacts found in NJ? Thank you. 2601:C:5900:539:B10C:E966:D5FD:FB9A ( talk) 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Tsuu_T'ina_Nation#proposed_split. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Faced with recalcitrant responses from the re-creator of the unworkable category name Category:Squamish I have had to start a CfD on this again. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19#Squamish. Given the new item in MOS about respecting the original creator's wishes, I'm pondering also doing another RM for Squamish people to move it back to where OldManRivers created it, because of [ "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor" now in MOS, i.e. Sḵwx̱wú7mesh or adopting a simplified Skwxwu7mesh and let the categories fall into line appropriately, though whether the use of Skwxwu7mesh language script for a title is part of "style" we'll see.. Guidelines applied in isolation from realities and the need for informed exceptions in this case and others suggest that all such titles should be WP:SALTed so that things cannot be so arbitrarily upset again in future. Ignoring CfD outcomes is "not on"...or should I just ignore the CfD, the old one of the new one, and just start the category title *I* think should be used (and I'm from BC, not from Nevada, and know the subject matter in question first-hand). Skookum1 ( talk) 07:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a move discussion at Talk:The Red Road. Also may need to be some repair work at the red road, article is poorly sourced and a bit OR-ish. Thanks. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There are various open RMs addressing reverting native-name titles from "FOO people" forms where FOO="anglicism" ; all but one were changed by speedy renaming alleging 'common name' and 'English' but that argument was fallacious when it was made. Some of these - all but one here are main ethno articles - if not changed may result in "uncomfortable" and geographically-ambiguous/archaic category names in Category:First Nations in British Columbia:
I speedy moved Comox people to K'omoks and created Category:K'omoks due to (a) geographic name confusion with the Town of Comox and (b) to match the other main-ethno article titling convention; it may need adjusting as the K'omoks name may not apply to the Sliammon (Tla'amin) and Homalco, they may require separate categories in the long run. In some cases this is not possible as there is no standard native-name romanization of e.g. Musqueam people (Hwmethkwyem is what's on their current band site (when romanized, it includes a theta, for example, in the orthodox Hulquminum, but as I recall there another somewhat different version that perhaps was favoured by a different band government; still worth considering Hwmethkwyem though, relative to consistency with other ethno article. Sts'Ailes has been around for a while, as Chehalis people is far and away more likely to be taken for the group in Washington. I also successfully to the category for Danezaa to match that title, it was at "Dunneza" which is an Albertan spelling but not the most common form; Category:Beaver people would invite too many jokes and has that "FOO people" problem too. Category:Saanich is not viable for the Saanich people (WSANEC) for the same reason that Category:Squamish cannot be for the Skwxwu7mesh; major geographic name collision; which is why T'zouke was coined for Sooke, Tz'uminus for Chemainus, and so on; for Semiahmoo the native form is SEMYOME but there are only three articles there so far (band, people, reserve) and unlikely to be subcategories. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Closed RMs
I'm of the opinion that the needless addition of "people" to Tsimshian people, Haida people, Gitxsan people, Tahltan people, Nisga'a people and more should be taken off; the FOO people problem is why someone, who didn't know about the town (and didn't care, as it turns out) re-created Category:Squamish after that was nixed by a CfD and Category:Squamish people hijacked (temporarily) for "people who are Squamish"; clarity, conciseness and consistency, three of the five characteristics in WP:UCN about titles, are not well-served; nor is brevity, as the addition of "people" was completely pointless; various mini-disambiguation pages were created by one of the resident amateur linguists on the premise that the languages were equally primarytopic to the people, which is not demonstrably the case. Another of these, outside BC, is Mi'kmaq which was turned into a disambiguation page by that same editor and the main article is now at Mi'kmaq people though the category remains at Category:Mi'kmaq (and where there is a Category:Mi'kmaq people for "people who are Mi'kmaq").
Trying to correct the item-by-item one-by-one attack on native names on these articles has proven to be exhaustive and I have been made the butt of attacks because of my writing/information style, and the RMs invariably draw in people who don't know the subject matter and only field their pet guidelines (even when they're wrong about them) and also who have no appreciation, even an antipathy, for indigenous languages and indigenous preferences. The lack of guidelines in this area, which I tried to propose here but was shot down, remains a big hole in IPNA and without them, more wrecking-crew changes by those wanting to "anglicize" names unfamiliar to them will continue. The nominator of the first RM on Talk:Squamish people even used a pejorative, derisive tone about the name Skwxwu7mesh - that it was "gibberish" - and there was at least one person in that RM didn't even know who the Skwxwu7mesh were, he thought the RM was about the Suguamish and had no clue about the town of Squamish at first.
I've done what I can to preserve the integrity of the naming convention evolved at the time these articles/categories were created with native names, but have found myself the target of hostility and rejection for no reason related at all to the subject matter; "TLDR" is used as an excuse to not read or respond to the response I make to simplistic points which, being simplistic, gloss over complexities and persistently ignore the established support for native names not just in the old consensus, but in the results of last year's RMs on St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc and Ktunaxa all of which were successsful. The "working/talking in a bubble" aspect of one-by-one CfDs and RMs done in isolation from the precedent-setting ones listed fails to address the full context of such articles/categories and exemplifies narrow-view decision-making at its worst; not having any regard for consequences....or conventions/consistency. Skookum1 ( talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Two Four other related RMs, where the town is the PRIMARYTOPIC so should have the undisambiguated title currently occupied by a dab page;
Lillooet I may file a similar RM for; these are the current RMs to strip unneeded, against-convention comma-province dabs from unique town names and all are rooted in anglicized versions of the local band/people name:
More may come. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm tired of it all, and aghast at the way I've been treated and my ideas not just ignored but insulted. "Get a life" was taunted at me about the whole schlemozzle about Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh, and my invitation to the above-listed RMs at that editor's page (which she deleted with the "get a life" comment, even though being the one who set the cat among the pigeons by barging into BC FN categories by ignoring consensus and creating Category:Squamish), but does anyone reprimand them for NPA or AGF or CIVIL? Trying to talk common sense and being responded with by ignorance and insults is needless to say very grating, and the obstructionist nature of wikipedia bureacracy and the contrarian, hidebound narrow-minded cabals that hang around the various procedures pages is becoming more and more clear to me. All very disappointing....and tiresome. Why do people have to vote on things they don't want to learn about (TLDR, y'know), and scream "personal attack" when someone points out that they're wrong about what they're saying, yet engage in personal attacks in the course of doing that??? Skookum1 ( talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
RMs to try to deal with the "FOO people" problem underway; only 120 so far, probably about the same yet to go. Some "FOO tribe" ones were not for federally-recognized tribes e.g. Nespelem tribe and Sanpoil tribe which are part of the Colville Confederacy. Others never were federally-recognized tribes at all, and the names are so unique no disambigution with "tribe" was ever needed. Here are the four talkpages with 30 RMs each:
In those cases where the move target is a dab page I have added an RM to move that to "FOO (disambiguation)". In many cases the target is already a redirect to the current article, an indication of how unnecessary all these moves were; and adding "people" fails "Concisness" as per WP:UCN. The "FOO people" paradigm is for "individuals who are FOO", as noted by a certain editor re a certain botched category move now at CfD. Skookum1 ( talk) 10:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The red road ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could use a review. I've raised some issues at Talk:The red road. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, seems like targeting me and being insecure about long passages of responses detailing why bad ideas are bad ideas is a successful tactic, and we still have this problem category that was moved/changed by people who aren't even from the area or know anything about the topics at hand. The "Squamish" and "Squamish (disambiguation) RMs were non-admin closed despite other similar RMs on primarytopic=town have gone through, in many cases items of the very same kind. See Category_talk:Squamish_people#Re_the_2nd_CfD for other comments. Rather than complain about me writing in paragraphs instead of bullet points, I really think a lot of people in Wikipedia should start taking remedial reading..... and that they shouldn't "vote" on CfDs and RMs until they're knowledgeable about the subject at hand. "Waaah he uses big words and long sentences" is not an adequate excuse for not educating themselves as they should instead of complaining "I don't have time, but I want to make a vote based on a guideline I think is mandatory". This was wiki-lawyering of the worst kind but typical of the legal world also; don't examine the evidence, attack the proponent. Content and titles are suffering. What's up next? A MoveReview on all three of Squamish people, Squamish and Squamish, British Columbia at the same time to get them jointly relisted so a long hard look at the primarytopic nature of the town and the pattern of endonym titles that was SO OBVIOUS......ah, well, this'll be snitted at as another "wall of text" and it's a tiresome thing to be around people writing an encyclopedia that don't have the attention span to be able to read your average articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I doubt any of these people could handle reading a 19th Century novel or a philosophical treatise.... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Could use more eyes on James Arthur Ray. I have attempted to clarify that what Ray led was not an actual Native American ceremony. Putting the same name on it doesn't make it the same: what Ray led was a heat endurance event by non-Natives, for non-Natives, that violated all sweatlodge protocols. This is supported in the WP:RS and WP:V sources where Natives wrote or were interviewed. But as there are also WP:V sources, often more mainstream ones, that didn't bother to talk to Natives, in some places the article has been based more on Ray's self-reporting than on reliable sources on the topic. As often seen in articles in this area, what may be WP:RS for non-Native issues may not be a reliable source on Native cultures. - CorbieV ☊ 19:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I started four articles a couple of weeks ago, which have received repeated tagging. I don't have enough time right now to give them the attention as they deserve. If anyone has the time or knowledge to help out, it would be appreciated. Thanks, ~
E.N.Stanway (
talk)
04:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Kwamikagami User:Skookum1 has noted to me your edit "this title is part of existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" can you please link here to previous discussion, or preferably RfC. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Kwami, here you removed the db template Skookum put on K'omoks, with "remove db notice; this title is part of existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" as the reason. Please link to existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and demonstrate that it is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I linked to the wrong section. Finish. No further questions. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I know User:Kmoksy has taken my lead and added "Expand [other-language)" to various articles, and like me has been creating stubs for this purpose; turns out that they don't do a lot of name-disputes and don't focus primarily on languages for said groups, as is too often the case in Wikipedia IMO. Largely I'm targeting those expand-from templates towards ethnographic titles, though the German articles for example mostly address language as well, as do Turkish and Croatian ones; the depth of coverage is very interesting, and in some cases there are articles for peoples whose names/existence have never appeared on Wikipedia to date; until now.
The ones I remember starting, at this point, are
There's more, none I can recall at the moment. Looking through the German categories for adjoining states and provinces, there's other titles/subjects we don't have, some with great coverage.....not sure which User:Kmoksy has started, but perhaps if he reads this he may list his; I'll look around our "to do" lists and see how to add a continent-wide project on this; the European Wikipedias are a goldmine IMO, and can help cover and flesh out the host of "people" stubs out there. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The pages that very large information for native peoples and languages of Americas on Turkish Wikipedia (I wrote):
-- Kmoksy ( talk) 14:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you for compiling that list; had I not been busy elsewhere with "certain matters" I would have compiled one for German Wikipedia as well. In re some of these e.g. tr:İç Tlingitleri I note there is no interwiki to the English version; there is a title at Inland Tlingit or Inland Tlinkit already though; the "people" dab in your redlink is unnecessary as this is more than one people it also implies a "peoples" dab, if anything. That the phrase "the Inland Tlingit" needs no clarification when said in English means that no such dab is required at all. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see and comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#What the guidelines say. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 04:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! Could we get a hand at determining if this article should be accepted? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chaveyo. Thanks for the help, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
At this year's Native American Literature Symposium, there was a presentation panel called "Wikindigenous: Creating Space For Native American Writing". There was tremendous interest with this panel, and hopefully we have convinced enough people to join WP:IPNA and begin writing and expanding on topics that we cover. Additionally, a wonderful suggestion was made that in the future NALS venues, there ought to be a Wikipedia Editathon activity hosted. I have great hopes. Are there any other venues you can think of that may bring in more IPNA-topic experts to join and contribute to our efforts here? CJLippert ( talk) 20:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Two-Spirit could use more Native eyes on it, and Two-Spirit identity theory probably needs to be massively cut down, any relevant content left merged into the main article, then the latter turned into a redirect. See talk pages of both articles. Thanks. - CorbieV ☊ 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Aboriginal Will-Making. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Currently with have the Anishinaabe project, which is a daughter project of IPNA, thus its shortcut is WP:IPNA/Nish. In the past, we have also talked about having other daughter projects. But as it seems no body is volunteering, I wonder if we can scope and identify potential participants by surveying the topical articles and sending a note to the editors of those articles. One such daughter project that was suggested in the past was one that covers the Eskimoan peoples: Aleut, Yupik, Iñupiat, Inuvialuit, Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Kalaallit. Should I try this scoping process going and see if we can get dedicated people who are knowledgeable in that topic area to systematically evaluate and identify articles relating to these arctic peoples? CJLippert ( talk) 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
See [6] and [7]. North American Na-Dene family (traditionally spoken in Alaska, Canada and parts of the present-day U.S.) and the Asian Yeneseian family are said to "both appear to descend from an ancestral language that can be traced to the Beringia region. Both Siberia and North America, it seems, were settled by the descendants of a community that lived in Beringia for some time. In other words, Sicoli says, "this makes it look like Beringia wasn't simply a bridge, but actually a homeland—a refuge, where people could build a life." Which links to other recently reported research. Dougweller ( talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
First, they say "Our goal here is not to address the validity of the Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis nor the type of linguistic data used to support it. Rather, we address the questions of what it means for migration theories if the DY connection is true and how we can rigorously test hypotheses relating linguistic dispersals with population migrations." They say "in Beringia" and "While we propose the first linguistically grounded argument for radiation out of Beringia, Tamm et al. [38] have proposed a strikingly parallel set of claims using mtDNA markers to argue for a “Beringian Standstill” before both a rapid early coastal migration into North America and back-migrations from Beringia into Asia." There's also a map with arrows which start within the Beringian refuge. Dougweller ( talk) 05:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
THE ORIGIN OF THE SPIRIT (SOUL)
Before written history, man, trying to explain the world around them, relied on story telling, song, dance and poems. Man tried to make sense of its environment. In terms of evolution the "caveman" was as intelligent as we are, but did not have the knowledge, about nature, that we have now
Walking past the "Spirit Catcher", a sculpture on the shores of Kempenfelt Bay in Barrie, Ontario, Canada, I pondered over its name, it was a "wind" catcher. It looks like a stylized bird with "feathers" which move in the wind. It occurred to me that in native folklore, the wind was considered a spirit. This started a train of thought that intrigued me ever since.
The wind was a force one could feel, but not see, one could see what the wind did. It was an invisible force that could not be controlled and was a very mighty force, or spirit ruling the earth. When a baby was born, a small part of that spirit "breath" would enter the body and gave the baby life. God breathes life into Adam’s nostrils (Genesis 2#7). When some one died this small spirit or soul would leave the body and rejoined the Big Spirit. A baby was therefore not considered to be a separate human being until it had taken its first breath. This is still considered to be the case in some cultures. In Denmark some will still open the window when someone dies to let the “spirit” out. Some religions have now changed this concept quite recently and consider that a human embryo is the start of an independent life. Keep in mind that the opposition to birth control and abortion has little to do with a "moral" principle but rather with a method to create as many followers in the tribe as possible and thus making it stronger. To infer that "breath" was the soul was a very logical explanation. The word “spirit” is derived from latin “spiritus” meaning “breath” and “spirare” meaning “breathe”. Consider the fact that breath, spirit, soul and ghost are words essentially meaning the same thing throughout history. It is still with us. Ghosts, spirits are still associated with chilly, drafty air flows.
Ben Andrews, benjaminandrews@mac.com April 24, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.9.8 ( talk) 14:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Has a virtually empty section saying the main article is Medicine Societies - have we actually got a relevant article? Dougweller ( talk) 17:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently one of the most populous in the US, but the box give one third the population that the text does, supposedly from the same census. Needs to be updated and footnoted anyway. — kwami ( talk) 23:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List_of_people_of_African-American_and_Native_American_admixture#Requested_move. Thanks.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons has a number of newly uploaded old images related to the subject of this project at [8]. Many are uncategorized and might find a use in various articles. Rmhermen ( talk) 03:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)