-
Wekʼèezhìı area co-managed by Tłı̨chǫ Government
-
Sahtú Dene and Métis settlement region
-
The transboundary Inuvialuit Settlement Region
![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
There's a history of sockpuppetry there, but I don't understand enough to know if it's good faith or bad faith, correct of incorrect. It just looks like a wall of text to me. It seems like the complaint is that "Tongva" is a made-up name for "Gabrieleño"? If so, is that completely bogus, ultimately correct but being handled poorly, or somewhere in between? If knowledgeable people could address the content issue, I'll try to address the sockpuppetry. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, sorry I couldn't look into this earlier, but I've had a lot on my plate. I'm not as familiar with this region, so I'm thinking this isn't an area where I can help sort out which content belongs, but what would probably be more useful, since I'm not involved in any of the editing, is if I can help with admin issues. I will try to look into the sock issues but I will probably need those who are up to speed on the conflict to point me at the policy violations for me to do any good here. Let me know if there is edit-warring or disruption by new accounts, in particular. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Carlstak, Floquenbeam et al.: I apologize for assuming Carlstak was a sockpuppet. But, I have decided I am not knowledgeable enough on this topic to continue editing the page. For me, this started as purely a matter of cleaning up what looked like vandalism/sockpuppetry, which is what I normally do. I never intended to take a side in this. Please, hash it out amongst yourselves, but I would rather you did not involve me further. Sumanuil ( talk) 22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone familiar with this? An IP just prodded it. I deprodded as I think it can probably be fixed. Am I wrong? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Could use input here: Talk:Nádleehi#Need RS sourcing on dilbaa' etc. Thanks. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please check the article on the Santa Clara Pueblo sculptor, Roxanne Swentzell, when they find a moment? I've made improvements to the article, removed potential copy vio material and possible original research; added citations; cleaned up the article; removed redundancy and "words to watch." It is currently assessed as a stub, (and had a citation maintenance tag). I removed the tag after resolving the citation problems. I think it can now be re-assessed as an article rather than a stub. Thanks in advance. Netherzone ( talk) 00:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Originally posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe
According to the BIA there are 326 indian reservation in the U.S. The map in the List of Indian reservations in the United States article includes only the 310 as of May 1996. Wonderful if a member of this WikiProject could either find or create a new up-to-date map.
— User:Denisebk 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to see a stub article about this:
Wonchala - A Lakota idea that: We're thrown into a world of forces that we can't control, of powers that are much greater than us, and that we have this awareness that we're just small little humans beings, with so little influence on what's going on around us — when we start from there we then realise the it's up to us to make meaning and purpose out of this crazy world, to make something happen and create a story that is heroic, and takes the chaos into which we're throne and turns it into something beautiful, something that reduces suffering, something that crates pattern and order, something that we're proud to be apart of.
I think the spelling of " Wonchala" needs correcting? I tried searching online for the right spelling, though couldn't find anything. Does anyone know what the correct spelling is?
Could really use some input here. The Order of the Arrow Boy Scout group uses what they say are Lenape words in their naming of their group, titles, and songs. I looked up the original name of their group, and two other words in their songs in the Lenape dictionary on the Lenape language pages, and it's not there. The root phoneme is only in one of many variations of "brother", and the suffix of the form they're using looks Germanic to me. The full form seems to only exist in dictionaries by the Boy Scouts, and in a dictionary by Moravian priests. Could use some input here: Talk:Order of the Arrow#Wimachtendienk. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the Article Assessment page has no guide to measuring article importance for this WikiProject. Can we create an importance scale for this project? I think it would help us better identify which articles we need to get to GA status. Then we can unite our efforts on top-importance articles.
I would suggest something along these lines:
We can put this template on the page:
Importance | Criteria | Example |
---|---|---|
Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. | Cherokee, Battle of the Little Bighorn, |
High | Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | TBD |
Mid | Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | TBD |
Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. | TBD |
NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. | TBD |
I have not been active in the project for a long time, so I am looking for input from you all before I do anything to the WikiProject page or make any assessments.
This is just off the cuff thinking from myself. Please feel free to add your input.
Tea and crumpets ( talk) 04:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
American Indian creationism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) major changes including turning the lead into an argument about oral history. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
A quick glance at this shows the sources need serious updating and the article needs NPOV work. More stereotypes here than actual scientific data. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Black drink could use a look for scientific/safety issues, as well. I just had to remove some dangerous stuff re-ingredients and usage. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Resident of Edmonton, Alberta ( Treaty 6) here. Not the most experienced editor, but have a decent amount of practical knowledge with producing open-data cartographic materials. Updating Western and Northern Canadian geo-stubs has been my most recent interest, which has spilled over into producing various land claim maps. Here's a quick overview of Indigenous geography content that I've put on Commons so far:
I intend to follow up with Yukon traditional territories, a more sophisticated series of Numbered Treaty locators, and Wikimedia's first series of locator maps for individual Canadian reserves (especially in Alberta, where I've done most of the work already towards establishing a county-level locator map scheme). I've also created or significantly revised the following navboxes, none of which followed any consistent scheme across provincial boundaries:
I'm reasonably content with the hierarchical council-based organization, which is firmly grounded in Government of Canada data, but understand that the Ethnolinguistic groups section may take a bit more consensus. I've tried to default to endonyms in almost every situation, unless the exonyms are used by relevant Indigenous organizations (i.e. the near-universal use of 'Cree' by Cree governments). Does anyone have experience with this kind of situation, in a Canadian context? The British Columbia navbox, especially, grew so enormous that I'm certain any practiced eye will find plenty of mistakes in it.
Besides this housekeeping, what kind of cartographic needs does this project have right now? Most of my experience is north of the border, but using Wikipedia as a platform to make Indigenous geography accessible is one of my biggest interests. Awmcphee ( talk) 07:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The wonders of automated image generation: I've just created and uploaded 335 new U.S. reservation locator maps, hopefully covering the entire Lower 48. Access them at Commons:Category:Locator maps of Indian reservations in the United States. I assembled a basket of data sources to ensure sensible coverage of margin areas outside U.S. territory, so Canadian Indian reserves are also included. (Useful for groups like the Blackfoot, which are divided by the international boundary.) However, Mexican Indigenous territories are not, out of unfamiliarity with that country's open data environment. Here's a closer look at the design choices I instructed the program to make:
Please feel free to use Inkscape or a similar .svg file editor to improve these maps if you catch a small inconsistency or inaccuracy. Most notably, I told the program never to draw more than one circle, so reservations containing many small, dispersed parts (i.e. Mississippi Choctaw) may need extra circles added manually. The cutoff as to what determines a "small" reservation is also entirely arbitrary, being 0.2% of the surrounding state(')s(') land area. If you ever think it necessary, add or subtract circles as needed.
Actually using most of these maps on English Wikipedia might take a corresponding infobox-generation effort, especially for reservations which don't have their own articles (combined, as they often are, with that of the nation inhabiting them). I also notice that many pages which are exclusively for Indian reservations are still using Template:Infobox ethnic group for their infoboxes. As far as I understand, Infobox ethnic group is extremely underpowered (it doesn't support maps, among other things), so I would recommend switching to Template:Infobox settlement and will be doing so with my own edits - unless some prior consensus exists that I'm not aware of.
A single map showing all of these entities in one image will follow, as will a separate Alaskan series - any review that can be provided about my choices of which entities to include/exclude, and of the completeness of the series in general, would be much appreciated.
Thanks! Awmcphee ( talk) 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Might want to check out August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Page move discussion. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, we've gone back and forth on these a couple times ( some past discussion) and I'm hoping for a bit more clarity. This is the current description, but I don't recall there being consensus for it, or for the criteria that seems to be currently applied:
This category page lists notable citizens of the United States who self-identify as being of Native American ethnic descent but do not belong to a Native American tribe.
I don't think we should put people who only have vague claims of distant heritage, and/or blood myths, in this category. I think to do so does a disservice to the people who are part of the community but simply do not meet enrollment criteria. Enrollment criteria varies widely between Nations, from very loose to very strict. Right now this cat is being used as a dumping ground for people that everyone knows are fantasists and false claimants. Worse, if you look at the section above, I just had to do a ton of cleanup on people from this cat being moved into the "descendants" and "21st Century Natives" category, when there is zero RS sourcing that they are even descendants. Zero. So, clearly we need criteria here.
I am proposing there needs to be some degree of sourcing to put people in this category. At the least, a Nation and ancestors named. Something more credible than, "Yeah, I'm (list of ethnicities) and Native American and (continued list of ethnicities)." I realize Wikipedians who think Native identity is racial rather than based in citizenship may not understand why this matters. But I'm hoping that the Wikipedians here who understand these issues will get why I'm bringing this up. There are legal issues that impact this, and that are impacted by this. And I'd like to have our cats sorted so we're in harmony with the laws, rather than pop culture "sources" and misconceptions about Blood Quantum etc. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
. This would solve the problem of us having to police and research the claims."self-identified"
At Indigenous girl yes I do you're either a citizen or not. In the case of BQ specifically with Deb Haaland's case she was added to the category American people of Native American descent because her father is white. She was not placed in the category to diminish her Pueblo identity also there was no clear line made that people who are enrolled shouldn't be placed into the category. I was just basing the category strictly on blood not if the individual was enrolled or not I interpreted it as she is Pueblo by blood period and not full blood. Now again if we're going to keep people who are enrolled in a tribe/s out of the category then okay I have no problem with that. I'm firmly against blood politics it's done nothing but damage the tribes. Also you have to remember things at certain time periods were not recorded properly especially when you're dealing with people whom are descendants of the Eastern, Southeastern, and Midwest tribes it gets extremely messy especially with laws put into play that did paper genocide and only wanted to acknowledge colored or white. The Californian tribes will have far better records than let's say the Narragansett, and that's just b/c the history is different. We don't even know how many Native Americans were actually slaves through the 1600s to 1800s because the records were trash. I do apologize if it seemed like I was pulling in blood politics into this I'm very against it. I have friends that can't get enrolled b/c of blood politics or bad records but I respect them as descendants of the tribe. No they're not citizens but they are native by blood. Mcelite ( talk) 01:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Lots going on here, so we should keep it simple: First, the category needs to be renamed so it's clear why people are added into it. It's not for enrolled citizens of tribes with a non-enrolled parent etc. It's for Americans who claim Native American descent, but aren't enrolled (for whatever valid or invalid reason). Therefore, 2 is my prefered renaming of the category. There's lots of discussion here about enrollment issues due to BQ, but none of us are the enrollment department of a tribe; therefore it's not something for us to decide how to differentiate from people with true/false claims of Native heritage. Enrollment/citizenship is a consistent standard to go by. on camera 03:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's one idea: change the name to one of the above suggestions (for what it's worth I would also support American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent), but then make that purely an organizational category, with a note that "Native American" is not generally a valid category in issues of descent. Then create sub-categories in that category for each tribal nation as needed. So you would have, for instance, American people who self-identify as being of Ojibwe descent, which would cover such people as Margaret Noodin. You also can that way insist on tribal affiliation outside of citizenship, without getting into a race vs citizenship confusion that is as someone above notes not understood by many editors. Each sub-cat could have an introduction para stating that it is for individuals who have claimed descent from the specific tribe without being citizens of the nation. Vizjim ( talk) 13:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
While I see us also considering creating some new sub-categories, I see a consensus for aligning the cat name with the cat description, and that #2 is the consistent choice. So I'm going to start enumerating the supports to make it clear to new readers. I'll start with adding myself, and encourage others to do their own. If folks don't return to the discussion we'll eventually total based on the discussion. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
This semantic and grouping issue is sometimes difficult to parse. Once you take as a given Tribal sovereignty concerning decisions on citizenship, that make one pretty clear and definable category. I see that as a core group/circle by specific tribal citizenship. The group outside of that mostly falls to descendants and those who self-identify as "Native American". There are variants and crossovers with the last two groups but this seems like a workable breakdown of the cats. At this point, there are 5-6 editors in support, more or less, of American People who self-identify as being of Native American descent as covering the category. Mcelite seems to be the only consistent oppose. I'd say that's a consensus for the change. I'll try to get to implementing it later today or anyone else can start to change the cat on articles. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that if criteria is clearly provided we need not rename the category. While it is important to confront the appropriation of Native American culture, it is also important to be aware that the distinct category title we seem to be leaning towards is reflective of the unique and problematic scrutiny that Native American identity is subjected to. There are, as CorbieV points out, very salient legalistic concerns behind the "self-identification" distinction, but again I feel that these can be addressed through description in a manner that doesn't risk, however unintentionally and subliminally, suggesting that every member should be treated with an element of suspicion (especially since we seem to be dedicated to monitoring it). On the basis of these concerns I am logging a placeholder vote of "oppose", but I am more than interested in further feedback. On a separate point, having noted that our discussions seem to hinge quite heavily on tribal citizenship, where would those individuals who belong to peoples who do not have the good fortune to be federally recognized would fit in to all this? Best Regards, Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 06:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome, Indigenous girl. I firmly believe that one cannot speak about a community without speaking and listening to that same community, so your experience in these discussions ought to be respected. By that same token, however, I do continue to believe that if we are to engage in the categorization of people by nation/national descent it is extremely important that we do not exclude those of unrecognized nations. I am responding so late because it was important to me to take time to consult with my mentors, both enrolled and not, before I do so. Governments decide who they recognize (and this will always be a largely political decision), but they cannot decide what nation does or doesn’t exist. There are and likely always will be some degree of tension between recognized and unrecognized communities; that’s the unfortunate effect of a system that has historically sought to divide and exert control, not least through the construction of a zero sum game for the acknowledgement and resources that all nations enjoyed before colonization. However, when you truly are the heir to a nation’s culture, history, and a member of a still-living community (and not some preposterous boy scout troupe), that identity is self-evident, even if not conveniently approved and logged by a government. It is not lightly that I speak in a manner divergent from the points you made; your experience far outstrips mine as a descendant, so it was again very important that I consult with indigenous community members first. Based on those conversations, I believe that we must not allow an oppressive colonial system to dictate who is or isn’t a real nation. Such decisions will always have a strong element of subjectivity involved and have been made by a system that neither understands nor cares about the complexities of what constitutes an indigenous people/nation (hence the near meaningless umbrella term “tribe”). Again, these realities will always be complex and even thorny, but I think that this should be recognized as the nature of the reality we try to represent here on Wikipedia. If the criteria for the categories under discussion continues to be based on the basis of legally consequential citizenship, so be it; it will be accurate and consistent at the least. We must, however, remain open to there being space for the existence of cultural communities independent of legally-bestowed autonomy; if not here then elsewhere, should someone create it. Thank you again, Indigenous girl for participating in this conversation, and please feel free to continue it here or, if you have more personal concerns, on my user talk page. I apologize if anything I have said comes off as aggressive or arrogant, and I look forward to continuing this discussion. Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 05:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Mcelite is now altering the descriptions of the Natives in sports and modeling categories to include descendants, [2], [3] and then adding descendants (including those without RS sources, who likely have no heritage at all) to these "Native American people" categories. This is going against consensus and the WP rules of sourcing. It is also going against the definitions of Native identity that have been established for the categories. I see this as an attempted end-run around the consensus here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
We had the same sort of mess over at List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry as in the cat we moved above. Indigenous girl and I have done a lot of cleanup, but due to the same perennial problems as discussed above, we probably will need to move the page. We could use some more folks weighing in at: Talk:List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry#Cleanup; especially at Talk:List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry#Proposed Move. Thanks! - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 23#Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent which from what I can tell, is basically a proposal to revert to the cat name before this discussion. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Even if they have zero RS sourcing for this. See Category:American people of Native American descent etc. Even after all the work we did. So, now, if there are no RS sources, I'm just removing the cat. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Wait... The self-identified cat is still there. I guess some people are just moving some of them. Uh, OK. What a mess. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The "self-identified" cat has been retained. permalink to close If the "source" for identity in the article is only an interview, that is a statement of self-identification. The source does not need to use the words "self-identified" to be put in that cat. Most publications, especially entertainment and sports outlets, never fact check. But even the New York Times has skipped fact-checking, and included interviews with non-Natives as "Native" sources. And they have included seriously wrong details in obits and bios about Natives (and others from non-mainstream communities). One of the reasons Native heritage is not the same as, say, German heritage among Americans, is that Americans will make false claims in order to try to claim benefits - school scholarships, Affirmative Action positions, job posts, etc. It's not a neutral act. I could cite some examples but most people know some already. The records are not in a foreign country where English isn't spoken, they are right here, and the cousins that would know the person are living and can say whether or not the person is a relative. It's really not the murky, mysterious thing some would have people think. As Wikipedians, we are not here to make people feel good about their family stories, but to keep BLPs and historical articles accurate. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Just found this. Just how fictional should this be? Should it include characters that are awful misrepresentations and/or degrading, racist portrayals without comment? Should we be bold and remove the inventions that are just non-Native fantasies that in no way represent Native people, aside from the author saying the fictional character they invented is Native? Is it enough to call a character Native American if in all ways it's just a total lie in a loincloth? Or is it a good place to include some sourced commentary on what sort of representation it is? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I've long been familiar with maps like this one at Indigenous peoples of California and thought the Washo don't really deserve being cropped at the state line. There's no Indigenous peoples of Nevada and Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin doesn't solve the mystery of two Paiute territories, but Northern Paiute people does have a very useful map. Is anyone working on a map for Modoc people, not found at Native American peoples of Oregon either? Sparafucil ( talk) 21:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hoping an editor more familiar with this topic can have a look at recent changes to Gradual Civilization Act, where an editor who has made POV edits to unrelated articles has changed the wording of the article from suggesting this legislation mandated enfranchisement to instead suggesting enfranchisement was voluntary. Unfortunately the article is only sourced to the Act itself, so hopefully someone can also add some scholarly criticism to back up whichever view is correct. Thanks. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I'm working on creating a page for Qwo-Li Driskill in my sandbox, and I understand that Driskill's page has been created and deleted before because of insufficient non-primary citations. It was suggested to me that I bring the page here for feedback before trying to publish it again. Would someone mind taking a look at it? I'm an academic librarian and have access to most paywalled academic sources, if that's helpful (and if there's anything you need cited from behind a paywall on another page, I'd be happy to track down a source--just let me know).
I am very new to Wikipedia editing, and I apologize for any weird formatting and rookie mistakes. Kbkrat ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I just want to say thank you, Kbkrat, for checking in with us and for being such a terrific sport! Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 21:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
List of Native American peoples in the United States—What is this article and why does it exist? I came across it while trying to fix incoming links to First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun. Many Canadian peoples are included in the list, even though they have no satellite communities in the US or historical territories in what is now the United States. The whole thing seems misleading and pointless. Writing-on-stone ( talk) 01:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)writing-on-stone
Another perennial that attracts inaccuracies, self-promoters and various spamities: List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas, could use more eyes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
and I have neither the time nor the knowledge to do it. I see that the book Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America: An Encyclopedia says "The Eastern Woodlands culture area is, in a very general sense, that portion of North America east of the western Plains and prairies and south of the boreal forest. This general definition is neither accurate nor particularly useful, however, for the locations of the borders of these plant communities were dramatically different at times in the past. Southward-creeping glacial ice pushed bands of tundra and boreal forest into the southern Great Lakes region and New England, and grasslands thrust a wedge deep into the heart of the Midwest during the later...." [4] but I'm hoping someone better at this than I am could take a look at the article. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Pocahontas needs serious help. Still full of all of Smith's fantasies and confabulations. Also, that and John Rolfe and related articles are being vandalized by drivebys trying to insert false info about nonexistent extra children of Matoaka, in order to fabricate fake descendants, thereby using WP to perpetuate a hoax. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Discussing options. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Missing and murdered Indigenous women about the same blanking of content that was happening in the Spring. Could use more eyes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Fiamh ( talk, contribs) 22:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Look what I found. How (greeting). I don't even know what cats to put it in. It's not real Indigenous language. I mean... WTF? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I could use some eyes from folks familiar with mascot issues over at the Skowhegan, Maine article. Thanks Indigenous girl ( talk) 00:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm posting this here as well as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arizona because it's under the WikiProjects' areas. I was just about to start the GAN review for Grand Canyon (book) and was surprised to not see a Grand Canyon WikiProject, or a task force relevant to one of the three mentioned WPs, on its talk page. I think that as a book on the subject, it may not be deemed relevant to Protected areas/Arizona/Indigenous p. of N. America individually, but that because of the subject matter it was surprising that there's no associated WikiProject to assess its coverage. I would propose a Grand Canyon project/task force myself, but am working a lot in article improvement at the moment. If any of the wikiprojects addressed would consider e.g. collaborating on a task force, I would probably join in, though! Just thought I'd leave the message and the idea. Kingsif ( talk) 14:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and remove articles that have actually been created from the "articles requested" section? Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 20:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a new editor as well as two IPs removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. I sourced their first add but then they added quite a bit of info and there is no way I can source all of it. I could use a hand keeping an eye on things to keep it balanced. Thanks! Indigenous girl ( talk) 23:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone check the recent IP edits here please? And this [5]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Some large additions were made to this article. It looks to me like they are from anthro sources. Could use more expert eyes on this. Also on linked article, Alaska Native religion. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Nimerigar. Ever so often I look at this and think "what a mess". It probably needs multiple redirects and certainly needs cleaning up. Help?! Doug Weller talk 11:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Might benefit from more eyes, see Talk:Unistʼotʼen Camp. I'm not sure about today's edit. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I have been reading a number of Allan W. Eckert's books, in particular:
Do you feel Eckert is or is not a reliable source--particularly for historical events regarding Native Americans and early settlers to the Ohio valley? Have there been past discussions about his reliability that I should be aware of? I have not found any. The author makes clear that the dialogue in these books should not be considered reliable, but he also insists that the events are all real and have been painstakingly researched.
I posed these questions at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Allan_W._Eckert ( permalink) Please respond there.
If there is a list of reliable and unreliable sources specifically for this project, such as WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, please let me know here. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like someone (more-than-one?) too look at Archelological Site 4-SK-4. I want to make sure I have the right verbiage, wiki-style, that I am not misrepresenting information, etc. There isn't much information online on this unique place. So, I thought to give it a home in Wikipedia. In advance, thank you! Fimbriata ( talk) 18:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Something's wrong here as the source calls this 'The Three Worlds'. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The title of an article here. The article is mainly about Iroquoian sites and notes that radio-carbon dating gives different dates from the traditional ones. It argues that this is because "scholars viewed the topic through a pervasive colonial lens. Researchers mistakenly assumed that trade goods were equally available, and desired, all over the region, and considered all indigenous groups as the same." It's worth reading. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 5 May 2020 (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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
There's a history of sockpuppetry there, but I don't understand enough to know if it's good faith or bad faith, correct of incorrect. It just looks like a wall of text to me. It seems like the complaint is that "Tongva" is a made-up name for "Gabrieleño"? If so, is that completely bogus, ultimately correct but being handled poorly, or somewhere in between? If knowledgeable people could address the content issue, I'll try to address the sockpuppetry. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, sorry I couldn't look into this earlier, but I've had a lot on my plate. I'm not as familiar with this region, so I'm thinking this isn't an area where I can help sort out which content belongs, but what would probably be more useful, since I'm not involved in any of the editing, is if I can help with admin issues. I will try to look into the sock issues but I will probably need those who are up to speed on the conflict to point me at the policy violations for me to do any good here. Let me know if there is edit-warring or disruption by new accounts, in particular. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Carlstak, Floquenbeam et al.: I apologize for assuming Carlstak was a sockpuppet. But, I have decided I am not knowledgeable enough on this topic to continue editing the page. For me, this started as purely a matter of cleaning up what looked like vandalism/sockpuppetry, which is what I normally do. I never intended to take a side in this. Please, hash it out amongst yourselves, but I would rather you did not involve me further. Sumanuil ( talk) 22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone familiar with this? An IP just prodded it. I deprodded as I think it can probably be fixed. Am I wrong? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Could use input here: Talk:Nádleehi#Need RS sourcing on dilbaa' etc. Thanks. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please check the article on the Santa Clara Pueblo sculptor, Roxanne Swentzell, when they find a moment? I've made improvements to the article, removed potential copy vio material and possible original research; added citations; cleaned up the article; removed redundancy and "words to watch." It is currently assessed as a stub, (and had a citation maintenance tag). I removed the tag after resolving the citation problems. I think it can now be re-assessed as an article rather than a stub. Thanks in advance. Netherzone ( talk) 00:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Originally posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe
According to the BIA there are 326 indian reservation in the U.S. The map in the List of Indian reservations in the United States article includes only the 310 as of May 1996. Wonderful if a member of this WikiProject could either find or create a new up-to-date map.
— User:Denisebk 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to see a stub article about this:
Wonchala - A Lakota idea that: We're thrown into a world of forces that we can't control, of powers that are much greater than us, and that we have this awareness that we're just small little humans beings, with so little influence on what's going on around us — when we start from there we then realise the it's up to us to make meaning and purpose out of this crazy world, to make something happen and create a story that is heroic, and takes the chaos into which we're throne and turns it into something beautiful, something that reduces suffering, something that crates pattern and order, something that we're proud to be apart of.
I think the spelling of " Wonchala" needs correcting? I tried searching online for the right spelling, though couldn't find anything. Does anyone know what the correct spelling is?
Could really use some input here. The Order of the Arrow Boy Scout group uses what they say are Lenape words in their naming of their group, titles, and songs. I looked up the original name of their group, and two other words in their songs in the Lenape dictionary on the Lenape language pages, and it's not there. The root phoneme is only in one of many variations of "brother", and the suffix of the form they're using looks Germanic to me. The full form seems to only exist in dictionaries by the Boy Scouts, and in a dictionary by Moravian priests. Could use some input here: Talk:Order of the Arrow#Wimachtendienk. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the Article Assessment page has no guide to measuring article importance for this WikiProject. Can we create an importance scale for this project? I think it would help us better identify which articles we need to get to GA status. Then we can unite our efforts on top-importance articles.
I would suggest something along these lines:
We can put this template on the page:
Importance | Criteria | Example |
---|---|---|
Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. | Cherokee, Battle of the Little Bighorn, |
High | Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | TBD |
Mid | Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | TBD |
Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. | TBD |
NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. | TBD |
I have not been active in the project for a long time, so I am looking for input from you all before I do anything to the WikiProject page or make any assessments.
This is just off the cuff thinking from myself. Please feel free to add your input.
Tea and crumpets ( talk) 04:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
American Indian creationism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) major changes including turning the lead into an argument about oral history. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
A quick glance at this shows the sources need serious updating and the article needs NPOV work. More stereotypes here than actual scientific data. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Black drink could use a look for scientific/safety issues, as well. I just had to remove some dangerous stuff re-ingredients and usage. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Resident of Edmonton, Alberta ( Treaty 6) here. Not the most experienced editor, but have a decent amount of practical knowledge with producing open-data cartographic materials. Updating Western and Northern Canadian geo-stubs has been my most recent interest, which has spilled over into producing various land claim maps. Here's a quick overview of Indigenous geography content that I've put on Commons so far:
I intend to follow up with Yukon traditional territories, a more sophisticated series of Numbered Treaty locators, and Wikimedia's first series of locator maps for individual Canadian reserves (especially in Alberta, where I've done most of the work already towards establishing a county-level locator map scheme). I've also created or significantly revised the following navboxes, none of which followed any consistent scheme across provincial boundaries:
I'm reasonably content with the hierarchical council-based organization, which is firmly grounded in Government of Canada data, but understand that the Ethnolinguistic groups section may take a bit more consensus. I've tried to default to endonyms in almost every situation, unless the exonyms are used by relevant Indigenous organizations (i.e. the near-universal use of 'Cree' by Cree governments). Does anyone have experience with this kind of situation, in a Canadian context? The British Columbia navbox, especially, grew so enormous that I'm certain any practiced eye will find plenty of mistakes in it.
Besides this housekeeping, what kind of cartographic needs does this project have right now? Most of my experience is north of the border, but using Wikipedia as a platform to make Indigenous geography accessible is one of my biggest interests. Awmcphee ( talk) 07:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The wonders of automated image generation: I've just created and uploaded 335 new U.S. reservation locator maps, hopefully covering the entire Lower 48. Access them at Commons:Category:Locator maps of Indian reservations in the United States. I assembled a basket of data sources to ensure sensible coverage of margin areas outside U.S. territory, so Canadian Indian reserves are also included. (Useful for groups like the Blackfoot, which are divided by the international boundary.) However, Mexican Indigenous territories are not, out of unfamiliarity with that country's open data environment. Here's a closer look at the design choices I instructed the program to make:
Please feel free to use Inkscape or a similar .svg file editor to improve these maps if you catch a small inconsistency or inaccuracy. Most notably, I told the program never to draw more than one circle, so reservations containing many small, dispersed parts (i.e. Mississippi Choctaw) may need extra circles added manually. The cutoff as to what determines a "small" reservation is also entirely arbitrary, being 0.2% of the surrounding state(')s(') land area. If you ever think it necessary, add or subtract circles as needed.
Actually using most of these maps on English Wikipedia might take a corresponding infobox-generation effort, especially for reservations which don't have their own articles (combined, as they often are, with that of the nation inhabiting them). I also notice that many pages which are exclusively for Indian reservations are still using Template:Infobox ethnic group for their infoboxes. As far as I understand, Infobox ethnic group is extremely underpowered (it doesn't support maps, among other things), so I would recommend switching to Template:Infobox settlement and will be doing so with my own edits - unless some prior consensus exists that I'm not aware of.
A single map showing all of these entities in one image will follow, as will a separate Alaskan series - any review that can be provided about my choices of which entities to include/exclude, and of the completeness of the series in general, would be much appreciated.
Thanks! Awmcphee ( talk) 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Might want to check out August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Page move discussion. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, we've gone back and forth on these a couple times ( some past discussion) and I'm hoping for a bit more clarity. This is the current description, but I don't recall there being consensus for it, or for the criteria that seems to be currently applied:
This category page lists notable citizens of the United States who self-identify as being of Native American ethnic descent but do not belong to a Native American tribe.
I don't think we should put people who only have vague claims of distant heritage, and/or blood myths, in this category. I think to do so does a disservice to the people who are part of the community but simply do not meet enrollment criteria. Enrollment criteria varies widely between Nations, from very loose to very strict. Right now this cat is being used as a dumping ground for people that everyone knows are fantasists and false claimants. Worse, if you look at the section above, I just had to do a ton of cleanup on people from this cat being moved into the "descendants" and "21st Century Natives" category, when there is zero RS sourcing that they are even descendants. Zero. So, clearly we need criteria here.
I am proposing there needs to be some degree of sourcing to put people in this category. At the least, a Nation and ancestors named. Something more credible than, "Yeah, I'm (list of ethnicities) and Native American and (continued list of ethnicities)." I realize Wikipedians who think Native identity is racial rather than based in citizenship may not understand why this matters. But I'm hoping that the Wikipedians here who understand these issues will get why I'm bringing this up. There are legal issues that impact this, and that are impacted by this. And I'd like to have our cats sorted so we're in harmony with the laws, rather than pop culture "sources" and misconceptions about Blood Quantum etc. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
. This would solve the problem of us having to police and research the claims."self-identified"
At Indigenous girl yes I do you're either a citizen or not. In the case of BQ specifically with Deb Haaland's case she was added to the category American people of Native American descent because her father is white. She was not placed in the category to diminish her Pueblo identity also there was no clear line made that people who are enrolled shouldn't be placed into the category. I was just basing the category strictly on blood not if the individual was enrolled or not I interpreted it as she is Pueblo by blood period and not full blood. Now again if we're going to keep people who are enrolled in a tribe/s out of the category then okay I have no problem with that. I'm firmly against blood politics it's done nothing but damage the tribes. Also you have to remember things at certain time periods were not recorded properly especially when you're dealing with people whom are descendants of the Eastern, Southeastern, and Midwest tribes it gets extremely messy especially with laws put into play that did paper genocide and only wanted to acknowledge colored or white. The Californian tribes will have far better records than let's say the Narragansett, and that's just b/c the history is different. We don't even know how many Native Americans were actually slaves through the 1600s to 1800s because the records were trash. I do apologize if it seemed like I was pulling in blood politics into this I'm very against it. I have friends that can't get enrolled b/c of blood politics or bad records but I respect them as descendants of the tribe. No they're not citizens but they are native by blood. Mcelite ( talk) 01:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Lots going on here, so we should keep it simple: First, the category needs to be renamed so it's clear why people are added into it. It's not for enrolled citizens of tribes with a non-enrolled parent etc. It's for Americans who claim Native American descent, but aren't enrolled (for whatever valid or invalid reason). Therefore, 2 is my prefered renaming of the category. There's lots of discussion here about enrollment issues due to BQ, but none of us are the enrollment department of a tribe; therefore it's not something for us to decide how to differentiate from people with true/false claims of Native heritage. Enrollment/citizenship is a consistent standard to go by. on camera 03:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's one idea: change the name to one of the above suggestions (for what it's worth I would also support American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent), but then make that purely an organizational category, with a note that "Native American" is not generally a valid category in issues of descent. Then create sub-categories in that category for each tribal nation as needed. So you would have, for instance, American people who self-identify as being of Ojibwe descent, which would cover such people as Margaret Noodin. You also can that way insist on tribal affiliation outside of citizenship, without getting into a race vs citizenship confusion that is as someone above notes not understood by many editors. Each sub-cat could have an introduction para stating that it is for individuals who have claimed descent from the specific tribe without being citizens of the nation. Vizjim ( talk) 13:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
While I see us also considering creating some new sub-categories, I see a consensus for aligning the cat name with the cat description, and that #2 is the consistent choice. So I'm going to start enumerating the supports to make it clear to new readers. I'll start with adding myself, and encourage others to do their own. If folks don't return to the discussion we'll eventually total based on the discussion. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
This semantic and grouping issue is sometimes difficult to parse. Once you take as a given Tribal sovereignty concerning decisions on citizenship, that make one pretty clear and definable category. I see that as a core group/circle by specific tribal citizenship. The group outside of that mostly falls to descendants and those who self-identify as "Native American". There are variants and crossovers with the last two groups but this seems like a workable breakdown of the cats. At this point, there are 5-6 editors in support, more or less, of American People who self-identify as being of Native American descent as covering the category. Mcelite seems to be the only consistent oppose. I'd say that's a consensus for the change. I'll try to get to implementing it later today or anyone else can start to change the cat on articles. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that if criteria is clearly provided we need not rename the category. While it is important to confront the appropriation of Native American culture, it is also important to be aware that the distinct category title we seem to be leaning towards is reflective of the unique and problematic scrutiny that Native American identity is subjected to. There are, as CorbieV points out, very salient legalistic concerns behind the "self-identification" distinction, but again I feel that these can be addressed through description in a manner that doesn't risk, however unintentionally and subliminally, suggesting that every member should be treated with an element of suspicion (especially since we seem to be dedicated to monitoring it). On the basis of these concerns I am logging a placeholder vote of "oppose", but I am more than interested in further feedback. On a separate point, having noted that our discussions seem to hinge quite heavily on tribal citizenship, where would those individuals who belong to peoples who do not have the good fortune to be federally recognized would fit in to all this? Best Regards, Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 06:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome, Indigenous girl. I firmly believe that one cannot speak about a community without speaking and listening to that same community, so your experience in these discussions ought to be respected. By that same token, however, I do continue to believe that if we are to engage in the categorization of people by nation/national descent it is extremely important that we do not exclude those of unrecognized nations. I am responding so late because it was important to me to take time to consult with my mentors, both enrolled and not, before I do so. Governments decide who they recognize (and this will always be a largely political decision), but they cannot decide what nation does or doesn’t exist. There are and likely always will be some degree of tension between recognized and unrecognized communities; that’s the unfortunate effect of a system that has historically sought to divide and exert control, not least through the construction of a zero sum game for the acknowledgement and resources that all nations enjoyed before colonization. However, when you truly are the heir to a nation’s culture, history, and a member of a still-living community (and not some preposterous boy scout troupe), that identity is self-evident, even if not conveniently approved and logged by a government. It is not lightly that I speak in a manner divergent from the points you made; your experience far outstrips mine as a descendant, so it was again very important that I consult with indigenous community members first. Based on those conversations, I believe that we must not allow an oppressive colonial system to dictate who is or isn’t a real nation. Such decisions will always have a strong element of subjectivity involved and have been made by a system that neither understands nor cares about the complexities of what constitutes an indigenous people/nation (hence the near meaningless umbrella term “tribe”). Again, these realities will always be complex and even thorny, but I think that this should be recognized as the nature of the reality we try to represent here on Wikipedia. If the criteria for the categories under discussion continues to be based on the basis of legally consequential citizenship, so be it; it will be accurate and consistent at the least. We must, however, remain open to there being space for the existence of cultural communities independent of legally-bestowed autonomy; if not here then elsewhere, should someone create it. Thank you again, Indigenous girl for participating in this conversation, and please feel free to continue it here or, if you have more personal concerns, on my user talk page. I apologize if anything I have said comes off as aggressive or arrogant, and I look forward to continuing this discussion. Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 05:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Mcelite is now altering the descriptions of the Natives in sports and modeling categories to include descendants, [2], [3] and then adding descendants (including those without RS sources, who likely have no heritage at all) to these "Native American people" categories. This is going against consensus and the WP rules of sourcing. It is also going against the definitions of Native identity that have been established for the categories. I see this as an attempted end-run around the consensus here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
We had the same sort of mess over at List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry as in the cat we moved above. Indigenous girl and I have done a lot of cleanup, but due to the same perennial problems as discussed above, we probably will need to move the page. We could use some more folks weighing in at: Talk:List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry#Cleanup; especially at Talk:List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry#Proposed Move. Thanks! - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 23#Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent which from what I can tell, is basically a proposal to revert to the cat name before this discussion. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Even if they have zero RS sourcing for this. See Category:American people of Native American descent etc. Even after all the work we did. So, now, if there are no RS sources, I'm just removing the cat. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Wait... The self-identified cat is still there. I guess some people are just moving some of them. Uh, OK. What a mess. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The "self-identified" cat has been retained. permalink to close If the "source" for identity in the article is only an interview, that is a statement of self-identification. The source does not need to use the words "self-identified" to be put in that cat. Most publications, especially entertainment and sports outlets, never fact check. But even the New York Times has skipped fact-checking, and included interviews with non-Natives as "Native" sources. And they have included seriously wrong details in obits and bios about Natives (and others from non-mainstream communities). One of the reasons Native heritage is not the same as, say, German heritage among Americans, is that Americans will make false claims in order to try to claim benefits - school scholarships, Affirmative Action positions, job posts, etc. It's not a neutral act. I could cite some examples but most people know some already. The records are not in a foreign country where English isn't spoken, they are right here, and the cousins that would know the person are living and can say whether or not the person is a relative. It's really not the murky, mysterious thing some would have people think. As Wikipedians, we are not here to make people feel good about their family stories, but to keep BLPs and historical articles accurate. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Just found this. Just how fictional should this be? Should it include characters that are awful misrepresentations and/or degrading, racist portrayals without comment? Should we be bold and remove the inventions that are just non-Native fantasies that in no way represent Native people, aside from the author saying the fictional character they invented is Native? Is it enough to call a character Native American if in all ways it's just a total lie in a loincloth? Or is it a good place to include some sourced commentary on what sort of representation it is? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I've long been familiar with maps like this one at Indigenous peoples of California and thought the Washo don't really deserve being cropped at the state line. There's no Indigenous peoples of Nevada and Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin doesn't solve the mystery of two Paiute territories, but Northern Paiute people does have a very useful map. Is anyone working on a map for Modoc people, not found at Native American peoples of Oregon either? Sparafucil ( talk) 21:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hoping an editor more familiar with this topic can have a look at recent changes to Gradual Civilization Act, where an editor who has made POV edits to unrelated articles has changed the wording of the article from suggesting this legislation mandated enfranchisement to instead suggesting enfranchisement was voluntary. Unfortunately the article is only sourced to the Act itself, so hopefully someone can also add some scholarly criticism to back up whichever view is correct. Thanks. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I'm working on creating a page for Qwo-Li Driskill in my sandbox, and I understand that Driskill's page has been created and deleted before because of insufficient non-primary citations. It was suggested to me that I bring the page here for feedback before trying to publish it again. Would someone mind taking a look at it? I'm an academic librarian and have access to most paywalled academic sources, if that's helpful (and if there's anything you need cited from behind a paywall on another page, I'd be happy to track down a source--just let me know).
I am very new to Wikipedia editing, and I apologize for any weird formatting and rookie mistakes. Kbkrat ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I just want to say thank you, Kbkrat, for checking in with us and for being such a terrific sport! Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 21:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
List of Native American peoples in the United States—What is this article and why does it exist? I came across it while trying to fix incoming links to First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun. Many Canadian peoples are included in the list, even though they have no satellite communities in the US or historical territories in what is now the United States. The whole thing seems misleading and pointless. Writing-on-stone ( talk) 01:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)writing-on-stone
Another perennial that attracts inaccuracies, self-promoters and various spamities: List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas, could use more eyes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
and I have neither the time nor the knowledge to do it. I see that the book Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America: An Encyclopedia says "The Eastern Woodlands culture area is, in a very general sense, that portion of North America east of the western Plains and prairies and south of the boreal forest. This general definition is neither accurate nor particularly useful, however, for the locations of the borders of these plant communities were dramatically different at times in the past. Southward-creeping glacial ice pushed bands of tundra and boreal forest into the southern Great Lakes region and New England, and grasslands thrust a wedge deep into the heart of the Midwest during the later...." [4] but I'm hoping someone better at this than I am could take a look at the article. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Pocahontas needs serious help. Still full of all of Smith's fantasies and confabulations. Also, that and John Rolfe and related articles are being vandalized by drivebys trying to insert false info about nonexistent extra children of Matoaka, in order to fabricate fake descendants, thereby using WP to perpetuate a hoax. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Discussing options. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Missing and murdered Indigenous women about the same blanking of content that was happening in the Spring. Could use more eyes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Fiamh ( talk, contribs) 22:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Look what I found. How (greeting). I don't even know what cats to put it in. It's not real Indigenous language. I mean... WTF? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I could use some eyes from folks familiar with mascot issues over at the Skowhegan, Maine article. Thanks Indigenous girl ( talk) 00:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm posting this here as well as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arizona because it's under the WikiProjects' areas. I was just about to start the GAN review for Grand Canyon (book) and was surprised to not see a Grand Canyon WikiProject, or a task force relevant to one of the three mentioned WPs, on its talk page. I think that as a book on the subject, it may not be deemed relevant to Protected areas/Arizona/Indigenous p. of N. America individually, but that because of the subject matter it was surprising that there's no associated WikiProject to assess its coverage. I would propose a Grand Canyon project/task force myself, but am working a lot in article improvement at the moment. If any of the wikiprojects addressed would consider e.g. collaborating on a task force, I would probably join in, though! Just thought I'd leave the message and the idea. Kingsif ( talk) 14:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and remove articles that have actually been created from the "articles requested" section? Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 20:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a new editor as well as two IPs removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. I sourced their first add but then they added quite a bit of info and there is no way I can source all of it. I could use a hand keeping an eye on things to keep it balanced. Thanks! Indigenous girl ( talk) 23:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone check the recent IP edits here please? And this [5]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Some large additions were made to this article. It looks to me like they are from anthro sources. Could use more expert eyes on this. Also on linked article, Alaska Native religion. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Nimerigar. Ever so often I look at this and think "what a mess". It probably needs multiple redirects and certainly needs cleaning up. Help?! Doug Weller talk 11:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Might benefit from more eyes, see Talk:Unistʼotʼen Camp. I'm not sure about today's edit. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I have been reading a number of Allan W. Eckert's books, in particular:
Do you feel Eckert is or is not a reliable source--particularly for historical events regarding Native Americans and early settlers to the Ohio valley? Have there been past discussions about his reliability that I should be aware of? I have not found any. The author makes clear that the dialogue in these books should not be considered reliable, but he also insists that the events are all real and have been painstakingly researched.
I posed these questions at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Allan_W._Eckert ( permalink) Please respond there.
If there is a list of reliable and unreliable sources specifically for this project, such as WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, please let me know here. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like someone (more-than-one?) too look at Archelological Site 4-SK-4. I want to make sure I have the right verbiage, wiki-style, that I am not misrepresenting information, etc. There isn't much information online on this unique place. So, I thought to give it a home in Wikipedia. In advance, thank you! Fimbriata ( talk) 18:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Something's wrong here as the source calls this 'The Three Worlds'. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The title of an article here. The article is mainly about Iroquoian sites and notes that radio-carbon dating gives different dates from the traditional ones. It argues that this is because "scholars viewed the topic through a pervasive colonial lens. Researchers mistakenly assumed that trade goods were equally available, and desired, all over the region, and considered all indigenous groups as the same." It's worth reading. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)